内蒙古河套灌区浅层地下水化学特征和灌溉适宜性分析

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2022.012

现代地质 ›› 2022, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (02): 418-426.DOI: 10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2022.012

内蒙古河套灌区浅层地下水化学特征和灌溉适宜性分析

李泽岩¹^,²^,³(), 曹文庚¹^,²^,³(), 王卓然⁴, 李谨丞¹^,⁵, 任宇¹^,²^,³

1. 中国地质科学院水文地质环境地质研究所,河北石家庄 050061
2. 自然资源部地下水科学与工程重点实验室,河北石家庄 050061
3. 河北沧州平原区地下水与地面沉降国家野外科学观测研究站,河北石家庄 050061
4. 水利部信息中心,北京 100053
5. 中国地质大学(北京) 水资源与环境学院,北京 100083

收稿日期:2021-09-30 修回日期:2022-03-10 出版日期:2022-04-10 发布日期:2022-06-01
通讯作者: 曹文庚
作者简介:曹文庚,男,副研究员,1985年出生,水文地球化学专业,主要从事水文地球化学研究。Email: caowengeng@mail.cgs.gov.cn。
李泽岩,女,研究实习员,1993年出生,地质工程专业,主要从事水文地球化学与水资源研究。Email:lizeyan@mail.cgs.gov.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(41972262);河北省自然科学基金优秀青年科学基金项目(D2020504032);河南省地质环境监测院中央环保项目“黄河中下游流域地下水污染防治”(H2020419900S1-00001)

Hydrochemical Characterization and Irrigation Suitability Analysis of Shallow Groundwater in Hetao Irrigation District, Inner Mongolia

LI Zeyan¹^,²^,³(), CAO Wengeng¹^,²^,³(), WANG Zhuoran⁴, LI Jincheng¹^,⁵, REN Yu¹^,²^,³

1. The Institute of Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology, CAGS, Shijiazhuang,Hebei 050061, China
2. Key Laboratory of Groundwater Sciences and Engineering,Ministry of Natural Resources, Shijiazhuang,Hebei 050061, China
3. Hebei Cangzhou Groundwater and Land Subsidence National Observation and Research Station, Shijiazhuang,Hebei 050061, China
4. Water Information Center, Ministry of Water Resources, Beijing 100053, China
5. School of Water Resources and Environment, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China

Received:2021-09-30 Revised:2022-03-10 Online:2022-04-10 Published:2022-06-01
Contact: CAO Wengeng

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着黄河流域水资源供需矛盾加剧,我国特大型灌区——内蒙古河套灌区开始采用黄河水与地下水相结合的方式进行农业灌溉。本研究采集河套灌区内499组地下水样品和1组黄河水样品,在分析地下水和黄河水样品的水化学特征基础上,运用钠吸附比(SAR)、渗透指数(PI)、钠含量(SC)和残余碳酸钠(RSC)以及《农田灌溉水质标准(GB 5084—2021)》对地下水和黄河水的灌溉适宜性进行对比分析。结果表明,地下水与黄河水均为弱碱性水,Ca²⁺和HC0₃^-为优势离子,Gibbs图显示地下水受到岩石风化淋溶和蒸发浓缩的双重影响,对灌溉适宜性影响较大的钠盐主要来自岩盐溶解。灌溉适宜性分析结果表明,从SAR、PI和RSC指标来看,地下水的灌溉适宜性较好,从SC指标来看,不适宜灌溉的地下水主要分布在灌区北部总排干和灌区南部黄河沿岸;根据农田灌溉水质标准分析,除总砷和氯化物两项指标外,其余指标适宜灌溉样品占比均高于90%,综合评价全区共231组地下水样品适宜灌溉。地下水与黄河水灌溉适宜性对比表明,黄河水的SAR和SC指标灌溉适宜性分析结果较好,地下水的PI和RSC指标灌溉适宜性分析结果较好,根据灌溉水质标准显示黄河水所有指标均适宜灌溉。本研究为日后内蒙古河套灌区合理选用灌溉水源提供数据支撑,为该区域地下水的治理与防控提供科学依据。

关键词: 河套灌区, 灌溉适宜性, 地下水, 黄河水, 水化学特征

Abstract:

With the aggravation of conflict between supply and demand of water resources in the Yellow River basin, both Yellow River water and groundwater are used for agricultural irrigation in the Hetao region of Inner Mongolia (one of the large irrigation districts in China). In this paper, 499 groundwater samples and 1 Yellow River water sample were collected. Based on hydrogeochemical analysis of these samples, the irrigation suitabi-lity difference between groundwater and Yellow River water has been studied by SAR, PI, SC, RSC and Irrigation Water Quality Standard (GB 5084-2021). The results show that the environment of groundwater and Yellow River water are both weakly alkaline, and the major ions are Ca²⁺ and HC0₃^-. The Gibbs diagram shows that the groundwater is affected by rock weathering/leaching and evaporation concentration, and the sodium salts (which have immense influence on irrigation suitability) come mainly from rock salt dissolution. According to the irrigation suitability analysis results about SAR, PI and RSC, the groundwater is suitable for irrigation. According to the SC evaluation result, the groundwater unsuitable for irrigation is mainly distributed in the main drainage channel in the northern irrigation area and along the Yellow River in the southern irrigation area. According to the irrigation water quality standard, except for the total arsenic and chloride, over 90% samples have other irrigation suitability indices. A total of 231 samples are suitable for irrigation. Comparing the irrigation suitability between groundwater and Yellow River water, we suggest that SAR and SC indices of the Yellow River water are better, while the PI and RSC indices of groundwater are better. The assessment result, using the irrigation water quality standard, shows that the Yellow River water is suitable for irrigation. This study gives data support for the irrigation water source selection, and provides a scientific basis for the future treatment and prevention of groundwater in the Hetao irrigation district in Inner Mongolia.

Key words: Hetao irrigation district, irrigation suitability, groundwater, Yellow River, hydrochemical characterization

中图分类号:

P641.3
X143

李泽岩, 曹文庚, 王卓然, 李谨丞, 任宇. 内蒙古河套灌区浅层地下水化学特征和灌溉适宜性分析[J]. 现代地质, 2022, 36(02): 418-426.

LI Zeyan, CAO Wengeng, WANG Zhuoran, LI Jincheng, REN Yu. Hydrochemical Characterization and Irrigation Suitability Analysis of Shallow Groundwater in Hetao Irrigation District, Inner Mongolia[J]. Geoscience, 2022, 36(02): 418-426.

图/表 10

图1 研究区位置与采样点分布示意图

Fig.1 Sketch map of the study area, showing the sampling positions

图2 河套灌区水化学状况图 (a)Piper三线图(单位:%);(b)(d)Gibbs分布图;(c)Cl- 和Na+离子比分布图

Fig.2 Hydrochemistry in Hetao irrigation district

表1 地下水灌溉适宜性评价结果

Table 1 Evaluation results for groundwater irrigationsuitability

指标	分类标准		比例/%
SAR	<10非常适用	495	99.20
	10~18较适用	4	0.80
	18~26适用	0	0
	>26不适用	0	0
PI	>75非常适用	499	100.00
	25~75适用	0	0
	<25不适用	0	0
SC	<20非常适用	1	0.20
	20~40较适用	100	20.04
	40~60适用	218	43.69
	60~80不确定	139	27.86
	>80不适用	41	8.21
RSC	<1.25非常适用	416	83.37
	1.25~2.50适用	23	4.61
	>2.5不适用	60	12.02

图3 河套灌区地下水灌溉适宜性分区图

Fig.3 Irrigation suitability of groundwater in Hetao irrigationdistrict

表2 依据《农田灌溉水质标准》(GB 5084—2021)的河套灌区灌溉适宜性评价

Table 2 Evaluation results for groundwater according to the Irrigation Water Quality Standard

控制项目	指标	旱地作物限值		地下水样品(n=499)
控制项目	指标	旱地作物限值		适宜灌溉样品数		不适宜灌溉样品数		适宜灌溉样品占比/%
基本控制项目	水温		35		499		0		100
	总铅		0.2		499		0		100
	总汞		0.001		499		0		100
	总镉		0.01		498		1		99.80
	六价铬		0.1		496		3		99.40
	pH		5.5~8.5		460		39		92.18
	总砷		0.1		416		83		83.37
	氯化物		350		291		208		58.32
选择控制项目	氰化物		0.5		499		0		100
	挥发酚		1		499		0		100
	总锌		2		499		0		100
	总铜		1		498		1		99.8
	总镍		0.2		498		1		99.8
	硒		0.02		498		1		99.8
	氟化物		3		488		11		97.8

图4 河套灌区地下水灌溉水质分布图

Fig.4 Distribution of irrigation water quality of groundwater in Hetao irrigation district

图5 河套灌区地下水与黄河水主要离子质量浓度对比图

Fig.5 Comparison of major ion concentrations between Yellow River water and groundwater in Hetao irrigation district

图6 河套灌区地下水与黄河水灌溉适宜性对比图

Fig.6 Comparison of irrigation suitability between Yellow Ri-ver water and groundwater in Hetao irrigation district

表3 河套灌区黄河水与地下水四个指标对比

Table 3 Comparison for four indices between Yellow River water and groundwater in Hetao irrigation district

指标	地下水样品			黄河水
指标	范围	均值	中位值	黄河水
SAR	0.17~12.52	1.98	1.38	1.14
PI	129.90~27 848.57	1 938.49	1 256.08	196.12
SC	17.82~94.98	54.64	53.44	29.23
RSC	-112.76~15.58	-4.53	-2.78	-1.02

图7 河套灌区地下水与黄河水主要项目对比

Fig.7 Comparison of main items between the Yellow River water and groundwater in Hetao irrigation district

参考文献 39

[1]	邹宇锋, 蔡焕杰, 张体彬, 等. 河套灌区不同灌溉方式春玉米耗水特性与经济效益分析[J]. 农业机械学报, 2020, 51(9): 237-248.
[2]	章超然. 地表水补给地下水化学特征和砷分布的影响[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2020.
[3]	王璐瑶. 河套灌区地下水开发利用的渠井结合比研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉大学, 2018.
[4]	沈来银, 胡铁松, 周姗, 等. 基于SHAW模型的河套灌区秋浇渠系优化配水模型研究[J]. 水利学报, 2020, 51(4): 458-467.
[5]	马贵仁, 屈忠义, 王丽萍, 等. 基于ArcGIS空间插值的河套灌区土壤水盐运移规律与地下水动态研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(4):209-216.
[6]	史海滨, 杨树青, 李瑞平, 等. 内蒙古河套灌区水盐运动与盐渍化防治研究展望[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2020, 39(8):1-17.
[7]	GUO H M, ZHANG Y. XING L N, et al. Spatial variation in arsenic and fluoride concentrations of shallow groundwater from the town of Shahai in the Hetao basin, Inner Mongolia[J]. Applied Geochemistry, 2012, 27(11): 2187-2196.
[8]	CAO W G, GUO H M. ZHANG Y L, et al. Controls of paleochannels on groundwater arsenic distribution in shallow aquifers of alluvial plain in the Hetao Basin, China[J]. Science of Total Environment, 2018, 613/614: 958-968.
[9]	CAO W G. Genesis of high arsenic groundwater in typical alluvial plain of Yellow River Basin[D]. Zhengzhou: North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, 2018.
[10]	GUO H M, ZHANG Y, JIA Y F, et al. Dynamic behaviors of water levels and arsenic concentration in shallow groundwater from the Hetao Basin, Inner Mongolia[J]. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 2013, 135: 130-140.
[11]	GUO H M, YANG S Z, TANG X H, et al. Groundwater geochemistry and its implications for arsenic mobilization in shallow aquifers of the Hetao Basin, Inner Mongolia[J]. Science of Total Environment, 2008, 393(1): 131-44.
[12]	WEN D G, ZHANG F C, ZHANG E Y, et al. Arsenic, fluoride and iodine in groundwater of China[J]. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 2013, 135: 1-21.
[13]	陈国梁, 冯涛, 陈章, 等. 砷在农作物中的累积及其耐受机制研究综述[J]. 生态环境学报, 2017, 26(11): 1997-2002.
[14]	段明宇, 吴攀, 张翅鹏, 等. 高砷煤矿污染土壤的小麦砷累积研究[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2017, 37(7): 985-991.
[15]	崔佳琪, 李仙岳, 史海滨, 等. 河套灌区地下水化学演变特征及形成机制[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(9): 4011-4020.
[16]	BIAN J M, NIE S Y, WANG R, et al. Hydrochemical charac-teristics and quality assessment of groundwater for irrigation use in central and eastern Songnen Plain, Northeast China[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2018, 190(7):382-398.
[17]	袁宏颖, 杨树青, 张万锋, 等. 河套灌区浅层地下水NO₃^--N时空变化及驱动因素[J/OL]. 环境科学, 2021.https://doi.org/10.13227/j.hjkx.202107.
[18]	曹文庚. 黄河流域典型冲积平原高砷地下水成因机制[D]. 郑州: 华北水利水电大学, 2018.
[19]	付宇, 曹文庚, 张娟娟. 基于随机森林建模预测河套盆地高砷地下水风险分布[J]. 岩矿测试, 2021, 40(6):860-870.
[20]	袁成福, 冯绍元, 庄旭东. 内蒙古河套灌区典型耕、荒地水盐动态分析[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2022, 40(1):77-85.
[21]	赖黎明, 美丽, 杨旸. 内蒙古河套灌区农业土壤特征与发展分析[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(2):213-218.
[22]	SELVAM S, JESURAJA K, ROY P D, et al. Assessment of groundwater from an industrial coastal area of south India for human health risk from consumption and irrigation suitability[J]. Environmental Research, 2021, 200: 111-461.
[23]	朱丹尼, 邹胜章, 李军, 等. 会仙岩溶湿地丰平枯水期地表水污染及灌溉适用性评价[J]. 环境科学, 2021, 42(5):2241-2250.
[24]	唐金平, 张强, 胡漾, 等. 湔江冲洪积扇地下水化学特征及控制因素分析[J]. 环境科学, 2019, 40(7):28-33.
[25]	高延康, 刘祖发, 卓文珊, 等. 基于模糊综合优化模型的湛江市地下水灌溉适宜性评价[J]. 亚热带资源与环境学报, 2019, 14(3):29-37.
[26]	Staff of US Salinity Laboratory. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils:U.S. Department of Agriculture Hand Book[M]. Washington: Government Printing Office Washington, 1954.
[27]	DONEEN L D. Notes on water quality in agriculture[M]//Water Science and Engineering Paper 4001. Davis: University of California, 1964.
[28]	BISHWAKARMA K, WANG G X, ZHANG F, et al. Hydrochemical characterization and irrigation suitability of the Ganges Brahmaputra River System: review and assessment[J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2022, 19(2): 388-402.
[29]	EATON F M. Significance of carbonate irrigation water[J]. Soil Science, 1950, 69 (2):123-133.
[30]	ZHI C S, CAO W G, WNAG Z, et al. High-arsenic groundwater in paleochannels of the lower Yellow River, China: distribution and genesis mechanisms[J]. Water, 2021, 13(3): 338-342.
[31]	REDDY A G S, KUMAR K N. Identification of the hydrogeochemical processes in groundwater using major ion chemistry: a case study of Penna-Chitravathi river basins in Southern India[J]. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, 2010, 170(1/4):365-382.
[32]	CAO W G, DONG Q Y, TAN J, et al. The mechanism of Yellow River diversion in controlling high arsenic groundwater distribution since the Late Pleistocene[J]. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science and Technology, 2020, 19(1): 140-150.
[33]	MA L, HUANG T W, QIU H, et al. Hydrogeochemical characteristic evaluation and irrigation suitability assessment of shallow groundwater in Dangshan County, China[J]. Geosciences Journal, 2021, 25(5): 731-748.
[34]	SMEDLEY P L, KINNIBURGH D G. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters[J]. Applied Geochemistry, 2002, 17: 517-568.
[35]	WANG Y X, XIE X J, JOHNSON T M, et al. Coupled iron, sulfur and carbon isotope evidences for arsenic enrichment in groundwater[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2014, 519: 414-422.
[36]	LI J X, WANG Y X, GUO W, et al. Iodine mobilization in groundwater system at Datong basin, China: evidence from hydrochemistry and fluorescence characteristics[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2014, 468/469: 738-45.
[37]	曹文庚, 董秋瑶, 谭俊. 河套盆地晚更新世以来黄河改道对高砷地下水分布的控制机制[J]. 南水北调与水利科技, 2020, 19(1): 140-150.
[38]	KOUZANA L, MAMMOU A B, FELFOUL M S. Seawater intrusion and associated processes: Case of the Korba aquifer (Cap-Bon, Tunisia)[J]. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 2009, 341(1): 21-35.
[39]	王一舒, 荣楠, 侯静, 等. 乌梁素海水体交换特征及影响因素分析[J]. 水电能源科学, 2021, 39(10): 39-42,88.

内蒙古河套灌区浅层地下水化学特征和灌溉适宜性分析

Hydrochemical Characterization and Irrigation Suitability Analysis of Shallow Groundwater in Hetao Irrigation District, Inner Mongolia

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 39

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张卓, 陈社明, 柳富田, 高志鹏, 牛笑童. 滨海平原区深层高氟地下水富集机理:以滦河三角洲为例[J]. 现代地质, 2023, 37(04): 925-932.
[2]	彭红明, 王占巍, 罗银飞, 袁有靖, 王万平. 基于地下水数值模拟的布哈河流域地下水可开采资源量评价[J]. 现代地质, 2023, 37(04): 943-953.
[3]	闫佰忠, 孙剑, 陈佳琦, 孙丰博, 李晓萌, 付庆杰. 基于自适应BPNN-GIS耦合的地下水源热泵适宜性分区研究[J]. 现代地质, 2023, 37(04): 963-971.
[4]	张莉, 刘菲, 袁慧卿, 梁凯旋. 地下水抽出处理技术研究进展与展望[J]. 现代地质, 2023, 37(04): 977-985.
[5]	胡新宇, 申媛媛, 褚婷雯, 贺巍, 魏炜, 申晓鹏. 生态补水下的永定河流域地下水水位变化规律[J]. 现代地质, 2023, 37(04): 986-993.
[6]	吴福贤, 李玮, 李水云, 陈晓丹, 谢林伸, 成功, 常旭, 陈纯兴, 韩龙. 牡蛎壳改性及联合释氧复合材料修复地下水氨氮污染实验研究[J]. 现代地质, 2022, 36(02): 583-590.
[7]	南天, 曹文庚, 王卓然, 张娟娟, 张栋. 利用趋势化随机参数场的地下水流数值模拟优化方法[J]. 现代地质, 2022, 36(02): 591-601.
[8]	李波, 吴璇, 张翼飞, 徐聪聪, 刘春伟, 关琴, 罗斐. 山东柴汶河下游古近系朱家沟组含水岩组水文地质特征及地下水富集模式[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(03): 675-681.
[9]	李海学, 程旭学, 马岳昆, 刘伟坡, 周斌. 鄂尔多斯盆地南部马莲河流域地下水中锶富集特征及成因分析[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(03): 682-692.
[10]	黄先贵, 平建华, 禹言, 朱亚强, 张敏. 基于氚同位素的安阳河中下游流域地下水更新能力研究[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(03): 693-702.
[11]	孙志斌, 胡振国, 刘菲, 杨新敏, 赵贝, 姜国良. 化工装置周边土壤及地下水中污染分布特征解析[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(06): 1333-1340.
[12]	高北斗, 王海超, 田继军, 韩旭, 冯烁, 王迪, 张振东. 准南煤田硫磺沟矿区向斜-承压式煤层气富集模式[J]. 现代地质, 2020, 34(02): 281-288.
[13]	夏蔓宏, 董少刚, 张涛, 李铱, 王超, 程雅娟, 李政葵. 半干旱区域高速公路绿化带建设对地下水循环的影响:以京藏高速公路呼包段为例[J]. 现代地质, 2019, 33(02): 412-421.
[14]	盛益之, 张旭, 翟晓波, 李广贺. 化学氧化技术异位处理地下水非水相有机污染物中试研究[J]. 现代地质, 2019, 33(02): 422-430.
[15]	邱余波, 陈虹, 杨军锋, 张占峰, 蒋宏, 杜默, 李刚. 伊犁盆地阔斯加尔铀成矿区西山窑组古地下水动力系统[J]. 现代地质, 2019, 33(02): 431-439.