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

乔肖翠; 李雪; 刘琰

doi:10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200120

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

doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200120

乔肖翠^1,2,,
李雪^1,2,
刘琰^1,2,*, ,

1.
湖泊水污染治理与生态修复技术国家工程实验室,中国环境科学研究院
2.
国家环境保护饮用水水源地保护重点实验室,中国环境科学研究院

详细信息

作者简介:
乔肖翠(1989—),女,助理研究员,主要从事地下水及土壤污染研究, qiaoxc@craes.org.cn

通讯作者:
刘琰 E-mail: liuyan@craes.org.cn

中图分类号: X524
计量
- 文章访问数: 334
- HTML全文浏览量: 100
- PDF下载量: 75
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-05-15
- 刊出日期: 2021-03-20

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

QIAO Xiaocui^{1,2
,},
LI Xue^1,2,
LIU Yan^{1,2,*
, ,}

1.
National Engineering Laboratory for Lake Pollution Control and Ecological Restoration,Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences
2.
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Drinking Water Source Protection,Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences

More Information

Corresponding author: LIU Yan E-mail: liuyan@craes.org.cn

摘要

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。
- 岩溶地下水 /
- 水质评价 /
- 模糊综合指数法 /
- 水质指数法 /
- 地苏地下河
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.
- groundwater in karst area /
- water quality assessment /
- fuzzy comprehensive index method /
- water index method /
- Disu underground river

HTML全文

参考文献(22)

[1]	富天乙, 邹志红, 王晓静. 基于多元统计和水质标识指数的辽阳太子河水质评价研究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2014,34(2):473-480. FU T Y, ZOU Z H, WANG X J. Water quality assessment for Taizi River watershed in Liaoyang section based on multivariate statistical analysis and water quality identification index[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2014,34(2):473-480.
[2]	YU C X, YIN X A, LI Z Y, et al. A universal calibrated model for the evaluation of surface water and groundwater quality:model development and a case study in China[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2015,163:20-27.
[3]	BHUPINDER S, SUDHIR D, SANDEEP J, et al. Use of fuzzy synthetic evaluation for assessment of groundwater quality for drinking usage:a case study of Southern Haryana,India[J]. Environmental Geology, 2008,54:249-255.
[4]	杜毓超, 裴建国, 卢丽, 等. 典型岩溶区地下水系统重金属元素分布特征浅析:以广西坡月地下河为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2015,3(4):348-353. DU Y C, PEI J G, LU L, et al. Characteristics of heavy metal element distribution in the groundwater system of typical karst regions:a case study in Poyue underground river,Guangxi,China[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2015,3(4):348-353.
[5]	李建鸿, 蒲俊兵, 袁道先, 等. 岩溶区地下水补给型水库表层无机碳时空变化特征及影响因素[J]. 环境科学, 2015,36(8):2833-2842. LI J H, PU J B, YUAN D X, et al. Variations of inorganic carbon and its impact factors in surface-layer waters in a groundwater-fed reservoir in karst area,SW China[J]. Environmental Science, 2015,36(8):2833-2842.
[6]	蓝家程, 孙玉川, 师阳, 等. 岩溶地下河流域表层土壤多环芳烃污染特征及来源分析[J]. 环境科学, 2014,35(8):2937-2943. LAN J C, SUN Y C, SHI Y, et al. Source and contamination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in surface soil in karst underground river basin[J]. Environmental Science, 2014,35(8):2937-2943.
[7]	张军以, 王腊春, 马小雪, 等. 西南岩溶地区地下水污染及防治途径[J]. 水土保持通报, 2014,34(2):245-249. ZHANG J Y, WANG L C, MA X C, et al. Status and prospect of the hydrological effects of human activities in the Karst area[J]. Progress in Geography, 2014,34(2):245-249.
[8]	全国国地资源标准化委员会. 地下水质量标准GB/T 14848—2017[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2017.
[9]	刘琰, 郑丙辉, 付青, 等. 水污染指数法在河流水质评价中的应用研究[J]. 中国环境监测, 2013,29(3):49-55. LIU Y, ZHENG B H, FU Q, et al. Application of water pollution index in water quality assessment of rivers[J]. Environmental Monitoring in China, 2013,29(3):49-55.
[10]	徐建平. WPI指数在地表水环境质量评价中的运用[J]. 中国环境监测, 2001(1):47-49. XU J P. Application of WPI index on environmental quality assessment for surface water[J]. Environmental Monitoring in China, 2001(1):47-49.
[11]	WANG Q, WU X H, ZHAO B, et al. Combined multivariate statistical techniques,water pollution index (WPI) and daniel Trend Test methods to evaluate temporal and spatial variations and trends of water quality at Shanchong River in the Northwest Basin of Lake Fuxian,China[J]. Plos one, 2015,103:1-17.
[12]	LIU F, HUANG G X, SUN J C, et al. A new evaluation method for groundwater quality applied in Guangzhou Region,China:using fuzzy method combining toxicity index[J]. Water Environment Research, 2016,88(2):99-106.
[13]	李录娟, 邹胜章. 综合指数法和模糊综合法在地下水质量评价中的对比:以遵义市为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2014,33(1):22-30. LI L J, ZOU S Z. Comparison of comprehensive index method and fuzzy comprehensive method in the evaluation of groundwater quality:a case study in Zunyi City[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2014,33(1):22-30.
[14]	SHU J, HONG M, LIU L L, et al. A water quality monitoring method based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation in wireless sensor networks[J]. Journal of Networks, 2012,7(1):195-202.
[15]	DAHIYA S, SINGH B, GAUR S, et al. Analysis of groundwater quality using fuzzy synthetic evaluation[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2007,147(3):938-946.
[16]	王肖肖, 张妙仙, 徐兵兵. 模糊标识指数与对应分析法在水质评价中的联合应用[J]. 环境科学学报, 2012,32(5):1227-1235. WANG X X, ZHANG M X, XU B B. Combination and application of fuzzy identification index and correspondence analysis method in water quality evaluation[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2012,32(5):1227-1235.
[17]	王丽佳, 李长宏. 基于改进模糊数学法的辽河干流沈阳段地下水水质评价研究[J]. 地下水, 2019,41(2):26-28. WANG L J, LI C H. Groundwater quality evaluation of Shenyang section of Liaohe River based on improved fuzzy mathematics[J]. Ground Water, 2019,41(2):26-28.
[18]	陈文俊. 地苏岩溶地下河系研究[J]. 中国岩溶, 1988(3):53-57. CHEN W J. The study of Disu underground river system,Duan county,Guangxi[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 1988(3):53-57.
[19]	中国地质调查局. 地下水污染地质调查评价规范DD 2008—01[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2008.
[20]	党江艳, 张玉玲, 李睿. 地下水亚硝酸盐污染风险分析:沈阳冲洪积扇农业灌区为例[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2014(5):15-18. DANG J Q, ZHANG Y L, LI R. An analysis of nitrite pollution risk of groundwater:an example of proluvial fan agricultural irrigation district of the Hunhe river[J]. China Rural Water and Hydropower, 2014(5):15-18.
[21]	袁建飞, 邓国仕, 徐芬, 等. 毕节市北部岩溶地下水水文地球化学特征[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2016,43(1):12-21. YUAN J F, DENG G S, XU F, et al. Hydrogeochemical characteristics of karst groundwater in the northern part of the city of Bijie[J]. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 2016,43(1):12-21.
[22]	崔亚丰, 何江涛, 王曼丽, 等. 岩溶地区地下水污染风险评价方法探究:以地苏地下河系流域为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2016,35(4):372-383. CUI Y F, HE J T, WANG M L, et al. The exploration of the risk assessment method about groundwater contamination in karst region:taking Disu underground river system basin area as an example[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2016,35(4):372-383.