引用本文:王延军,刘京, 王亮,姚志鹏,杨凯.地表水自动与常规监测评价结果一致性对比分析[J].环境监控与预警,2021,13(1):36-41
WANG Yan-jun, LIU Jing, WANG Liang, YAO Zhi-peng, YANG Kai.Comparative Analysis of the Consistency in Evaluation Results of Surface Water Between Automatic Monitoring and Manual Monitoring[J].Environmental Monitoring and Forewarning,2021,13(1):36-41
【打印本页】   【HTML】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 179次   下载 92 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
地表水自动与常规监测评价结果一致性对比分析
王延军,刘京, 王亮,姚志鹏,杨凯
作者单位
王延军1,刘京2*, 王亮3,姚志鹏2,杨凯2 1.江苏省常州环境监测中心江苏 常州 2130002.中国环境监测总站北京 1000123.河南省济源生态环境监测中心河南 济源 459000 
摘要:
选择分布在不同流域的15个与自动监测站位置一致性较好的断面,对其进行为期1年的“同时同点位”对比监测。分析数据发现:由于采样时间和位置的偏差,自动监测月均值与常规手工监测数据的可比性并不理想。采用以下4种方法评价水质:自动5项、手动5项、手动21项、自动5项+手动16项。比较第1和第2种方法,水质评价类别相同与变化一类(发生一个水质类别变化)的占比之和在85%左右;比较第1和第3种方法,类别相同与变化一类的占比之和在80%左右;比较第3和第4种方法,类别相同与变化一类的占比之和接近90%,因此该组合是更合理的地表水水质评价方法。
关键词:  自动监测  手工监测  比对实验  水质评价
DOI:
分类号:X832
文献标识码:B
基金项目:国家水环境监测监控及业务化平台技术研究基金资助项目(2017ZX07302-002)
Comparative Analysis of the Consistency in Evaluation Results of Surface Water Between Automatic Monitoring and Manual Monitoring
WANG Yan-jun, LIU Jing, WANG Liang, YAO Zhi-peng, YANG Kai
Abstract:
15 conventional monitoring sections, which were located in the same location with automatic monitoring stations, distributed in different river basins, were selected to compare the data obtained by both manual monitoring and automatic monitoring. The results showed that the monthly mean values of automatic monitoring were not comparable to the data of manual monitoring due to the deviation of sampling time and sampling location. In terms of water quality evaluation, at least 4 methods were available: evaluated by 5 parameters obtained from automatic monitoring, evaluated by 5 parameters obtained from manual monitoring, evaluated by 21 parameters obtained from manual monitoring, and evaluated by the integrated 5 automatic parameters and 16 manual parameters. Compared with method one and method two, the sum of same class and one class varied accounted for about 85%, compared with method one and method three, it accounted for about 80%, and compared with method three and method four, it accounted for about 90%.Therefore,this is a more reasonable method of surface water quality evaluation.
Key words:  Automatic monitoring  Manual monitoring  Comparative test  Water quality evaluation