常州市不同下垫面污染物冲刷特征

doi:10.13209/j.0479-8023.2017.176

北京大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2018, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (3): 644-654.DOI: 10.13209/j.0479-8023.2017.176

常州市不同下垫面污染物冲刷特征

张香丽^1,2, 赵志杰^1,2,†, 秦华鹏², 江燕^1,2

1. 北京大学环境科学与工程学院, 北京 100871
2. 北京大学深圳研究生院环境与能源学院, 城市人居环境科学与技术重点实验室, 深圳518055

收稿日期:2017-03-02 修回日期:2017-03-29 出版日期:2018-05-20 发布日期:2018-05-20
通讯作者: 赵志杰, E-mail: zhaozhijie(at)pku.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家水体污染控制与治理科技重大专项(2013ZX07501005)资助

Characteristics of Pollutants Flush on Different Types of Underlying Surface in Changzhou

ZHANG Xiangli^1,2, ZHAO Zhijie^1,2,†, QIN Huapeng², JIANG Yan^1,2

1. College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871
2. Key Laboratory for Urban Habitat Environmental Science and Technology, School of Environment and Energy, Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, Shenzhen 518055

Received:2017-03-02 Revised:2017-03-29 Online:2018-05-20 Published:2018-05-20
Contact: ZHAO Zhijie, E-mail: zhaozhijie(at)pku.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为研究城市硬化下垫面降雨径流对污染物的冲刷特征, 选取常州市5类典型硬化下垫面, 采样监测2015年3—8月期间6场降雨径流及污染物浓度变化过程, 得到以下结果。1) 地面径流污染物EMC均值高于屋面径流; 地面径流SS和COD浓度超过水质标准Ⅴ类1.34倍和2.59倍; 屋面径流COD和TN浓度超过水质标准Ⅴ类1.8倍和 2.6倍。屋面径流中溶解态COD和TN分别占全量的72.78%和57.99%; 地面径流溶解态TN占全量的61.59%。2) 径流初期污染严重, 随着降雨过程逐渐降低, 最终趋于稳定。各下垫面污染物初期浓度从大到小依次为水泥地面、沥青地面、铺装地面、平屋面、斜屋面。冲刷过程中, 随雨强增大, 各下垫面污染物浓度升高, 呈波动式变化。各下垫面污染物均有冲刷初期效应, 下垫面初期冲刷强度从强到弱依次为平屋面、斜屋面、水泥地面和沥青地面。前期降雨强度越大, 污染物初期浓度越大, 初期效应越显著。降雨强度为大雨时, SS 浓度呈指数型衰减。降雨强度为小雨时, SS浓度先稳定, 随着降雨变密集开始逐渐减小。降雨强度为暴雨, 但降雨过程集中在中后期时, SS浓度呈先增大随后减小的趋势变化。3) 指数冲刷模型对屋面和水泥地面污染物径流冲刷模拟效果较好, 斜屋面、平屋面、水泥地面全量污染物冲刷系数分别为0.871, 0.765和0.025 mm⁻¹, 屋面冲刷强度远大于地面。斜屋面溶解态COD与颗粒态COD冲刷系数相近, 冲刷强度大。平屋面、水泥地面的颗粒态COD冲刷系数均大于溶解态COD, 颗粒态COD冲刷强度更大。

关键词: 下垫面, 降雨冲刷, 径流, 冲刷系数

Abstract:

The purpose of the study is flush characteristics of urban runoff pollutant on different underlying surface. Select 5 typical hardened surfaces in Changzhou City and monitor the change process of rainfall runoff pollutant from March to August in 2015. The results showed that event mean concentrations (EMC) of pollutants in road runoff were higher than that of roof runoff. For road runoff, SS concentration was higher than the water quality standards by 1.34 times; COD concentration was higher than the water quality standards by 2.59 times. For the roof runoff, COD concentration was higher than the water quality standards by 1.8 times; and TN concentration was higher than the water quality standards by 2.6 times. For the roof runoff, the dissolved-bound fraction was 72.78% for COD, 57.99% for TN. For road runoff, the dissolved-bound fraction was 61.59% for TN. The pollutant concentrations were commonly higher at the initial stage, while decreased with prolonging of the rainfall time and gradually became stable at the later stage. The initial concentrations of pollutants from the underlying surface were as follows: concrete ground, asphalt ground, paved ground, flat roof and slope roof. During the rain flush, the concentration of pollutants on the underlying surface increases with the increase of the intensity of the rain which was fluctuated. The intensity of the first flush intensity varied by surface and was most intense for the flat roof, followed by the slope roof, then the asphalt road and finally the concrete road. Rainfall in pre-period was intensive and pollutant concentration was exponentially attenuated. When rainfall changes smoothly, the concentration of pollutants was stable firstly and then attenuation. When the rainfall was sparse in pre-period and intensive in the late-period, the curves of pollutant change type was multi-peak type. The index flush model had good effect to pollutant runoff simulation, the flush coefficients of COD on the slope roof, flat roof, and concrete road were 0.871, 0.765, and 0.025 mm⁻¹, the roof flush intensity was much larger than the ground. The flush coefficient of dissolved-bound of COD and granular-bound of COD was similar on the slope roof. The flush coefficient of granular-bound of COD was greater than the dissolved-bound of COD on the flat roof and the concrete road.

Key words: underlying surface, rainfall flush, runoff, flush coefficient

中图分类号:

张香丽, 赵志杰, 秦华鹏, 江燕. 常州市不同下垫面污染物冲刷特征[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 644-654.

ZHANG Xiangli, ZHAO Zhijie, QIN Huapeng, JIANG Yan. Characteristics of Pollutants Flush on Different Types of Underlying Surface in Changzhou[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2018, 54(3): 644-654.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://xbna.pku.edu.cn/CN/10.13209/j.0479-8023.2017.176

https://xbna.pku.edu.cn/CN/Y2018/V54/I3/644

[1]	刘衍, 李奇, 杨柳, 张腾跃, 刘加平. 中高密度城市居住区热岛强度计算模型研究[J]. 北京大学学报自然科学版, 2022, 58(6): 1077-1090.
[2]	姜璐璐, 吴欢, Lorenzo Alfieri, 李潇濛, John S. Kimball, 陈秀万. 基于遥感与区域化方法的无资料流域水文模型参数优化方法[J]. 北京大学学报自然科学版, 2020, 56(6): 1152-1164.
[3]	邢英华, 程翔, 秦华鹏, 赵志杰. 基于HSPF的绿色基础设施水文效应模拟——以大浪河流域为例[J]. 北京大学学报自然科学版, 2018, 54(5): 1053-1059.
[4]	杨雅君, 邹振东, 赵文利, 邱国玉. 6种城市下垫面热环境效应对比研究[J]. 北京大学学报自然科学版, 2017, 53(5): 881-889.
[5]	高晓薇,刘家宏. 深圳河流域城市化对河流水文过程的影响[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 2012, 48(1): 153-159.
[6]	张海宏,刘树华,韦志刚,吕世华,侯旭宏,文军,高晓清. 干旱半干旱区不同下垫面土壤温度计算方法比较研究[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 2011, 47(6): 1025-1033.
[7]	张碧辉,刘树华,桑建国. 北京大学校园夏季气象场的数值模拟[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 2011, 47(1): 59-65.
[8]	李娜,许有鹏,郭怀成,. 西苕溪流域城市化对径流长期影响分析研究[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 2009, 45(4): 668-676.
[9]	何玉斐,张宏升,刘明星,康凌. 戈壁下垫面空气动力学参数确定的再研究[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 2009, 45(3): 439-441.
[10]	刘晓阳,毛节泰,李纪人,朱元竞. 雷达估测降水模拟史灌河流域径流[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 2002, 38(3): 342-349.
[11]	刘树华,李洁,文平辉. 城市及乡村大气边界层结构的数值模拟[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 2002, 38(1): 90-97.
[12]	陈静生,何大伟. 珠江水系河水主要离子化学特征及成因[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 1999, 35(6): 786-793.
[13]	刘树华, 洪钟祥,李军,刘辉志. 戈壁下垫面大气边界层温、湿结构的数值模拟[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 1995, 31(3): 345-350.
[14]	刘树华. 戈壁夜间大气边界层的数值模拟研究[J]. 北京大学学报（自然科学版）, 1995, 31(1): 63-70.

常州市不同下垫面污染物冲刷特征

Characteristics of Pollutants Flush on Different Types of Underlying Surface in Changzhou

RichHTML

PDF

PDF (翻译版)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 14

编辑推荐

Metrics

留言