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

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2022.012

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

P641.3
X143

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.

Figures/Tables 10

References 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.

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

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

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

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

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