不同评价方法在阿克苏市地下水水质评价中的应用分析
|
摘要
以阿克苏市16处地下水监测井的水样数据为基础,采用单因子评价法、F值评分法、灰色关联分析法和模糊综合评价法对地下水水质进行综合评价,分析结果显示,单因子评价法与F值评分法的评价结果比较接近,而灰色关联分析法和模糊综合评价法的评价结果比较接近。不同评价方法中,单因子评价法与模糊综合评价法差异最大,是由于在单因子评价法中是以水质最差的单项指标确定水质类别,因而评价出的水质类别偏劣,而模糊综合评价法因为忽略了少数监测指标中超标的污染因子所产生的影响,且在计算过程中充分考虑了不同水质类别分界线的模糊性和评价因子对水质权重的影响,从而得到了较好的水质类别。F值评分法可以反映出水质整体状况,但在评价结果中更加凸显了超标污染指标的级别,且评价结果不连续。灰色关联分析法能更全面有效的利用水样的监测数据,使评价结果比较符合实际的水质状况。为使评价结果更科学客观地反映出水体的实际情况,应根据实际的监测数据与评价目的合理地选择评价方法。
Based on the water sample data of 16 water level monitoring wells in Aksu City, the groundwater quality was comprehensively evaluated by single factor evaluation method, F value evaluation method, grey correlation analysis method and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. The results show that the evaluation results of the single factor evaluation method and the F value scoring method are relatively close, while the evaluation results of the gray correlation analysis method and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method are relatively close. Among the different evaluation methods, the difference between the single factor evaluation method and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is the biggest because the water quality category is determined by the single index with the worst water quality in the single factor evaluation method, so the water quality category is inferior, while in the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, the pollution factors exceeding the standard in a few monitoring indexes are neglected. In the process of calculation, the influence of the fuzziness of the demarcation line of different water quality classes and the influence of the evaluation factors on the water quality weight are fully considered, and the better water quality classes are obtained. The F value scoring method can reflect the overall state of water quality, but it highlights the level of the pollution index exceeding the standard in the evaluation results, and the evaluation results are not continuous.The grey correlation analysis method can make full and effective use of the monitoring data of water samples and make the evaluation results more consistent with the actual water quality.In order to make the evaluation result reflect the actual situation of water body more scientifically and objectively, the evaluation method should be selected reasonably according to the actual monitoring data and evaluation purpose.
Based on the water sample data of 16 water level monitoring wells in Aksu City, the groundwater quality was comprehensively evaluated by single factor evaluation method, F value evaluation method, grey correlation analysis method and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. The results show that the evaluation results of the single factor evaluation method and the F value scoring method are relatively close, while the evaluation results of the gray correlation analysis method and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method are relatively close. Among the different evaluation methods, the difference between the single factor evaluation method and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is the biggest because the water quality category is determined by the single index with the worst water quality in the single factor evaluation method, so the water quality category is inferior, while in the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, the pollution factors exceeding the standard in a few monitoring indexes are neglected. In the process of calculation, the influence of the fuzziness of the demarcation line of different water quality classes and the influence of the evaluation factors on the water quality weight are fully considered, and the better water quality classes are obtained. The F value scoring method can reflect the overall state of water quality, but it highlights the level of the pollution index exceeding the standard in the evaluation results, and the evaluation results are not continuous.The grey correlation analysis method can make full and effective use of the monitoring data of water samples and make the evaluation results more consistent with the actual water quality.In order to make the evaluation result reflect the actual situation of water body more scientifically and objectively, the evaluation method should be selected reasonably according to the actual monitoring data and evaluation purpose.
引文
[1] 王志成.阿克苏河流域地下水埋深现状及对策分析[J].水文水资源,2018(1):43-45,148.
[2] 热合曼喀迪尔,刘新华,等.阿克苏流域地下水监测站网现状与规划建设思考[J].地下水,2017,39(5):68-69,77.
[3] 张琳琳.新疆阿克苏某区域地下水水质评价及污染状况研究[J].地下水,2018(3):82-83.
[4] 张小君,徐中民,宋晓谕,等.几种水环境质量评价方法在青海湖入湖河流中的应用[J].环境工程,2013(1):117-121.
[5] 张新钰,辛宝东,刘文臣,等.三种地下水水质评价方法的对比分析[J].水资源与水工程学报,2011,22(3):113-118.
[6] 魏炜,岳丹丹,潘俊.基于层次分析的模糊综合评价法在水质评价中的应用[J].供水技术,2015,9(5):8-12.
[7] Zou Q,Zhou J Z,Zhou C,et al.Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis- variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP[J].Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment,2013,27(2):525-546.
[8] 杨永鹏,曾维特,王晓林,等.地下水质量综合评价方法研究——以海口市为例[J].地下水,2017,39(6):1-6.
[9] 郭劲松.基于人工神经网络(ANN)的水质评价与水质模拟研究[D].重庆:重庆大学,2002.
[10] 周淼,李维刚,易灵.四种水质评价方法的特点分析与比较研究[J].环境科学与管理,2016,41(12):173-177.
[11] 陈辉,顾建辉,李治源.不同水质评价方法在城市河道水质评价中的应用比较[J].苏州科技大学学报(工程技术版),2017(1):42-46.
[12] 张亚丽,周扬,程真,等.不同水质评价方法在丹江口流域水质评价中应用比较[J].中国环境监测,2015,31(3):58-61.
[13] 张亚丽,周扬,程真,等.不同水质评价方法在丹江口流域水质评价中应用比较[J].中国环境监测,2015,31(3):58-61.
[14] 吴佳宁,陈明,袁润权,等.河流水质评价综述[J].广东水利水电,2017(2):1-5.
[15] DZ/T 0290-2015,地下水水质标准[S].
[16] GB/T14848-2017,地下水质量标准[S].
[17] 李恺.基于灰色模糊模型对湖泊水质研究[D].天津:天津大学,2016.
[18] 寇文杰.修正的模糊综合评判法在地下水水质评价中的应用[J].南水北调与水利科技,2013,11(2):71-75.
[2] 热合曼喀迪尔,刘新华,等.阿克苏流域地下水监测站网现状与规划建设思考[J].地下水,2017,39(5):68-69,77.
[3] 张琳琳.新疆阿克苏某区域地下水水质评价及污染状况研究[J].地下水,2018(3):82-83.
[4] 张小君,徐中民,宋晓谕,等.几种水环境质量评价方法在青海湖入湖河流中的应用[J].环境工程,2013(1):117-121.
[5] 张新钰,辛宝东,刘文臣,等.三种地下水水质评价方法的对比分析[J].水资源与水工程学报,2011,22(3):113-118.
[6] 魏炜,岳丹丹,潘俊.基于层次分析的模糊综合评价法在水质评价中的应用[J].供水技术,2015,9(5):8-12.
[7] Zou Q,Zhou J Z,Zhou C,et al.Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis- variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP[J].Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment,2013,27(2):525-546.
[8] 杨永鹏,曾维特,王晓林,等.地下水质量综合评价方法研究——以海口市为例[J].地下水,2017,39(6):1-6.
[9] 郭劲松.基于人工神经网络(ANN)的水质评价与水质模拟研究[D].重庆:重庆大学,2002.
[10] 周淼,李维刚,易灵.四种水质评价方法的特点分析与比较研究[J].环境科学与管理,2016,41(12):173-177.
[11] 陈辉,顾建辉,李治源.不同水质评价方法在城市河道水质评价中的应用比较[J].苏州科技大学学报(工程技术版),2017(1):42-46.
[12] 张亚丽,周扬,程真,等.不同水质评价方法在丹江口流域水质评价中应用比较[J].中国环境监测,2015,31(3):58-61.
[13] 张亚丽,周扬,程真,等.不同水质评价方法在丹江口流域水质评价中应用比较[J].中国环境监测,2015,31(3):58-61.
[14] 吴佳宁,陈明,袁润权,等.河流水质评价综述[J].广东水利水电,2017(2):1-5.
[15] DZ/T 0290-2015,地下水水质标准[S].
[16] GB/T14848-2017,地下水质量标准[S].
[17] 李恺.基于灰色模糊模型对湖泊水质研究[D].天津:天津大学,2016.
[18] 寇文杰.修正的模糊综合评判法在地下水水质评价中的应用[J].南水北调与水利科技,2013,11(2):71-75.