本文選題：土壤 + 重金屬污染　； 參考：《華北電力大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：化石燃料燃燒的廢棄物排放通過(guò)大氣沉降作用進(jìn)入土壤是土壤重金屬污染主要來(lái)源之一,為全面對(duì)比研究土壤重金屬污染情況,本文對(duì)地處不同環(huán)境的三座電廠(chǎng)周邊表層土壤中重金屬污染進(jìn)行研究。測(cè)定采集土壤樣品的pH值,陽(yáng)離子交換量以及Zn,Cu,Pb,Hg,Ni,Cr,Cd,As等八種重金屬元素含量。繪制電廠(chǎng)周邊表層土壤中八種重金屬元素含量二維空間分布圖。對(duì)照當(dāng)?shù)赝寥拉h(huán)境背景值與國(guó)家土壤環(huán)境質(zhì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)值對(duì)污染程度進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià),并對(duì)重金屬污染源進(jìn)行分析與預(yù)測(cè)。3號(hào)電廠(chǎng)As元素平均含量小于當(dāng)?shù)赝寥拉h(huán)境背景值,約為其0.9倍,三電廠(chǎng)其余元素平均含量均超過(guò)背景值。1號(hào)電廠(chǎng)Hg元素平均含量為背景值25.4倍,屬三電廠(chǎng)八種重金屬元素中最大。單樣本K-S檢驗(yàn)顯示1號(hào)電廠(chǎng)的Cu,Hg,2號(hào)電廠(chǎng)的Zn,Cd,3號(hào)電廠(chǎng)的Hg服從常用對(duì)數(shù)正態(tài)分布,其余元素服從標(biāo)準(zhǔn)正態(tài)分布。地積累指數(shù)法單元素污染程度評(píng)價(jià)顯示Hg為三電廠(chǎng)普遍污染最嚴(yán)重元素,均在不同程度上達(dá)到重度污染。內(nèi)梅羅污染指數(shù)法與污染負(fù)荷指數(shù)法綜合污染程度評(píng)價(jià)結(jié)果顯示1號(hào)電廠(chǎng)周邊土壤八種重金屬元素綜合污染程度相對(duì)較重,2號(hào)電廠(chǎng)次之,3號(hào)電廠(chǎng)最低。1號(hào)電廠(chǎng)區(qū)域污染負(fù)荷指數(shù)為2.8,達(dá)到強(qiáng)污染水平,2號(hào)與3號(hào)電廠(chǎng)分別為1.8,1.7,屬中污染水平。潛在生態(tài)危害指數(shù)法評(píng)價(jià)顯示Hg與Cd屬三電廠(chǎng)普遍生態(tài)危害最嚴(yán)重元素,Ni與Zn為最輕。Hg是八種重金屬元素中生態(tài)危害程度最大元素。1號(hào)電廠(chǎng)八種重金屬元素潛在生態(tài)危害指數(shù)為1152.92,具有很強(qiáng)生態(tài)危害性,2號(hào)電廠(chǎng)為187.46,3號(hào)電廠(chǎng)為190.03,為中等生態(tài)危害程度。運(yùn)用改進(jìn)評(píng)價(jià)模型,參比土壤質(zhì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)值與環(huán)境背景值,考慮元素含量與毒性系數(shù),參考主流綜合污染指數(shù)法思想通過(guò)加權(quán)平均以雙重途徑最終求得電廠(chǎng)重金屬綜合污染系數(shù)。1號(hào)電廠(chǎng)地處城區(qū),綜合污染系數(shù)最大,達(dá)1.85,3號(hào)電廠(chǎng)地處鄉(xiāng)村,綜合污染系數(shù)次之,為0.91,2號(hào)電廠(chǎng)地處郊區(qū),污染程度最小,為0.69。1號(hào)與3號(hào)電廠(chǎng)八種重金屬元素間普遍顯著性相關(guān),2號(hào)電廠(chǎng)重金屬元素間相關(guān)性較差。1號(hào)與3號(hào)電廠(chǎng)八種元素均被分為四類(lèi),2號(hào)電廠(chǎng)被分為五類(lèi)。農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn),工業(yè)廢棄物排放,路面交通,居民日常生活活動(dòng)等均是土壤重金屬污染主要來(lái)源,一些元素受單一污染源影響較大,一些則受到多種污染源聯(lián)合影響。
[Abstract]:Waste emissions from fossil fuel combustion are one of the main sources of heavy metal pollution in soil through atmospheric deposition. The pollution of heavy metals in the surface soil of three power plants in different environments was studied in this paper. The pH value, cation exchange capacity and the contents of eight heavy metals, such as Zn ~ (2 +) Cu ~ (2 +) ~ (2 +) ~ (2 +) ~ (2 +) and Zn ~ (2 +) Cu ~ (2 +) ~ (2 +) ~ ( The spatial distribution of eight heavy metal elements in the surface soil around the power plant was plotted. Compared with the local soil environment background value and the national soil environmental quality standard value, the pollution degree was evaluated, and the heavy metal pollution sources were analyzed and forecasted. The average content of as element in No. 3 power plant was less than the local soil environmental background value, which was about 0.9 times of the local soil environmental background value. The average content of Hg in No. 1 power plant is 25.4 times the background value, which is the largest among the eight heavy metal elements in three power plants. The single sample K-S test shows that the Cu Hg of No. 1 Power Plant, ZnCU CD of No. 2 Power Plant, Hg service of No. 3 Power Plant follow the usual logarithmic normal distribution, and the rest of the elements are distributed according to the standard normal distribution. The evaluation of pollution degree of single element by the method of land accumulation index shows that Hg is the most serious pollution element in three power plants, and all of them reach serious pollution in varying degrees. The comprehensive pollution degree evaluation of Nemero pollution index method and pollution load index method shows that the comprehensive pollution degree of eight heavy metal elements in the surrounding soil of No.1 Power Plant is relatively heavy, followed by No.2 Power Plant, No. 3 Power Plant, and the lowest in No.1 Power Plant area. The pollution load index was 2.8, which reached the level of strong pollution, and that of No.2 and No.3 power plants was 1.8 ~ 1.7, respectively, which belonged to the medium pollution level. The evaluation of potential ecological hazard index shows that Ni and Zn are the lightest of the eight heavy metal elements, and the potential of eight heavy metal elements in No. 1 Power Plant. The index of ecological hazard is 1152.92, which has strong ecological hazard. The number 2 of power plant is 187.46, and the number of power plant No. 3 is 190.03, which is the middle degree of ecological hazard. The improved evaluation model was used to compare the standard value of soil quality and environmental background value, and to consider the content of elements and toxicity coefficient. The comprehensive pollution coefficient of heavy metals in power plant is obtained by means of weighted average method with reference to the mainstream comprehensive pollution index method. Power plant No. 1 is located in the urban area, the comprehensive pollution coefficient is the largest, and power plant No. 3 is located in the countryside, and the comprehensive pollution coefficient is the second. The No. 2 Power Plant is located in the suburb and has the least pollution. The results showed that there were significant correlations between the eight heavy metal elements in 0.69.1 and No.3 power plants, but poor correlations among the eight heavy metals elements in No. 2 power plant, and the eight elements in No. 1 and No. 3 power plants were divided into four categories and the second power plants were divided into five categories. Agricultural production, industrial waste discharge, road traffic, daily life activities of residents are the main sources of soil heavy metal pollution, some elements are affected by a single source of pollution, others by a combination of multiple sources of pollution.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華北電力大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：X53

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 梁吉業(yè);馮晨嬌;宋鵬;;大數(shù)據(jù)相關(guān)分析綜述[J];計(jì)算機(jī)學(xué)報(bào);2016年01期

2 劉釗釗;唐浩;吳健;吳建強(qiáng);黃沈發(fā);;土壤汞污染及其修復(fù)技術(shù)研究進(jìn)展[J];環(huán)境工程;2013年05期

3 賀弘瀅;苑春剛;趙毅;張敬紅;;河北某燃煤電廠(chǎng)周邊土壤中砷及其形態(tài)分布特征[J];中國(guó)電力;2013年06期

4 陳玉真;王峰;王果;尤志明;;土壤鋅污染及其修復(fù)技術(shù)研究進(jìn)展[J];福建農(nóng)業(yè)學(xué)報(bào);2012年08期

5 王駿;王士同;鄧趙紅;;聚類(lèi)分析研究中的若干問(wèn)題[J];控制與決策;2012年03期

6 程新偉;;土壤鉛污染研究進(jìn)展[J];地下水;2011年01期

7 薛美香;;土壤重金屬污染現(xiàn)狀與修復(fù)技術(shù)[J];廣東化工;2007年08期

8 林凡華;陳海博;白軍;;土壤環(huán)境中重金屬污染危害的研究[J];環(huán)境科學(xué)與管理;2007年07期

9 宋建民;;土壤污染控制與土地的可持續(xù)利用[J];環(huán)境保護(hù);2007年10期

10 王新;賈永鋒;;土壤砷污染及修復(fù)技術(shù)[J];環(huán)境科學(xué)與技術(shù);2007年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 劉白林;白銀黃灌區(qū)農(nóng)田土壤重金屬空間分布及其污染風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)[D];蘭州大學(xué);2014年

2 戴昕鵬;甘肅白銀農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)重金屬富集水平及對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)鼐用窠】碉L(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)[D];蘭州大學(xué);2013年

3 韓鵬;北京市首鋼地區(qū)土壤重金屬分布及土壤質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià)[D];中國(guó)地質(zhì)大學(xué)(北京);2012年

4 楊斐;東嶺冶煉廠(chǎng)周邊土壤重金屬積累和重金屬污染評(píng)價(jià)分析[D];陜西師范大學(xué);2011年

5 付亞寧;寧夏火電廠(chǎng)周?chē)寥乐亟饘倏臻g分布與污染評(píng)價(jià)研究[D];北京林業(yè)大學(xué);2010年

6 劉艷;重金屬鎳污染土壤的生態(tài)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)[D];北京林業(yè)大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1960758