Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment on the Groundwater in Landfills at Regional Scale Based on Multivariate Analysis Methods

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2024.039

Abstract

Abstract:

The produced municipal wastes have been increasing with the urbanization process and many cities currently have formed a large number of informal landfills at the early stage.Those landfills produced leachate that poses a potential risk of contamination to the groundwater and soils due to lacking impermeable processing devices.A scie.pngic assessment on their environmental risks of those landfills is urgent for the classification and management of landfills as well as prevention of groundwater pollution.In this study, DRASTIC model, hierarchical analysis, cluster analysis, and other methods are used to construct an index system of assessment on ecological environment risks.Totally, 14 landfills in the study area were investigated as the research object to eva-luate the ecological environment risk of groundwater.Four aspects, the current status of the landfill, the danger of the landfill, the a.pngouling capacity of the unsaturated zone, and the vulnerability of the aquifer, were included in the assessment.Twenty-one indicators, such as the selected size of the landfill, actual amount of landfill, and thickness of the clay layer in the unsaturated zone, were evaluated and graded.The results show that landfill No.2 has the lowest risk score of 4.13, and landfill No.5 has the highest risk score of 7.95.After the categorization of evaluation scores of the landfills, we reached that the risk index of three landfills is in low risk, the risk index of six landfills is in medium risk, and the risk index of five landfills is in high risk.The results are generally consistent with the previous evaluation results by expert scoring, and the method proposed in this study has significant implications in managing the risk of groundwater contamination.The results of this study is also of important reference for the quantitative evaluation on the risk of key sources of contamination.

Key words: landfill, groundwater pollution risk assessment, leachate, analytic hierarchy process

CLC Number:

P641

GONG Li, SHI Zheming, ZHANG Zongwen, DING Zhenyu, HAN Linlin, XIE Zixuan, CHENG Tianwei, ZHANG Yuan. Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment on the Groundwater in Landfills at Regional Scale Based on Multivariate Analysis Methods[J]. Geoscience, 2024, 38(03): 734-743.

Figures/Tables 13

References 29

[1]	ZHAO X N, WANG D Q, XU H L, et al. Groundwater pollution risk assessment based on groundwater vulnerability and pollution load on an isolated island[J]. Chemosphere, 2022, 289: 133134.
[2]	LI Y, LI J H, CHEN S S, et al. Establishing indices for groundwater contamination risk assessment in the vicinity of hazardous waste landfills in China[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2012, 165: 77-90. DOI PMID
[3]	GUO Y N, LI P Y, HE X D, et al. Groundwater quality in and around a landfill in Northwest China: Characteristic pollutant ide.pngication, health risk assessment, and controlling factor analysis[J]. Exposure and Health, 2022, 14(4): 885-901.
[4]	HAN Z Y, MA H N, SHI G Z, et al. A review of groundwater contamination near municipal solid waste landfill sites in China[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 569/570: 1255-1264.
[5]	刘东, 孙建亭, 江丁酉, 等. 二妃山垃圾填埋场污染地下水的可能性分析[J]. 地质科技情报, 2002, 21(3): 79-83.
[6]	宁航, 王宗星, 柳富田, 等. 基于系统空间特征识别的岩溶地下水污染成因分析[J]. 地质科技通报, 2022, 41(5): 367-376.
[7]	王建飞, 纪华. 非正规垃圾填埋场地下水污染风险评价分级方法研究[J]. 工程勘察, 2010, 38(增): 791-796.
[8]	洪梅, 张博, 李卉, 等. 生活垃圾填埋场对地下水污染的风险评价: 以北京北天堂垃圾填埋场为例[J]. 环境污染与防治, 2011, 33(3): 88-91, 95.
[9]	叶兆勇, 杨禹, 侯立安. 垃圾填埋场地下水的研究热点与趋势:基于CiteSpace的可视化分析[J]. 环境工程, 2021, 39(6): 65-71.
[10]	NIGRO A, SAPPA G, BARBIERI M. Application of boron and tritium isotopes for tracing landfill contamination in groundwater[J]. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 2017, 172: 101-108.
[11]	TALALAJ I A, BIEDKA P. Use of the landfill water pollution index (LWPI) for groundwater quality assessment near the landfill sites[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2016, 23(24): 24601-24613.
[12]	闫永利, 马晓冰, 袁国平, 等. 大地电磁法在阿苏卫填埋场地下水污染检测的应用研究[J]. 地球物理学报, 2007, 50(6): 1863-1868.
[13]	胡馨然, 杨斌, 韩智勇, 等. 中国正规、非正规生活垃圾填埋场地下水中典型污染指标特性比较分析[J]. 环境科学学报, 2019, 39(9): 3025-3038.
[14]	周睿, 吴玲, 簿丝, 等. 深圳简易垃圾填埋场水土环境污染指标识别[J]. 中国环境科学, 2022, 42(3): 1287-1294.
[15]	宋启龙, 靳孟贵, 解世勇, 等. 周口北郊垃圾填埋场渗滤液的渗漏量及COD变化模拟分析[J]. 地质科技情报, 2012, 31(6): 157-160.
[16]	郭敏丽, 王金生, 刘立才. 非正规垃圾填埋场地下水污染控制技术比较[J]. 水资源保护, 2009, 25(4): 28-30, 36.
[17]	CHAUDHARY R, NAIN P, KUMAR A. Temporal variation of leachate pollution index of Indian landfill sites and associated human health risk[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, 28(22): 28391-28406.
[18]	周文武, 陈冠益, 穷达卓玛, 等. 拉萨市垃圾填埋场地下水水质的居民健康风险评价[J]. 环境化学, 2020, 39(6): 1513-1522.
[19]	WANG F, SONG K, HE X L, et al. Ide.pngication of groundwater pollution characteristics and health risk assessment of a landfill in a low permeability area[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021, 18(14): 7690.
[20]	谢先军, 刘红杏, 高爽, 等. 典型纳污坑塘周边地下水污染来源识别及其健康风险评估[J]. 地质科技通报, 2020, 39(1): 34-42.
[21]	安达, 姜永海, 杨昱, 等. 海明距离模糊法在垃圾填埋场地下水质量评价中的应用[J]. 环境工程技术学报, 2013, 3(2): 119-123.
[22]	CANIANI D, LIOI D S, MANCINI I, et al. Fuzzy logic model development for groundwater pollution risk assessment[J]. European Water, 2011, 35: 13-22.
[23]	杨昱, 姜永海, 席北斗, 等. 生活垃圾填埋场地下水污染风险分级方法研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(7): 1704-1709. DOI
[24]	陈钰頔, 李妍颖, 叶忠, 等. 基于改进DRASTIC模型的冲洪积扇地下水脆弱性评价[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2021, 44(12): 194-202.
[25]	徐迎春, 杨丽虎, 宋献方, 等. 基于保护敏感目标的场地地下水污染风险评估[J]. 地质科技通报, 2023, 42(3): 262-271.
[26]	刘增超, 何连生, 董军, 等. 简易垃圾填埋场地下水污染风险评价[J]. 环境科学研究, 2012, 25(7): 833-839.
[27]	AL-ADAMAT R A N, FOSTER I D L, BABAN S M J. Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the Basaltic aquifer of the Azraq Basin of Jordan using GIS, Remote sensing and DRASTIC[J]. Applied Geography, 2003, 23(4): 303-324.
[28]	张宗文, 齐建. 九江市简易生活垃圾填埋场地下水环境调查评估报告[R]. 九江: 九江市生态环境局, 2022: 142-143.
[29]	张可心, 纪丹凤, 苏婧, 等. 垃圾填埋场地下水污染风险分级评价[J]. 环境科学研究, 2018, 31(3): 514-520.

影响因子	影响因子权重	指标	指标权重
影响因子	影响因子权重	指标	算数平方法权重	最终权重
现状影响因子X1	0.4476	覆盖和封场系统Z1	0.2667	0.4
现状影响因子X1	0.4476	受污染情况Z2	0.7333	0.6
填埋场危险性影响因子X2	0.2829	防渗情况Z3		0.2943
		实际填埋Z4		0.2107
		填埋场面积Z5		0.1471
		服务年限Z6		0.1000
		渗滤液处理站Z7		0.0653
		雨污分流系统Z8		0.0394
		气体导排系统Z9		0.0394
		地下水导排系统Z10		0.0394
		渗滤液导排系统Z11		0.0394
		填埋场年龄Z12		0.0252
包气带抗污性影响因子X3	0.1636	垂向渗透系数Z13		0.500
包气带抗污性影响因子X3	0.1636	包气带黏性土层厚度Z14		0.5
含水层脆弱性影响因子X4	0.1059	地下水埋深Z15	5	0.2174
		垂直净补给量Z16	4	0.1739
		含水层介质Z17	3	0.1304
		土壤介质类型Z18	2	0.0870
		区域坡度Z19	1	0.0435
		包气带岩性Z20	5	0.2174
		含水层渗透系数Z21	3	0.1304

影响因子	影响因子权重	指标	指标权重
影响因子	影响因子权重	指标	算数平方法权重	最终权重
现状影响因子X1	0.4476	覆盖和封场系统Z1	0.2667	0.4
现状影响因子X1	0.4476	受污染情况Z2	0.7333	0.6
填埋场危险性影响因子X2	0.2829	防渗情况Z3		0.2943
		实际填埋Z4		0.2107
		填埋场面积Z5		0.1471
		服务年限Z6		0.1000
		渗滤液处理站Z7		0.0653
		雨污分流系统Z8		0.0394
		气体导排系统Z9		0.0394
		地下水导排系统Z10		0.0394
		渗滤液导排系统Z11		0.0394
		填埋场年龄Z12		0.0252
包气带抗污性影响因子X3	0.1636	垂向渗透系数Z13		0.500
包气带抗污性影响因子X3	0.1636	包气带黏性土层厚度Z14		0.5
含水层脆弱性影响因子X4	0.1059	地下水埋深Z15	5	0.2174
		垂直净补给量Z16	4	0.1739
		含水层介质Z17	3	0.1304
		土壤介质类型Z18	2	0.0870
		区域坡度Z19	1	0.0435
		包气带岩性Z20	5	0.2174
		含水层渗透系数Z21	3	0.1304

现状影响因子	取值条件	赋分	权重
覆盖和封场系统	完善封场	1	0.4
	中等封场	4
	简易封场	7
	未封场	10
受污染情况	无污染	1	0.6
	较轻	5
	较轻需观察	7
	严重	10

现状影响因子	取值条件	赋分	权重
覆盖和封场系统	完善封场	1	0.4
	中等封场	4
	简易封场	7
	未封场	10
受污染情况	无污染	1	0.6
	较轻	5
	较轻需观察	7
	严重	10

填埋场危险性影响因子	取值条件	赋分	权重
防渗情况	无隔膜	1	0.2943
	多层隔膜覆盖,部分区域无隔膜	5
	多层隔膜覆盖	10
实际填埋 (m³)	≤30	1	0.2107
	30~70	5
	>70	10
填埋场面积 (m²)	≤10000	1	0.1471
	10000~100000	5
	>100000	10
服务年限 (a)	≤8	1	0.1000
	8~12	5
	>12	10
渗滤液处理站	有	1	0.0653
渗滤液处理站	无	10	0.0653
雨污分流系统	有	1	0.0394
雨污分流系统	无	10	0.0394
气体导排系统	有	1	0.0394
气体导排系统	无	10	0.0394
地下水导排系统	有	1	0.0394
地下水导排系统	无	10	0.0394
渗滤液导排系统	有	1	0.0394
渗滤液导排系统	无	10	0.0394
填埋场年龄(a)	≤15	1	0.0252
	15~20	5
	>20	10