Early warning of groundwater pollution in oasis area of Hami Basin

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2025.10.22

Abstract

Abstract:

Early warning of groundwater pollution is of critical importance for identifying key prevention and control areas and ensuring the safety of groundwater resources. Using the oasis area of the Hami Basin in Xinjiang as a case study, a comprehensive evaluation system for pollution risk was constructed, covering the inherent vulnerability, pollution load, and functional value of groundwater. The reasonableness of the model was verified through sensitivity analysis. Subsequently, the entropy weight TOPSIS method was used to evaluate the current groundwater quality status, and the trend in water quality change was analyzed using data from typical monitoring wells. A game theory-based comprehensive weighting method was then introduced to integrate the three indicators—water quality status, change trend, and pollution risk—for early warning level classification. The results show that: 1) The risk of groundwater pollution in the study area is generally low, with higher-risk and high-risk areas accounting for only 9.7%. The high-risk areas are characterized by a vadose zone with lithology dominated by sand and gravel, which has strong permeability, coupled with intensive human activities, high-intensity groundwater exploitation, and a combination of non-point and point source pollution. 2) The assessment of water quality status shows that Class IV and Class V water account for 10.1%, indicating that groundwater quality is mainly affected by a combination of hydrogeological conditions and human activities. The overall trend of groundwater quality is improving, with areas of deterioration accounting for only 5.4%. Industrial and agricultural pollution along with domestic sewage discharge were the main driving factors for deterioration. 3) The early warning levels are dominated by “no warning” and “light warning”, with high and heavy warning areas comprising 5.3%. These high-level warning areas were categorized into natural factor-dominated, human activity-dominated, and compound influence-dominated types. The groundwater pollution early warning method developed in this study, which is based on the game theory-based comprehensive weighting, effectively improved the objectivity and spatial continuity of the early warning classification, and can provide a theoretical basis and methodological support for regional groundwater pollution prevention and control zoning, as well as the identification of key remediation areas.

Key words: groundwater pollution warning, pollution risk, vulnerability, game theory, Hami Basin, Xinjiang

CLC Number:

X523

JIANG Feng, ZHOU Jinlong, ZHOU Yinzhu, LIU Jiangtao, ZENG Yanyan, LIU Yu, DING Qizhen. Early warning of groundwater pollution in oasis area of Hami Basin[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2026, 33(1): 179-192.

Figures/Tables 13

References 34

[1]	滕彦国, 苏洁, 翟远征, 等. 地下水污染风险评价的迭置指数法研究综述[J]. 地球科学进展, 2012, 27(10): 1140-1147. DOI
[2]	马晋, 何鹏, 杨庆, 等. 基于回归分析的地下水污染预警模型[J]. 环境工程, 2019, 37(10): 211-215.
[3]	MUKHERJEE A, SCANLON B R, AURELI A, et al. Chapter 1-global groundwater: from scarcity to security through sustainability and solutions[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2021: 3-20.
[4]	崔国庆. 干旱区地下水绿洲生态系统稳定性评价研究[D]. 西安: 长安大学, 2019.
[5]	崔宏. 干旱区绿洲水环境与土地利用/覆盖变化响应关系研究[D]. 西安: 西安理工大学, 2017.
[6]	白利平, 孟凡生, 王业耀, 等. 地下水污染预警方法与示范[M]. 北京: 中国环境出版社, 2014.
[7]	蒲生彦, 马晋, 杨庆, 等. 地下水污染预警指标体系构建方法研究进展[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2019, 42(3): 191-197.
[8]	张大勇. 莒县沭河盆地地下水污染预警研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2019.
[9]	王嘉瑜, 蒲生彦, 胡玥, 等. 地下水污染风险预警等级及阈值确定方法研究综述[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2020, 47(2): 43-50.
[10]	何文君. 平谷平原区地下水污染监测预警指标体系研究[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学, 2020.
[11]	张立川. 莱芜蔬菜种植区地下水污染评价与预警研究[D]. 淮南: 安徽理工大学, 2024.
[12]	张佳文. 基于GIS的岩溶区地下水污染预警研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2018.
[13]	马雪峰. 吕梁市地下水污染预警研究[D]. 太原: 太原理工大学, 2022.
[14]	邓铭江. 新疆地下水资源开发利用现状及潜力分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2009, 32(5): 647-654.
[15]	郑昊安, 吴彬, 李绅. 近20a来哈密盆地地下水埋深变化趋势[J]. 人民黄河, 2013, 35(12): 73-76.
[16]	孙厚云, 毛启贵, 卫晓锋, 等. 哈密盆地地下水系统水化学特征及形成演化[J]. 中国地质, 2018, 45(6): 1128-1141.
[17]	秦国强. 吐哈盆地地下水演变规律及趋势研究[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2023.
[18]	陈孜. 哈密盆地绿洲带地下水数值模拟及地下水资源评价[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2014.
[19]	邹英. 新疆维吾尔自治区环境地质图集[R]. 昌吉: 新疆金版印务有限公司, 2005.
[20]	刘钰, 曾妍妍, 周金龙, 等. 区域地下水污染预警:以巴伊盆地平原区为例[J]. 环境科学, 2024, 45(7): 3973-3982.
[21]	张伟红. 地下水污染预警研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2007.
[22]	PERSAUD E, LEVISON J. Impacts of changing watershed conditions in the assessment of future groundwater contamination risk[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2021, 603: 127142. DOI URL
[23]	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.
[24]	张学航, 何宝南, 何江涛, 等. 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. DOI
[25]	CHENG Z, LU G, WU M, et al. Quantification and visualization of groundwater contamination prevention regionalization based on analytic hierarchy process method (AHP) in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, South China[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2024, 628: 130521. DOI URL
[26]	RAJPUT H, GOYAL R, BRIGHU U. Modification and optimization of DRASTIC model for groundwater vulnerability and contamination risk assessment for Bhiwadi region of Rajasthan, India[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2020, 79: 1-15. DOI
[27]	BOUFEKANE A, SAIGHI O. Application of groundwater vulnerability overlay and index methods to the Jijel plain area (Algeria)[J]. Groundwater, 2018, 56(1): 143-156. DOI PMID
[28]	KUMAR A, PRAMOD K A. Groundwater vulnerability and contamination risk assessment using GIS-based modified DRASTIC-LU model in hard rock aquifer system in India[J]. Geocarto International, 2020, 35(11): 1149-1178. DOI URL
[29]	SAIDI S, BOURI S, HASSINE S, et al. Comparison of three applied methods of groundwater vulnerability mapping: application to the coastal aquifer of Chebba- Mellouleche (Tunisia)[J]. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2013, 52(10/11/12): 2120-2130. DOI URL
[30]	ZAHEDI S, AZARNIVAND A, CHITSAZ N. Groundwater quality classification derivation using multi-criteria-decision-making techniques[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 78: 243-252. DOI URL
[31]	刘婧怡, 王炎, 汤家道, 等. 基于博弈论综合权重法的场地地下水环境污染风险评价[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2023, 30(1): 221-230.
[32]	何虎军, 田洪旭, 王景昊, 等. 基于博弈论-改进的未确知测度理论的废弃矿井地下水污染风险评价[J]. 中国矿业, 2025, 34(9): 196-202.
[33]	王东, 姜聚宇, 韩新平, 等. 三道岭露天煤矿逆倾软岩边坡变形破坏治理方案研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019, 19(5): 1587-1594.
[34]	孙亚军, 陈歌, 徐智敏, 等. 我国煤矿区水环境现状及矿井水处理利用研究进展[J]. 煤炭学报, 2020, 45(1): 304-316.

赋分	地下水埋深	地下水净补给量模数	土壤介质	地形坡度	包气带岩性	单井涌水量	点源污染	面源污染	溶解性总固体含量	夜间灯光指数	生境质量指数	地下水质量	水质变化趋势
赋分	D /m	R/10⁴ m³· (km²·a)^-1	S	T /(°)	I	W/m³·d^-1	A	P	G/g·L^-1	H	E	Q	QV
1	>70	<5	粉质黏土	>30	—	—	—	未利用地	—	0~12.6	0~0.2	Ⅰ类水	好转
2	50~70	—	—	20~30	—	<100	—	林地	—	12.6~25.2	0.2~0.4	Ⅱ类水	—
3	40~50	—	黏壤土	—	亚黏土	—	加油站	草地	3~10	25.2~37.8	0.4~0.6	Ⅲ类水	稳定
4	30~40	—	—	10~20	—	—	养殖场	—	1~3	37.8~50.4	0.6~0.8	Ⅳ类水	—
5	20~30	—	粉砂黏土	—	—	100~1 000	—	城镇用地	<1	50.4~63.0	0.8~1.0	Ⅴ类水	恶化
6	10~20	—	壤土	6~10	—	—	—	农村用地	—	—	—	—	—
7	6~10	—	—	—	—	—	危险废物处理企业	—	—	—	—	—	—
8	3~6	—	砂壤	4~6	—	—	工业园区	耕地	—	—	—	—	—
9	1~3	—	—	2~4	—	—	矿区	特殊用地	—	—	—	—	—
10	<1	—	砂土	<2	砂砾石	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

赋分	地下水埋深	地下水净补给量模数	土壤介质	地形坡度	包气带岩性	单井涌水量	点源污染	面源污染	溶解性总固体含量	夜间灯光指数	生境质量指数	地下水质量	水质变化趋势
赋分	D /m	R/10⁴ m³· (km²·a)^-1	S	T /(°)	I	W/m³·d^-1	A	P	G/g·L^-1	H	E	Q	QV
1	>70	<5	粉质黏土	>30	—	—	—	未利用地	—	0~12.6	0~0.2	Ⅰ类水	好转
2	50~70	—	—	20~30	—	<100	—	林地	—	12.6~25.2	0.2~0.4	Ⅱ类水	—
3	40~50	—	黏壤土	—	亚黏土	—	加油站	草地	3~10	25.2~37.8	0.4~0.6	Ⅲ类水	稳定
4	30~40	—	—	10~20	—	—	养殖场	—	1~3	37.8~50.4	0.6~0.8	Ⅳ类水	—
5	20~30	—	粉砂黏土	—	—	100~1 000	—	城镇用地	<1	50.4~63.0	0.8~1.0	Ⅴ类水	恶化
6	10~20	—	壤土	6~10	—	—	—	农村用地	—	—	—	—	—
7	6~10	—	—	—	—	—	危险废物处理企业	—	—	—	—	—	—
8	3~6	—	砂壤	4~6	—	—	工业园区	耕地	—	—	—	—	—
9	1~3	—	—	2~4	—	—	矿区	特殊用地	—	—	—	—	—
10	<1	—	砂土	<2	砂砾石	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

指标	博弈论综合权重
水质现状	0.373
水质变化趋势	0.301
污染风险	0.326

指标	博弈论综合权重
水质现状	0.373
水质变化趋势	0.301
污染风险	0.326

评价方法	参数	单参数敏感度分析					地图移除参数分析
		理论权重	有效权重				敏感度	标准差
		理论权重	平均值	最大值	最小值	标准差	敏感度	标准差
固有脆弱性评价	D	0.358	0.312	0.530	0.080	0.088	0.166	0.014
	R	0.061	0.012	0.029	0.008	0.003	0.105	0.000
	S	0.254	0.258	0.538	0.054	0.078	0.156	0.012
	T	0.040	0.069	0.186	0.008	0.017	0.116	0.003
	I	0.150	0.246	0.480	0.076	0.080	0.154	0.009
	W	0.137	0.103	0.255	0.039	0.045	0.149	0.008
污染荷载评价	A	0.562	0.579	0.911	0.300	0.188	0.467	0.108
污染荷载评价	P	0.438	0.421	0.700	0.089	0.188	0.420	0.218
功能价值评价	G	0.356	0.540	0.734	0.356	0.088	0.312	0.052
	H	0.272	0.126	0.431	0.070	0.073	0.103	0.057
	E	0.372	0.334	0.526	0.106	0.121	0.208	0.065