Comparison of comprehensive index method and fuzzy comprehensive method in the evaluation of groundwater quality: A case study in Zunyi City
-
摘要: 综合指数法和模糊综合评价法在地下水质量评价中被广泛应用。岩溶地区地下水环境脆弱,潜在污染来源复杂。为了更好地了解综合指数法和模糊综合法在岩溶地下水评价中的应用效果,本文以贵州省遵义市为例,利用这两种方法分别对该市具有代表性的9个地下水点水质进行评价和对比分析。结果显示:遵义市浅层地下水水质总体较好,Ⅲ类及Ⅲ类以上水占33 %,但个别区域地下水水质很差,主要为NO2-、NH4+、Mn、Na+、Cl-、SO42-、溶解性总固体、总硬度(CaCO3)和Se等超标;两种方法评价结果一致的共有6个水点,均属Ⅱ类水质,结果不一致的3个水点,在综合指数法中全为Ⅳ类水,而在模糊综合评价中则是Ⅲ类水1个,Ⅴ类水两个。出现差异的主要原因是综合指数法在综合分值计算中过于强调单项指标最大值的作用和未考虑参评指标的权重,而模糊综合法则很好地克服了这些不足,精细地刻画出指标值对水质分级界限的接近程度并量化了所有指标对地下水水质的影响权重。可见,地下水水质评价中,模糊综合法要明显优于综合指数法。Abstract: The comprehensive index method and the fuzzy comprehensive method are widely used in groundwater quality evaluation. The groundwater environment in karst area is vulnerable and the potential pollution sources are complex. In order to better understand the effect of comprehensive index method and fuzzy comprehensive method in assessment of karst groundwater in Zunyi City, Guizhou Province, a typical karst area was selected for study. Applying comprehensive index method and fuzzy comprehensive method to evaluate and contrast analysis groundwater quality of nine representative water points in Zunyi, the results showed: The shallow groundwater quality in Zunyi is generally good, 33 % of the water was grade III or higher; but the individual regional groundwater quality is poor, mainly the NO2-, NH4+, Mn, Na+, Cl-, SO42-, total dissolved solids, total hardness (CaCO3) and Se exceeded the standard. There were six water points whose evaluation results were the same and all were grade II. The remaining three water points were different; in the comprehensive index method all were grade IV, while in the fuzzy comprehensive 2 water points were grade V and one water point was grade III. The main reasons for these differences are the maximum value of the single index are emphasized when calculate the comprehensive value F and the weight of evaluation indexes are not taken into account in the comprehensive index method; however, these disadvantages of the comprehensive index method are resolved in the fuzzy comprehensive method, the proximity of indexes to water quality classification limitation is carefully depicted, and the impact weight of all indexes to groundwater quality are quantified visible, so in the groundwater quality evaluation, the fuzzy comprehensive method is superior to the comprehensive index method.
-
[1] 王华东,张义生.环境质量评价[M].天津:天津科学技术出版社,1986:1-2. [2] 梁德华,蒋火华.河流水质综合评价方法的统一和改进[J].中国环境监测,2002,18(2):63-66. [3] 兰文辉,安海燕.环境水质评价方法的分析与探讨[J].干旱环境监测,2002,16(3):167-169. [4] 王锦国,袁永生.可拓评价方法在环境质量综合评价中的应用[J].河海大学学报(自然科学版),2002,30(l):15-18. [5] 齐济,李岩.基于改进AHP法定权的模糊优选模型在地下水质评价中的应用[J].华北水利水电学院学报,2002,23(2):4-7. [6] GB/T 14848-1993.中华人民共和国国家标准地下水质量标准[S]. [7] 寇文杰.修正的模糊综合评判法在地下水水质评价中的应用[J].南水北调与水利科技,2013,(2):71-75. [8] 安达,姜永海,杨昱,等.海明距离模糊法在垃圾填埋场地下水质量评价中的应用[J].环境工程技术学报,2013,3(2):120. [9] 王櫹橦,吴勇,古广华.四川省德阳市地下水水质模糊数学综合评价[J].地质灾害与环境保护,2011,22(1):51-55. [10] 杨小芳,王任超,张蔚.基于模糊数学的岩溶水质评价[J].科技信息,2009,(20):83-84. [11] 李春萍,李国学,罗一鸣,等.北京市6座垃圾填埋场地下水环境质量的模糊评价[J].环境科学,2008,29(10):2729-2735. [12] 李亚松.地下水质量综合评价方法研究——以滤沱河冲洪积扇为例[D].北京:中国地质科学院,2009:52. [13] 杨纶标,高英仪.模糊数学原理及应用[M].广州:华南理工大学出版社,2006:1-97. [14] 谢季坚,刘承平.模糊数学方法及其应用[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2006:128-191. [15] 毛相义.遵义市地表水污染及其治理对策[J].贵州地质,1991,8(1):77. [16] 杨秀忠.遵义市地下水污染趋势分析及防治对策[J].贵州地质,2005,21(4):258. [17] 吴远航.遵义市区环境地质与水资源的关系[J].遵义师范学院学报,2006,7(6):88-89. [18] GB/T 14848-2007(报批稿),中华人民共和国国家标准地下水质量标准(修订版)[S].国家质量监督检验检疫总局,2009. [19] DD2008-01.中国地质调查局地质调查技术标准地下水污染地质调查评价规范[S].中国地质调查局,2008,10.
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 1934
- HTML浏览量: 377
- PDF下载量: 1585
- 被引次数: 0