首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

不同评价方法对水库水质评价的适应性
作者姓名:花瑞祥  张永勇.  刘威  杨逸航
作者单位:1. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所陆地水循环及地表过程重点实验室,北京100101; 中国科学院大学北京100049;2. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所陆地水循环及地表过程重点实验室,北京,100101;3. 珠江水资源保护科学研究所,广州,510610;4. 河海大学水利水电学院,南京,210098
基金项目:国家自然科学基金面上项目(41271005); 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所秉维优秀青年人才计划(2015RC201);中国科学院青年创新促进会(2014041)
摘    要:目前水体水质评价方法众多,如何筛选合适方法对水质状况进行科学评价,是环境保护中一项基础性和重要性工作。以广东省某水库2008年-2013年水质监测数据为基础,利用单因子评价法、综合污染指数法、模糊综合评判法和灰色关联分析法对水库水质进行了评价,对比分析了这四种方法评估结果的合理性以及存在的缺陷。研究表明:(1)不同方法的评价结果存在较大差异。灰色关联分析法评价的水质状况最好,模糊综合评判法的评价结果与其他方法评估结果的一致性最高。(2)不同方法受权重的影响也存在较大差异。灰色关联分析法受权重影响最小,而模糊综合评判法受权重影响最大。(3)灰色关联分析法则适用于初级使用者;模糊综合评判法适用于相关知识和经验丰富的人群;单因子评估法适用于流域最严格水资源管理;综合污染指数法仅能确定水体是否污染,但不能确定具体水质级别,可以作为一种补充方法。(4)为准确评估水体水质级别,减少权重和方法对结果的影响,建议采用多种评估方法进行综合分析。

关 键 词:水质评价  单因子评价法  综合污染指数法  模糊综合评判法  灰色关联分析法  适用性分析  水库

Adaptability analysis of multiple evaluation methods in reservoir water quality evaluation
Authors:HUA Rui-xiang  ZHANG Yong-yong  LIU Wei  YANG Yi-hang
Affiliation:1.Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Process, Beijing 100101, China; 2.University of Chinese Academic Science, Beijing 100049, China; 3.Scientific Institute of Pearl Water Resource Protection, Guangzhou 510610, China; 4. College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
Abstract:Although there are a number of water quality evaluation methods, it is a basic and scientific work to choose a suitable method for water quality evaluation. In this study, four evaluation methods (i.e., single factor evaluation, comprehensive pollution index method, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and gray relational evaluation) were used to evaluate the water quality condition of a reservoir in Guangdong province according to the monitoring data during 2008-2013. The rationality and defects of these four methods were also explored by comparing their results. The results showed that: (1) Remarkable differences existed among the results obtained by different evaluation methods. The evaluation results of gray relational analysis were the best while those of single factor evaluation method were the worst. (2) The different evaluation methods were influenced differently by weight. The gray relational analysis was least impacted while the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method was highly influenced. (3) The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is suitable for users with rich experience in determining the weight, otherwise, gray relational evaluation method is recommended. Single factor evaluation method is suitable for the most strict water resources management. Comprehensive pollution index method could only determine whether the water bodies were polluted, but could not determine the degree of water quality, so it can be used as a complementary method. (4) In order to evaluate water quality accurately, and reduce the effects of weight and method, a variety of evaluation methods are recommended.
Keywords:water quality evaluation method  single factor evaluation  comprehensive pollution index method  fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method  gray relational evaluation method  adaptability analysis  reservoir
本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录!
点击此处可从《》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《》下载全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号