| Literature DB >> 36011687 |
Qing'e Wang1, Mengmeng Su1, Lei Zeng2, Huihua Chen1.
Abstract
Water environmental emergency (WEE) in expressway region is a special kind of risk event with several characteristics, such as rarity, unconventionality, and harmfulness. The emergency decision-making (EDM) features, procedures, and methods are considerably different from the general decision-making problems. EDM quality is directly related to the timely implementation of a reasonable emergency plan. Therefore, methods should be developed to respond to emergencies immediately and scientifically and minimize the damage to water environment. This work introduces risk source identification and emergency classification and develops an emergency decision model based on scenario retrieval and case-based reasoning, according to the existing EDM model and characteristics of WEE in expressway region. The proposed method is validated through case analysis of Daguang expressway in China. This method provides an effective solution for EDM of WEEs in expressway region. The emergency measures can be implemented quickly and effectively after the occurrence of water environmental emergencies to control pollution events, provide scientific and feasible action guides for emergency processes, and enrich the case base of decision-making systems.Entities:
Keywords: CBR; emergency classification; emergency decision-making; scenario retrieval; water environment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011687 PMCID: PMC9408646 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1EDM conceptual model for WEE based on SR and CBR.
Figure 23D structure of the elements of water environmental emergency scenario.
Figure 3Relationship of scenario elements of water environmental emergencies.
Figure 4Bayesian network.
Figure 5Deduction network of WEE scenarios.
Questionnaire results statistics.
| Ordinal | Potential Risk Events | Mean | S.D |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The water blocking belt is not designed or designed deficiently, and toxic or harmful leaking substances caused by emergencies can not be stored | 4.53 | 0.622 |
| 2 | The double drainage collection system is not designed or designed deficiently, and the bridge deck rain water can not be fully collected | 4.07 | 0.704 |
| 3 | The double protective fence is not designed or designed deficiently, the vehicle capsized due to vehicle collision could not be cushioned | 4.25 | 0.887 |
| 4 | Improper selection of construction materials, such as asphalt pavement is toxic and not resistant to wear, and the wearing substance is washed with heavy rain to form road surface runoff | 4.33 | 0.684 |
| 5 | The accident emergency pool is not designed or designed deficiently, and it can’t deal with the dangerous goods leaked from the emergency effectively | 4.35 | 0.744 |
| 6 | Design of water environmental protection area and marking | 3.88 | 0.885 |
| 7 | The construction of bridge foundation interferes with groundwater and affects the quality of surface water or causes groundwater, surface water runoff pollution | 4.16 | 0.839 |
| 8 | Oil leakage occurred in mechanical equipment, which was not treated in time, resulting in water quality pollution | 4.23 | 0.847 |
| 9 | When the bridge is constructed across the water body, the measures to prevent the project waste from falling into the water body are not taken | 3.99 | 0.923 |
| 10 | Arbitrary discharge of domestic sewage and garbage from staff | 4.00 | 0.930 |
| 11 | Leakage of construction material transportation | 4.12 | 0.958 |
| 12 | The design of the sedimentation treatment tank of construction wastewater is deficient, so that the construction wastewater is discharged into the water without effective treatment | 4.28 | 0.763 |
| 13 | During the construction period, temporary construction sites such as construction camps, prefabricated parts yards and stacking yards are set up within the scope of drinking water environmental protection areas | 4.00 | 0.915 |
| 14 | Burning and explosion accidents occur in warehouses where dangerous, toxic and flammable materials are stored | 4.62 | 0.583 |
| 15 | Warning signs are set up in the area of expressway water environment protection area to remind drivers of vehicles containing dangerous goods and oil | 4.41 | 0.660 |
| 16 | Rollover of vehicles carrying toxic and hazardous chemicals and oils cause leakage. | 4.68 | 0.596 |
| 17 | Leakage caused by vehicles carrying toxic and harmful chemical dangerous goods and oil falling into the water | 4.71 | 0.540 |
Cranbach Alpha coefficient of the questionnaire results of potential risk events.
| Reliability Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Cronbach’s Alpha | Cranbach Alpha Based on Standardized Items | Number of Items |
| 0.889 | 0.879 | 17 |
Affecting factors and grading indicators study result.
| Ordinal | Evaluation Indicator | Mean | S.D |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leakage substances | 4.84 | 0.404 |
| 2 | Treatment of leakage substances | 4.56 | 0.620 |
| 3 | Total amount of leakage substances | 4.51 | 0.578 |
| 4 | Emergency time | 4.15 | 0.692 |
| 5 | Emergency duration | 4.39 | 0.676 |
| 6 | Emergency form | 4.35 | 0.596 |
| 7 | Leakage location | 4.55 | 0.599 |
| 8 | Water flow velocity | 4.12 | 0.915 |
| 9 | Wind speed | 3.88 | 1.038 |
Cranbach Alpha coefficient of the survey results of evaluation indicators.
| Reliability Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Cronbach’s Alpha | Cranbach Alpha Based on Standardized Items | Number of Items |
| 0.747 | 0.747 | 9 |
Risk source identification list.
| Ordinal | Emergency | Potential Impacts on Water Environment |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Asphalt pavement | Hazardous substances flow into surrounding water with runoff discharge |
| 2 | Damaged pavement runoff collecting system | Surface runoff directly scours the ground and enters the surrounding water body or underground water |
| 3 | Improper location of Rain Water treatment Station | All collected runoff and toxic and hazardous substances tip over into the water body |
| 4 | Domestic water and refuse discharge | Pollution of water body |
| 5 | Dangerous goods traffic accident | Dangerous goods enter the water body, pollute the river and affect water using safety |
Scenario network node variables and values of “4.25 event”.
| Dimension | Index | Value Range and Quantization Score |
|---|---|---|
| Disaster- | Emergency resource completeness X1 | Scarce (0–0.3)/basically met (0.3–0.8)/adequate (0.8–1) |
| Emergency resource arrival time X2 | Relatively delayed (0–0.3)/relatively timely (0.3–0.8)/timely (0.8–1) | |
| Containment-diversion X3 | Poor (0–0.3)/general (0.3–0.8)/satisfying (0.8–1) | |
| Pollutant diluted concentration X4 | Pollutant concentration diminished by less than 30%/30% to 80%/more than 80% | |
| Disaster body | Emergency time Y1 | Day (1)/night (0) |
| Emergency location Y2 | Far (0–0.3)/moderate (0.3–0.8)/close (0.8–1) | |
| Pollutant leakage quantity Y3 | Within the critical value (<325 kg)/ /one to threefold the critical value (≥325 kg and <975 kg)/more than threefold the critical value (≥975 kg) | |
| Water velocity Y4 | <1.5 and >1.5 m/s | |
| Disaster- | Contaminated area Z1 | Small area pollution (0–0.3)/large area pollution (0.3–0.8)/basically total pollution (0.8–1) |
| Concentration of pollutants Z2 | <3/≥3, and <10/≥10 mg/L | |
| Time of arrival at the water intake Z3 | Short (<5 min)/moderate (≥5 and <40 min)/long (≥40 min) |
Calculation results of node variables.
| Causality | m1 | m2 | m3 | m4 | m5 | m (T) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y3 | Z1 | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.85 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| Z2 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.99 | |
| Z3 | 0.69 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.21 | |
Figure 6Bayesian network structure for scenario analysis of WEE.
State probability of each node variable in WEE scenario.
| Dimension | Node Variable | Value Range | State Probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disaster | Emergency time | Day (1)/night (0) | (1, 0) |
| Emergency location | Far/moderate/close | (1, 0, 0) | |
| Pollutant leakage quantity | <325/≥325 and <975/≥975 kg | (0, 1, 0) | |
| Water velocity | ≤1.5 and >1.5 m/s | (1, 0, 0) | |
| Disaster- | Emergency resource completeness | Scarce/basically met/adequate | (0, 1, 0) |
| Emergency resource arrival time | Relatively delayed/relatively timely/timely | (0.27, 0.52, 0.21) | |
| Containment-diversion | Poor/general/satisfying | (0.26, 0.50, 0.24) | |
| Pollutant diluted concentration | Less than 30%/30% to 80%/more than 80% | (0.29, 0.52, 0.19) | |
| Disaster- | Contaminated area | Small area pollution/large area pollution/basically total pollution | (0.65, 0.24, 0.11) |
| Concentration of pollutants | <3/≥3, and <10/≥10 mg/L | (0.34, 0.46, 0.19) |
The analysis result of the actual scenario indicated that the deduction result is consistent with the “4.25 event”. This finding indicates that the Bayesian network-based WEE scenario analysis method is feasible and effective.
Calculation results of similarity between “4.25 events” S0 and case S1, S2.
| Attribute | “4.25” | Case Scenario S1 | Case Scenario S2 |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pollutant type | oil spilling | oil spilling | oil spilling | 0 | 0 |
| Emergency resource completeness | 0.4–0.6 | 0.7 | 0.45 | 0.4 | 0.9375 |
| Emergency resource arrival time | 0.3–0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.92 | 0.85 |
| Emergency time | night | night | day | 1 | 0 |
| Emergency location | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Pollutant leakage quantity | 400–600 | 700 | 660 | 0.7 | 0.72 |
| Water velocity | 1.2 m/s | 1.1 m/s | 1.4 m/s | 0.97 | 0.93 |
| Contaminated area | 0.4–0.6 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.725 | 0.7 |
| Concentration of pollutants | 6–8 | 7 | 9 | 0.975 | 0.6 |