• Included in CSCD
  • Chinese Core Journals
  • Included in WJCI Report
  • Included in Scopus, CA, DOAJ, EBSCO, JST
  • The Key Magazine of China Technology
Volume 36 Issue 5
Oct.  2017
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
LI Fengli, WANG Weiping, XU Qiaoyi, WU Shen, ZHANG Zhengxian. Assessment of water quality risk from karst aquifer recharge with multi-source water in the Yufuhe river, Ji’nan[J]. CARSOLOGICA SINICA, 2017, 36(5): 751-758. doi: 10.11932/karst2017y30
Citation: LI Fengli, WANG Weiping, XU Qiaoyi, WU Shen, ZHANG Zhengxian. Assessment of water quality risk from karst aquifer recharge with multi-source water in the Yufuhe river, Ji’nan[J]. CARSOLOGICA SINICA, 2017, 36(5): 751-758. doi: 10.11932/karst2017y30

Assessment of water quality risk from karst aquifer recharge with multi-source water in the Yufuhe river, Ji’nan

doi: 10.11932/karst2017y30
  • Publish Date: 2017-10-25
  • Ji’nan is well known for Spring City, while facing huge challenges of spring protection and security of water supply. The aquifer recharge with multi-source water is one of the effective measures to solve these problems. However, the quality of source water is still poorer than karst water, which would caused some risk of health and safety. Comparing the standard of groundwater quality and the background value of karst water quality, this work chose the risk monitoring indicators that exceed the standard in surface water sources or are inferior to background values. And adopting the Australian Guidelines of MAR, we assessed the water quality risk of the aquifer recharge with multi-source water in the Yufuhe river. In 2015, monitoring and index analysis were performed to the water quality of source water, pore well water and karst deep well water when Yellow River water and Wohushan reservoir water recharging the aquifers many times. The results show during the Yellow River water recharging, respectively in source water, pore water and karst water, the standard indexes of average turbidity are 1.4, 1.7 and 0.93, the standard indexes of sulfate’s average content are 0.93, 0.9 and 0.73 and although the content of chloride ion does not exceed the groundwater class III standard, it in the source water content is more than 2 times the groundwater content; during the Wohushan reservoir water recharging, respectively in source water, pore water and karst water, the standard indexes of average turbidity are 2.4, 1.1 and 0.43, the standard indexes of sulfate’s average content are 0.75, 0.84 and 0.66 and the standard indexes of ammonia nitrogen’s average content are 1.14, 1.47 and 1.35. We draw conclusion that the turbidity, sulfate and the movement of pollutants in the aquifers are at critical points for the whole Yufuhe aquifer recharge project. In addition, the risk of salinity should receive attention when the Yellow River water is used as the recharge source. Similarly, the risk of nutrient is also a concerned issue when the Wohushan reservoir water is the recharge source. Based on the above analyses, this paper offers some suggestions, such as limiting the proportion of karst water resources.

     

  • loading
  • [1]
    Asano T, Cotruvo J A. Groundwater recharge with reclaimed municipal wastewater: health and regulatory considerations[J]. Water Research, 2004, 38(8):1941-1951.
    [2]
    韩再生. 为可持续利用而管理含水层补给:第四届国际地下水人工补给会议综述[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2002,(6): 72-73.
    [3]
    Ayuso Gabella, Page N, Dillon D, et al. Operational Residual Risk Assessment for the Bolivar ASR recycled water project[C]//CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship, 2010.
    [4]
    Blue Lake Management Committee (BLMC). The blue lake management plan[R]. South East Water Kingswood, South Australia. In: Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability (Ed. P Fox). Catchment Management Board Mount Gambier, 2009.
    [5]
    Dillon P, Hickinbotham M, Pavelic P. Review of international experience in injecting water into aquifers for storage and reuse[J]. Groundwater Papers, Preprints of Papers, 2010: 13.
    [6]
    Joanne Vanderzalm, Peter Dillon, Steve Marvanek, et al. Over 100 years of drinking stormwater treated through MAR: assessing the risks of stormwater recharge on the quality of the Blue Lake[C]. Proceedings of ISM AR6, 2006: 616- 625.
    [7]
    Turner J V, Allison G B, Holmes J W. The water balance of a small lake using stable isotopes and tritium[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 1984, 70(1-4):199-220.
    [8]
    曲士松. 中国北方地下水可持续管理[M]. 郑州:黄河水利出版社2008: 22-27.
    [9]
    云桂春, 皮运正, 胡俊. 浅谈再生污水地下回灌的健康危害风险[J]. 给水排水, 2004, 30(4):7-10.
    [10]
    云桂春, 成徐州, 等. 水资源管理的新战略: 人工地下水回灌[M]. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2004: 158-165.
    [11]
    上海市水文地质大队. 地下水人工回灌[M]. 北京:地质出版社, 1977: 164- 165.
    [12]
    朱中竹, 王维平, 蒋颖魁, 等. 屋面雨水回灌裂隙岩溶水水岩作用实验研究[J]. 中国岩溶, 2012, 31(3):272-278.
    [13]
    徐巧艺, 周亚群, 王维平, 等. 屋面雨水回灌裂隙岩溶水工程风险评价[J]. 中国岩溶,2015, 34(6):631-641.
    [14]
    王维平, 徐玉, 何茂强, 等. 城市屋顶雨水回灌裂隙岩溶含水层的国内外案例介绍[J]. 中国岩溶, 2010, 29(3):325-330.
    [15]
    曹彬, 王维平, 韩延成. 利用澳大利亚含水层补给管理国家指南对黄水河地下水库的评估研究[J]. 水利水电技术, 2011, 42(12): 1-5.
    [16]
    周亚群. 屋面雨水回灌裂隙岩溶含水层风险评价[D]. 山东济南: 济南大学, 2014.
    [17]
    王维平, Dillion P J, Vanderzalm J. 中国-澳大利亚含水层补给管理新进展[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,2009.
    [18]
    杨昱, 廉新颖, 马志飞, 等. 再生水回灌地下水环境安全风险评价技术方法研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2014, 23(11): 1806-1813.
    [19]
    Page D, Vanderzalm J, Barry K, et al. Operation residual risk assessment for the Salisbury stormwater ASTR project[R]. CSIRO: Water for a Health Country Flagship Report, 2009.
    [20]
    沈杨. 浑河傍河区地下水水化学特征及氮污染来源同位素识别[D]. 中国地质大学(北京), 2013.
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (1627) PDF downloads(1376) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return