基于级别特征值的岩溶含水层水质模糊综合评价修正

杨振华; 苏维词; 吴克华; 张凤太; 王 伟

doi:10.11932/karst20150603

基于级别特征值的岩溶含水层水质模糊综合评价修正

doi: 10.11932/karst20150603

1.
贵州师范大学中国南方喀斯特研究院
2.
贵州科学院山地资源研究所
3.
贵州师范学院资源环境与灾害研究所
4.
贵州省地质工程勘察设计研究院

基金项目: 国家科技支撑计划课题：喀斯特山区水资源演变规律及监测技术研究（2014BAB03B001）

计量
- 文章访问数: 2171
- HTML浏览量: 329
- PDF下载量: 1105
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 发布日期: 2015-12-25

An improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of water quality in karst aquifer based on level characteristic values

1.
Institute of South China Karst, Guizhou Normal University
2.
Institute of Mountain Resources, Guizhou Academy of Sciences
3.
Institute of Environment, Resources and Disaster, Guizhou Normal College
4.
Guizhou Institute of Geological Engineering Survey and Design

摘要

摘要: 为改进传统水质模糊综合评价中存在评价指标不能全面反映水质状况、评价结果不清晰，评价等级区分度不明显等缺陷，文章以位于六枝特区威宁-郎岱褶皱群的第一层岩溶含水层水质为例，根据岩溶区水质评价特点和研究区含水层超标因子特征，建立涵盖物理、化学和微生物等因子的评价指标体系，利用级别特征值对传统模糊综合评价结果进行了适当修正，并与综合污染指数法、传统模糊评价综合法的评价精度进行定量化比较。研究结果表明：六枝特区的研究区探采点水质综合评价等级都达到Ⅲ类生活饮用水卫生标准，但仍有71%的探采点存在氨氮（NH4+）、氟化物(F-)、高锰酸盐指数(CODMn)、溶解性总固体（TDS）和大肠杆菌等指标超标，且超标因子浓度呈点状扩散分布于三叠系中下统地层；另外，传统模糊综合评价中有57.1%的水质达到Ⅰ类标准，与多个探采点存在因子超标的情况不符，而通过级别特征值修正的模糊综合评价结果中分别有57.1%和28.6%的探采点水质为Ⅱ类或Ⅲ类标准，与着重突出最大超标因子权重的综合指数法类别标准差低0.011。因此，基于级别特征值的模糊综合评价能有效的反映水质整体水平，探采点水样超标因子浓度和同类水质的区分度，评价结果合理、可信。
- 级别特征值 /
- 模糊综合评价 /
- 岩溶 /
- 水质
Abstract: The aim of this study is to improve traditional fuzzy logic approach to water quality evaluation, due to some drawbacks such as unrepresentative evaluation indexes for water pollution assessment, indeterminate evaluation results and obscure grade boundaries for fuzzy evaluation. The first layer of karst groundwater in Liuzhi special district Weining-Langdai folding area was selected as the modelling object. Based on the karst water quality analysis, factors for the fuzzy logic process were selected from those analysed constituents which were in excess of relevant water quality regulations, from which establishing the evaluation index system which includes physical, chemical, and microbiological factors, and modifying the method of traditional fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Consequently, results of the new model were assessed and compared with those from the methods of both comprehensive pollution index and traditional fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Results of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation show that water quality reaches class Ⅲ in light of national drinking water standard in Liuzhi special district. However, there are still 71% sampling points where the concentrations of ammonia nitrogen (NH4+), fluoride (F-), permanganate index (CODMn) and total dissolved solids (TDS) exceed the water class; and these points mostly occur in the strata of the middle and the late Triassic. On the other hand, the groundwater of 57.1% sampling points falls in class Ⅰ, resulted from previous method of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, which is not in accord with the reality. In addition, through the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation calibrated with level characteristic values, the water quality of 57.1% and 28.6% points fall within class Ⅱ and class Ⅲ, respectively, of which the standard deviation is 0.011 lower than that from the comprehensive index method which stresses much on weight factor for the element with highest concentration. Therefore, current method for comprehensive evaluation of karst water quality can effectively reflect overall water quality level, water chemical anomalies and quantitative quality classification. It is trusted that the evaluation results are reliable.
- level characteristic values /
- fuzzy comprehensive evaluation /
- karst /
- water quality

HTML

参考文献(19)

[1]	国家发展和改革委员会,水利部,建设部，等．《全国城市饮用水安全保障规划（2006-2020）》，发改地区( 2007) ［2798］号.北京：国家发展和改革委员会，2007.
[2]	龚艳冰，张继国，梁雪春．基于全排列多边形综合图示法的水质评价［J］.中国人口·资源与环境，2011，21(9)：26-31.
[3]	Van der Maaten L, Hinton G. Visualizing Data using t-SNE［J］.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2008, 9(1) : 2579-2605.
[4]	Li P, Wu J, Qian H. Groundwater quality assessment based on entropy weighted osculating value method［J］. International Journal of Environmental Sciences,2010,1 (4) : 621-630.
[5]	李连香，许迪，程先军,等．基于分层构权主成分分析的皖北岩溶水水质评价研究［J］.资源科学，2015，37（1）：61-67.
[6]	余勋，梁婕，曾光明，等．基于三角模糊数的贝叶斯水质评价模型［J］.环境科学学报，2013，33(3): 904-909.
[7]	韩晓刚,黄廷林,陈秀珍.改进的模糊综合评价法及在给水厂原水水质评价中的应用［J］.环境科学学报， 2013，33(5)：1513-1518.
[8]	Zou Z H，Yun Y，Sun J N． Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment［J］.Journal of Environmental Sciences，2006,18(5):1020-1023.
[9]	Dshiya 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.
[10]	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.
[11]	杨明德.论喀斯特地貌地域结构及其环境效应：以贵州高原为例［M］.贵阳：贵州人民出版社，1988：19-28.
[12]	马玉杰，郑西来，李永霞,等．岩溶水质量模糊综合评判法的改进与应用［J］.中国矿业大学学报，2009，38(5)：745-750.
[13]	吴运敏，陈求稳，李静．模糊综合评价在小流域河道水质时空变化研究中的应用［J］.环境科学学报，2011，31(6)：1198-1205.
[14]	余克林,杨永生,章臣平.模糊综合评判法在判别矿井突水水源中的应用［J］.金属矿山，2007，(3)：47-50.
[15]	孙廷容，黄强，张洪,等.基于粗糙集权重的改进可拓评价方法在灌区干旱评价中的应用［J］.农业工程学报，2006，22(4)：70-73.
[16]	周振民，穆文彬．组合权重可变模糊模型在地表水水质评价中的应用［J］.中国农村水利水电， 2011，(10)：82-86.
[17]	刘子剑，崔斌，张楠.改进的模糊综合评价法在长春市岩溶水水质评价中的运用［J］.水资源保护,2014,30（6）：40-44.
[18]	周林飞，邹飞，顾晓琳，等.石佛寺人工湿地水质综合评价与分析［J］.节水灌溉,2015，(1)：60-64.
[19]	汤国安，杨昕.地理信息系统空间分析实践教程［M］.北京：科学出版社,2006.