| 多重水质评价方法在地下水水质评价中的对比研究—以北京市朝阳区为例 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 郭彤，张永祥，贾瑞涛.多重水质评价方法在地下水水质评价中的对比研究：以北京市朝阳区为例[J].环境工程技术学报，2022，12（6）：2020-2026 doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20210500 |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 郭彤 张永祥 贾瑞涛 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 北京工业大学城市建设学部 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家重点研发计划项目（2016YFC0401404） |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目前地下水水质评价方法众多，选择合适的评价方法对地下水的管理与利用具有重要意义。以北京市朝阳区2020年枯水期采集的地下水水样检测结果为基础，利用改进的层次分析法、单因子指数法和综合污染指数法对地下水水质进行评价，并对比3种方法评价结果的准确性以及存在的不合理之处。结果表明：1）3种方法的水质评价结果差异较大，改进的层次分析法的水质评价结果最优，单因子指数法的评价结果最差，综合污染指数法的评价结果与其他方法的一致性最高；2）在进行水质评价时可优先选择综合污染指数法，单因子指数法适用于水质要求较高或超标污染物少的水体，改进的层次分析法适用于有多种污染物超标的水体；3）为进一步确定3种方法对地下水水质评价结果的准确性，将3种方法的评价结果与可靠性分析结果进行对比，发现改进的层次分析法、单因子指数法和综合污染指数法与可靠性分析的水质评价结果相同的占比分别为90.48%、42.86%、47.62%。因此，在对地下水水质进行综合评价时，可使用改进的层次分析法。
|
| 关 键 词： | 水质评价 改进的层次分析法 单因子指数法 综合污染指数法 可靠性分析 |
| 收稿时间： | 2021-09-11 |
Comparative study of multiple water quality assessment methods in groundwater quality assessment: taking Chaoyang District of Beijing as an example |
| |
| GUO T,ZHANG Y X,JIA R T.Comparative study of multiple water quality assessment methods in groundwater quality assessment: taking Chaoyang District of Beijing as an example[J].Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology，2022，12（6）：2020-2026 doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20210500 |
| |
| Authors: | GUO Tong ZHANG Yongxiang JIA Ruitao |
| |
| Affiliation: | Faculty of Architecture, Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Technology |
| |
| Abstract: | At present groundwater quality assessment method is numerous, and the selection of the appropriate assessment method is of great significance to the management and utilization of groundwater. Based on the detection results of groundwater samples collected in Chaoyang District, Beijing during the dry season in 2020, the improved analytic hierarchy process (AHP), single factor index method and comprehensive pollution index method were used to assess the groundwater quality, and the accuracy and irrationality of the assessment results of different water quality methods were compared. The results showed that: 1) The results of different water quality assessment methods varied greatly, the improved AHP was the best, the single factor index method was the worst, and the comprehensive pollution index method had the highest consistency with other methods. 2) In water quality assessment, the comprehensive pollution index method could be preferred. The single factor index method was suitable for water with high water quality requirements or few pollutants exceeding the standard. The improved AHP was suitable for water with multiple pollutants exceeding the standard. 3) In order to further determine the accuracy of groundwater assessment by different methods, the reliability analysis of different water quality assessment methods was carried out. The improved AHP, single factor index method and comprehensive pollution index method accounted for 90.48%, 42.86% and 47.62%, respectively, of the water quality assessment results that were the same as those in the reliability analysis. Therefore, in the comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality, the improved AHP could be used. |
| |
| Keywords: | water quality assessment the improved AHP single factor index method comprehensive pollution index method reliability analysis |
|
| 点击此处可从《环境工程技术学报》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《环境工程技术学报》下载全文 |
