Hydrochemical Characteristics and Human Health Risk Assessment in Downstream Ganjiang River of the Poyang Lake Basin

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2022.018

Abstract

Abstract:

Anthropogenic impact on the water quality of Ganjiang River in the Poyang Lake basin has received wide attention. Understanding the health risks of polluted water is crucial for better protection and utilization of water resource. In this study, 39 groundwater and 16 surface water samples were collected from the downstream Ganjiang River to analyze for their geochemical characteristics and influencing factors. Inverse modelling was done to unravel the groundwater quality evolution. Groundwater quality and non-carcinogenic risk were further evaluated. Our results show that the local groundwater is weakly acidic to neutral (pH=5.47-7.60), dominated by HCO₃-Ca-Mg-type with minor Cl-Ca-Mg-type. Silicate weathering and mineral dissolution-precipitation impose the mainly control on the groundwater chemistry. Surface water is neutral to weakly-alkaline (pH=6.94-8.19) and mainly of HCO₃-Cl-Ca-Na-type, which is related to the weathering of silicate rocks, atmospheric precipitation and human activity. Hydrogeochemical calculations with PHREEQC show that the minerals have mostly negative halite saturation index (SI_Halite=-7.80 to -9.53), indicating that halite tends to dissolve. The low SI of dolomite (1.72 to -6.39), gypsum (-1.65 to -3.96) and calcite (-0.51 to -3.09) also indicate that these three minerals tend to be dissolved. The inverse modeling shows that groundwater evolution in the main stream has undergone dissolution of Ca-montmorillonite, halite, dolomite and calcite, and the consumption of CO₂. Results of groundwater inverse modeling in the tributaries are generally similar to those in the main stream, except for route NCGW-3, which indicates the dissolution of kaolinite, calcite, chalcopyrite, and colomite, and the precipitation of gypsum, Ca-montmorillonite, biotite and plagioclase, and the generation of CO₂. This may be attributed to human activities. Entropy-weighted water quality index (EWQI) calculation shows that groundwater quality in the main stream is better than that in the tributaries, and that the groundwater quality along the Ganjiang River is affected by Mn and N $O 3 -$ . The non-carcinogenic risk is the highest to infants, followed by children, but relatively low to adults. The risk is higher in the tributaries than in the main stream.

Key words: hydrochemistry, PHREEQC, inverse modeling, EWQI, health risk assessment

CLC Number:

P641.3
X143

WU Tonghang, LIU Haiyan, ZHANG Weimin, SUN Zhanxue, WANG Zhen, LIU Maohan. Hydrochemical Characteristics and Human Health Risk Assessment in Downstream Ganjiang River of the Poyang Lake Basin[J]. Geoscience, 2022, 36(02): 427-438.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig.1 Hydrogeological map of the study area, showing the sampling location (a), and profile map (b)

Table 1 Classification of EWQI

EWQI	等级	描述
≤50	1	优良
51~100	2	良好
101~150	3	中等
151~200	4	差
>200	5	极差

Table 2 Parameters of the HHRA model

人群分类	暴露参数					RfD_oral/(mg·kg^-1·a^-1)
人群分类	IR/ (L/d)	EF/ (d/a)	ED/a	BW/kg		N $O 3 -$		Mn
婴儿	0.65^*	365^*	0.5^*	6.94^*	1.6^**		0.14^*
儿童	1.50^*	365^*	6^*	25.9^*
成年男性	3.62^*	365^*	30^*	73.0^*
成年女性	2.66^*	365^*	30^*	64.0^*

Table 2 Parameters of the HHRA model

人群分类	暴露参数					RfD_oral/(mg·kg^-1·a^-1)
人群分类	IR/ (L/d)	EF/ (d/a)	ED/a	BW/kg		N $O 3 -$		Mn
婴儿	0.65^*	365^*	0.5^*	6.94^*	1.6^**		0.14^*
儿童	1.50^*	365^*	6^*	25.9^*
成年男性	3.62^*	365^*	30^*	73.0^*
成年女性	2.66^*	365^*	30^*	64.0^*

Table 3 Hydrogeochemical parameters for the water samples

区域	统计参数	pH	ORP/ mV	EC/ (μV/cm)	TDS/ (mg/L)	Cl^-/ (mg/L)	S $O 4 2 -$ / (mg/L)	HC $O 3 -$ / (mg/L)	Ca²⁺/ (mg/L)	K⁺/ (mg/L)	Mg²⁺/ (mg/L)	Na⁺/ (mg/L)	N $O 3 -$ / (mg/L)	Mn/ (μg/L)
干流地下水	最小值	5.47	-99.50	126.40	63.20	1.72	0.16	8.00	8.51	0	2.90	3.45	0	2.17
	最大值	7.00	302.00	1 632.00	880.00	76.74	64.11	376.00	89.58	78.33	27.13	39.98	91.66	6 150.00
	平均值	6.46	112.87	438.83	225.61	31.07	18.73	106.83	28.09	13.79	9.75	14.62	27.48	861.24
	标准偏差	0.40	99.73	307.09	166.34	20.12	17.65	77.69	19.15	17.40	5.27	8.34	29.86	1 636.35
	指导值	6.5~8.5^*	—	2 500^**	1 000^*	250^*	250^*	—	75^**	200^**	50^**	200^**	50^**	100^*
支流地下水	最小值	5.66	106.50	47.20	23.60	2.23	3.58	13.59	4.70	1.00	2.10	3.11	5.24	1.80
	最大值	7.60	232.00	731.00	365.50	86.06	111.91	108.74	57.42	62.93	14.20	31.58	158.15	2 191.00
	平均值	6.68	174.12	247.21	123.60	19.63	26.07	44.48	24.36	11.19	5.12	9.82	39.73	303.41
	标准偏差	0.61	39.88	209.98	104.99	24.45	31.31	36.01	18.76	17.76	3.31	8.51	44.52	642.45
	指导值	6.5~8.5^*	—	2 500^**	1 000^*	250^*	250^*	—	75^**	200^**	50^**	200^**	50^**	100^*
地表水	最小值	6.94	-17.40	173.90	86.95	11.19	6.94	40.78	17.22	3.25	3.09	9.50	1.14	3.63
	最大值	8.19	220.00	304.00	152.00	31.36	30.91	81.56	25.13	12.02	5.00	20.09	7.22	107.00
	平均值	7.52	135.51	216.59	108.30	21.00	17.41	61.17	20.01	5.85	3.52	13.02	4.02	35.63
	标准偏差	0.41	57.33	51.89	25.94	6.52	8.32	9.93	3.16	2.91	0.58	4.07	2.36	31.54

Table 3 Hydrogeochemical parameters for the water samples

区域	统计参数	pH	ORP/ mV	EC/ (μV/cm)	TDS/ (mg/L)	Cl^-/ (mg/L)	S $O 4 2 -$ / (mg/L)	HC $O 3 -$ / (mg/L)	Ca²⁺/ (mg/L)	K⁺/ (mg/L)	Mg²⁺/ (mg/L)	Na⁺/ (mg/L)	N $O 3 -$ / (mg/L)	Mn/ (μg/L)
干流地下水	最小值	5.47	-99.50	126.40	63.20	1.72	0.16	8.00	8.51	0	2.90	3.45	0	2.17
	最大值	7.00	302.00	1 632.00	880.00	76.74	64.11	376.00	89.58	78.33	27.13	39.98	91.66	6 150.00
	平均值	6.46	112.87	438.83	225.61	31.07	18.73	106.83	28.09	13.79	9.75	14.62	27.48	861.24
	标准偏差	0.40	99.73	307.09	166.34	20.12	17.65	77.69	19.15	17.40	5.27	8.34	29.86	1 636.35
	指导值	6.5~8.5^*	—	2 500^**	1 000^*	250^*	250^*	—	75^**	200^**	50^**	200^**	50^**	100^*
支流地下水	最小值	5.66	106.50	47.20	23.60	2.23	3.58	13.59	4.70	1.00	2.10	3.11	5.24	1.80
	最大值	7.60	232.00	731.00	365.50	86.06	111.91	108.74	57.42	62.93	14.20	31.58	158.15	2 191.00
	平均值	6.68	174.12	247.21	123.60	19.63	26.07	44.48	24.36	11.19	5.12	9.82	39.73	303.41
	标准偏差	0.61	39.88	209.98	104.99	24.45	31.31	36.01	18.76	17.76	3.31	8.51	44.52	642.45
	指导值	6.5~8.5^*	—	2 500^**	1 000^*	250^*	250^*	—	75^**	200^**	50^**	200^**	50^**	100^*
地表水	最小值	6.94	-17.40	173.90	86.95	11.19	6.94	40.78	17.22	3.25	3.09	9.50	1.14	3.63
	最大值	8.19	220.00	304.00	152.00	31.36	30.91	81.56	25.13	12.02	5.00	20.09	7.22	107.00
	平均值	7.52	135.51	216.59	108.30	21.00	17.41	61.17	20.01	5.85	3.52	13.02	4.02	35.63
	标准偏差	0.41	57.33	51.89	25.94	6.52	8.32	9.93	3.16	2.91	0.58	4.07	2.36	31.54

Fig.2 Piper plots of water samples from the study area(unit: %)

Fig.3 Gibbs diagrams of water samples from the study area

Fig.4 Bivariate molar ratio plot of Ca2+/Na+ vs. HC03-/Na+ of water samples from the study area

Fig.5 Mineral SI for the groundwater samples

Table 4 Data points selected for inverse modelling

反向模拟路径	路径起点 /终点	pH	Cl^-/ (mg/L)	S $O 4 2 -$ / (mg/L)	N $O 3 -$ / (mg/L)	HC $O 3 -$ / (mg/L)	Ca²⁺/ (mg/L)	K⁺/ (mg/L)	Mg²⁺/ (mg/L)	Na⁺/ (mg/L)
NCGW-1	gj-3	6.83	2.23	18.90	5.24	54.37	15.68	2.97	3.60	4.42
NCGW-1	gj-12	5.66	86.06	35.29	158.15	13.59	39.94	62.93	14.20	31.58
NCGW-2	gj-21	6.85	203.89	28.85	16.76	6.41	10.04	203.89	28.85	16.76
NCGW-2	gj-28	6.80	40.78	9.99	7.74	6.38	13.03	40.78	9.99	7.74
NCGW-3	gj-54	6.05	20.36	54.49	70.17	66.00	42.05	13.75	9.92	9.26
NCGW-3	gj-46	6.38	20.92	4.54	8.71	104.00	17.81	0	8.56	6.75
NCGW-4	gj-52	6.60	28.77	22.88	1.72	142.00	48.37	12.51	7.36	9.72
NCGW-4	gj-48	6.31	24.97	12.26	4.94	66.00	17.52	9.47	9.48	7.29

Table 4 Data points selected for inverse modelling

反向模拟路径	路径起点 /终点	pH	Cl^-/ (mg/L)	S $O 4 2 -$ / (mg/L)	N $O 3 -$ / (mg/L)	HC $O 3 -$ / (mg/L)	Ca²⁺/ (mg/L)	K⁺/ (mg/L)	Mg²⁺/ (mg/L)	Na⁺/ (mg/L)
NCGW-1	gj-3	6.83	2.23	18.90	5.24	54.37	15.68	2.97	3.60	4.42
NCGW-1	gj-12	5.66	86.06	35.29	158.15	13.59	39.94	62.93	14.20	31.58
NCGW-2	gj-21	6.85	203.89	28.85	16.76	6.41	10.04	203.89	28.85	16.76
NCGW-2	gj-28	6.80	40.78	9.99	7.74	6.38	13.03	40.78	9.99	7.74
NCGW-3	gj-54	6.05	20.36	54.49	70.17	66.00	42.05	13.75	9.92	9.26
NCGW-3	gj-46	6.38	20.92	4.54	8.71	104.00	17.81	0	8.56	6.75
NCGW-4	gj-52	6.60	28.77	22.88	1.72	142.00	48.37	12.51	7.36	9.72
NCGW-4	gj-48	6.31	24.97	12.26	4.94	66.00	17.52	9.47	9.48	7.29

Table 5 Molar transfer for phases in different routes (mol/L)

反向模拟路径	岩盐	石膏	高岭石	Ca-蒙脱石	CO₂(气)	方解石	玉髓	黑云母	斜长石	白云石
NCGW-1	5.31E-04	-5.57E-03	-1.42E+03	1.22E+03	2.01E+02	-2.01E+02	-1.63E+03	-3.46E-03	-8.00E-03	6.50E-03
NCGW-2	-1.81E-02	-7.12E-03	-9.85E+02	8.45E+02	1.39E+02	-1.40E+02	-1.13E+03	-5.48E-02	1.51E-02	1.60E-01
NCGW-3	5.21E-04	-2.15E-05	4.27E+01	-3.67E+01	-6.05E+00	6.05E+00	4.92E+01	-5.44E-04	-4.45E-04	2.49E-03
NCGW-4	-4.71E-04	-2.07E-04	-1.97E+01	1.69E+01	2.79E+00	-2.80E+00	-2.27E+01	-2.08E-04	3.12E-04	5.87E-04

Fig.6 Groundwater EWQI scatter plots

Fig.7 Box line diagrams of risk factor for the mainstream groundwater of the study area

Fig.8 Box line diagrams of risk factor for the tributaries groundwater of the study area

Fig.9 Potential non-carcinogenic risk status of groundwater from the study area

References 38

[1]	ZHANG Y, DAI Y, WANG Y, et al. Hydrochemistry, quality and potential health risk appraisal of nitrate enriched groundwater in the Nanchong area, southwestern China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 784: 147186.
[2]	彭红霞, 侯清芹, 曾敏, 等. 雷州半岛地下水化学特征及控制因素分析[J]. 环境科学, 2021, 42(11):5375-5383.
[3]	DASH C J, SARANGI A, SINGH D K, et al. Numerical simulation to assess potential groundwater recharge and net groundwater use in a semi-arid region[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2019, 191(6) :1-14.
[4]	刘红梅. 地下水水质分析及水污染治理措施研究[J]. 冶金管理, 2021(13): 148-149.
[5]	王强强. 地下水污染防治战略探讨[J]. 低碳世界, 2021, 11(7): 57-58.
[6]	周飞飞, 姚蕾, 伍泓洁, 等. 城镇地下水污染原因与应对措施研究[J]. 皮革制作与环保科技, 2021, 2(13): 114-115.
[7]	张秀. 地下水环境保护与防治建议研究[J]. 西部资源, 2021(5): 12-14.
[8]	李传琼. 赣江水系水化学分布特征及成分来源[D]. 南昌: 江西师范大学, 2018:1-58.
[9]	王雅宁, 饶文波, 郑芳文, 等. 赣江河水主离子化学特征和径流效应以及控制机制[J]. 人民长江, 2020, 51(4): 26-34.
[10]	欧阳球林. 赣江水的物理化学特征及水质污染状况[J]. 水资源保护, 1988(增): 119-123.
[11]	翟大兴, 杨忠芳, 柳青青, 等. 鄱阳湖流域水化学特征及影响因素分析[J]. 地学前缘, 2012, 19(1): 264-276.
[12]	胡春华, 周文斌. 鄱阳湖流域水化学环境参数的变化特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2014, 23(3): 427-433.
[13]	李博, 杨忠芳, 季文兵, 等. 典型岩溶区硫化物矿床--广西贵港锡基坑铅锌矿开采的生态效应[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(5):957-969.
[14]	胡锋平, 侯娟, 罗健文, 等. 赣江南昌段污染负荷及水环境容量分析[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2010, 33(12): 192-195.
[15]	饶志, 储小东, 吴代赦, 等. 鄱阳湖平原地下水重金属含量特征与健康风险评估[J]. 水文地质工程地质, 2019, 46(5): 31-37.
[16]	LIAO F, WANG G, SHI Z, et al. Distributions, sources, and species of heavy metals/trace elements in shallow groundwater around the Poyang Lake, East China[J]. Exposure and Health, 2018, 10(4): 211-227.
[17]	UKAH B U, AMEH P D, EGBUERI J C, et al. Impact of effluent-derived heavy metals on the groundwater quality in Ajao industrial area, Nigeria: an assessment using entropy water quality index (EWQI)[J]. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 2020, 4(3): 231-244.
[18]	KUMAR P J, AUGUSTINE C M. Entropy-weighted water quality index (EWQI) modeling of groundwater quality and spatial mapping in Uppar Odai Sub-Basin, South India[J]. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2022, 8(1):911-924.
[19]	NGUYEN A H, PHAM N T T, TAT V M H, et al. Application of entropy weight in groundwater quality index (EWQI) and GIS for groundwater quality zoning in the Southeastern Coastal region, Vietnam[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2021, 652(1): 012005.
[20]	LU S, CHEN J, ZHENG X, et al. Hydrogeochemical characteristics of karst groundwater in Jinci spring area, north China[J]. Carbonates and Evaporites, 2020, 35(3): 1-14.
[21]	武亚遵, 潘春芳, 林云, 等. 鹤壁矿区奥陶系灰岩地下水水文地球化学特征及反向模拟[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2018, 29(4): 25-32.
[22]	韦红钢. 铀在北山花岗岩中的吸附迁移影响因素研究[J]. 现代地质, 2012, 26(4):823-828.
[23]	王宏青. 氮氧同位素示踪赣江南昌段水体硝酸盐来源[D]. 南昌: 东华理工大学, 2019:1-70.
[24]	LIAO F, WANG G, YI L, et al. Identifying locations and sources of groundwater discharge into Poyang Lake (eastern China) using radium and stable isotopes (deuterium and oxygen-18)[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 740: 140163.
[25]	计勇, 张洁, 樊后保, 等. 赣江中下游城市断面表层沉积物中重金属形态分析[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2013, 52(20): 4932-4936.
[26]	李凤果. 赣江水系沉积物重金属污染特征及风险评价[D]. 赣州: 江西理工大学, 2020:1-85.
[27]	李燕, 王鹏, 陈波, 等. 赣江南昌段水化学特征及城区影响[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018, 27(2): 386-394.
[28]	VASANTHAVIGAR M, SRINIVASAMOORTHY K, VIJAYARAGAVAN K, et al. Application of water quality index for ground-water quality assessment: Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, Tamilnadu, India[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2010, 171(1): 595-609.
[29]	SIDDIQUE J, MENGGUI J, SHAH M H, et al. Integrated approach to hydrogeochemical appraisal and quality assessment of groundwater from sargodha district, Pakistan[J]. Geofluids, 2020(2):6621038.
[30]	闫峰, 张兴磊, 唐贝, 等. 熵权法在地下水环境质量评价中的局限性[J]. 南昌大学学报(工科版), 2019, 41(1): 11-14.
[31]	叶宗裕. 关于多指标综合评价中指标正向化和无量纲化方法的选择[J]. 浙江统计, 2003(4): 25-26.
[32]	AMIRI V, REZAEI M, SOHRABI N. Groundwater quality assessment using entropy weighted water quality index (EWQI) in Lenjanat, Iran[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2014, 72(9): 3479-3490.
[33]	HAO Q, XIAO Y, CHEN K, et al. Comprehensive understanding of groundwater geochemistry and suitability for sustainable drinking purposes in confined aquifers of the Wuyi Region, Central North China Plain[J]. Water, 2020, 12(11): 3052-3075.
[34]	ZHANG Y, WU J, XU B. Human health risk assessment of groundwater nitrogen pollution in Jinghui canal irrigation area of the loess region, northwest China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2018, 77(7): 1-12.
[35]	中华人民共和国国土资源部, 中华人民共和国水利部.地下水质量标准GB/T 14848-2017[S]. 北京: 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会, 2017.
[36]	WHO. Guideline for Drinking-Water Quality[M]. 4th ed. Geneva: WHO, 2011.
[37]	GIBBS R J. Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry[J]. Science, 1970, 170: 1088-1090.
[38]	RAO N S, SUNITHA B, ADIMALLA N, et al. Quality criteria for groundwater use from a rural part of Wanaparthy District, Telangana State, India, through ionic spatial distribution (ISD), entropy water quality index (EWQI) and principal component analysis (PCA)[J]. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 2020, 42(2): 579-599.