Ecology and Environment ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (8): 1465-1477.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2023.08.012
• Research Article [Environmental Sciences] • Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Yuanzhe1,3(), HUA Chunlin2, ZHAO Li1,*, FAN Min1,3, LIANG Xiaoying1, ZHOU Lele1, CAI Can1,3, YAO Jing1,3
Received:
2023-04-12
Online:
2023-08-18
Published:
2023-11-08
Contact:
ZHAO Li
王源哲1,3(), 华春林2, 赵丽1,*, 樊敏1,3, 梁晓盈1, 周乐乐1, 蔡璨1,3, 姚婧1,3
通讯作者:
赵丽
作者简介:
王源哲(2000年生),男,硕士研究生,研究方向为流域水环境管理与规划。E-mail: 18582232007@163.com
基金资助:
CLC Number:
WANG Yuanzhe, HUA Chunlin, ZHAO Li, FAN Min, LIANG Xiaoying, ZHOU Lele, CAI Can, YAO Jing. Study on Water Quality Evaluation and Prediction of Major Rivers in Mountainous City: A Case Study of Mianyang City[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(8): 1465-1477.
王源哲, 华春林, 赵丽, 樊敏, 梁晓盈, 周乐乐, 蔡璨, 姚婧. 山地城市主要河流水质评价及预测研究——以四川省绵阳市为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(8): 1465-1477.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.jeesci.com/EN/10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2023.08.012
断面编号 | 断面 名称 | 断面 性质 | 水环境 功能 | 断面 位置 | 河流/ 湖库名称 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 平武水文站 | 国控 | Ⅰ | 平武县 | 涪江 |
2 | 福田坝 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 江油市 | 涪江 |
3 | 丰谷 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 涪城区 | 涪江 |
4 | 百顷 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 三台县 | 涪江 |
5 | 北川通口 | 国控 | Ⅱ | 北川县 | 通口河 |
6 | 凯江老南桥 | 省控 | Ⅲ | 三台县 | 凯江 |
7 | 梓潼垢家渡 | 省控 | Ⅲ | 梓潼县 | 梓江 |
8 | 天仙镇大佛寺 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 盐亭县 | 梓江 |
9 | 安州区界牌 | 省控 | Ⅲ | 安州区 | 安昌河 |
10 | 饮马桥 | 省控 | Ⅲ | 涪城区 | 安昌河 |
11 | 芙蓉溪仙鱼桥 | 市控 | Ⅲ | 游仙区 | 芙蓉溪 |
12 | 鲁班岛 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 三台县 | 鲁班水库 |
Table 1 Main monitoring sections and water environment function standards in Mianyang City
断面编号 | 断面 名称 | 断面 性质 | 水环境 功能 | 断面 位置 | 河流/ 湖库名称 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 平武水文站 | 国控 | Ⅰ | 平武县 | 涪江 |
2 | 福田坝 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 江油市 | 涪江 |
3 | 丰谷 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 涪城区 | 涪江 |
4 | 百顷 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 三台县 | 涪江 |
5 | 北川通口 | 国控 | Ⅱ | 北川县 | 通口河 |
6 | 凯江老南桥 | 省控 | Ⅲ | 三台县 | 凯江 |
7 | 梓潼垢家渡 | 省控 | Ⅲ | 梓潼县 | 梓江 |
8 | 天仙镇大佛寺 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 盐亭县 | 梓江 |
9 | 安州区界牌 | 省控 | Ⅲ | 安州区 | 安昌河 |
10 | 饮马桥 | 省控 | Ⅲ | 涪城区 | 安昌河 |
11 | 芙蓉溪仙鱼桥 | 市控 | Ⅲ | 游仙区 | 芙蓉溪 |
12 | 鲁班岛 | 国控 | Ⅲ | 三台县 | 鲁班水库 |
水期 | 水质指标 | 最小值/(mg∙L-1) | 最大值/(mg∙L-1) | 平均值/(mg∙L-1) | 标准差 | 变异系数/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
枯水期 | DO | 8.71 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 10.22 (梓潼垢家渡) | 9.64 | 0.52 | 5.42 |
CODMn | 0.87 (平武水文站) | 4.49 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 2.48 | 1.37 | 55.10 | |
BOD5 | 0.60 (平武水文站) | 3.21 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 1.77 | 0.84 | 47.65 | |
NH3-N | 0.05 (平武水文站) | 0.74 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 0.22 | 0.19 | 88.18 | |
平水期 | DO | 7.55 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 9.76 (平武水文站) | 8.55 | 0.60 | 7.01 |
CODMn | 1.11 (平武水文站) | 4.24 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 2.40 | 1.14 | 47.69 | |
BOD5 | 0.68 (福田坝) | 2.42 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 1.40 | 0.58 | 41.33 | |
NH3-N | 0.05 (鲁班岛) | 0.62 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 0.17 | 0.17 | 94.83 | |
丰水期 | DO | 6.98 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 8.89 (平武水文站) | 7.73 | 0.67 | 8.63 |
CODMn | 1.31 (平武水文站) | 5.13 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 2.60 | 1.26 | 48.33 | |
BOD5 | 0.63 (北川通口) | 2.57 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 1.32 | 0.58 | 44.11 | |
NH3-N | 0.06 (鲁班岛) | 0.40 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 0.15 | 0.10 | 65.79 |
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of average water quality index concentration of monitoring sections in different water periods
水期 | 水质指标 | 最小值/(mg∙L-1) | 最大值/(mg∙L-1) | 平均值/(mg∙L-1) | 标准差 | 变异系数/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
枯水期 | DO | 8.71 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 10.22 (梓潼垢家渡) | 9.64 | 0.52 | 5.42 |
CODMn | 0.87 (平武水文站) | 4.49 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 2.48 | 1.37 | 55.10 | |
BOD5 | 0.60 (平武水文站) | 3.21 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 1.77 | 0.84 | 47.65 | |
NH3-N | 0.05 (平武水文站) | 0.74 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 0.22 | 0.19 | 88.18 | |
平水期 | DO | 7.55 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 9.76 (平武水文站) | 8.55 | 0.60 | 7.01 |
CODMn | 1.11 (平武水文站) | 4.24 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 2.40 | 1.14 | 47.69 | |
BOD5 | 0.68 (福田坝) | 2.42 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 1.40 | 0.58 | 41.33 | |
NH3-N | 0.05 (鲁班岛) | 0.62 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 0.17 | 0.17 | 94.83 | |
丰水期 | DO | 6.98 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 8.89 (平武水文站) | 7.73 | 0.67 | 8.63 |
CODMn | 1.31 (平武水文站) | 5.13 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 2.60 | 1.26 | 48.33 | |
BOD5 | 0.63 (北川通口) | 2.57 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 1.32 | 0.58 | 44.11 | |
NH3-N | 0.06 (鲁班岛) | 0.40 (芙蓉溪仙鱼桥) | 0.15 | 0.10 | 65.79 |
指标 | 枯水期 | 平水期 | 丰水期 |
---|---|---|---|
DO | 0.226 | 0.252 | 0.242 |
CODMn | 0.234 | 0.255 | 0.252 |
BOD5 | 0.260 | 0.269 | 0.271 |
NH3-N | 0.280 | 0.224 | 0.234 |
Table 3 Pollution index weight normalization results of water periods in the monitoring section from 2014 to 2022
指标 | 枯水期 | 平水期 | 丰水期 |
---|---|---|---|
DO | 0.226 | 0.252 | 0.242 |
CODMn | 0.234 | 0.255 | 0.252 |
BOD5 | 0.260 | 0.269 | 0.271 |
NH3-N | 0.280 | 0.224 | 0.234 |
对象 | 年份 | 平武 水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江 老南桥 | 梓潼 垢家渡 | 天仙镇 大佛寺 | 安州区 界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪 仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 | 达标断面占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年平均值 | 2014 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 |
2015 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2016 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2017 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2018 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2019 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2020 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2021 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2022 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
Table 4 Water quality levels of each monitored section from 2014 to 2022
对象 | 年份 | 平武 水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江 老南桥 | 梓潼 垢家渡 | 天仙镇 大佛寺 | 安州区 界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪 仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 | 达标断面占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年平均值 | 2014 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 |
2015 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2016 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2017 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2018 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2019 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2020 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2021 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2022 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
时期 | 年份 | 平武 水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江 老南桥 | 梓潼 垢家渡 | 天仙镇 大佛寺 | 安州区 界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪 仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 | 达标断面占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
枯水期 | 2014 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 |
2015 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅳ | Ⅰ | 92 | |
2016 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 92 | |
2017 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2018 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2019 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2020 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2021 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2022 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
Table 5 Water quality levels of each monitored section during the low water period from 2014 to 2022
时期 | 年份 | 平武 水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江 老南桥 | 梓潼 垢家渡 | 天仙镇 大佛寺 | 安州区 界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪 仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 | 达标断面占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
枯水期 | 2014 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 |
2015 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅳ | Ⅰ | 92 | |
2016 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 92 | |
2017 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2018 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2019 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2020 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2021 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2022 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
时期 | 年份 | 平武 水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江 老南桥 | 梓潼 垢家渡 | 天仙镇 大佛寺 | 安州区 界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪 仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 | 达标断面占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
平水期 | 2014 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
2015 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2016 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2017 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2018 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2019 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2020 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2021 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2022 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
Table 6 Water quality levels of each monitored section during the normal water period from 2014 to 2022
时期 | 年份 | 平武 水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江 老南桥 | 梓潼 垢家渡 | 天仙镇 大佛寺 | 安州区 界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪 仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 | 达标断面占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
平水期 | 2014 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
2015 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2016 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2017 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2018 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2019 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2020 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2021 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2022 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
时期 | 年份 | 平武 水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江 老南桥 | 梓潼 垢家渡 | 天仙镇 大佛寺 | 安州区 界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪 仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 | 达标断面占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
丰水期 | 2014 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 |
2015 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2016 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2017 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2018 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2019 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2020 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2021 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2022 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
Table 7 Water quality levels of each monitored section during the high water period from 2014 to 2022
时期 | 年份 | 平武 水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江 老南桥 | 梓潼 垢家渡 | 天仙镇 大佛寺 | 安州区 界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪 仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 | 达标断面占比/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
丰水期 | 2014 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 |
2015 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2016 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2017 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2018 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2019 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2020 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2021 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 | |
2022 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | 100 |
水期 | 水质指标 | DO | CODMn | BOD5 | NH3-N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
枯水期 | DO | 1 | |||
CODMn | -0.008 | 1 | |||
BOD5 | -0.097 | 0.950** | 1 | ||
NH3-N | -0.661* 1) | 0.412 | 0.544 | 1 | |
平水期 | DO | 1 | |||
CODMn | -0.587* | 1 | |||
BOD5 | -0.595* | 0.880** | 1 | ||
NH3-N | -0.585* | 0.373 | 0.509 | 1 | |
丰水期 | DO | 1 | |||
CODMn | -0.788** 2) | 1 | |||
BOD5 | -0.756** | 0.909** | 1 | ||
NH3-N | -0.487 | 0.458 | 0.627* | 1 |
Table 8 Correlation coefficients of water quality indexes in different water periods from 2014 to 2022
水期 | 水质指标 | DO | CODMn | BOD5 | NH3-N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
枯水期 | DO | 1 | |||
CODMn | -0.008 | 1 | |||
BOD5 | -0.097 | 0.950** | 1 | ||
NH3-N | -0.661* 1) | 0.412 | 0.544 | 1 | |
平水期 | DO | 1 | |||
CODMn | -0.587* | 1 | |||
BOD5 | -0.595* | 0.880** | 1 | ||
NH3-N | -0.585* | 0.373 | 0.509 | 1 | |
丰水期 | DO | 1 | |||
CODMn | -0.788** 2) | 1 | |||
BOD5 | -0.756** | 0.909** | 1 | ||
NH3-N | -0.487 | 0.458 | 0.627* | 1 |
站点 | 平武水文站 | 芙蓉溪仙鱼桥 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年份 | F1 | F2 | F | 排序 | F1 | F2 | F | 排序 | |
2014 | 0.092 | 0.809 | 0.396 | 2 | 3.920 | -3.589 | 1.833 | 2 | |
2015 | 0.085 | 0.797 | 0.387 | 4 | 3.837 | -2.643 | 2.035 | 1 | |
2016 | 0.107 | 0.867 | 0.429 | 1 | 3.731 | -3.411 | 1.745 | 3 | |
2017 | 0.081 | 0.794 | 0.383 | 5 | 3.601 | -3.656 | 1.584 | 4 | |
2018 | 0.108 | 0.640 | 0.333 | 6 | 3.470 | -3.335 | 1.578 | 5 | |
2019 | 0.056 | 0.853 | 0.393 | 3 | 3.127 | -2.756 | 1.491 | 6 | |
2020 | 0.049 | 0.581 | 0.275 | 8 | 2.671 | -2.894 | 1.124 | 9 | |
2021 | 0.064 | 0.675 | 0.323 | 7 | 3.006 | -2.944 | 1.352 | 8 | |
2022 | 0.071 | 0.323 | 0.178 | 9 | 3.142 | -3.145 | 1.394 | 7 |
Table 9 Principal component scores and ranking results of water quality in monitored sections from 2014 to 2022
站点 | 平武水文站 | 芙蓉溪仙鱼桥 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年份 | F1 | F2 | F | 排序 | F1 | F2 | F | 排序 | |
2014 | 0.092 | 0.809 | 0.396 | 2 | 3.920 | -3.589 | 1.833 | 2 | |
2015 | 0.085 | 0.797 | 0.387 | 4 | 3.837 | -2.643 | 2.035 | 1 | |
2016 | 0.107 | 0.867 | 0.429 | 1 | 3.731 | -3.411 | 1.745 | 3 | |
2017 | 0.081 | 0.794 | 0.383 | 5 | 3.601 | -3.656 | 1.584 | 4 | |
2018 | 0.108 | 0.640 | 0.333 | 6 | 3.470 | -3.335 | 1.578 | 5 | |
2019 | 0.056 | 0.853 | 0.393 | 3 | 3.127 | -2.756 | 1.491 | 6 | |
2020 | 0.049 | 0.581 | 0.275 | 8 | 2.671 | -2.894 | 1.124 | 9 | |
2021 | 0.064 | 0.675 | 0.323 | 7 | 3.006 | -2.944 | 1.352 | 8 | |
2022 | 0.071 | 0.323 | 0.178 | 9 | 3.142 | -3.145 | 1.394 | 7 |
评价因子 | 水质指标 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
DO | CODMn | BOD5 | NH3-N | |
r | 0.821 | 0.760 | 0.760 | 0.729 |
MSE | 0.034 | 0.030 | 0.042 | 0.034 |
迭代次数 | 9 | 14 | 11 | 10 |
Table 10 Correlation coefficient and mean square error predicted by NARX neural network model
评价因子 | 水质指标 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
DO | CODMn | BOD5 | NH3-N | |
r | 0.821 | 0.760 | 0.760 | 0.729 |
MSE | 0.034 | 0.030 | 0.042 | 0.034 |
迭代次数 | 9 | 14 | 11 | 10 |
监测断面 | 年份 | F1 | F2 | F | 排序 | 年份 | F1 | F2 | F | 排序 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
平武水文站 | 2025 | 0.622 | -0.563 | 0.358 | 12 | 2030 | 1.629 | 0.542 | 1.224 | 7 |
福田坝 | 0.894 | -0.680 | 0.543 | 10 | 0.980 | 0.419 | 0.771 | 12 | ||
丰谷 | 1.399 | -0.758 | 0.918 | 7 | 1.040 | 0.345 | 0.781 | 11 | ||
百顷 | 1.415 | -1.129 | 0.848 | 8 | 1.752 | 0.685 | 1.354 | 6 | ||
北川通口 | 0.688 | -0.585 | 0.404 | 11 | 1.745 | 0.740 | 1.370 | 5 | ||
凯江老南桥 | 2.665 | -2.499 | 1.513 | 3 | 1.327 | 0.775 | 1.121 | 8 | ||
梓潼垢家渡 | 2.880 | -2.821 | 1.608 | 2 | 1.474 | 0.453 | 1.094 | 10 | ||
天仙镇大佛寺 | 2.527 | -2.460 | 1.415 | 4 | 2.481 | 0.905 | 1.893 | 3 | ||
安州区界牌 | 1.117 | -0.913 | 0.665 | 9 | 2.159 | 0.791 | 1.649 | 4 | ||
饮马桥 | 2.268 | -1.904 | 1.338 | 5 | 1.089 | 1.109 | 1.096 | 9 | ||
芙蓉溪仙鱼桥 | 3.391 | -2.434 | 2.092 | 1 | 4.722 | 1.407 | 3.485 | 1 | ||
鲁班岛 | 1.892 | -1.798 | 1.069 | 6 | 2.760 | 0.857 | 2.050 | 2 |
Table 11 Average principal component scores and ranking results of water quality in each monitored section in 2025 and 2030
监测断面 | 年份 | F1 | F2 | F | 排序 | 年份 | F1 | F2 | F | 排序 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
平武水文站 | 2025 | 0.622 | -0.563 | 0.358 | 12 | 2030 | 1.629 | 0.542 | 1.224 | 7 |
福田坝 | 0.894 | -0.680 | 0.543 | 10 | 0.980 | 0.419 | 0.771 | 12 | ||
丰谷 | 1.399 | -0.758 | 0.918 | 7 | 1.040 | 0.345 | 0.781 | 11 | ||
百顷 | 1.415 | -1.129 | 0.848 | 8 | 1.752 | 0.685 | 1.354 | 6 | ||
北川通口 | 0.688 | -0.585 | 0.404 | 11 | 1.745 | 0.740 | 1.370 | 5 | ||
凯江老南桥 | 2.665 | -2.499 | 1.513 | 3 | 1.327 | 0.775 | 1.121 | 8 | ||
梓潼垢家渡 | 2.880 | -2.821 | 1.608 | 2 | 1.474 | 0.453 | 1.094 | 10 | ||
天仙镇大佛寺 | 2.527 | -2.460 | 1.415 | 4 | 2.481 | 0.905 | 1.893 | 3 | ||
安州区界牌 | 1.117 | -0.913 | 0.665 | 9 | 2.159 | 0.791 | 1.649 | 4 | ||
饮马桥 | 2.268 | -1.904 | 1.338 | 5 | 1.089 | 1.109 | 1.096 | 9 | ||
芙蓉溪仙鱼桥 | 3.391 | -2.434 | 2.092 | 1 | 4.722 | 1.407 | 3.485 | 1 | ||
鲁班岛 | 1.892 | -1.798 | 1.069 | 6 | 2.760 | 0.857 | 2.050 | 2 |
年份 | 平武水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江老南桥 | 梓潼垢家渡 | 天仙镇大佛寺 | 安州区界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2023 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2024 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2025 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ |
2026 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2027 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2028 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2029 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2030 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ |
Table 12 Water quality evaluation results of monitored sections during 2023-2030
年份 | 平武水文站 | 福田坝 | 丰谷 | 百顷 | 北川通口 | 凯江老南桥 | 梓潼垢家渡 | 天仙镇大佛寺 | 安州区界牌 | 饮马桥 | 芙蓉溪仙鱼桥 | 鲁班岛 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2023 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2024 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2025 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ |
2026 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2027 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2028 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2029 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ |
2030 | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅰ | Ⅰ | Ⅲ | Ⅰ |
[1] |
AYODELE B V, MUSTAPA S I, MOHAMMAD N, et al., 2021. Long-term energy demand in Malaysia as a function of energy supply: A comparative analysis of non-linear autoregressive exogenous neural networks and multiple non-linear regression models[J]. Energy Strategy Reviews, 38: 100750.
DOI URL |
[2] |
FABIO D N, MARCO R, FRANCESCO G, 2022. A nonlinear autoregressive exogenous (NARX) model to predict nitrate concentration in rivers[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(27): 40623-40642.
DOI PMID |
[3] | FAN C, WANG W S, LIU K F R, et al., 2012. Sensitivity analysis and water quality modeling of a tidal river using a modified Streeter-Phelps equation with HEC-RAS-calculated hydraulic characteristics[J]. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 17(6): 639-651. |
[4] |
JI X L, DAHLGREN R A, ZHANG M H, 2016. Comparison of seven water quality assessment methods for the characterization and management of highly impaired river systems[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188(1): 15.
DOI PMID |
[5] |
MAIER H R, JAIN A, DANDY G C, et al., 2010. Methods used for the development of neural networks for the prediction of water resource variables in river systems: Current status and future directions[J]. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25(8): 891-909.
DOI URL |
[6] |
NOORI R, YEH H D, ABBASI M, et al., 2015. Uncertainty analysis of support vector machine for online prediction of five-day biochemical oxygen demand[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 527(6): 833-843.
DOI URL |
[7] |
OUYANG L L, SHI Y R, YANG J Q, et al., 2022. Water quality assessment and pollution source analysis of Yaojiang River Basin: A case study of inland rivers in Yuyao City, China[J]. Water Supply, 22(1): 674-685.
DOI URL |
[8] |
QIAO J F, HU Z Q, LI W J, 2016. Soft measurement modeling based on chaos theory for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)[J]. Water, 8(12): 581.
DOI URL |
[9] |
RANI D, MOREIRA M M, 2010. Simulation-optimization modeling: a survey and potential application in reservoir systems operation[J]. Water Resources Management, 24(6): 1107-1138.
DOI URL |
[10] |
SALAMI E S, EHTESHAMI M, 2015. Simulation, evaluation and prediction modeling of river water quality properties (case study: Ireland Rivers)[J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12(10): 3235-3242.
DOI URL |
[11] | VAPNIK V, CORTES C, 1995. Support vector networks[J]. Machine Learning, 20(3): 273-297. |
[12] |
ZALDIVAR J M, GUTIERREZ E, GALVAN M, et al., 2000. Forecasting high waters at Venice Lagoon using chaotic time series analysis and nonlinear neural networks[J]. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 2(1): 61-84.
DOI URL |
[13] |
ZHAO S Y, CHEN J, JIN Q, et al., 2020. Improved principal component-fuzzy comprehensive assessment coupling model for urban river water quality: A case study in Chongqing, China[J]. Water, 12(5): 1375.
DOI URL |
[14] |
ZHENG Y H, ZHANG W J, XIE J J, et al., 2022. A water consumption forecasting model by using a nonlinear autoregressive network with exogenous inputs based on rough attributes[J]. Water, 14(3): 329.
DOI URL |
[15] | 包志家, 李奇, 2021. 基于MATLAB神经网络工具箱的BP神经网络的应用研究[J]. 信息与电脑 (理论版), 33(2): 181-183. |
BAO Z J, LI Q, 2021. Application research of BP neural network based on MATLAB neural network toolbox[J]. Information and Computer (Theoretical Edition), 33(2): 181-183. | |
[16] | 蔡广强, 张金松, 刘彤宙, 等, 2018. 基于主成分分析的中国南方某市水库水质评价[J]. 环境科学与技术, 41(S2): 88-94. |
CAI G Q, ZHANG J S, LIU T Z, et al., 2018. Water quality assessment of a city reservoir in Southern China based on principal component analysis[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(S2): 88-94.
DOI URL |
|
[17] | 陈润羊, 涂安国, 2008. 长江流域水质评价与预测[J]. 环境科学与技术, 31(12): 169-173, 178. |
CHEN R Y, TU A G, 2008. Evaluation and prediction of water quality in the Yangtze River Basin[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 31(12): 169-173, 178. | |
[18] | 戴本林, 杨立中, 贺玉龙, 等, 2008. 四川省涪江支流安昌河水环境容量的研究[J]. 土壤通报, 232(1): 206-208. |
DAI B L, YANG L Z, HE Y L, et al., 2008. Study on water environmental capacity of Anchang River, a tributary of Fujiang River, Sichuan Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 232(1): 206-208. | |
[19] |
杜建, 陈晓宏, 陈栋为, 等, 2012. 水文变异下东江流域枯水径流风险率分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 21(3): 496-502.
DOI |
DU J, CHEN X H, CHEN D W, et al., 2012. Analysis on low flow risk of runoff in the East River Basin under the hydrological aberrance[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 21(3): 496-502. | |
[20] | 杜军凯, 傅尧, 李晓星, 2015. 模糊-主成分分析综合评价法在地下水水质评价中的应用[J]. 中国环境监测, 31(4): 75-81. |
DU J K, FU Y, LI X X, 2015. Application of fuzzy principal component analysis comprehensive evaluation method in groundwater quality evaluation[J]. Environmental Monitoring in China, 31(4): 75-81. | |
[21] | 伏介雄, 张信宝, 严冬春, 2008. 宜宾附近金沙江、岷江和长江TP、BOD5和CODMn含量的季节性变化[J]. 地球与环境, 36(4): 336-341. |
FU J X, ZHANG X B, YAN D C, 2008. Seasonal variation of TP, BOD5 and CODMn contents in Jinsha River, Minjiang River and Yangtze River near Yibin[J]. Earth and Environment, 36(4): 336-341. | |
[22] | 国家环境保护总局, 2002. 地表水环境质量标准: GB 3838—2002[S]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社. |
State Environmental Protection Administration, 2002. Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water: GB 3838—2002[S]. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press. | |
[23] | 高红杰, 郑利杰, 嵇晓燕, 等, 2017. 典型城市地表水质综合评价方法研究[J]. 中国环境监测, 33(2): 55-60. |
GAO H J, ZHENG L J, JI X Y, et al., 2017. Study on comprehensive evaluation method of surface water quality in typical cities[J]. Environmental Monitoring in China, 33(2): 55-60. | |
[24] | 何子建, 刘瑞芬, 辛小康, 2022. 近十年长江干流宜昌城区段水质变化分析[J]. 水电能源科学, 40(12): 112-115. |
HE Z J, LIU R F, XIN X K, 2022. Analysis of water quality change in Yichang Section of Yangtze River in recent ten years[J]. Water Resources and Power, 40(12): 112-115. | |
[25] | 胡开明, 范恩卓, 2015. 西太湖区域水环境容量分配及水质可控目标研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 24(8): 1373-1380. |
HU K M, FAN E Z, 2015. Study on allocation of water environmental capacities and water quality controllable target in West Taihu Basin[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 24(8): 1373-1380. | |
[26] | 靳会姣, 黄娟, 黄川友, 等, 2014. 尼洋河流域水环境质量现状评价研究——基于模糊综合评价法[J]. 四川环境, 33(3): 120-126. |
JIN H J, HUANG J, HUANG C Y, et al., 2014. Evaluation of water environment quality in Niyang River Basin based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Sichuan Environment, 33(3): 120-126. | |
[27] | 李婧, 唐敏, 梁亦欣, 2020. 2015-2018年河南省辖海河流域水质改善效果评价[J]. 环境工程, 38(5): 60-64, 190. |
LI J, TANG M, LIANG Y X, 2019. Evaluation of water quality improvement in Haihe River Basin, Henan Province from 2015 to 2018[J]. Environmental Engineering, 38(5): 60-64, 190. | |
[28] | 刘晓, 刘海涵, 王丽婧, 等, 2018. 三峡库区EFDC模型集成与应用[J]. 环境科学研究, 31(2): 283-294. |
LIU X, LIU H H, WANG L J, et al., 2018. Integration and application of EFDC model in Three Gorges Reservoir area[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences, 31(2): 283-294. | |
[29] | 马乐宽, 王金南, 王东, 2013. 国家水污染防治 “十二五” 战略与政策框架[J]. 中国环境科学, 33(2): 377-383. |
MA L K, WANG J N, WANG D, 2013. National “12th Five-Year Plan” strategy and policy framework for water pollution control[J]. China Environmental Science, 33(2): 377-383. | |
[30] | 沈淞涛, 2005. 安昌河流域绵阳市涪城区段水污染物总量控制研究[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学. |
SHEN S T, 2005. Study on total water pollutant control in Fucheng Section, Mianyang City, Anchang River Basin[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University. | |
[31] | 宋新山, 2008. MATLAB在环境科学中的应用[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社. |
SONG X S, 2008. Application of MATLAB in environmental science[M]. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press. | |
[32] | 宋晓霄, 闫浩文, 田秉晖, 等, 2012. 海河流域污染状况与常规污染指标数据分析[J]. 南水北调与水利科技, 10(1): 98-101. |
SONG X X, YAN H W, TIAN B H, et al., 2012. Analysis of pollution status and conventional pollution index data in Haihe River Basin[J]. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology, 10(1): 98-101. | |
[33] | 唐亦舜, 徐庆, 刘振鸿, 等, 2022. 基于优化非线性自回归神经网络模型的水质预测[J]. 东华大学学报(自然科学版), 48(3): 93-100. |
TANG Y S, XU Q, LIU Z H, et al., 2022. Water quality prediction based on optimal nonlinear autoregressive neural network model[J]. Journal of Donghua University (Natural Science Edition), 48(3): 93-100. | |
[34] | 王磊, 汪文东, 刘懂, 等, 2020. 象山港流域入湾河流水体中重金属风险评价及其来源解析[J]. 环境科学, 41(7): 3194-3203. |
WANG L, WANG W D, LIU D, et al., 2020. Risk assessment and source analysis of heavy metals in the river of a typical bay watershed[J]. Environmental Science, 41(7): 3194-3203. | |
[35] | 王丽婧, 汪星, 刘录三, 等, 2013. 洞庭湖水质因子的多元分析[J]. 环境科学研究, 26(1): 1-7. |
WANG L J, WANG X, LIU L S, et al., 2013. Multivariate analysis of water quality factors in Dongting Lake[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences, 26(1): 1-7. | |
[36] | 王守坤, 张传珂, 2013. 沭河水质模糊综合评价评价模型建立与应用[J]. 环境科学与管理, 38(2): 63-66. |
WANG S K, ZHANG C K, 2013. Establishment and application of a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for water quality in Shuhe River[J]. Environmental Science and Management, 38(2): 63-66. | |
[37] | 杨浩, 张国珍, 杨晓妮, 等, 2016. 基于模糊综合评判法的洮河水环境质量评价[J]. 环境科学与技术, 39(S1): 380-386, 392. |
YANG H, ZHANG G Z, YANG X N, et al., 2016. Environmental quality assessment of Taohe River based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 39(S1): 380-386, 392. | |
[38] | 张冉, 孙宝盛, 王永亮, 等, 2013. 黄河入海口水质评价与预测[J]. 环境工程学报, 7(8): 3089-309. |
ZHANG R, SUN B S, WANG Y L, et al., 2013. Water quality assessment and prediction of the Yellow River Estuary[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 7(8): 3089-3093. | |
[39] | 张婉萍, 樊敏, 陶伟, 等, 2022. 基于正定矩阵因子模型的大亚湾海域污染特征解析研究[J]. 海洋环境科学, 41(6): 872-880. |
ZHANG W P, FAN M, TAO W, et al., 2022. Analysis of pollution characteristics of Daya Bay based on positive definite matrix factor model[J]. Marine Environmental Science, 41(6): 872-880. | |
[40] | 张野, 李爽, 付婉霞, 等, 2012. 某城市淮河水CODMn、BOD5与CODCr的相关性分析[J]. 给水排水, 48(S1): 124-127. |
ZHANG Y, LI S, FU W X, et al., 2012. Correlation analysis of CODMn, BOD5 and CODCr in Huaihe River Water[J]. Water & Wastewater Engineering, 48(S1): 124-127. | |
[41] | 朱琳, 王雅南, 韩美, 等, 2018. 武水河水质时空分布特征及污染成因的解析[J]. 环境科学学报, 38(6): 2150-2156. |
[1] | CHEN Minyi, ZHU Hanghai, SHE Weiduo, YIN Guangcai, HUANG Zuzhao, YANG Qiaoling. Health Risk Assessment and Source Apportionment of Soil Heavy Metals at A Legacy Shipyard Site in Pearl River Delta [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(4): 794-804. |
[2] | CHEN Jinfeng, YU Shiqin, FU Jiafang, XU Guoliang, YU Bo, LAI Xiaoqun, HU Siyuan, ZHANG Kaiqu, LIU Jiahua. Soil Quality Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Different Land Use in the Red Bed Landform Region of South China: Taking Nanxiong Basin as An Example [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(5): 918-930. |
[3] | CHEN Shuangshuang, ZHU Ninghua, ZHOU Guangyi, YUAN Xingming, SHANG Hai, WANG Yixuan. Vegetation and Soil Physical Characteristics of Artificial Arbor Forests under Different Grades of Rocky Desertification [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(1): 52-61. |
[4] | ZHAO Li, GUO Chunyan, ZHANG Wenjun, WANG Xiaojiang, LIU Pingsheng. Community Characteristics and Their Correlation Analysis of Typical Natural Forest in Zhalantun [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(7): 1353-1359. |
[5] | SUN Wentai, MA Ming, DONG Tie, NIU Junqiang, YIN Xiaoning, LIU Xinglu. Response of Fine Root Distribution and Hydraulic Characteristics of Apple to Long-term Plastic Mulching in Dryland of Northwest China [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(7): 1375-1385. |
[6] | ZHANG Peng, LIU Wei, WANG Tiegan, ZHONG Chenhui, TAO Yueliang. Impacts of Short-term Inorganic Arsenic Stress on Oxidative Damage, Antioxidant Enzymes and Antioxidant in Germlings of Sargassum horneri [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(5): 1034-1041. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2021 Editorial Office of ACTA PETROLEI SINICA
Address:No. 6 Liupukang Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, P.R.China, 510650
Tel: 86-010-62067128, 86-010-62067137, 86-010-62067139
Fax: 86-10-62067130
Email: syxb@cnpc.com.cn
Support byBeijing Magtech Co.ltd, E-mail:support@magtech.com.cn