Comparison of the REKST model with PLEIK model in performing the antifouling analysis of karstic groundwater ：A case study in the Xiangxi Dalongdong underground river
-
摘要: 文章以湘西大龙洞地下河为例，对比分析REKST模型和PLEIK模型在裸露型岩溶区地下水防污性能评价体系。结果表明：（1）由于模型指标赋值侧重点和指标所占权重的不同，两模型评价分级重合度较低。（2）REKST模型没有建立定量的指标赋值体系和防护性能等级划分体系，而 PLEIK模型则建立了定量或半定量的指标赋值体系和定量的防护性能等级划分体系，PLEIK模型在评价过程中受主观因素影响较小。因此，PLEIK模型实用性更强，其横向对比性和纵向对比性均相对优于REKST模型。Abstract: By taking the Xiangxi Dalongdong underground river as a case study area, this paper comparatively analyzes the performance of the REKST and PlEIK models in anti-fouling evaluation in karstic bare-rock areas. Analytical results show that there is a big gap between these two models in terms of their functionalities, particularly in grading and ranking processes, because in these two models their index assignment and weighting methods are different. The REKST model is lack of quantitative index assignment and barrier property grading systems; while the PLEIK has the both, so that the effect of subjective factors on results for PLELK are small. Thus, the PLEIK model is superior to the REKST model in the assessment.
-
[1] 钟佐.地下水防污性能评价方法探讨［J］,地学前缘, 2005,12（特刊）:3-13. [2] 严明疆,张光辉,王金哲,等.滹滏平原地下水系统脆弱性最佳地下水水位埋深探讨［J］,地球学报, 2009,30(2):243-248. [3] 章程.贵州普定后寨地下河流域地下水脆弱性评价与土地利用空间变化的关系［D］.北京:中国地质科学院, 2003. [4] 邹胜章,李录娟,卢海平，等.岩溶地下水系统防污性能评价方法［J］.地球学报, 2014,35(2): 262-268. [5] 何师意,梁彬,关碧珠.湘西大龙洞地下河流域水土流失特征及其对水库工程的影响［J］.中国岩溶, 2008,27(4):293-302. [6] 邓正平,周小红,何师意,等.西南岩溶石山地区岩溶地下水示踪试验与分析:以湘西大龙洞为例［J］.中国岩溶, 2007,26(2):163-169. [7] 朱明秋,梁彬,陈宏峰,等.湘西大龙洞岩溶流域农业生态环境与治理措施［J］.中国岩溶, 2005,24(3):220-226. [8] 蓝芙宁,王文娟,覃小群,等.土地利用和覆被变化对岩溶区土壤CO2浓度的影响［J］.中国岩溶, 2011,30(4):449-455. [9] 王文娟.湖南大龙洞地下河流域岩溶特征及其碳汇潜力研究［D］.广西：广西师范学院, 2013：7-18. [10] 何师意,周锦忠,曾飞跃.岩溶地下河流域地下水水资源评价：以湖南湘西大龙洞为例［J］.水文地质工程地质,2007,(5):33-36. [11] 中国人民解放军建字730部队.中华人民共和国区域水文地质普查报告(吉首幅)［R］,1977. -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 1310
- HTML浏览量: 160
- PDF下载量: 1372
- 被引次数: 0
下载:
