| Literature DB >> 27512630 |
Jianfeng Liu1, Xiang Zhang1, Jun Xia1, Shaofei Wu1, Dunxian She1, Lei Zou1.
Abstract
Assessing the spatio-temporal variations of surface water quality is important for water environment management. In this study, surface water samples are collected from 2008 to 2015 at 17 stations in the Ying River basin in China. The two pollutants i.e. chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) are analyzed to characterize the river water quality. Cluster analysis and the seasonal Kendall test are used to detect the seasonal and inter-annual variations in the dataset, while the Moran's index is utilized to understand the spatial autocorrelation of the variables. The influence of natural factors such as hydrological regime, water temperature and etc., and anthropogenic activities with respect to land use and pollutant load are considered as driving factors to understand the water quality evolution. The results of cluster analysis present three groups according to the similarity in seasonal pattern of water quality. The trend analysis indicates an improvement in water quality during the dry seasons at most of the stations. Further, the spatial autocorrelation of water quality shows great difference between the dry and wet seasons due to sluices and dams regulation and local nonpoint source pollution. The seasonal variation in water quality is found associated with the climatic factors (hydrological and biochemical processes) and flow regulation. The analysis of land use indicates a good explanation for spatial distribution and seasonality of COD at the sub-catchment scale. Our results suggest that an integrated water quality measures including city sewage treatment, agricultural diffuse pollution control as well as joint scientific operations of river projects is needed for an effective water quality management in the Ying River basin.Entities:
Keywords: Climate variables; Land use; Spatial autocorrelation; Trend; Water quality; Water quality management
Year: 2016 PMID: 27512630 PMCID: PMC4960091 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2815-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Location of water quality monitoring sites and flow monitoring sites in the study area
Fig. 2Clustering of monitoring sites according to seasonal variation of COD concentration (a) and NH3-N concentration (b), and the mean of normalized concentrations in COD groups (c) and NH3-N groups (d)
Fig. 3Temporal trends in water quality for a COD in dry season, b COD in wet season, c NH3-N in dry season, and d NH3-N in wet season over the period 2008–2015
Fig. 4Spatial trends of water quality in the Ying River basin for a COD and b NH3-N
Spatial autocorrelation of water quality and water quality trend in dry and wet seasons
| COD concentration | NH3-N concentration | Sen’s slope of COD | Sen’s slope of NH3-N | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | |
| Moran’s | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.20 | 0.01 | −0.08 | 0.26 | 0.19 |
|
| 1.13 | 0.84 | 2.58** | 1.91* | 0.45 | −0.17 | 2.37** | 1.86* |
Superscripts * and ** mean the element has a significance level of α < 0.10 and α < 0.01 respectively
The level of significance for local spatial association analysis for water quality and trend
| Station | Significance level of COD concentration | Significance level of NH3-N concentration | Significance level of Sen’s slope of COD | Significance level of Sen’s slope of NH3-N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | Dry season | Wet season | |
| Chenqiao | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 0.58 | 0.99 |
| Huangfuzhai | 0.30 | 0.23 | 0.71 | 0.97 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.91 | 0.90 |
| Baisha | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.39 | 0.58 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.42 |
| Yangzhaizhong | 0.86 | 0.72 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.44 |
| Yewu |
|
| 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.67 | 0.60 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
| Mawan | 0.38 | 0.42 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.28 | 0.23 |
| Luodengqiao | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.39 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.51 |
| Lifen | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.83 |
| Gaocunqiao | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.51 | 0.80 |
| Taochengzha | 0.48 | 0.56 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.99 | 0.55 | 0.89 | 0.97 |
| WuLiuzha | 0.72 | 0.70 |
| 0.16 | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.32 | 0.36 |
| Zhifang | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.44 | 0.55 | 0.63 | 0.62 |
| Dawangzhuang | 0.79 | 0.95 |
| 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.56 |
| 0.21 |
| Baidukou | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.71 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.64 | 0.67 |
| Chengwan | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.78 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.40 | 0.57 |
| Qianxiangwan | 0.33 | 0.40 |
|
|
| 0.72 |
|
|
| Zhidian | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.83 |
A statistic in italic mean the station is the center of a cluster, or an outlier, for water quality statistics with significance level less than 0.1. LH, HH and LL represent “low–high”, “high–high” and “low–low” spatial pattern
Regression analysis of COD and NH3-N pollutants
| Station | COD | NH3-N | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Baidukou |
|
|
| 0.01 | 0.28 | 1.01 | 4.89 |
|
|
| 0.01 | 0.40 | 1.01 | 4.89 |
| Zhifang |
|
|
| 0.01 | 0.17 | 1.08 | 4.09 |
|
| − | 0.01 | 0.15 | 1.08 | 4.09 |
| Chengwan |
| −0.0032 | – | 0.60 | 0.04 | 1.12 | 4.33 | 0.1321 |
|
| 0.01 | 0.38 | 1.12 | 4.87 |
| Lifen |
| – |
| 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.00 | 2.94 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Zhidian |
| −0.0030 |
| 0.01 | 0.17 | 1.24 | 4.85 |
|
|
| 0.01 | 0.50 | 1.24 | 4.85 |
Estimated coefficients (Const: constant intercept, : water temperature, : water discharge) in bolditalic or italic mean 0.05 or 0.10 significant level of t test). and are the significant level of F test and determination coefficient for the estimated model. VIF and Cl are variance inflation factor and maximum condition index
Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between land use categories and water quality parameters
| Scale | Water quality |
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban land | Farmland | Forest | Water | Urban land | Farmland | Forest | Water | ||
| Sub-catchment | COD | 0.89** | 0.50* | −0.63** | −0.51* | −0.45 | −0.60* | 0.64** | 0.44 |
| NH3-N | 0.77** | 0.52* | −0.65** | −0.26 | −0.36 | 0.10 | −0.02 | −0.01 | |
| 100 m buffer | COD | 0.67** | 0.58* | −0.53* | −0.67** | −0.37 | −0.49 | 0.56* | 0.47 |
| NH3-N | 0.17 | 0.50* | −0.51* | −0.48 | −0.14 | 0.009 | 0.01 | 0.14 | |
“*” is significant at α ≤ 0.05and “**” is significant at α ≤ 0.01
Fig. 5Mean proportion of land use types in sub-catchments of stations within the COD groups (a) and NH3-N groups (b) identified by cluster analysis in Fig. 2. Farmland is on the primary axis and the others are on the secondary axis
Identifying result of pollutant load change
| Change of pollutant load | Increase from point source (UU, UN, UD) | Decrease from point source (DU, DN, DD) | Increase from nonpoint source (NU, DU, DN) | Decrease from nonpoint source (UN, UD, ND) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of sites (COD) | 1 | 9 | 6 | 2 |
| Number of sites (NH3-N) | 1 | 11 | 2 | 3 |
“U” means significant upward trend, “D” means significant downward trend, “N” means no significant trend. “UD” means significant upward trend in dry season and downward trend in wet season, and other combination patterns were similar
Fig. 6Changes in wastewater production, treatment capacity and treatment rate in five cities between 2009 and 2013