污染场地地下水污染风险分级技术方法研究

杨昱; 廉新颖; 马志飞; 徐翔健; 姜永海; 彭星; 席北斗

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-991X.2017.03.046

污染场地地下水污染风险分级技术方法研究

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-991X.2017.03.046

中国环境科学研究院国家环境保护地下水污染过程模拟与控制重点实验室,北京 100012

详细信息

作者简介:
杨昱(1983—),女,助理研究员,硕士,主要从事地下水污染风险分级管理研究, yangyugirl@126.com

通讯作者:
姜永海 E-mail: jyhai203@126.com

中图分类号: X523
计量
- 文章访问数: 998
- HTML全文浏览量: 123
- PDF下载量: 1077
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2016-07-12
- 刊出日期: 2017-05-20

Risk ranking technology method on groundwater pollution of contaminated sites

State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Simulation and Control of Groundwater Pollution, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China

More Information

Corresponding author: Yonghai JIANG E-mail: jyhai203@126.com

摘要

摘要: 借鉴国内外地下水污染风险分级方法,综合分析污染场地对地下水产生风险的关键环节,采用层次分析法,从场地本身存在的风险、场地区域地下水固有脆弱性和场地周边地下水的保护目标特征3个方面,建立了由17个指标构成的污染场地地下水污染风险分级指标体系。在此基础上,以典型污染场地实地调研结果和159种典型地下水污染物理化特性为数据基础,对各指标进行了风险水平的划分,基于聚类分析法,采用各指标风险指数相乘的风险表征方法计算总风险指数,构建了污染场地地下水污染风险分级技术方法。该方法可有效避免指标权重计算的主观性,并且能够直观地反映出导致风险的主要因素。结果表明:利用建立的风险分级技术方法可将我国典型污染场地地下水污染风险划分为3级,风险小于5为一级,风险在5~15为二级,风险大于15为三级。实际应用于某危险废物填埋场的结果表明,该危险废物填埋场地下水污染风险为三级,同时得出场地本身存在的风险,特别是场地特征污染物,是造成该危险废物填埋场地下水污染风险的主要因素。
- 污染场地 /
- 地下水 /
- 指标体系 /
- 风险分级
Abstract: Referring to the risk ranking methodology of groundwater contamination both at home and abroad and based on the comprehensive analysis on the key points of the groundwater pollution risk in the contaminated sites, the analytic hierarchy process was applied to establish the risk ranking index system on groundwater pollution of contaminated sites from three aspects, i.e. the contaminated sites properties, the groundwater inherent vulnerability in the contaminated sites region and the characteristics of the groundwater protection target. The risk ranking index system consists of 17 indicators. Based on the survey on contaminated sites and the physical and chemical properties of 159 typical pollutants, the risk level for each indicator was ranked. The total risk index was calculated by multiplying the individual risk indicators, and the method of groundwater pollution of contaminated sites was established by applying the clustering analysis. The method can effectively avoid the subjectivity of index weight calculation, and ide.pngy the main factors that lead to the risk. The results showed that the risk of groundwater pollution of contaminated sites could be divided into 3 levels, i.e. the risk value less than 5 (Level 1), between 5 and 15 (Level 2) and greater than 15 (Level 3). By applying the risk assessment system in a hazardous waste landfill, it was shown that the landfill had a potential risk of Level 3, and the properties of the contaminated sites, especially the characteristic pollutant was the main factors that caused the groundwater environmental risk.
- contaminated sites /
- groundwater /
- index system /
- risk ranking

HTML全文

参考文献(25)

[1]	陈梦熊 . 中国水文地质工程地质事业的发展与成就:从事地质工作60年的回顾与思考[M]. 北京: 地震出版社, 2003: 56-62.
[2]	赵勇胜 . 地下水污染场地风险管理与修复技术筛选[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2012,42(5):303-310. ZHAO Y S . Risk management and screening of remediation technologies for contaminated groundwater site[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Earth Science Edition), 2012,42(5):303-310.
[3]	任常兴, 吴宗之 . 危险品道路运输风险分级指数法研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2006,6(4):125-129. REN C X, WU Z Z . Study on the risk rank indices of hazardous materials transportation[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2006,6(4):125-129.
[4]	SINGH R K, DATTA M, NEMA A K . A new system for groundwater contamination hazard rating of landfills[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009,91(2):344-357.
[5]	ELISA G, ALEX Z, ANDREA C , et al. A risk-based methodology for ranking environmental chemical stressors at the regional scale[J]. Environment International, 2014,65:41-53.
[6]	ANGELIKA H, GABRIELE W, BERNADTTE O , et al. Ranking matrices as operational tools for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops on non-target organisms[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2014,36:367-381.
[7]	METCALF S J, WALLACE K J . Ranking biodiversity risk factors using expert groups:treating linguistic uncertainty and documenting epistemic uncertainty[J]. Biological Conservation, 2013,162:1-8.
[8]	COLOMBO J C, CAPPELLETTI N, WILLIAMSON M , et al. Risk ranking of multiple-POPs in detritivorous fish from the Río de la Plata[J]. Chemosphere, 2011,83(6):882-889.
[9]	Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. National classification system for contaminated sites[R]. Winnipeg, Manitoba:The Soil Quality Guidelines Task Group of CCME, 2008: 6-13.
[10]	VICTOR R G, MARIA P M, MARIA J G S , et al. Predictive modeling of groundwater nitrate pollution using random forest and multisource variables related to intrinsic and specific vulnerability:a case study in an agricultural setting (Southern Spain)[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2014, 476/477:189-206.
[11]	MARIA J G, LUIS F A, PATRICIA A , et al. Hydrogeochemical characterisation and modelling of groundwaters in a potential geological repository for spent nuclear fuel in crystalline rocks(Laxemar,Sweden)[J]. Applied Geochemistry, 2014,45:50-71.
[12]	SLACK R J, GRONOW J R, HALL D H , et al. Household hazardous waste disposal to landfill:using LandSim to model leachate migration[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2007,146(2):501-509.
[13]	SINGH R K, DATTA M, NEMA A K . A Time-dependent system for evaluating groundwater contamination hazard rating of municipal solid waste dumps[J]. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2010,15(6):549-567.
[14]	王月, 安达, 席北斗 , 等. 基于三角随机模拟的生活垃圾填埋场地下水环境健康风险评价模型[J]. 环境工程技术学报, 2016,6(1):49-56. WANG Y, AN D, XI B D , et al. Assessment model of landfill sites groundwater environmental health risk based on stochastic simulation-triangular fuzzy numbers[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology, 2016,6(1):49-56.
[15]	US EPA. Risk characterization report for the HWIR 99 multimedia,multi-pathway,and multireceptor risk assessment(3MRA)[R]. Washington DC:US EPA.Office of Solid Waste, 1999: 27-58.
[16]	DAVID W R, LUK P, TREVOR P , et al. Accounting for surface-groundwater interactions and their uncertainty in river and groundwater models:a case study in the Namoi River,Australia[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2013,50:108-119.
[17]	任智刚, 周建新, 张兴凯 . 基于SPSS聚类分析的企业职业伤害风险分级标准研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2006,2(3):43-46. REN Z G, ZHOU J X, ZHANG X K . Study on ranking standard of enterprise occupational injury risk based on clustering analysis of SPSS[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2006,2(3):43-46.
[18]	牛伟, 蒋仲安, 丁厚成 , 等. 聚类分析法在行业事故风险分级中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008,18(4):163-168. NIU W, JIANG Z A, DING H C , et al. Application of cluster analysis to risk classification in industrial accidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2008,18(4):163-168.
[19]	ELANGASINGHE M A, SINGHAL N, DIRKS K N . Complex time series analysis of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 for a coastal site using a.pngicial neural network modeling and k-means clustering[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2014,94:106-116.
[20]	MALLEY C S, BRABAN C F, HEAL M R . The application of hierarchical cluster analysis and non-negative matrix factorization to European atmospheric monitoring site classification[J]. Atmospheric Research, 2014,138(1):30-40.
[21]	ALEX M, RICHELLE W, LAUREN F . Classification of watersheds into integrated social and biophysical indicators with clustering analysis[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2014,45:340-349.
[22]	地下水质量标准:GB/T 14848—93[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1993.
[23]	NESHAT A, PRADHAN B, DADRAS M . Groundwater vulnerability assessment using an improved DRASTIC method in GIS[J]. Resources,Conservation and Recycling, 2014,86:74-86.
[24]	LEONE A, RIPA M N, URICCHIO V , et al. Vulnerability and risk evaluation of agricultural nitrogen pollution for Hungary's main aquifer using DRASTIC and GLEAMS models[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009,90(10):2969-2978.
[25]	ATIQUR R . A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh,India[J]. Applied Geography, 2008,28(1):32-53.