两种常用染色剂管道及淤泥条件下示踪及对比——以丁旗地下河连通试验为例

易连兴; 赵良杰; 卢海平; 王 喆

doi:10.11932/karst2017y46

两种常用染色剂管道及淤泥条件下示踪及对比——以丁旗地下河连通试验为例

doi: 10.11932/karst2017y46

中国地质科学院岩溶地质研究所/国土资源部、广西岩溶动力学重点实验室

基金项目: 中国地质调查局地质调查项目“贵州打邦河流域1∶5万水文地质环境地质调查”（DD20160300-02）

计量
- 文章访问数: 1970
- HTML浏览量: 330
- PDF下载量: 940
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 发布日期: 2017-10-25

Comparative tracing of two common dyes in conduits with silt: A case study of the Dingqi underground river

Institute of Karst Geology, CAGS/Key Laboratory of Karst Dynamics, MLR＆GZAR

摘要

摘要: 通过对丁旗地下河同一投放点同时开展二元示踪试验，探讨了当前被忽略的不同示踪剂应用对比及回收率合理性等问题。在淤泥沉积的地下河管道及流量和浊度稳定条件下，得出主要结论：(1)荧光素钠、罗丹明B回收率分别为53.91%和40.72%，前者比后者少损失13.19%；其中荧光素钠在主峰和缓慢衰减段排出量分别占85.03%和14.97%，罗丹明B则对应为65.88%、34.12%；(2) 荧光素钠对应峰值的回收强度为罗丹明B的2.95倍且最大峰值出现时间比后者提前2 h；(3) 罗丹明B由于吸附等形成的浓度曲线对管道结构分析有可能产生误导，荧光素钠则相对更准确。
- 岩溶地下河 /
- 示踪 /
- 染色示踪剂对比 /
- 回收率
Abstract: The study area is located in the upstream Dabang river, a branch of the Beipanjiang river in Dingqi town, Zhenning county, Guizhou Province. The strata of this place comprise lower Triassic limestone, dolomite and landform, with landforms of dissolution hills and valleys. It hosts underground rivers A19, A30 and A10, with silt deposits and buried depths less than 30 m. This study focused on the comparison of tracer experiments for two materials of Uranine and Rhodamine B, and discussion on the rationality of the recovery rates by the two methods. The results show that,(1) The recovery rate of Uranine is 53.91%, which is higher than Rhodamine B of 40.72%;(2) Uranine’s recovery intensity for maximum concentration is 2.95 times than that of Rhodamine B; (3) It is relatively easy to notice some complete wave crests in the attenuation section of the Rhodamine B concentration curve. It is concluded that，(1) in the underground rivers with silt deposition, Uranine and Rhodamine B have higher adsorption rates, and there may be some problems in the tracer test technology with higher recovery rates; (2) For the analysis of conduit structure or hydrogeological conditions, Uranine is superior to Rhodamine B; (3) The accuracy of recovery rates depends on fluorimeter calibration, flow monitoring, and closely related to environmental factors, such as water-turbidity and sediments.
- karst underground river /
- tracing /
- comparison of dyeing tracer /
- recovery rate

HTML

参考文献(16)

[1]	申月芳,柴海峰,滑帅,等.洋碰隧道岩溶涌水连通试验研究［J］.铁道建筑,2012(10):62-65.
[2]	张湘文,王涛,程胜高.示踪试验在隧道涌水与断层水力联系调查中的应用:以江西萍乡钟家山为例［J］.环境影响评价,2015, 37(2):66-69,78.
[3]	曾莘茹,姜光辉,郭芳,等.桂林甑皮岩洞穴遗址地下水示踪及污染来源分析［J］.中国岩溶,2016,35(3): 245-253.
[4]	王开然,姜光辉,郭芳,等.桂林东区峰林平原岩溶地下水示踪试验与分析［J］.现代地质,2013, 27(2):454-459.
[5]	程亚平,陈余道.岩溶地下河定量示踪研究方法综述［J］.桂林理工大学学报,2016,36(2): 242-246.
[6]	陈余道,程亚平,王恒,等.岩溶地下河管道流和管道结构及参数的定量示踪:以桂林寨底地下河为例［J］.水文地质工程地质,2013,40(5):11-15.
[7]	杨平恒,罗鉴银,彭稳,等. 在线技术在岩溶地下水示踪试验中的应用:以青木关地下河系统岩口落水洞至姜家泉段为例［J］. 中国岩溶,2008,27(3):215-220.
[8]	易连兴,张之淦,胡大可,等.三元连通试验在岩溶渗漏研究中的应用［J］.水文地质工程地质,2006, 33(6): 18-20,24.
[9]	易连兴,夏日元,唐建生,等.地下水连通介质结构分析:以寨底地下河系统实验基地示踪试验为例［J］.工程勘察,2010,38(11):38-41.
[10]	易连兴,卢海平,赵良杰,等.鱼泉地下河示踪试验及回收强度法管道结构分析［J］.工程勘察,2015, 43(2): 46-51.
[11]	刘树林,范泽英,杨平恒,等.基于在线高分辨率示踪试验的岩溶地下河管道特征分析:以重庆市彭水县岩窝坨至纸厂泉段地下河为例［J/OL］.西南大学学报(自然科学版),2015,37(10):125-130.
[12]	聂艳华,段文刚,树锦.示踪法定量分析水流连通问题［J］.长江科学院院报,2013,30(2):16-19.
[13]	王恒,陈余道.桂林寨底地下河系统弥散系数研究［J］.地下水,2013,35(4):13-15.
[14]	于正良,杨平恒,谷海华,等.基于在线高分辨率示踪技术的岩溶泉污染来源及含水介质特征分析:以重庆黔江区鱼泉坎为例［J］.中国岩溶,2014,33(4):498-503.
[15]	张锦堂,刘金辉,李江,等.某砂岩型铀矿床孔隙介质对示踪剂吸附作用的试验研究［J］.有色金属(矿山部分),2015, 67(3):62-64,73.
[16]	黄爱珠,邬建中.示踪剂“罗丹明B”的稳定性测试及其保存［J］.人民珠江,1992, 23(1):42.