论文部分内容阅读
济南以泉城而闻名,保泉和供水安全问题是其面临的巨大挑战,利用多水源进行岩溶水回灌是解决问题的有效措施之一,但是补给水源水质相对岩溶水而言较差,回灌到地下可能存在一定健康和环境风险,需要对回灌系统的水质进行风险评价。本文对比地下水质量标准和地下水水质背景值,重点选择地表源水超标和劣于背景值的风险源监测指标,借鉴澳大利亚含水层补给管理指南,对玉符河多水源回灌岩溶含水层工程运行期的水质风险进行评价。2015年对黄河水、卧虎山水库两种水源多次回灌期间的源水、孔隙水和岩溶水的22项指标进行水质监测和指标分析,风险残余评价结果表明黄河水回灌补源期间,平均浊度的标准指数源水是1.4,孔隙水1.7,岩溶水0.93,硫酸盐平均含量的标准指数源水是0.93,孔隙水0.9,岩溶水0.73,氯离子虽没有超过地下水Ⅲ类标准,但是在源水中含量是地下水含量的2倍多;卧虎山水库水回灌补源期间,平均浊度的标准指数源水是2.4,孔隙水1.1,岩溶水0.43,硫酸盐平均含量的标准指数在源水0.75,孔隙水0.84,岩溶水0.66,氨氮的平均含量的标准指数源水1.14,孔隙水1.47,岩溶水1.35。因此,浊度、硫酸盐和溶质在裂隙岩溶含水层迁移较快为两种水源玉符河回灌补源工程的共同高风险项和关键控制点。此外,黄河水补源还需注意盐度,卧虎山水库水补源还需控制营养物的污染风险。基于以上评价,还提出了限制回灌量占区域岩溶水资源量比例等建议。
Jinan is famous for its spring fountains. It is one of the most effective measures to solve the problem of using spring water and water supply. However, the recharge of karst water from multiple water sources is one of the effective measures to solve the problem. However, There may be some health and environmental risks underground and a risk assessment of the water quality of the recharge system is required. In this paper, groundwater quality standards and groundwater quality background values are compared, focusing on the selection of surface source water exceeding the standard and risk sources monitoring indicators that are less than the background value. By referring to the Australian aquifer recharge management guidelines, Water quality risk assessment. In 2015, 22 indicators of source water, pore water and karst water during the multiple recharge of the Yellow River and Wohunshan reservoirs were monitored for water quality and index analysis. The risk residual assessment results showed that during the recharge of the Yellow River water, The standard turbidity index source water is 1.4, pore water 1.7, karst water 0.93, sulfate standard content of the standard index of the source water is 0.93, pore water 0.9, kraft water 0.73, chloride ion does not exceed Class III standard of groundwater, In the source water, the content of groundwater is more than twice of that of the groundwater. During the recharge of the Wehuposhan reservoir, the standard index of the average turbidity of source water is 2.4, pore water 1.1, karst water 0.43, and the standard index of average sulfate content is 0.75 for source water, 0.84 for pore water, and 0.66 for karst water. The standard index of the average content of ammonia nitrogen is 1.14 for source water, 1.47 for pore water and 1.35 for karst water. Therefore, turbidity, sulfate and solute migrated rapidly in the fractured karst aquifer were the common high-risk items and key control points for the two types of water recharge project. In addition, the Yellow River water supplements need to pay attention to salinity, water resources Wowo Reservoir need to control the risk of nutrient contamination. Based on the above evaluation, suggestions are also put forward to limit the proportion of recharge to total karst water resources in the region.