论文部分内容阅读
目的应用饮用水水质指数(DWQI)综合评价2014年北海市农村饮水安全工程水质状况。方法依据2014年北海市218份农村饮水安全工程水质监测数据,应用改良袁志彬饮用水水质指数法和五色等级分类法,对农村饮用水水质进行综合评价分析。结果 2014年北海市农村饮水安全工程水质合格率仅为16.06%(35/218),DWQI为4.00±9.19。五色分级评价,绿色(1级,水质优良)24份,蓝色(2级,水质良好)53份,黄色(3级,水质较差)74份,红色(4级,水质差)38份,黑色(5级,水质很差)29份。污染水质占64.68%(141/218),水质综合评价为5级(很差黑色)。不同地区DWQI比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);其中合浦县水质最差,为5级(很差黑色)。不同类型、水期、水源饮用水比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论应用DWQI评价水质便于信息发布和公众理解,但还需要进一步完善;北海市农村饮水安全工程水质尤其是合浦县水质亟待提高。
Objective To evaluate the water quality of rural drinking water safety project in Beihai City in 2014 by using drinking water quality index (DWQI). Methods According to the water quality monitoring data of 218 rural drinking water safety projects in Beihai City in 2014, a comprehensive evaluation of the drinking water quality in rural areas was made with the improvement of the water quality index method of Yuan Zhibin drinking water and the five-color classification method. Results The passing rate of water quality of rural drinking water safety project in Beihai in 2014 was only 16.06% (35/218) and DWQI was 4.00 ± 9.19. (Grade 1, good water quality) 24, blue (Grade 2, good water quality) 53, yellow (Grade 3, poor water quality) 74, red (Grade 4, poor water quality) Black (5, poor water quality) 29 copies. Polluted water accounted for 64.68% (141/218), water quality comprehensive evaluation of 5 (very poor black). DWQI in different regions, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05); the worst water quality in Hepu County, Level 5 (very poor black). There was no significant difference between different types, water period and water source drinking water (all P> 0.05). Conclusion The application of DWQI to evaluate water quality is convenient for information release and public understanding, but it needs further improvement. The water quality of Beihai rural drinking water safety project, especially Hepu County, needs to be improved urgently.