硅藻指数筛选及水质多指标评价体系构建

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-5485.2015.08.005

院报 ›› 2015, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (8): 26-33.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5485.2015.08.005

硅藻指数筛选及水质多指标评价体系构建

黎佛林^1,2,蔡德所^2,3,唐鑫²,易燃³

1.南昌工学院建筑工程学院,南昌 330108;
2.三峡大学水利与环境学院,湖北宜昌 443002;
3.广西大学土木建筑工程学院, 南宁 530004

收稿日期:2014-01-08 出版日期:2015-08-20 发布日期:2015-08-18
通讯作者: 蔡德所(1952-),男,湖北武汉人, 教授, 博士,研究方向为光纤传感技术和水质生物监测,(电话)18062317880 (电子信箱)caidesuo@ vip.163. com。
作者简介:黎佛林(1987-),男,江西赣州人,讲师,硕士,研究方向为大坝安全监测和水质生物监测,(电话)13755694336(电子信箱)779518158@qq.com。
通讯作者:蔡德所(1952-),男,湖北武汉人, 教授, 博士,研究方向为光纤传感技术和水质生物监测,(电话)18062317880 (电子信箱)caidesuo@ vip.163. com。
基金资助:
三峡库区生态环境教育部工程研究中心2013年度开放基金(KF2013-11)

Diatom Index Screening and Multi-index Systemto Assess Water Quality

LI Fo-lin^1,2, CAI De-suo^2,3, TANG Xin², YI Ran³

1.School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Nanchang Institute of Science and Technology, Nanchang 330108, China;
2.College of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China;
3. College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China

Received:2014-01-08 Online:2015-08-20 Published:2015-08-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了更科学地监测水质,解决水质理化分析的片面性,在柳江的不同水功能区设置实验点,以构建河水质的多指标评价体系。通过不同水功能区及不同水质等级的实验点的对应分析,认定AMIN,GOLI,DDEL,AMSA,ACLI,NAAN,NRHY等是柳江河流清洁种,菱形藻和端泥生藻是柳江耐污种。典型对应分析表明,河流水质参数是影响硅藻群落分布的主要因素,硝酸盐、氯化物、粪大肠杆菌群和总磷等是主要的变量,因子分析的结果亦表明理化参数是主要变量。研究结果表明,理化变量与硅藻指数IPS,IBD,TID,IDG,SLA的关系紧密,依据水功能区长期水质级别并参考水质参数聚类与硅藻种群聚类,划出3组水质不同的类别,IPS,IBD,CEE硅藻指数对该3组水质状况判别效果较好,而硅藻生物多样性指数不适宜评价柳江河流水质。河流水质及生态质量利用IBD和IPS生物指数、VAN类群划分富营养种百分比及理化参数多指标共同评价,可以提高评价结果的可靠度。

关键词: 柳江, 水功能区划, 附生硅藻, 硅藻指数, 水质评价

Abstract:

Experiment points were set up in Liujiang river and a multi-index system of diatom is built up in order to effectively monitor water quality and improve physicochemical analysis. According to the results of correspondence analysis in different water functional zones of different water quality, AMIN, GOLI, DDEL, AMSA, ACLI, NAAN and NRHY are classified as clean species in the Liujiang river whereas Nitzschia and Luticola are stain species. Canonical correspondence analysis shows that the river water quality parameters are the main factors affecting the distribution of diatom communities. Nitrates, chlorides, total number of Fecal coliform and total phosphorus are the main variables, and physicochemical parameters are main variables based on the results of factor analysis. The results show that physicochemical variables are closely related with diatom indices IPS,IBD,TID, IDG and SLA. According to the water quality level from long-term monitoring and the data about clustering of water quality parameters and diatoms population, they are classified into three different water quality categories. IPS, IBD and CEE work well on the evaluation of water quality of the three categories while the diatom’s bio-diversity index are unsuitable for the evaluation. Through biological indices IBD and IPS, and VAN groups to divide eutrophic species percentages and physicochemical parameters, multi-index evaluation can be used to evaluate the quality of river water and ecological quality in order to improve the reliability of the evaluation.

Key words: Liujiang river, water function zoning, epiphytic diatom, diatom indices, water quality assessment

中图分类号:

X826
Q938.8

黎佛林,蔡德所,唐鑫,易燃. 硅藻指数筛选及水质多指标评价体系构建[J]. 院报, 2015, 32(8): 26-33.

LI Fo-lin, CAI De-suo, TANG Xin, YI Ran. Diatom Index Screening and Multi-index Systemto Assess Water Quality[J]. JOURNAL OF YANGTZE RIVER SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTI, 2015, 32(8): 26-33.

[1]	税永红, 卢永洪, 罗靖, 罗永军, 毛红梅, 彭黎帆. 冬春交替期沱江流域水质评价及差异分析[J]. 院报, 2022, 39(4): 56-62.
[2]	赖文哲, 毛志勇, 岳立柱, 汤家喜. 基于熵权-偏序集的水质评价方法[J]. 院报, 2021, 38(3): 32-38.
[3]	冯国平, 高宗军, 蔡五田, 吕永高, 郭林. 豫北山前修武地区地下水水化学特征及水质评价[J]. 院报, 2021, 38(1): 27-34.
[4]	冯建国, 季德帅, 高宗军, 杨丽芝, 朱恒华, 刘治政. 山东淄博大武水源地地下水水化学特征及水质评价[J]. 院报, 2020, 37(9): 18-23.
[5]	钱声源, 张乾坤, 陈从建, 杨国平. 焦作地区地下水水化学特征分析及水质评价[J]. 院报, 2020, 37(4): 30-36.
[6]	褚一凡,赵闪闪,李杲光,靳同霞,马剑敏. 陈桥东湖浮游生物群落结构特征及水质评价[J]. 院报, 2019, 36(8): 23-29.
[7]	张世旭, 王中美, 代天豪. 毕节地区岩溶地下水水化学特征与水质评价[J]. 院报, 2019, 36(5): 28-33,41.
[8]	陈进, 刘志明. 近年来长江水功能区水质达标情况分析[J]. 院报, 2019, 36(1): 1-6.
[9]	刚什婷, 贾涛, 邓英尔, 刘伟坡, 彭鑫. 基于熵权法的集对分析模型在蛤蟆通流域地下水水质评价中的应用[J]. 院报, 2018, 35(9): 23-27.
[10]	陈丽华,喻记新,李丽,吕文强,张建利. 基于TLI和PCA的贵州草海水质状况评价[J]. 院报, 2018, 35(8): 40-45.
[11]	张德彬, 刘国东, 王亮, 钟瑞. 基于博弈论组合赋权的TOPSIS模型在地下水水质评价中的应用[J]. 院报, 2018, 35(7): 46-50.
[12]	闫滨, 黄万霞, 刘羽婷. 考虑时间维度的灰水足迹核算与评价——以浑河大伙房水库上游段为例[J]. 院报, 2018, 35(7): 40-45.
[13]	黄瑞, 韩龙喜, 张防修. 强降雨过程中入库面源污染对库区水质的影响[J]. 院报, 2018, 35(5): 12-16.
[14]	叶章蕊，卢毅敏. 组合权重模糊联系度模型在水质评价中的应用[J]. 院报, 2016, 33(9): 33-39.
[15]	李鹏程，韩春，王月敏，王甲荣. 改进的RAGA-PPC模型及其在河流健康评价中的应用[J]. 院报, 2016, 33(9): 18-22.

硅藻指数筛选及水质多指标评价体系构建

Diatom Index Screening and Multi-index Systemto Assess Water Quality

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价