Spatial distribution and source analysis of pollutants in Daliao River Basin based on control unit division
-
摘要:
为明确大辽河流域污染物特征及污染物来源，建立“流域—控制单元—行政区”空间拓扑关系，对2019年大辽河流域国控断面水质情况、各控制单元内污染物入河量及空间分布特征进行分析。结果表明：1）大辽河流域28个水质监测断面中，逐月水质均能达到《水污染防治行动计划》中考核目标的占29%，超标污染物以COD、NH3-N为主，超标断面中，COD、NH3-N主要来源为城镇生活源、农村生活源和分散式畜禽养殖，TP主要来源于不同土地利用类型污染源和城镇生活源；2）2019年COD、NH3-N、TN、TP污染物入河量分别为59 195.5、3 115.5、18 229.7、538.3 t/a，从污染源贡献上看，总体呈现为城镇生活源>农村生活源>分散式畜禽养殖污染源>不同土地利用类型（含林地、草地、耕地、城镇用地）污染源>工业源>规模化畜禽养殖污染源；3）污染物入河量空间分布均呈现中部>西南部>东北部，其中控制单元C3、C6、C8、C11、C13、C15、C17是重点管控单元，以上重点管控单元中，COD、NH3-N、TN、TP污染物入河量贡献率分别为68%、73%、77%、72%；4）污染物入河量估算结果与通量模拟值之间误差均小于20%，可用于研究区范围内污染负荷估算。
Abstract:In order to better understand the characteristics and sources of pollutants in Daliao River Basin, the spatial topological relationship of "Watershed-Control unit-Administrative district" was established, the water quality of the state-controlled sections of Daliao River Basin, the amount of pollutants into the river in every control unit, and the spatial distribution characteristics in 2019 were analyzed. The results indicated that: 1) Among 28 water quality monitoring sections in Daliao River Basin, 29% of the monthly water quality could reach the targets of the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution. COD and NH3-N were the main pollutants that exceeded the standard. In the section exceeding the standard, the main sources of COD and NH3-N were urban life sources, rural life sources and decentralized livestock and poultry breeding, while TP mainly came from pollution sources of different land use types and urban life sources. 2) The amount of COD, NH3-N, TN, and TP pollutants into the river was 59 195.5, 3115.5, 18 229.7, and 538.3 t/a, respectively. The contribution rate in descending order was urban living source, rural living source, decentralized livestock and poultry breeding source, source of various landuse types (including woodland, grassland, farmland, urban land), industrial source, large-scale livestock and poultry breeding source. 3) The spatial distribution of the inflowing amount of pollutants into the river in descending order was central, southwest, and northeast, with C3, C6, C8, C11, C13, C15, C17 being the key control units. In the above key control units, the contribution rates of COD, NH3-N, TN, and TP into the river were 68%, 73%, 77%, and 72%, respectively. 4) The error between the estimation result of the inflowing amount of pollutant into the river and the flux simulation value were all less than 20%. The methods should be suitable for the estimation of pollution load in the study area.
-
图 2 2019年大辽河流域污染物入河量空间分布
Figure 2. Spatial distribution map of pollutant inflow into Daliao River Basin in 2019
图 3 2019年大辽河流域不同控制单元污染源结构
Figure 3. Pollution source structure of different control units in Daliao River Basin in 2019
图 4 2019年大辽河流域各控制单元不同污染源对COD、NH3-N、TP入河量贡献率
Figure 4. Contribution rate of different pollution sources to COD, NH3-N, TP inflow of each control unit in Daliao River Basin in 2019
表 1 大辽河流域县级行政区所在控制单元
Table 1. Control unit of county-level administrative region in Daliao River Basin
控制单元 包含县级行政区 控制单元 包含县级行政区 C1 营口市站前区、老边区、西市区、大石桥市（部分） C14 抚顺市抚顺县（部分） C2 盘锦市大洼区（部分）、兴隆台区（部分） C15 沈阳市大东区、沈河区、浑南区 C3 营口市大石桥市（部分），鞍山市海城市、千山区 C16 抚顺市新宾满族自治县（部分） C4 本溪市平山区、南芬区 C17 抚顺市新抚区、顺城区、望花区 C5 辽阳市辽阳县（部分）、弓长岭区 C18 抚顺市东洲区 C6 辽阳市辽阳县（部分）、宏伟区、白塔区、太子河区、文圣区，鞍山市铁西区、铁东区、立山区 C19 沈阳市沈北新区 C7 本溪市明山区 C20 抚顺市清原满族自治县（部分） C8 辽阳市灯塔市（部分），沈阳市苏家屯区（部分），本溪市溪湖区 C21 本溪市本溪满族自治县（部分） C9 本溪市本溪满族自治县（部分） C22 抚顺市新宾满族自治县（部分） C10 鞍山市台安县 C23 沈阳市辽中区（部分） C11 沈阳市于洪区（部分）、苏家屯区（部分）、铁西区、和平区，辽阳市灯塔市（部分） C24 抚顺市抚顺县（部分） C12 沈阳市辽中区（部分） C25 盘锦市盘山县（部分） C13 沈阳市于洪区（部分）、皇姑区 C26 沈阳市新民市（部分） 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 大辽河流域输出系数
Table 2. Daliao River Basin output coefficient
污染物 污染源类型 不同土地利用类型/
〔t/（km2·a）〕农村生活/〔kg/（人·a）〕 畜禽/
〔kg/（头·a）〕水田 旱地 林地 草地 城镇用地 奶牛 肉牛 生猪 蛋鸡 肉鸡 COD 2 1.8 1.12 0.8 1.45 18.25 149.362 2 99.282 3 8.156 3 1.953 7 0.175 7 NH3-N 0.167 0.188 0.052 0.007 0.116 1.06 0.963 6 0.805 2 0.097 0 0.015 9 0.000 9 TN 0.74 2.9 0.238 1 1.1 2.14 10.201 8 4.599 5 0.640 4 0.140 9 0.008 8 TP 0.1 0.04 0.015 0.018 0.024 0.03 1.127 2 0.282 6 0.096 0 0.009 2 0.002 6
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 点源入河距离修正系数取值
Table 3. Coefficient from point source inflow into river
距离/km 入河系数参考值( d ) 1 1 1~10 0.9 10~20 0.8 20~30 0.7 ≥40 0.6
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 数据来源及说明
Table 4. Data sources and description
数据类型 描述 来源 DEM数据 精度为30 m，用于确定流域边界 地理空间数据云 水质数据 国控断面污染物浓度 生态环境部综合业务门户( http://10.100.249.24 )土地利用 精度为1 km的土地利用类型数据 中国科学院资源环境科学与数据中心 ( https://www.resdc.cn )社会经济数据 人口、畜禽数量 各地市统计年鉴 水文数据 2015—2018年唐马寨、邢家窝棚、海城站流量数据 辽河流域水文年鉴
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 2019年大辽河流域国控断面逐月水质评价结果
Table 5. Results of monthly water quality evaluation of state-controlled sections in Daliao River Basin in 2019
国控断
面编号断面名称 断面水
质目标COD NH3-N TP 断面水质
评价结果是否
达标月超标
率/%水质类别 最大超标倍数 水质类别 最大超标倍数 水质类别 最大超标倍数 S1 辽河公园 Ⅳ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0.33 Ⅳ Ⅴ 否 11 S2 三岔河 Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 0.20 劣Ⅴ 1.01 Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 否 25 S3 小姐庙 Ⅴ Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 0.14 Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 否 10 S4 刘家台 Ⅴ Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 0.23 Ⅳ 劣Ⅴ 否 17 S5 下口子 Ⅳ Ⅴ 0.20 Ⅴ 0.23 Ⅲ Ⅴ 否 20 S6 下王家 Ⅳ Ⅳ Ⅳ Ⅲ Ⅳ 是 0 S7 葠窝坝下 Ⅳ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅱ Ⅳ 是 0 S8 兴安 Ⅳ Ⅳ Ⅴ 0.17 Ⅱ Ⅴ 否 9 S9 老官砬子 Ⅱ Ⅲ 0.20 Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅲ 否 9 S10 于家房 Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 0.15 劣Ⅴ 1.44 劣Ⅴ 1.23 劣Ⅴ 否 55 S11 砂山 Ⅳ Ⅳ Ⅲ Ⅱ Ⅳ 是 0 S12 东陵大桥 Ⅳ Ⅲ 劣Ⅴ 1.94 Ⅲ 劣Ⅴ 否 14 S13 戈布桥 Ⅳ Ⅴ 0.13 劣Ⅴ 1.05 Ⅳ 劣Ⅴ 否 20 S14 大伙房水库 Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ 是 0 S15 北杂木 Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅲ 0.30 Ⅲ 否 11 S16 牛庄 Ⅳ 劣Ⅴ 1.40 劣Ⅴ 7.73 Ⅴ 0.33 劣Ⅴ 否 58 S17 汤河桥 Ⅲ Ⅲ 劣Ⅴ 2.99 Ⅱ 劣Ⅴ 否 40 S18 河洪桥 Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 0.10 劣Ⅴ 4.80 劣Ⅴ 1.88 劣Ⅴ 否 83 S19 北太子河入观音阁水库口 Ⅲ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ 是 0 S20 南太子河入库口 Ⅲ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ 是 0 S21 蒲河沿 Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 0.50 Ⅴ Ⅳ 劣Ⅴ 否 33 S22 兴国桥 Ⅳ Ⅳ Ⅱ Ⅳ Ⅳ 是 0 S23 于台 Ⅴ 劣Ⅴ 0.23 劣Ⅴ 5.60 劣Ⅴ 2.75 劣Ⅴ 否 83 S24 阿及堡 Ⅱ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ 0.20 Ⅲ 否 18 S25 台沟 Ⅱ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ 0.50 Ⅲ 否 9 S26 古楼 Ⅱ Ⅰ Ⅰ Ⅲ 0.80 Ⅲ 否 13 S27 下达河入汤河水库口 Ⅲ Ⅳ 0.40 Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ 否 8 S28 二道河入汤河水库口 Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅲ 是 0
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 2019年大辽河流域主要污染物入河量
Table 6. Inflow of major pollutants into Daliao River Basin in 2019
t/a 污染物 点源入河量 非点源入河量 工业源 城镇生活源 规模化畜禽养殖源 合计 农村生活源 不同土地利用类型污染源 分散式畜禽养殖源 合计 COD 1 482.0 26 317.1 225.0 28 024.1 14 993.2 4 394.5 11 783.7 31 171.4 NH3-N 119.9 1 665.3 6.0 1791.2 870.8 325.3 128.2 1 324.3 TN 261.7 12 164.1 16.9 12 442.7 1 758.1 3 196.3 832.6 5 787.0 TP 8.9 310.6 3.1 322.6 24.6 103.7 87.4 215.7
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] KAZI T G, ARAIN M B, JAMALI M K, et al. Assessment of water quality of polluted lake using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,2009,72(2):301-309. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.02.024 [2] ZHANG P P, LIU R M, BAO Y M, et al. Uncertainty of SWAT model at different DEM resolutions in a large mountainous watershed[J]. Water Research,2014,53:132-144. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.018 [3] CHOI G C, LEE J H, YU J C, et al. Laboratory assessment of biofilm process and its microbial characteristics for treating nonpoint source pollution[J]. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,2011,28(5):1207-1213. doi: 10.1007/s11814-010-0479-x [4] ZHANG B L, CUI B H, ZHANG S M, et al. Source apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus from non-point source pollution in Nansi Lake Basin, China[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International,2018,25(19):19101-19113. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-1956-8 [5] YANG Y H, YAN B X, SHEN W B. Assessment of point and nonpoint sources pollution in Songhua River Basin, Northeast China by using revised water quality model[J]. Chinese Geographical Science,2010,20(1):30-36. doi: 10.1007/s11769-010-0030-3 [6] EL-NAKIB S, ALAMEDDINE I, MASSOUD M, et al. Nutrient pollutant loading and source apportionment along a Mediterranean River[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2020,192(5):274. doi: 10.1007/s10661-020-8220-7 [7] MATEJ-ŁUKOWICZ K, NAWROT N, WOJCIECHOWSKA E. Estimate load of biogenic pollutants inflowing with water of Oliwa Stream to Gulf of Gdansk[J]. Inżynieria Ekologiczna,2018,19(2):1-8. doi: 10.12912/23920629/86042 [8] 高艳妮, 杨彩云, 冯朝阳, 等.辽河保护区退耕封育措施消减污染物入河量估算[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2020,10(4):539-544. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200028GAO Y N, YANG C Y, FENG C Y, et al. Estimation of pollutants into river reduced by measures of returning cropland to enclosure in Liaohe Conservation Area[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2020,10(4):539-544. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200028 [9] 宋梓菡, 崔嵩, 付强, 等.哈尔滨市主城区河流污染物入河量初步估算与来源分析[J]. 灌溉排水学报,2020,39(3):134-144.SONG Z H, CUI S, FU Q, et al. Origins and estimation of the pollutants in main rivers in urban area of Harbin[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage,2020,39(3):134-144. [10] 李艳红, 葛刚, 吴根林, 等.信江流域氮磷污染负荷估算及其控制对策[J]. 南昌大学学报(理科版),2021,45(2):176-181. doi: 10.13764/j.cnki.ncdl.2021.02.014LI Y H, GE G, WU G L, et al. Estimation and control stategies of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution load in Xinjiang drainage basin[J]. Journal of Nanchang University (Natural Science),2021,45(2):176-181. doi: 10.13764/j.cnki.ncdl.2021.02.014 [11] 王晋虎, 古向前, 周曼.京杭运河(苏州段)污染负荷核算及源解析[J]. 能源与环保,2021,43(2):73-77.WANG J H, GU X Q, ZHOU M. Pollution load calculation and source apportionment of Beijing-Hangzhou Canal (Suzhou section)[J]. China Energy and Environmental Protection,2021,43(2):73-77. [12] 荆延德, 樊蕊.基于CNKI和WOS的非点源污染模型的研究热点及趋势分析[J]. 生态学报,2018,38(11):4077-4087. [13] CHENG H, LIN C, WANG L J, et al. The influence of different forest characteristics on non-point source pollution: a case study at Chaohu Basin, China[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,2020,17(5):1790. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051790 [14] PARK M, CHOI Y S, SHIN H J, et al. A comparison study of runoff characteristics of non-point source pollution from three watersheds in south Korea[J]. Water,2019,11(5):966. doi: 10.3390/w11050966 [15] QIU J L, SHEN Z Y, CHEN L, et al. Quantifying effects of conservation practices on non-point source pollution in the Miyun Reservoir Watershed, China[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2019,191(9):582. doi: 10.1007/s10661-019-7747-y [16] CLESCERI N L, CURRAN S J, SEDLAK R I. Nutrient loads to Wisconsin Lakes: part i. nitrogen and phosphorus export coefficients1[J]. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association,1986,22(6):983-990. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1986.tb00769.x [17] JOHNES P J. Evaluation and management of the impact of land use change on the nitrogen and phosphorus load delivered to surface waters: the export coefficient modelling approach[J]. Journal of Hydrology,1996,183(3/4):323-349. [18] 李怀恩, 庄咏涛.预测非点源营养负荷的输出系数法研究进展与应用[J]. 西安理工大学学报,2003,19(4):307-312. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4710.2003.04.003LI H E, ZHUANG Y T. The export coefficient modeling approach for load prediction of nutrient from nonpoint source and its application[J]. Journal of Xi'an University of Technology,2003,19(4):307-312. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4710.2003.04.003 [19] 李政道, 刘鸿雁, 姜畅, 等.基于输出系数模型的红枫湖保护区非点源污染负荷研究[J]. 水土保持通报,2020,40(2):193-198.LI Z D, LIU H Y, JIANG C, et al. Non-point source pollution load of Hongfeng Lake reserve based on export coefficient model[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation,2020,40(2):193-198. [20] 孙宇.基于多方法的浑河流域水质模拟研究[J]. 陕西水利,2021(3):77-80.SUN Y. Research on water quality simulation of Hunhe River Basin based on multiple methods[J]. Shaanxi Water Resources,2021(3):77-80. [21] 李晓连. 基于水环境容量的辽河铁岭段污染负荷总量分配[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳理工大学, 2016. [22] 史美玲. 辽河盘锦段废水污染物减排对水环境质量的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳理工大学, 2020. [23] 王永.辽河污染物允许排放量分配分析研究[J]. 陕西水利,2020(1):95-97. [24] 张利民, 刘伟京, 尤本胜, 等.太湖流域漕桥河污染物来源特征[J]. 环境科学研究,2009,22(10):1150-1155. doi: 10.13198/j.res.2009.10.40.zhanglm.004ZHANG L M, LIU W J, YOU B S, et al. Characteristics of pollutant sources of Caoqiao River in Taihu Lake Basin[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences,2009,22(10):1150-1155. doi: 10.13198/j.res.2009.10.40.zhanglm.004 [25] 付意成, 魏传江, 臧文斌, 等.浑太河污染物入河控制量研究[J]. 水电能源科学,2010,28(12):21-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7709.2010.12.009FU Y C, WEI C J, ZANG W B, et al. Research on contaminant control quantity of entering into Huntai River[J]. Water Resources and Power,2010,28(12):21-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7709.2010.12.009 [26] 娄保锋, 卓海华, 周正, 等.近18年长江干流水质和污染物通量变化趋势分析[J]. 环境科学研究,2020,33(5):1150-1162.LOU B F, ZHUO H H, ZHOU Z, et al. Analysis on alteration of water quality and pollutant fluxes in the Yangtze mainstem during recently 18 years[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences,2020,33(5):1150-1162. [27] 郝晨林, 邓义祥, 汪永辉, 等.河流污染物通量估算方法筛选及误差分析[J]. 环境科学学报,2012,32(7):1670-1676.HAO C L, DENG Y X, WANG Y H, et al. Study on the selection and error analysis of riverine pollutant flux estimation methods[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae,2012,32(7):1670-1676. [28] 富国.河流污染物通量估算方法分析(Ⅰ): 时段通量估算方法比较分析[J]. 环境科学研究,2003,16(1):1-4. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-6929.2003.01.001FU G. Analysis of the estimation methods for the river pollutant fluxes(Ⅰ): comparison and analysis of the estimation methods of period fluxes[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences,2003,16(1):1-4. ⊕ doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-6929.2003.01.001 -
下载:
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 199
- HTML全文浏览量: 105
- PDF下载量: 39
- 被引次数: 0
