Source Jouranl of CSCD
Source Journal of Chinese Scientific and Technical Papers
Included as T2 Level in the High-Quality Science and Technology Journals in the Field of Environmental Science
Core Journal of RCCSE
Included in the CAS Content Collection
Included in the JST China
Indexed in World Journal Clout Index (WJCI) Report
DENG Lin-li, ZHANG Kai-shan. ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERISTICS AND SOURCE APPORTION OF METAL POLLUTION IN PM2.5 IN TYPICAL METROPOLITAN CITIES WITH HAZE POLLUTION[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2020, 38(5): 113-119. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202005020
Citation: LI Jing, TANG Min, LIANG Yi-xin. EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EFFECT IN HAIHE RIVER BASIN IN HENAN PROVINCE FROM 2015 TO 2018[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2020, 38(5): 60-64,190. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202005011

EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EFFECT IN HAIHE RIVER BASIN IN HENAN PROVINCE FROM 2015 TO 2018

doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202005011
  • Received Date: 2019-04-16
  • This paper evaluated and analyzed the water quality improvement effect in Haihe River Basin in Henan province during 2015—2018 using single factor evaluation method, comprehensive pollution index evaluation method, and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. The results showed that the three evaluation methods were basically consistent, and the overall water quality in Haihe River Basin in Henan province showed a trend of improvement in 2015—2018. But the emphasis of each method was different. The results of single factor evaluation showed that the number of category Ⅰ—Ⅲ pollution factors of 21 pollution factors in Haihe River Basin increased from 69.63% in 2015 to 89.52% in 2018, and the number of category inferior Ⅴ pollution factors decreased from 15.13% in 2015 to 0.85% in 2018. The comprehensive pollution index of Haihe Basin in Henan province decreased from 0.89 in 2015 to 0.56 in 2018, and water quality grades were improved from moderate pollution to light pollution. The water quality grades of the eight rivers in 2015 were lower than moderate pollution, including Wei River, Communist Canal, Dasha River, Anyang River, Tang River, Majia River. The results of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation showed that the weights of ammonia nitrogen and total phosphorus were the largest among the nine evaluation factors, the main pollution factors in Haihe River Basin in Henan province. And the water quality of eight rivers was improved to category Ⅰ—Ⅲ by 2018. Single factor evaluation method, comprehensive pollution index evaluation method were more suitable for management analysis, while fuzzy comprehensive evaluation was prefered in research work.
  • 李茜,张建辉,林兰钰,等. 水环境质量评价方法综述[J]. 现代农业科技,2011(19):285-287,290.
    王梦. 水环境质量评价中几种方法的比较[J]. 渤海大学学报(自然科学版),2008,29(1):34-37.
    封丽,张学睿,封雷,等.基于粗糙集的三峡库区支流水质富营养化模糊综合评价模型研究[J]. 环境工程,2015,33(12):105-110.
    马太玲,朝伦巴根,高瑞忠,等. 水环境质量综合评价方法的比较研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2006,20(4):138-142.
    赵颖,王建英,孙燕,等. 水环境质量评价:以河南部分河流断面为例[J]. 环境与发展,2018,30(2):17-18.
    黄珍慧. 习近平生态文明思想的制度建设:以"河长制"全面推行为例[J]. 长春市委党校学报,2018(2):23-27.
    刘思莹,刘俊文,赵婷婷,等. 水环境质量评价的研究进展[J]. 江西化工,2017(6):41-43.
    高学平,孙博闻,訾天亮,等. 基于时域权重矩阵的模糊综合水质评价法及其应用[J]. 环境工程学报,2017,11(2):970-976.
    秦雨,王兆波,张正,等. 基于改进的模糊综合评价法的饮马河水质综合评价研究[J]. 环境科学与管理,2017,42(3):169-173.
    钟文武,王文玉,孙昳,等. 模糊综合评价法在抚仙湖种质资源保护区水质评价中的应用[J]. 水产科学,2015,34(3):182-187.
    徐健,吴玮,黄天寅,等. 改进的模糊综合评价法在同里古镇水质评价中的应用[J]. 河海大学学报(自然科学版),2014,42(2):143-149.
    刘聚涛,高俊峰,姜加虎.不同模糊评价方法在水环境质量评价中的应用比较[J]. 环境污染与防治,2010,32(1):20-25.
    赵前信. 四种水环境质量评价方法在六安市水库中的应用[J]. 环境工程,2014,32(3):113-116

    ,120.
  • Relative Articles

    [1]GUO Qianjin. COMPONENTS CHARACTERISTICS AND SOURCE APPORTIONMENT OF PM2.5 IN AUTUMN AND WINTER IN JINCHENG[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2024, 42(7): 153-161. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202407017
    [2]LIU Haotian, TONG Jilong, YANG Hong, LIU Yongle, AO Congjie, WANG Shusu. COMPARATIVE STUDY ON VOCs POLLUTION CHARACTERISTICS AND SOURCE ANALYSIS BETWEEN LANZHOU DOWNTOWN AREA AND XIGU REFINING CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ZONE[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2024, 42(4): 139-147. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202404017
    [3]SONG Lusheng, SUN Zhenzhou, HU Jing, DENG Qinghai. POLLUTION CHARACTERISTICS AND SOURCE APPORTIONMENT OF HEAVY METALS IN AN ABANDONED IRON ORE AND DOWNSTREAM FARMLAND SOIL[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2024, 42(10): 155-164. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202410019
    [4]ZHAO Wanning, CUI Jijing, BAI Liyong, YU Xiaojing, DAI Jiulan. RESEARCH PROGRESS ON NITRATE SOURCE ANALYSIS METHODS FOR WATER ENVIRONMENT IN WATERSHEDS[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(8): 286-294. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202308036
    [5]ZHANG Yibing, LIANG Yiqun, ZHANG Yuan, FANG Yinxiang, NIU Hongya, FAN Jingsen. SOURCE APPORTIONMENT AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF HEAVY METALS IN PM2.5 IN THE FENGFENG MINING AREA IN 2017—2019[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(8): 242-250. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202308031
    [6]LI Ganyu, CUI Xingtao. CHARACTERISTICS OF HEAVY METAL ELEMENTS POLLUTION AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC DUST-FALL IN TANGSHAN[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2023, 41(12): 278-287. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202312035
    [7]GAO Wei, CHEN Yan, YAN Changan, LIU Yong. SOURCE IDENTIFICATION OF PHOSPHORUS IN VARIOUS DISTURBED RIVERS BASED ON LAM MODEL[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2022, 40(6): 55-62. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202206007
    [8]ZHU Xue-tao, LIN Hai-ying, FENG Qing-ge, ZHAO Bo-han, ZHU Yi-fan, LAN Wen-lu, LI Tian-shen. POLLUTION AND RISK ASSESSMENT, SOURCE ANALYSIS OF HEAVY METALS IN SURFACE SEDIMENTS OF BEIBU GULF, GUANGXI[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2021, 39(8): 69-76. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202108009
    [18]Wang Zaifeng, Zhang Shuiyan, Zhang Huaicheng, Zhao Hong, Ji Yaqin. SOURCE APPORTIONMENT TECHNOLOGY OF RIVER POLLUTION SOURCE BY WATER QUALITY MODEL COUPLING WITH CMB MODEL[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2015, 33(2): 135-139. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.201502030
    [19]Yang Long Sun Changhong Li Shanshan Liu Guizhong, . COMPARATIVE STUDY ON HEAVY METAL POLLUTION OF SURFACE DUST IN TYPICAL INDUSTRIES ENVIRONMENT[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2015, 33(2): 122-125. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.201502027
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(5)

    1. 楚君,雷晓慧. 北方城市市区大气臭氧污染时空变化特征分析与协同治理策略研究. 环境科学与管理. 2023(02): 125-128+138 .
    2. 谢勇,曹玲,姚瑶,姚宏伟,王爽. 持续性雾霾气象灾害风险预警方法研究. 环境科学与管理. 2023(04): 28-33 .
    3. 荣素英,刘佳佳,杨文琦,曾豪,张磊,方波,徐厚君,王茜. 大学生尿液金属水平与肺功能的关系. 中国学校卫生. 2022(02): 288-291 .
    4. 李强. 供热通风空调气体排放特征及污染趋势研究. 环境科学与管理. 2022(06): 129-133 .
    5. 范圣虎,张飞云. 利用大气超级站对乌鲁木齐市一次沙尘天气过程及组份的分析. 干旱环境监测. 2021(01): 15-22 .

    Other cited types(11)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-04051015202530
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 6.5 %FULLTEXT: 6.5 %META: 90.7 %META: 90.7 %PDF: 2.8 %PDF: 2.8 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 13.2 %其他: 13.2 %其他: 0.6 %其他: 0.6 %China: 2.0 %China: 2.0 %United States: 0.2 %United States: 0.2 %[]: 0.4 %[]: 0.4 %上海: 2.0 %上海: 2.0 %东莞: 1.0 %东莞: 1.0 %临汾: 0.2 %临汾: 0.2 %佛山: 0.2 %佛山: 0.2 %保定: 2.4 %保定: 2.4 %兰州: 0.2 %兰州: 0.2 %北京: 11.6 %北京: 11.6 %南京: 3.2 %南京: 3.2 %南宁: 0.2 %南宁: 0.2 %南昌: 0.6 %南昌: 0.6 %南通: 0.4 %南通: 0.4 %厦门: 0.2 %厦门: 0.2 %台州: 0.2 %台州: 0.2 %合肥: 1.0 %合肥: 1.0 %呼和浩特: 0.4 %呼和浩特: 0.4 %唐山: 0.4 %唐山: 0.4 %大同: 0.2 %大同: 0.2 %天津: 1.2 %天津: 1.2 %太原: 0.8 %太原: 0.8 %宁波: 0.6 %宁波: 0.6 %安阳: 0.2 %安阳: 0.2 %宿州: 0.8 %宿州: 0.8 %宿迁: 0.8 %宿迁: 0.8 %常州: 0.2 %常州: 0.2 %常德: 0.4 %常德: 0.4 %广州: 2.8 %广州: 2.8 %开封: 0.6 %开封: 0.6 %张家口: 2.2 %张家口: 2.2 %徐州: 1.0 %徐州: 1.0 %德州: 0.4 %德州: 0.4 %成都: 2.0 %成都: 2.0 %拉贾斯坦邦: 0.2 %拉贾斯坦邦: 0.2 %揭阳: 0.2 %揭阳: 0.2 %昆明: 0.8 %昆明: 0.8 %昌吉: 0.2 %昌吉: 0.2 %晋城: 0.4 %晋城: 0.4 %朝阳: 0.2 %朝阳: 0.2 %杭州: 5.3 %杭州: 5.3 %柳州: 0.8 %柳州: 0.8 %格兰特县: 0.2 %格兰特县: 0.2 %武汉: 0.4 %武汉: 0.4 %沈阳: 0.2 %沈阳: 0.2 %泰安: 0.2 %泰安: 0.2 %济南: 0.8 %济南: 0.8 %济宁: 0.2 %济宁: 0.2 %济源: 0.4 %济源: 0.4 %深圳: 0.8 %深圳: 0.8 %温州: 0.2 %温州: 0.2 %湖州: 0.4 %湖州: 0.4 %漯河: 1.0 %漯河: 1.0 %潍坊: 0.4 %潍坊: 0.4 %班加罗尔: 0.6 %班加罗尔: 0.6 %石家庄: 0.6 %石家庄: 0.6 %福州: 0.4 %福州: 0.4 %秦皇岛: 0.2 %秦皇岛: 0.2 %绍兴: 0.2 %绍兴: 0.2 %绵阳: 0.2 %绵阳: 0.2 %芒廷维尤: 12.6 %芒廷维尤: 12.6 %芝加哥: 0.8 %芝加哥: 0.8 %苏州: 0.4 %苏州: 0.4 %荆州: 1.0 %荆州: 1.0 %菏泽: 0.6 %菏泽: 0.6 %衡水: 0.6 %衡水: 0.6 %衢州: 1.4 %衢州: 1.4 %西宁: 3.2 %西宁: 3.2 %西安: 1.2 %西安: 1.2 %达州: 0.2 %达州: 0.2 %运城: 1.6 %运城: 1.6 %连云港: 0.2 %连云港: 0.2 %遵义: 0.2 %遵义: 0.2 %邯郸: 0.4 %邯郸: 0.4 %郑州: 0.6 %郑州: 0.6 %重庆: 0.2 %重庆: 0.2 %长沙: 2.0 %长沙: 2.0 %长治: 0.2 %长治: 0.2 %阳泉: 0.2 %阳泉: 0.2 %青岛: 1.4 %青岛: 1.4 %其他其他ChinaUnited States[]上海东莞临汾佛山保定兰州北京南京南宁南昌南通厦门台州合肥呼和浩特唐山大同天津太原宁波安阳宿州宿迁常州常德广州开封张家口徐州德州成都拉贾斯坦邦揭阳昆明昌吉晋城朝阳杭州柳州格兰特县武汉沈阳泰安济南济宁济源深圳温州湖州漯河潍坊班加罗尔石家庄福州秦皇岛绍兴绵阳芒廷维尤芝加哥苏州荆州菏泽衡水衢州西宁西安达州运城连云港遵义邯郸郑州重庆长沙长治阳泉青岛

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (141) PDF downloads(6) Cited by(16)
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return