基于改进权重的综合水质标识指数法的大伙房水库上游水质评价研究
|
摘要
传统的综合水质标识指数法能够对水质进行定性及定量评价,但忽视了不同评价因子的重要程度对于实际研究区域水质的影响。针对这一问题,对综合水质标识指数法进行了改进,利用AHP法和CRITIC法分别计算出各项水质指标的主、客观权重,并采用理想点法代替乘法归一法、线性加权法进行组合赋权计算,将改进后的综合水质标识指数法应用到大伙房水库上游段水质进行评价,同时将改进前后的评价结果进行了对比。结果表明:在2011～2017年期间,利用传统的水质标识指数法得到的评价结果为北杂木断面水质为Ⅱ类、Ⅲ类,古楼断面水质为Ⅱ类,台沟断面水质为Ⅰ类、Ⅱ类,但由于3个断面的总氮浓度均已超过国家地表水Ⅴ类标准,因此某些年份3个断面实际总体水质情况无法达到地表水Ⅰ类、Ⅱ类标准;应用改进后的综合水质标识法得到的评价结果为北杂木断面综合水质情况为地表水Ⅲ类、Ⅳ类,古楼和台沟断面均为地表水Ⅲ类,3个典型监测断面在绝大多数参评年份中均未达到该区域的水质要求,其中仅有北杂木的4个参评年份满足该地区水环境功能区划的要求,其余均不满足,评价结果较改进之前更为符合研究区域实际情况。同时3个断面总氮污染严重,个别参评年份甚至已达到劣Ⅴ类标准。改进后的评价方法考虑了总氮指标超标严重的情况,较传统方法得到的评价结果更加准确客观,研究成果可为环境管理提供参考。
The traditional comprehensive water quality identification index method can evaluate the water quality qualitatively and quantitatively, but it ignores the influence of the importance of different evaluation factors on the water quality of the area studied in practice. In order to solve this problem, the comprehensive water quality marking index method has been improved.Calculating the main and objective weights of each water quality index by AHP method and CRITIC method, and the ideal point method was used instead of the multiplication normalization method and the linear weighting method to perform the combined weighting calculation. The improved comprehensive water quality marking index method was applied to the water quality evaluation of the upstream section of Dahuofang Reservoir. At the same time, the evaluation results before and after the improvement were compared. The results showed that during the period of 2011-2017, the results obtained by using the traditional water quality marking index method are as follows. The water quality of the Beizamu section was Ⅱ class or Ⅲ class,the Gulou section was Ⅱ class, and the Taigou section was Ⅰ class or Ⅱ class. However, because the total nitrogen concentrations of the three sections have exceeded the national surface water class Ⅴ standard, the actual overall water quality of the three sections in some years could not reach the surface water class Ⅰ and class Ⅱ standards. The evaluation results obtained by using the improved comprehensive water quality marking method showed that the comprehensive water quality of Beizamu section was surface water Ⅲ class or Ⅳ class, the Gulou section and Taigou section were all surface water Ⅲ class.The three typical monitoring sections failed to meet the water quality requirements of the region in most of the participating years by using the improved method, among which only four participating years of Beizamu section met the requirements of the water environment functional regionalization in the area, while the rest did not meet the requirements of the water environment functional region in this area. The evaluation results were more consistent with the actual situation of the study area. And the total nitrogen pollution was the most serious in the three sections, and even reached the inferior Ⅴ class standard in individual evaluation years. The improved evaluation method was taken into account the situation that the total nitrogen index exceeded the standard and was more accurate and objective than the traditional method. The research results could be used as a reference for environmental management.
The traditional comprehensive water quality identification index method can evaluate the water quality qualitatively and quantitatively, but it ignores the influence of the importance of different evaluation factors on the water quality of the area studied in practice. In order to solve this problem, the comprehensive water quality marking index method has been improved.Calculating the main and objective weights of each water quality index by AHP method and CRITIC method, and the ideal point method was used instead of the multiplication normalization method and the linear weighting method to perform the combined weighting calculation. The improved comprehensive water quality marking index method was applied to the water quality evaluation of the upstream section of Dahuofang Reservoir. At the same time, the evaluation results before and after the improvement were compared. The results showed that during the period of 2011-2017, the results obtained by using the traditional water quality marking index method are as follows. The water quality of the Beizamu section was Ⅱ class or Ⅲ class,the Gulou section was Ⅱ class, and the Taigou section was Ⅰ class or Ⅱ class. However, because the total nitrogen concentrations of the three sections have exceeded the national surface water class Ⅴ standard, the actual overall water quality of the three sections in some years could not reach the surface water class Ⅰ and class Ⅱ standards. The evaluation results obtained by using the improved comprehensive water quality marking method showed that the comprehensive water quality of Beizamu section was surface water Ⅲ class or Ⅳ class, the Gulou section and Taigou section were all surface water Ⅲ class.The three typical monitoring sections failed to meet the water quality requirements of the region in most of the participating years by using the improved method, among which only four participating years of Beizamu section met the requirements of the water environment functional regionalization in the area, while the rest did not meet the requirements of the water environment functional region in this area. The evaluation results were more consistent with the actual situation of the study area. And the total nitrogen pollution was the most serious in the three sections, and even reached the inferior Ⅴ class standard in individual evaluation years. The improved evaluation method was taken into account the situation that the total nitrogen index exceeded the standard and was more accurate and objective than the traditional method. The research results could be used as a reference for environmental management.
引文
[1]王维,纪枚,苏亚楠.水质评价研究进展及水质评价方法综述[J].科技情报开发与经济,2012,22(13):129-131.
[2]吴喜军,董颖,张亚宁.改进的内梅罗污染指数法在黄河干流水质评价中的应用[J].节水灌溉,2018(10):51-53,58.
[3]罗芳,伍国荣.基于单因子评价法和比值法解析水库水质状况[J].资源节约与环保,2018(2):65-66,72.
[4]张新钰,辛宝东,刘文臣.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.
[5]尹海龙,徐祖信.河流综合水质评价方法比较研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2008(5):729-733.
[6]马艳,王剑.改进型灰色关联分析法在湿地水质评价中的应用———以四湖流域为例[J].节水灌溉,2015(4):70-73.
[7]陈朋,王家鼎,袁亮,等.修正内梅罗指数法和模糊综合评判法在凤凰镇地下水水质评价中的应用[J].水土保持通报,2017,37(2):165-170.
[8]陈姣艳,李洪建,严俊霞,等.模糊模式识别模型在古交矿区汾河支流水质评价中的应用[J].水资源与水工程学报,2016,27(1):96-100.
[9]孙玲玲,刘彬,石宝红,等.基于贝叶斯理论和主成分分析法耦合的水质评价[J].水电能源科学,2017,35(11):36-39.
[10]马诗茜,陈卓君.基于主成分分析法的某水库型水源地水质评价[J].净水技术,2017,36(S1):36-44.
[11]苏彩红,向娜,陈广义,等.基于人工蜂群算法与BP神经网络的水质评价模型[J].环境工程学报,2012,6(2):699-705.
[12]初海波,卢文喜,尹津航,等.BP网络、Hopfield网络在水质评价应用中的比较研究[J].中国农村水利水电,2011(10):70-72.
[13]徐祖信.我国河流综合水质标识指数评价方法研究[J].同济大学学报,2005,33(4):482-488.
[14]杨柳,宋健飞,宋波,等.主要污染物水质标识指数法在河流水质评价的应用[J].环境科学与技术,2015,38(11):239-245.
[15] SASIKUMAR K,SURESH G,THOMAS K A,et al.Magnetoactive elastomeric composites:Cure,tensile,electrical and magnetic properties[J].Bulletin of Materials Science,2006,29(6):637-640.
[16]沈君坤,纪道斌,崔玉洁,等.基于层次分析法的香溪河库湾水质综合评价[J].能源环境保护,2017,31(1):59-64.
[17]李祚泳,丁晶,彭荔红.环境质量评价原理与方法[M].北京:化学工业出版社,2004.
[18]洪志国,李焱,范植华,等.层次分析法中高阶平均随机一致性指标(RI)的计算[J].计算机工程与应用,2002(12):45-47,150.
[19]王昆,宋海洲.三种客观权重赋权法的比较分析[J].技术经济与管理研究,2003(6):48-49.
[20]白晓燕,赖成光,陈晓宏,等.基于Critic-Cloud模型的东江干流水质评价[J].水资源保护,2014,30(5):26-31,59.
[21]许叶军,达庆利.基于理想点的多属性决策主客观赋权法[J].工业工程与管理,2005(4):45-47.
[22]江强强,方堃,章广成.基于新组合赋权法的地质灾害危险性评价[J].自然灾害学报,2015,24(03):28-36.
[23]李刚,李建平,孙晓蕾,等.主客观权重的组合方式及其合理性研究[J].管理评论,2017,29(12):17-26,61.
[24]宋冬梅,刘春晓,沈晨,等.基于主客观赋权法的多目标多属性决策方法[J].山东大学学报(工学版),2015,45(4):1-9.
[25]马玲玲,周林飞,王铁良.基于BP神经网络的大伙房水库水质综合评价[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2014,45(5):637-640.
[26]李晓丹.大伙房水库水环境现状评估与污染原因分析[J].科学技术创新,2017(19):47-48.
[27]孟繁斌,季洪涛,张安,等.大伙房水库上游土壤侵蚀对水质的影响[J].人民黄河,2016,38(2):84-86,102.
[28]郑艳波.大伙房水库汇水区生态保护与建设[J].东北水利水电,2016,34(6):33-35.
[29]连慧姝,刘宏斌,李旭东,等.典型入湖河流水体氮素变化特征及其对降雨的响应:以太湖乌溪港为例[J].环境科学,2017,38(12):5047-5055.
[2]吴喜军,董颖,张亚宁.改进的内梅罗污染指数法在黄河干流水质评价中的应用[J].节水灌溉,2018(10):51-53,58.
[3]罗芳,伍国荣.基于单因子评价法和比值法解析水库水质状况[J].资源节约与环保,2018(2):65-66,72.
[4]张新钰,辛宝东,刘文臣.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.
[5]尹海龙,徐祖信.河流综合水质评价方法比较研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2008(5):729-733.
[6]马艳,王剑.改进型灰色关联分析法在湿地水质评价中的应用———以四湖流域为例[J].节水灌溉,2015(4):70-73.
[7]陈朋,王家鼎,袁亮,等.修正内梅罗指数法和模糊综合评判法在凤凰镇地下水水质评价中的应用[J].水土保持通报,2017,37(2):165-170.
[8]陈姣艳,李洪建,严俊霞,等.模糊模式识别模型在古交矿区汾河支流水质评价中的应用[J].水资源与水工程学报,2016,27(1):96-100.
[9]孙玲玲,刘彬,石宝红,等.基于贝叶斯理论和主成分分析法耦合的水质评价[J].水电能源科学,2017,35(11):36-39.
[10]马诗茜,陈卓君.基于主成分分析法的某水库型水源地水质评价[J].净水技术,2017,36(S1):36-44.
[11]苏彩红,向娜,陈广义,等.基于人工蜂群算法与BP神经网络的水质评价模型[J].环境工程学报,2012,6(2):699-705.
[12]初海波,卢文喜,尹津航,等.BP网络、Hopfield网络在水质评价应用中的比较研究[J].中国农村水利水电,2011(10):70-72.
[13]徐祖信.我国河流综合水质标识指数评价方法研究[J].同济大学学报,2005,33(4):482-488.
[14]杨柳,宋健飞,宋波,等.主要污染物水质标识指数法在河流水质评价的应用[J].环境科学与技术,2015,38(11):239-245.
[15] SASIKUMAR K,SURESH G,THOMAS K A,et al.Magnetoactive elastomeric composites:Cure,tensile,electrical and magnetic properties[J].Bulletin of Materials Science,2006,29(6):637-640.
[16]沈君坤,纪道斌,崔玉洁,等.基于层次分析法的香溪河库湾水质综合评价[J].能源环境保护,2017,31(1):59-64.
[17]李祚泳,丁晶,彭荔红.环境质量评价原理与方法[M].北京:化学工业出版社,2004.
[18]洪志国,李焱,范植华,等.层次分析法中高阶平均随机一致性指标(RI)的计算[J].计算机工程与应用,2002(12):45-47,150.
[19]王昆,宋海洲.三种客观权重赋权法的比较分析[J].技术经济与管理研究,2003(6):48-49.
[20]白晓燕,赖成光,陈晓宏,等.基于Critic-Cloud模型的东江干流水质评价[J].水资源保护,2014,30(5):26-31,59.
[21]许叶军,达庆利.基于理想点的多属性决策主客观赋权法[J].工业工程与管理,2005(4):45-47.
[22]江强强,方堃,章广成.基于新组合赋权法的地质灾害危险性评价[J].自然灾害学报,2015,24(03):28-36.
[23]李刚,李建平,孙晓蕾,等.主客观权重的组合方式及其合理性研究[J].管理评论,2017,29(12):17-26,61.
[24]宋冬梅,刘春晓,沈晨,等.基于主客观赋权法的多目标多属性决策方法[J].山东大学学报(工学版),2015,45(4):1-9.
[25]马玲玲,周林飞,王铁良.基于BP神经网络的大伙房水库水质综合评价[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2014,45(5):637-640.
[26]李晓丹.大伙房水库水环境现状评估与污染原因分析[J].科学技术创新,2017(19):47-48.
[27]孟繁斌,季洪涛,张安,等.大伙房水库上游土壤侵蚀对水质的影响[J].人民黄河,2016,38(2):84-86,102.
[28]郑艳波.大伙房水库汇水区生态保护与建设[J].东北水利水电,2016,34(6):33-35.
[29]连慧姝,刘宏斌,李旭东,等.典型入湖河流水体氮素变化特征及其对降雨的响应:以太湖乌溪港为例[J].环境科学,2017,38(12):5047-5055.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |