2种方法在典型岩溶区地下水质量评价中的对比——以地苏地下河为例

Comparison of two methods in groundwater quality assessment in typical karst areas: taking Disu underground river as an example

  • 摘要: 选择合适的地下水质量评价方法是保证评价结果科学合理的关键。以典型西南岩溶区地苏地下河系为研究对象,运用水质指数法和模糊综合指数法对该地下河系具有代表性的采样点水质进行评价。结果表明:地苏地下河系水质总体较好,2种方法评价得到的水质劣于GB/T 14848—2017《地下水质量标准》Ⅲ类水质的点位分别占全部水样的21.43%和32.14%,主要超标指标为 NO 3 - ,其最高检出浓度是Ⅲ类水质限值的2.3倍,超标点位主要集中于人类活动较强烈的地苏乡。在28个点位中,2种方法评价结果一致的点位有15个,存在差异点位的评价结果仅相差一个水质级别。水质指数法能够满足水质类别划分及水质定量评价的要求,但是对于超标指标不同的水样可比性较差;模糊综合指数法可精确地反映指标实际浓度与水质分级界限的接近程度,量化了所有评价指标对地下水水质的影响权重,使结果更精确,但是计算比较复杂,可操作性较差,且不能识别主要超标指标,在量化所有参评指标时有可能掩盖对人体健康和生态环境威胁较大的指标的影响。因此在实际应用中,应根据监测数据和评价目的选择合适的评价方法,使评价结果既能反映水体的实际情况,又能满足管理需要。

     

    Abstract: The appropriate evaluation method of groundwater is the key to ensure the scientific and reasonable evaluation results. Taking Disu underground river system basin area in typical southwest karst area as an example, the fuzzy comprehensive index method and the water quality index method were applied to evaluate the groundwater quality of the representative sampling points of the underground river system. The results showed that the groundwater quality in the whole basin was relatively good and the percent of water points whose quality was worse than Class Ⅲ of Standard for Groundwater Quality (GB/T 14848-2017) was 21.43% and 32.14%, respectively, according to the two assessment methods. The main indicator exceeding the standard was NO 3 - , whose maximum detection concentration was 2.3 times of the Class Ⅲ water quality limit, and the over-standard points mainly concentrated in Disu village where the activities of human beings were intense. Among the 28 points, 15 points got the same evaluation results by the two methods and the other points were only one water quality grade different. The water quality index method could meet the requirements of water quality classification and quantitative evaluation, but for the water samples with different over-standard indexes, the comparability was poor. The fuzzy comprehensive index method could precisely reflect the approaching degree of the actual concentration and water quality classification limit of the indexes, quantify the impact weight of all groundwater quality evaluation indexes and make the result more accurate. On the other hand, the calculation for this method was complex, with bad maneuverability, unable to identify the main over-standard indexes, and the impact of the indexes that posed a greater threat to human health and ecological environment may be covered up when quantifying all the evaluation indexes. Therefore, in practical applications, the appropriate evaluation method should be selected according to the monitoring data and evaluation purpose, so that the evaluation results could not only reflect the actual situation of water body, but also meet the needs of management.

     

/

返回文章
返回