| Literature DB >> 23222206 |
Ruibin Zhang1, Xin Qian, Xingcheng Yuan, Rui Ye, Bisheng Xia, Yulei Wang.
Abstract
In recent years, water quality degradation associated with rapid socio-economic development in the Taihu Lake Basin, China, has attracted increasing attention from both the public and the Chinese government. The primary sources of pollution in Taihu Lake are its inflow rivers and their tributaries. Effective water environmental management strategies need to be implemented in these rivers to improve the water quality of Taihu Lake, and to ensure sustainable development in the region. The aim of this study was to provide a basis for water environmental management decision-making. In this study, the QUAL2K model for river and stream water quality was applied to predict the water quality and environmental capacity of the Hongqi River, which is a polluted tributary in the Taihu Lake Basin. The model parameters were calibrated by trial and error until the simulated results agreed well with the observed data. The calibrated QUAL2K model was used to calculate the water environmental capacity of the Hongqi River, and the water environmental capacities of COD(Cr) NH(3)-N, TN, and TP were 17.51 t, 1.52 t, 2.74 t and 0.37 t, respectively. The results showed that the NH(3)-N, TN, and TP pollution loads of the studied river need to be reduced by 50.96%, 44.11%, and 22.92%, respectively to satisfy the water quality objectives. Thus, additional water pollution control measures are needed to control and reduce the pollution loads in the Hongqi River watershed. The method applied in this study should provide a basis for water environmental management decision-making.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23222206 PMCID: PMC3546775 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9124504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study area and monitoring sites along the Hongqi River.
Monitoring sites along the Hongqi River.
| Monitoring sites | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location (km) | 1.37 | 0.94 | 0.63 | 0.33 | 0.03 |
Water quality monitoring data of Hongqi River for winter 2009.
| Monitoring sites | Temp (°C) | DO (mg/L) | CODCr (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) | TN (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 9.62 | 6.05 | 25.72 | 1.91 | 5.99 | 0.34 |
| P2 | 9.40 | 5.76 | 24.34 | 1.86 | 5.52 | 0.31 |
| P3 | 9.66 | 5.62 | 24.10 | 1.92 | 5.46 | 0.29 |
| P4 | 9.93 | 5.68 | 23.99 | 1.93 | 5.37 | 0.29 |
| P5 | 9.69 | 5.46 | 22.80 | 1.89 | 5.32 | 0.30 |
Water quality monitoring data of Hongqi River for spring 2010.
| Monitoring sites | Temp (°C) | DO (mg/L) | CODCr (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) | TN (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 12.38 | 6.21 | 27.06 | 2.47 | 6.61 | 0.20 |
| P2 | 12.32 | 5.81 | 25.73 | 2.40 | 6.19 | 0.18 |
| P3 | 12.27 | 5.68 | 27.10 | 2.42 | 6.46 | 0.19 |
| P4 | 12.37 | 5.73 | 25.78 | 2.43 | 6.29 | 0.16 |
| P5 | 12.30 | 5.67 | 25.38 | 2.39 | 6.08 | 0.17 |
Water quality standards of surface water [1].
| Grade | CODCr (mg/L) | BOD5 (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) | TN (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade IV | 30.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 0.3 |
| Grade V | 40.0 | 10.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.4 |
Figure 2Flow diagram of the mass balance for relevant components of the river system in reach i.
Figure 3Schematic representation of the three reaches of the Hongqi River, and their sources of pollution.
Hydraulic characteristics of the three reaches of the Hongqi River. “Location” refers to the distance from the river’s end.
| Location (km) | Flow (m3/s) | Depth (m) | Flow velocity (m/s) | Travel time (d) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winter | Spring | ||||
| 1.340 | 0.446 | 0.485 | 1.586 | 0.024 | 0.071 |
| 0.650 | 0.452 | 0.496 | 1.604 | 0.025 | 0.405 |
| 0.150 | 0.465 | 0.504 | 1.618 | 0.026 | 0.694 |
Flow and concentration of pollution sources.
| Pollution sources | Flow (m3/s) | CODCr (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) | NO3-N (mg/L) | TN (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) | Inorganic phosphorus (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-point sources | 0.00143 | 180 | 50 | 60 | 120 | 6 | 2.5 |
| Point sources | 0.00031 | 2,100 | 100 | 90 | 250 | 13 | 5.5 |
Calibrated parameters for simulating the water quality of Hongqi River.
| Parameter | Value | Units | Symbol | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon | 40 | gC | gC | 30–50 |
| Nitrogen | 7.2 | gN | gN | 3–9 |
| Phosphorus | 1 | gP | gP | 0.4–2 |
| Dry weight | 100 | gD | gD | 100 |
| Chlorophyll | 1 | gA | gA | 0.4–2 |
| ISS settling velocity | 1 | m/day |
| 0–2 |
| O2 reaeration model | Internal | |||
| BOD hydrolysis rate | 0.1 | day−1 |
| 0.04–4.2 |
| COD oxidation rate | 0.2 | day−1 |
| 0.02–4.2 |
| Organic N hydrolysis | 0.2 | day−1 |
| 0.02–0.4 |
| Organic N settling velocity | 0.05 | m/day |
| 0.001–0.1 |
| Ammonium nitrification | 0.5 | day−1 |
| 0–10 |
| Nitrate denitrification | 0.8 | day−1 |
| 0–2 |
| Sed. denitrification transfer coeff. | 1.0 | m/day |
| 0–1 |
| Organic P hydrolysis | 0.2 | day−1 |
| 0–5 |
| Organic P settling velocity | 1.0 | m/day |
| 0–2 |
| Inorganic P settling velocity | 0.5 | m/day |
| 0–2 |
| Sed. P oxygen attenuation half sat constant | 1.8 | mgO2/L |
| 0–2 |
| Bottom algae | ||||
| Growth model | zero–order | |||
| Max Growth rate | 60 | mgA/m2/day |
| 0–500 |
| First–order model carrying capacity | 1,000 | mgA/m2 |
| 1,000 |
| Respiration rate | 0.25 | day−1 |
| 0.05–0.5 |
| Excretion rate | 0.5 | day−1 |
| 0–0.5 |
| Death rate | 0.25 | day−1 |
| 0–0.5 |
Figure 4Water quality calibration results for the Hongqi River.
Figure 5Water quality confirmation results for the Hongqi River.
Pollution load reduction in Hongqi River.
| Water quality factors | CODCr | NH3-N | TN | TP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total pollution load (t) | 108.47 | 7.26 | 16.31 | 1.07 |
| Pollution load of headwater (t) | 80.32 | 3.63 | 11.05 | 0.59 |
| Pollution load of headwater in Grade IV water quality (t) | 85.20 | 2.56 | 4.26 | 0.85 |
| Pollution load reduction in headwater (t) | −4.88 | 1.07 | 6.79 | −0.26 |
| Pollution load reduction rate of headwater (%) | −6.08 | 29.48 | 61.45 | −44.07 |
| Pollution load of studied river reach (t) | 28.15 | 3.63 | 5.26 | 0.48 |
| Water environmental capacity of studied river reach (t) | 17.51 | 1.52 | 2.74 | 0.37 |
| Pollution load reduction in the studied river reach (t) | 10.64 | 1.85 | 2.32 | 0.11 |
| Pollution load reduction rate of the studied river reach (%) | 37.80 | 50.96 | 44.11 | 22.92 |
Figure 6Schematic diagram of the trial and error method.
Water quality objectives of the Hongqi River.
| Factors | CODCr | NH3-N | TN | TP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (mg/L) | 30.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 0.3 |
Figure 7Simulation curve of water environmental capacity.