| Literature DB >> 28767096 |
Yinan Zhang1, Chunli Chu2, Lei Liu3, Shengguo Xu4, Xiaoxue Ruan5, Meiting Ju6.
Abstract
A 'red line' was established, identifying an area requiring for ecological protection in Tianjin, China. Within the protected area of the red line area, the Qilihai wetland is an important ecotope with complex ecological functions, although the ecosystem is seriously disturbed due to anthropogenic activities in the surrounding areas. This study assesses the water quality status of the Qilihai wetlands to identify the pollution sources and potential improvements based on the ecological red line policy, to improve and protect the waters of the Qilihai wetlands. An indicator system was established to assess water quality status using single factor evaluation and a comprehensive evaluation method, supported by data from 2010 to 2013. Assessment results show that not all indicators met the requirement of the Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water (GB3838-2002) and that overall, waters in the Qilihai wetland were seriously polluted. Based on these findings we propose restrictions on all polluting anthropogenic activities in the red line area and implementation of restoration projects to improve water quality.Entities:
Keywords: Qilihai wetland reserve; problems and suggestions; single factor evaluation; water pollution; water quality assessment; weighted average
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28767096 PMCID: PMC5580574 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14080870
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Map of the functional regionalization of the Tianjin Ancient Coast and Wetlands National Nature Reserve.
Figure 2The map of monitoring sites in the Qilihai Wetland. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 refer to the monitoring points.
Sampling sites layout information of Qilihai Wetland Core Area.
| Monitoring Points Number | Longitude | Latitude |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 117°36′00.0′′ | 39°18′06.20′′ |
| 2 | 117°36′0.12′′ | 39°17′57.66′′ |
| 3 | 117°36′2.51′′ | 39°17′47.96′′ |
Numbers marked around the monitoring points correspond to the monitoring points number in Table 1.
The analytical method of each indicator.
| Indicator | Analytical Method | Method Source |
|---|---|---|
| pH | Glass electrode method | GB 6920-86 |
| DO | Iodometric method | GB7489-87 |
| COD | Dichromate method | GB11914-89 |
| TN | Alkaline persulfate digestion UV spectrophotometry | GB11894-89 |
| TP | Ammonium molybdate spectrophotometric method | GB11893-89 |
| Petroleum | Infrared spectrophotometry | GB/T16488-1996 |
| Chlorophyll a | Spectrophotometry | SL88-2012 |
| Transparency | Seine disc method | --- |
DO: dissolved oxygen; COD: chemical oxygen demand; TN: total nitrogen; TP: total phosphorus.
The scale and error margins of various grades of the pollution index (PI).
| Classification | Value Range |
|---|---|
| Slight pollution | |
| Moderate pollution | |
| Severe pollution |
SD: Standard deviation.
Indicator data used to establish the water quality index.
| Index Category | Index | Motoring Value | Standard Value | SD | Weight | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | |||||
| pH | 8.91 | 8.65 | 8.46 | 8.75 | 6-9 | 0.16 | 0.036 | |
| DO | 5.67 | 9.43 | 9.49 | 9.20 | 7.5 | 1.61 | 0.107 | |
| transparency | 0.38 | 0.18 | 1.23 | 0.27 | 5 | 0.42 | 0.107 | |
| COD | 22.30 | 17.53 | 28.33 | 14.99 | 15 | 5.08 | 0.178 | |
| TN | 1.69 | 2.45 | 2.43 | 3.08 | 0.2 | 0.49 | 0.178 | |
| TP | 0.192 | 0.168 | 0.268 | 0.167 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.178 | |
| petroleum | 0.79 | 0.143 | 0.122 | 0.025 | 0.05 | 0.30 | 0.059 | |
| chlorophyll a | 0.087 | 0.034 | 0.093 | 0.055 | 2 × 10−3 | 0.024 | 0.157 | |
All index measured in mg/L. Transparency measured in meter.
Figure 3The average concentration curves of the indices total nitrogen (TN), dissolved oxygen (DO), petroleum (Pet) and pH between 2010 and 2013.
Figure 4The average concentration curves of floating indicators from 2010 to 2013.
Figure 5The water quality pollution index curve.
Overall water quality assessment outcomes.
| Year | Value | Classification | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 14.55 | Severe pollution | 14.5–16.2 |
| 2011 | 11.26 | Slight pollution | 11.2–12.8 |
| 2012 | 15.26 | Severe pollution | 14.5–16.2 |
| 2013 | 12.32 | Slight pollution | 11.2–12.8 |