| Literature DB >> 34204175 |
Peng Zhang1, Lanyimin Li2, Yishu Wang3, Chengchun Shi4, Chenchen Fan1.
Abstract
In recent years, problems such as water quality deterioration, saltwater invasion, and low oxygen have appeared in estuaries all over the world. The Minjiang River in Fujian, as a typical tidal estuary area, is facing these thorny problems. In this paper, the effects of topography and hydrologic evolution on the water age and water quality of the lower reaches of the Minjiang River were simulated by building a hydrodynamic and water quality model. The results show that: (1) It was found that the riverbed incision of the lower reaches of the Minjiang River led to the overall decline of river water level, the increase of river volume, and the increase of downstream water age, which eventually led to the decrease of dissolved oxygen (DO) and the deterioration of water quality in the downstream from Shuikou to Baiyantan. However, the decline of topography led to the increase of tidal volume in the estuary, the enhancement of the dilution effect of oxygen-rich water bodies in the open sea, and the increase of DO in the lower reaches of Baiyantan. (2) Under no tidal action, the concentration of pollutants in the water of the North Channel increased, the DO decreased, and the DO decreased from Baiyantan to the offshore water. After the enhancement of tidal action, the dilution of oxygen-enriched water from the offshore water increased, and the DO increased. (3) The hydrological and water quality characteristics of the upper part of the lower reaches of the Minjiang River were mainly controlled by topography, runoff, and pollutant discharge, which were more affected by the tidal current transport operation and pollutant discharge near the open sea. In recent decades, the deterioration of water quality and the aggravation of saltwater intrusion in the Minjiang River were closely related to the serious topographic downcutting. The results provide a scientific basis for revealing the deterioration of estuary water quality and long-term management of the estuary.Entities:
Keywords: Minjiang River Estuary; low dissolved oxygen; riverbed incision; water age; water quality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34204175 PMCID: PMC8201301 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18116138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Model grid and topograohical sketch map unit: Luo-zero elevation (m).
Figure 2Annual lowest water level changes at representative stations in the lower reaches of Minjiang River.
Main water quality parameters of the Minjiang River model.
| Parameter | Parameter Definition (Unit) | Parameter Values in This Paper |
|---|---|---|
|
| Reoxygenation rate constant |
|
|
| Temperature Rate Constant of Reoxygenation | 1.024 |
|
| DOC minimum dissolution rate (1/day) | 0.03 |
|
| Constants related to respiration of algae biomass (d−1/(g∙m3)) | 0.2 |
|
| Ratio of denitrification rate to oxic respiration rate of DOC | 0.5 |
|
| Maximum nitrification rate (g N/m3/day) | 0.07 |
|
| Semi-saturation constant of nitrification of DO | 0.5 |
|
| Semi-saturation constant of nitrification of NH4+ | 0.5 |
|
| COD degradation rate (per day) | 0.15 |
|
| Semi-saturation number of degraded oxygen of COD (mg/L O2) | 1.5 |
|
| Maximum growth rate of cyanobacteria (1/day) | 2.0 |
|
| Basic metabolic rate of cyanobacteria (1/day) | 0.04 |
|
| Quality of DO consumed per unit mass of NH4+ (g O2 per g N) | 4.33 |
|
| Ratio of DO to carbon during respiration (g O2 per g C) | 2.67 |
|
| Sediment oxygen demand (mg O/m2/day)(SOD < 0 Oxygen consumption of sediment from water) | −57–2000 |
Figure 3Tidal level calibration results for Wenshanli (a), Jiefang Bridge (b), Xianan (c) and Baiyantan (d).
Statistics of tidal level simulation error in the lower reaches of the Minjiang River in 2013.
| Tidal Level Error | Wenshanli | Jiefang Bridge | Xianan | Baiyantan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean error | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.04 |
| Mean absolute error | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.19 |
| Proportion of average absolute | 50.60% | 67.02% | 72.08% | 60.95% |
| error < 0.20 m |
Figure 4Discharge calibration results of Zhuqi (a) and Wenshanli (b).
Statistical analysis of water quality simulation errors in 2013.
| Monitoring Station | Geyangkou | Xiaxiyuan | Zhuqi | Kuiqi | Wanbian | Min’an | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water temperature (°C) | Obs. Mean | 21.38 | 21.27 | 21.41 | 22.00 | 21.80 | 22.04 |
| Sim. Mean | 21.74 | 21.76 | 21.81 | 21.97 | 21.77 | 21.75 | |
| 5.78% | 5.30% | 3.48% | 6.74% | 3.10% | 4.55% | ||
| DO(mg·L−1) | Obs. Mean | 5.40 | 6.14 | 6.90 | 6.46 | 5.24 | 7.63 |
| Sim. Mean | 4.27 | 5.16 | 5.92 | 6.26 | 6.96 | 7.49 | |
| 26.75% | 15.71% | 16.90% | 11.16% | 36.83% | 3.86% | ||
| TN(mg·L−1) | Obs. Mean | 1.49 | 1.50 | 1.52 | 1.79 | 1.84 | 1.78 |
| Sim. Mean | 1.41 | 1.44 | 1.46 | 1.94 | 1.98 | 1.74 | |
| 5.32% | 13.42% | 15.16% | 12.35% | 10.62% | 4.94% | ||
| TP(mg·L−1) | Obs. Mean | 0.068 | 0.101 | 0.104 | 0.122 | 0.075 | 0.083 |
| Sim. Mean | 0.066 | 0.079 | 0.085 | 0.135 | 0.096 | 0.086 | |
| 3.77% | 23.21% | 20.54% | 15.47% | 29.63% | 4.88% | ||
| NH4+(mg·L−1) | Obs. Mean | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.83 | 0.45 | 0.21 |
| Sim. Mean | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.65 | 0.37 | 0.27 | |
| 1.80% | 39.63% | 57.87% | 26.83% | 24.81% | 32.05% | ||
| BOD5(mg·L−1) | Obs. Mean | 1.23 | 1.53 | 1.35 | 3.10 | 2.77 | 2.92 |
| Sim. Mean | 0.91 | 1.10 | 1.07 | 2.56 | 2.53 | 2.48 | |
| 25.65% | 39.90% | 35.99% | 26.53% | 33.23% | 17.57% | ||
Note: Obs. Mean represents the observation average, Sim. Mean represents the simulated average, Relative Error (RE) calculation method is as follows: , N is the number of observed and predicted values, is the nth observed value, is the nth predicted value, the average observed value.
Figure 5Salinity calibration results of Baiyantan.
Figure 6Relationship between simulated and measured DO values and flow and temperature changes in Zhuqi (a), Wenshanli (b) in 2013.
Figure 7Topographic change of the cross section of Zhuqi hydrological station.
Calculation conditions of influence of terrain change on downstream DO.
| Calculation Condition | Riverbed Incision Compared with the Current Situation (m) | Remark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shuikou-Huai’an | North Channel | South Channel | End of the South Channel and the North Channel-Changmen | ||
| Current situation | - | - | - | - | Topography in 2013 |
| D1 | 1.82 | 0.81 | 1.34 | 0.80 | Topography in 2009 |
| D2 | 4.53 | 1.66 | 3.16 | 3.08 | Topography in 2003 |
Figure 8Water level of each section calculated under D1 and D2 ((a): Zhuqi; (b): Wenshanli) and current situation comparison chart.
Calculation conditions of influence of terrain change on downstream DO.
| Calculation Condition | Section | Water Level | Water Age | DO | BOD5 | DOC | NH4+ | TN | TP | Salinity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| current situation (2013) | Geyangkou | 5.16 | 0.15 | 4.27 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.15 | 1.41 | 0.066 | 0.06 |
| Xiaxiyuan | 4.31 | 0.59 | 5.16 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.18 | 1.44 | 0.079 | 0.06 | |
| Zhuqi | 3.63 | 1.64 | 5.92 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 1.46 | 0.085 | 0.06 | |
| Wenshanli | 3.11 | 3.01 | 6.54 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.27 | 1.54 | 0.094 | 0.06 | |
| Kuiqi | 2.87 | 5.15 | 6.26 | 1.22 | 0.98 | 0.65 | 1.94 | 0.135 | 0.08 | |
| Wanbian | 3.05 | 3.97 | 7.06 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.29 | 1.63 | 0.092 | 0.06 | |
| Baiyantan | 2.79 | 6.07 | 7.18 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.38 | 1.80 | 0.098 | 0.78 | |
| Min’an | 2.74 | 3.77 | 7.49 | 1.22 | 1.20 | 0.27 | 1.74 | 0.086 | 2.78 | |
| D1 (2009) | Geyangkou | 6.74 | 0.14 | 4.27 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.15 | 1.41 | 0.066 | 0.06 |
| Xiaxiyuan | 5.12 | 0.50 | 5.22 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.18 | 1.44 | 0.079 | 0.06 | |
| Zhuqi | 4.03 | 1.36 | 6.02 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 1.46 | 0.085 | 0.06 | |
| Wenshanli | 3.20 | 2.42 | 6.62 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 0.27 | 1.53 | 0.095 | 0.06 | |
| Kuiqi | 2.92 | 4.24 | 6.35 | 1.22 | 0.97 | 0.64 | 1.91 | 0.135 | 0.07 | |
| Wanbian | 3.15 | 3.25 | 7.16 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.29 | 1.64 | 0.092 | 0.06 | |
| Baiyantan | 2.83 | 5.60 | 7.20 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.40 | 1.81 | 0.100 | 0.66 | |
| Min’an | 2.80 | 3.65 | 7.49 | 1.18 | 1.16 | 0.29 | 1.75 | 0.087 | 2.52 | |
| D2 (2003) | Geyangkou | 9.44 | 0.14 | 4.27 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.15 | 1.41 | 0.066 | 0.06 |
| Xiaxiyuan | 7.23 | 0.45 | 5.23 | 0.51 | 0.49 | 0.18 | 1.44 | 0.080 | 0.06 | |
| Zhuqi | 4.86 | 1.15 | 6.11 | 0.52 | 0.51 | 0.20 | 1.46 | 0.085 | 0.06 | |
| Wenshanli | 3.65 | 1.83 | 6.61 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.23 | 1.50 | 0.091 | 0.06 | |
| Kuiqi | 3.24 | 2.60 | 6.38 | 0.90 | 0.76 | 0.43 | 1.67 | 0.114 | 0.06 | |
| Wanbian | 3.29 | 3.48 | 7.53 | 0.83 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 1.89 | 0.098 | 0.06 | |
| Baiyantan | 3.10 | 4.60 | 7.02 | 0.81 | 0.76 | 0.40 | 1.79 | 0.101 | 0.58 | |
| Min’an | 3.08 | 3.67 | 7.32 | 1.06 | 1.04 | 0.32 | 1.75 | 0.091 | 2.46 |
Note: water level unit: m, water age unit: d, DO, BOD5, DOC, NH4+, TP, TN units: mg L−1, salinity unit: ppt.
Figure 9Water age of each section calculated under D1 and D2 ((a): Zhuqi; (b): Wenshanli) and current situation com-parison chart.
Calculation conditions of downstream DO affected by tidal variation.
| Calculation Condition | Offshore Tide | Remark |
|---|---|---|
| D3 | No tide | No tidal effect |
| D4 | +0.15 m based on tide in 2013 | Sea level in 2050 |
| D5 | +0.43 m based on tide in 2013 | Sea level in 2100 |
Hydrodynamic and water quality results of each section calculated by D3, D4 and D5.
| Calculation Condition | Section | Water Level | Water Age | DO | BOD5 | DOC | NH4+ | TN | TP | Salinity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3 | Geyangkou | 4.92 | 0.14 | 4.27 | 0.91 | 0.42 | 0.15 | 1.41 | 0.066 | 0.06 |
| Xiaxiyuan | 3.49 | 0.51 | 5.22 | 1.13 | 0.49 | 0.18 | 1.44 | 0.079 | 0.06 | |
| Zhuqi | 2.73 | 1.42 | 5.99 | 1.09 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 1.46 | 0.085 | 0.06 | |
| Wenshanli | 2.43 | 2.54 | 6.52 | 1.16 | 0.54 | 0.28 | 1.54 | 0.097 | 0.06 | |
| Kuiqi | 2.38 | 4.14 | 5.34 | 3.65 | 1.24 | 0.82 | 2.02 | 0.164 | 0.06 | |
| Wanbian | 2.41 | 3.46 | 7.06 | 1.03 | 0.52 | 0.26 | 1.54 | 0.091 | 0.06 | |
| Baiyantan | 2.38 | 6.80 | 6.48 | 1.52 | 0.73 | 0.45 | 1.85 | 0.106 | 0.06 | |
| Min’an | 2.37 | 7.73 | 6.47 | 1.48 | 0.81 | 0.38 | 1.83 | 0.099 | 0.06 | |
| D4 | Geyangkou | 5.21 | 0.15 | 4.27 | 0.91 | 0.42 | 0.15 | 1.41 | 0.066 | 0.06 |
| Xiaxiyuan | 4.41 | 0.59 | 5.16 | 1.10 | 0.48 | 0.17 | 1.44 | 0.078 | 0.06 | |
| Zhuqi | 3.75 | 1.66 | 5.92 | 1.06 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 1.46 | 0.085 | 0.06 | |
| Wenshanli | 3.25 | 3.07 | 6.54 | 1.09 | 0.53 | 0.27 | 1.54 | 0.094 | 0.06 | |
| Kuiqi | 3.01 | 5.23 | 6.26 | 2.53 | 0.97 | 0.64 | 1.93 | 0.134 | 0.09 | |
| Wanbian | 3.18 | 4.05 | 7.06 | 1.25 | 0.58 | 0.29 | 1.63 | 0.092 | 0.06 | |
| Baiyantan | 2.93 | 6.09 | 7.19 | 1.75 | 0.87 | 0.38 | 1.79 | 0.098 | 0.80 | |
| Min’an | 2.88 | 3.75 | 7.50 | 2.48 | 1.21 | 0.27 | 1.74 | 0.085 | 2.81 | |
| D5 | Geyangkou | 5.31 | 0.15 | 4.27 | 0.91 | 0.42 | 0.15 | 1.41 | 0.066 | 0.06 |
| Xiaxiyuan | 4.60 | 0.61 | 5.17 | 1.09 | 0.48 | 0.17 | 1.44 | 0.078 | 0.06 | |
| Zhuqi | 3.97 | 1.72 | 5.92 | 1.06 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 1.46 | 0.085 | 0.06 | |
| Wenshanli | 3.50 | 3.17 | 6.54 | 1.08 | 0.53 | 0.27 | 1.54 | 0.094 | 0.06 | |
| Kuiqi | 3.28 | 5.37 | 6.26 | 2.48 | 0.96 | 0.63 | 1.93 | 0.133 | 0.09 | |
| Wanbian | 3.44 | 4.19 | 7.06 | 1.24 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 1.63 | 0.091 | 0.06 | |
| Baiyantan | 3.19 | 6.11 | 7.19 | 1.78 | 0.89 | 0.37 | 1.79 | 0.097 | 0.83 | |
| Min’an | 3.15 | 3.73 | 7.50 | 2.50 | 1.23 | 0.27 | 1.74 | 0.085 | 2.85 |
Note: water level unit: m, water age unit: d, DO, BOD5, DOC, NH4+, TP, TN units: mg·L−1, salinity unit: ppt.