永定河回补区地下水污染风险演化研究

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2024.11.8

地学前缘 ›› 2025, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4): 523-536.DOI: 10.13745/j.esf.sf.2024.11.8

永定河回补区地下水污染风险演化研究

张学航¹^,²(), 何宝南¹^,²^,^*(), 何江涛¹^,², 马硕¹^,², 刘菲¹^,², 杨珊珊², 史芫芫³, 何炜³, 杨白驹⁴

1.中国地质大学(北京) 水利部地下水保护重点实验室, 北京 100083
2.中国地质大学(北京) 水资源与环境学院, 北京 100083
3.北京市生态环境保护科学研究院, 北京 100037
4.北京市污染源管理事务中心, 北京 100048

收稿日期:2024-08-20 修回日期:2024-11-29 出版日期:2025-07-25 发布日期:2025-08-04
通信作者: *何宝南(1992—),男,博士,副教授,博士生导师,主要从事污染水文地质学研究。E-mail: bnhe@cugb.edu.cn
作者简介:张学航(1998—),男,硕士研究生,主要研究方向为地质工程。E-mail:17803214342@163.com
基金资助:
北京市地下水污染风险源分类分级管控项目(HCZB-2023-ZB0078)

Study on groundwater pollution risk evolution in Yongding River recharge area

ZHANG Xuehang¹^,²(), HE Baonan¹^,²^,^*(), HE Jiangtao¹^,², MA Shuo¹^,², LIU Fei¹^,², YANG Shanshan², SHI Yuanyuan³, HE Wei³, YANG Baiju⁴

1. Key Laboratory of Groundwater Conservation of Ministry of Water Resources, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
2. School of water resources and environment, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
3. Beijing Academy of Ecological and Environmental Protection, Beijing 100037, China
4. Beijing Pollution Source Management Affairs Center, Beijing 100048, China

Received:2024-08-20 Revised:2024-11-29 Online:2025-07-25 Published:2025-08-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

生态补水条件下的地下水污染风险识别对于地下水安全回补具有重要意义,尽管目前关于地下水污染风险已经开展了广泛的研究,但有关生态回补条件下的地下水污染风险演化研究还鲜有涉及。为此,本文以永定河回补区为研究对象,从回补前后(2002—2022年)工业污染源格局和地下水位动态变化入手,构建耦合污染荷载输入-包气带阻滞-含水层输移的地下水污染风险评估体系,探讨污染荷载格局变化和水位波动双驱动下的地下水污染风险演变规律,为地下水污染风险防控提供支撑。结果表明,工业污染源整体数量和荷载在2002—2022年呈下降趋势,以首钢工业园为代表的冶炼加工业的关停搬迁是主要原因,至2022年,高、中等风险荷载区域分别下降至0和14%。相比之下,地下水脆弱性表现出先减小后增大的趋势,2014年之前超采导致了水位持续下降,之后压采和生态回补使得水位快速回升,水位的动态变化直接影响了地下水脆弱性。研究区内的地下水污染综合风险呈先下降后升高的演变规律,以2014年为转折点。2014年之前的历史时期主要受地表污染荷载和水位波动的综合影响,冶炼加工业锐减导致污染荷载降低,水位下降导致地下水脆弱性减小,因此综合风险持续下降。随着2014年末大幅度压采和2019年外源水生态回补,水位快速回升导致地下水脆弱性增大,而地表污染荷载格局无明显变化,因此综合风险反而升高,该阶段水位波动成为主控因素,中等风险及以上企业主要分布于河东-丰台地区,占比从2014年的3%上升至2022年的15%。

关键词: 地下水污染风险, 污染荷载, 水位波动, 生态补水, 永定河

Abstract:

The identification of groundwater pollution risk under ecological replenishment conditions is of great significance for groundwater safety replenishment. Although extensive research has been carried out on groundwater pollution risk at present, the evolution of groundwater pollution risk under ecological replenishment conditions is rarely involved. Therefore, this paper takes the Yongding River recharge area as the research object, starts with the dynamic changes of industrial pollution source pattern and groundwater level before and after the recharge(2002-2022), and constructs a groundwater pollution risk assessment system with coupled pollution load input-vadose zone restrain-aquifer transport, discusses the evolution law of groundwater pollution risk driven by pollution load and water level fluctuation, and provides support for the prevention and control of groundwater pollution risk. The results show that the overall number and load of industrial pollution sources show a downward trend from 2002 to 2022, and the main reason is the closure and relocation of smelting and processing industry represented by Shougang Industrial Park. By 2022, the high and medium risk load areas decrease to 0 and 14% respectively. In contrast, groundwater vulnerability showed a trend of decreasing first and then increasing. Before 2014, overmining in successive years led to a continuous decline in water level. Subsequently, reduced mining initiated at the end of 2014 and external water ecological restoration starting in 2019 led to a rapid rise in water level, and the dynamic change of water level directly affected groundwater vulnerability. The comprehensive risk of groundwater pollution in the study area showed an evolution law of decreasing first and then increasing, and 2014 was the turning point. Prior to 2014, the risk was mainly affected by the dual factors of surface pollution load and water level fluctuation. The change of industrial pattern led to the reduction of pollution load, and the decrease of water level led to the reduction of groundwater vulnerability, so the comprehensive risk continued to decline. With the commencement of reduced mining at the end of 2014 and the external water ecological restoration in 2019, the rapid rise of water level led to increased groundwater vulnerability. However, as the pattern of surface pollution load did not change significantly, the comprehensive risk increased, and water level fluctuation became the main factor at this stage.Enterprises with medium risk or above were mainly distributed in Hedong and Fengtai. The proportion of such enterprises classified as medium or high risk increased from 3% in 2014 to 15% in 2022.

Key words: groundwater pollution risk, pollution load, water level fluctuation, ecological water recharge, Yongding River

中图分类号:

X523

张学航, 何宝南, 何江涛, 马硕, 刘菲, 杨珊珊, 史芫芫, 何炜, 杨白驹. 永定河回补区地下水污染风险演化研究[J]. 地学前缘, 2025, 32(4): 523-536.

ZHANG Xuehang, HE Baonan, HE Jiangtao, MA Shuo, LIU Fei, YANG Shanshan, SHI Yuanyuan, HE Wei, YANG Baiju. Study on groundwater pollution risk evolution in Yongding River recharge area[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2025, 32(4): 523-536.

图/表 12

图1 研究区概况图

Fig.1 Overview of the study area

图2 永定河回补区工业污染源空间分布格局变化 (a)—2002年;(b)—2008年;(c)—2014年;(d)—2022年。

Fig.2 The spatial distribution pattern of industrial pollution sources in the Yongding River recharge area

图3 永定河回补区工业污染源格局变化 (a)—数量变化;(b)—污染组分排放量变化。

Fig.3 Changes in pattern of industrial pollution sources in the Yongding River recharge area

图4 永定河回补区工业污染源荷载变化分区图 (a)—氨氮;(b)—COD;(c)—综合荷载。

Fig.4 Zone map of load variation of industrial pollution sources in the Yongding River recharge area

图5 研究区岩性结构概化分区图 (a)—钻孔点位;(b)—包气带介质分区;(c)—典型钻孔岩性。

Fig.5 Generalized zoning map of lithologic structure in the study area

图6 各分区地下水位埋深情况 (a)—地下水位埋深;(b)—地下水位埋深变幅。

Fig.6 Depth of groundwater level in each zone

图7 各阶段包气带岩性结构分区概况图 (a)—2002年;(b)—2008年;(c)—2014年;(d)—2022年。

Fig.7 Overview of lithologic partition of aeration zone at each stage

图8 各分区折减系数 (a)—氨氮折减系数;(b)—COD折减系数。

Fig.8 Reduction factor for each partition

图9 特征污染组分进入地下水的危害风险等级分布图 (a)—氨氮;(b)—COD;(c)—综合荷载。

Fig.9 Distribution map of hazard risk levels of characteristic pollution components entering the groundwater surface

表1 污染物到达水源井的时间(top5)

Table 1 Time of the pollutant arrival at the water-source well(top5)

年份	序号	类型	水源井	(H₁-H₀)/m	L/m	K/(m·d^-1)	T/d
2002	1	设备制造业	YZ水厂	9.62	5 491	85.72	36 563
	2	设备制造业	YZ水厂	9.62	5 917	85.72	42 457
	3	冶炼加工业	YZ水厂	9.62	6 644	85.72	53 531
	4	设备制造业	YZ水厂	9.62	7 260	85.72	63 917
	5	设备制造业	YZ水厂	9.62	7 260	85.72	63 917
2014	1	设备制造业	YZ水厂	9.62	5 491	82.19	38 131
	2	设备制造业	YZ水厂	9.62	5 917	82.19	44 277
	3	生物制药业	DS水厂	7.52	5 032	59.86	56 255
	4	造纸印刷业	DS水厂	7.52	5 051	59.86	56 681
	5	设备制造业	DS水厂	5.16	4 970	74.88	63 929
2022	1	生物制药业	YZ水厂	3.98	1 193	77.78	4 598
	2	设备制造业	YZ水厂	3.98	1 887	77.78	11 503
	3	设备制造业	YZ水厂	3.98	2 552	77.78	21 038
	4	生物制药业	DS水厂	7.69	5 032	43.41	75 860
	5	设备制造业	YZ水厂	3.98	5 277	77.78	89 955

图10 地下水污染风险综合评价分级图

Fig.10 The classification map of groundwater pollution risk comprehensive assessment

表2 地下水污染风险清单(top10)

Table 2 The list of groundwater pollution risk (top10)

年份	序号	类型	污染风险指数	年份	序号	类型	污染风险指数
2002	1	设备制造业	61.85	2022	1	设备制造业	134.56
	2	冶炼加工业	26.10		2	设备制造业	133.67
	3	冶炼加工业	18.37		3	生物制药业	118.29
	4	冶炼加工业	12.05		4	设备制造业	93.18
	5	生物制药业	11.93		5	生物制药业	88.13
	6	设备制造业	8.18		6	设备制造业	65.99
	7	设备制造业	7.60		7	设备制造业	55.08
	8	生物制药业	7.55		8	橡胶塑料业	28.76
	9	冶炼加工业	6.48		9	设备制造业	27.39
	10	设备制造业	4.82		10	生物制药业	26.39

参考文献 28

[1]	何宝南, 何江涛, 孙继朝, 等. 区域地下水污染综合评价研究现状与建议[J]. 地学前缘, 2022, 29(3): 51-63. DOI
[2]	ZHANG D S, ZHANG Y X, LIU L C, et al. Numerical simulation of multi-water-source artificial recharge of aquifer: a case study of the Mi-Huai-Shun groundwater reservoir[J]. Water Resources, 2020, 47(3): 399-408.
[3]	ALI S, ISLAM A. Evaluation of Hantush’s S function estimation methods for predicting rise in water table[J]. Water Resources Management, 2019, 33(7): 2239-2260.
[4]	QI C T, ZHAN H B, LIANG X Y, et al. Influence of time-dependent ground surface flux on aquifer recharge with a vadose zone injection well[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2020, 584: 124739.
[5]	田枭, 林敦灵, 刘洋, 等. 永定河流域地表沉降监测及生态补水影响分析[J]. 测绘科学, 2022, 47(9): 95-101, 137.
[6]	ZANG Y G, HOU X S, LI Z P, et al. Quantify the effects of groundwater level recovery on groundwater nitrate dynamics through a quasi-3D integrated model for the vadose zone-groundwater coupled system[J]. Water Research, 2022, 226: 119213.
[7]	刘鑫, 左锐, 王金生, 等. 地下水位波动带三氮迁移转化过程研究进展[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2021, 48(2): 27-36.
[8]	WANG J L, ZHANG C, XIONG L, et al. Changes of antibiotic occurrence and hydrochemistry in groundwater under the influence of the South-to-North Water Diversion (the Hutuo River, China)[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 832: 154779.
[9]	王秋生, 白璇, 赵元元, 等. 官厅水库氟化物分析[J]. 北京水务, 2024(增刊1): 45-49.
[10]	陈吉吉, 吴悦, 陶蕾, 等. 生态补水对永定河沿岸地下水水位、水质的影响[J]. 地球与环境, 2023, 51(3): 266-273.
[11]	XU G G, SU X S, YUAN Z J, et al. Nitrogen behavior during artificial groundwater recharge through ponds: a case study in Xiong’an New Area[J]. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 2022, 44(8): 2545-2561.
[12]	FAKHREDDINE S, DITTMAR J, PHIPPS D, et al. Geochemical triggers of arsenic mobilization during managed aquifer recharge[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015, 49(13): 7802-7809.
[13]	JIN J, ZIMMERMAN A R, NORTON S B, et al. Arsenic release from Floridan aquifer rock during incubations simulating aquifer storage and recovery operations[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 551: 238-245.
[14]	NOBRE R C M, ROTUNNO FILHO O C, MANSUR W J, et al. Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS, modeling and a fuzzy logic tool[J]. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2007, 94(3/4): 277-292.
[15]	陈奂良, 王金晓, 林广奇, 等. 岩溶地下水污染预警: 以山东省刘征水源地为例[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2021, 28(3): 130-136.
[16]	XIONG Y N, LIU J C, YUAN W C, et al. Groundwater contamination risk assessment based on groundwater vulnerability and pollution loading: a case study of typical karst areas in China[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(16): 9898.
[17]	DUDA R, KLEBERT I, ZDECHLIK R. Groundwaterpollution risk assessment based on vulnerability to pollution and potential impactof land use forms[J]. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 2020, 29(1): 87-99.
[18]	赵鹏, 何江涛, 王曼丽, 等. 地下水污染风险评价中污染源荷载量化方法的对比分析[J]. 环境科学, 2017, 38(7): 2754-2762.
[19]	HUANG L, ZENG G M, LIANG J, et al. Combined impacts of land use and climate change in the modeling of future groundwater vulnerability[J]. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 2017, 22(7): 1-11.
[20]	PERSAUD E, LEVISON J. Impacts of changing watershed conditions in the assessment of future groundwater contamination risk[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2021, 603:127142.
[21]	闫志雲, 曾妍妍, 周金龙, 等. 叶尔羌河流域平原区地下水污染风险评价[J]. 环境科学, 2023, 44(6): 3237-3246.
[22]	何江涛, 马文洁, 张昕. 基于过程单元模型参数替代防污性能评价方法研究:以北京市平原区为例[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2012.
[23]	王曼丽, 何江涛, 崔亚丰, 等. 基于折减系数的地下水污染风险评价方法探究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2016, 36(12): 4510-4519.
[24]	陈青. 经济增长、产业结构与环境污染关系研究: 以北京市为例[J]. 经济界, 2021(3): 55-61.
[25]	生态环境部. 地下水污染防治重点区划定技术指南(试行)[S]. 北京: 生态环境部, 2023.
[26]	王洁, 姚震, 王敏燕, 等. 北京市工业园区VOCs污染特征及健康风险评估案例: 高新技术产业的环境影响[J]. 环境科学学报, 2024, 45(4): 2019-2027.
[27]	北京市统计局,国家统计局北京调查总队. 2023北京统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2023.
[28]	胡立堂, 郭建丽, 张寿全, 等. 永定河生态补水的地下水位动态响应[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2020, 47(5): 5-11.

永定河回补区地下水污染风险演化研究

Study on groundwater pollution risk evolution in Yongding River recharge area

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 28

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价