Clean Technology, Vol.27, No.2, 174-181, June, 2021
    DOI 10.7464/ksct.2021.27.2.174  Full-Text PDF Export Citation
    지하수수질측정망 자료를 활용한 경남 오염우려지역의 지하수 수질 특성
    Groundwater Quality Characteristics of Pollution Concerned Area in Gyeongnam Using Groundwater Quality Monitoring Data
    차수연 1, 2 , 서양곤 3, †
    • 1 경상대학교 융합과학기술대학원 생산기술공학과, 52828 경남 진주시 진주대로 501
    • 2 경상남도보건환경연구원, 52732 경남 진주시 월아산로 2026
    • 3 경상대학교 화학공학과 그린에너지융합연구소, 52828 경남 진주시 진주대로 501
    Suyeon Cha 1, 2 , and Yang Gon Seo 3, †
    • 1 Department of Production Technology and Engineering, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Gyeongsang National University, 501 Jinju-daero, Jinju-si, Gyeongnam 52828, Korea
    • 2 Gyeongsangnam-do Institute of Health and Environment, 2026 Worasan-ro, Jinju-si, Gyeongnam 52732, Korea
    • 3 Department of Chemical Engineering/RIGET, Gyeongsang National University, 501 Jinju-daero, Jinju-si, Gyeongnam 52828, Korea
    E-mail:
    초록
    본 연구에서는 경상남도 지역의 오염감시전용측정망의 5년간(2013 ~ 2017) 자료를 이용하여 주오염원과 분기별 지하수 수질 특성을 분석하였다. 주오염원은 산업단지지역, 광산.폐광산지역 및 하수처리시설로 구별하였다. 분석 항목은 현장측정 항목 (수온, pH, 전기전도도, 용존산소, 산화물환원전위), 양이온 그리고 음이온이었다. 수온과 pH는 주오염원에 따라 크게 변하지 않았다. 양이온과 음이온의 평균농도의 합은 산업단지지역에서 가장 높았고, 하수처리시설 그리고 광산.폐광산지역 순이었다. 산업단지지역에서는 전기전도도의 값이 가장 높았고, 용존산소의 값이 가장 낮았다. 산업단지지역은 나트륨이온이 가장높은 구성비를 보인 반면 하수처리시설과 광산.폐광산지역에서는 칼슘이온이 가장 높은 값을 나타내었다. 모든 주오염원에서 중탄산염의 농도가 가장 높게 나타났다. 수온, pH 그리고 양이온과 음이온의 농도는 분기마다 크게 다르지 않았다. 수질유형 중 Na-HCO3 유형이 가장 높은 비율을 차지하였으나, 외부 오염의 가능성이 높은 Na-Cl 유형도 오염감시전용측정망의 전체 자료 중 약 20%를 차지하였다.
    This study analyzed the groundwater quality characteristics according to the main source of pollution and quarter (season) by using data from the pollution exclusive monitoring network in the Gyeongsangnam-do area for five years (2013-2017). The main source of pollution was the industrial complex areas, waste mines, and sewage treatment facilities. The analysis items were field measurement items (water temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxide reduction potential), positive ions, and negative ions. Water temperature and pH did not vary significantly according to the main source of pollution. In industrial complex areas, the value of electrical conductivity was the highest, and dissolved oxygen value was the lowest. The mean concentration of positive and negative ions was the largest in industrial complex areas, followed by sewage treatment facilities and waste mines. It was shown that the concentration of sodium ion was the highest in industrial complex areas and calcium ion in waste mines and sewage treatment facilities. The concentration of bicarbonate ion was the highest in all main sources of pollution. Water temperature, pH, and concentrations of cations and anions did not vary significantly from quarter to quarter. Of the water quality types, the Na-HCO3 type accounted for the highest proportion, but the Na-Cl type, which has a high possibility of external contamination, accounted for about 20% of the total data in the pollution exclusive monitoring network.
    Keywords: Groundwater quality ; Pollution exclusive monitoring network ; Main pollution source ; Quarter
    1. Loaiciga HA, Charbeneau RJ, Everett LG, Fogg GE, Hobbs BF, Rouhani S, J. Hydrol. Eng. , 118(1), 11 (1992)
    2. Frapporti G, Vriend SP, van Gaans PFM, Water Resour. Res. , 29(9), 2993 (1993)
    3. Reijnders HFR, van Drecht G, Prins HF, Boumans LJM, J. Hydrology , 207(3-4), 179 (1998)
    4. Dawoud MA, Environ. Monit. Assess. , 96(1), 99 (2004)
    5. Jousma G, Roelofsen FJ, International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre Report GP 2004-1 (2004).
    6. Dauhney CJ, Raiber M, Moreau-Fournier M, Morgenstern U, van der Raaij R, Hydrogeol. J. , 20(1), 185 (2012)
    7. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, “Groundwater Management Basic Plan Revision (2017~2026),” (2017).
    8. Ministry of Environment, “Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network and Water Pollution Measurement Plan,” (2017).
    9. Ministry of Environment, “Study on Establishment and Operation of Integrated National Groundwater Measurement (Observation) Network,” (2019).
    10. Kim NJ, Cho MJ, Woo NC, Hydrogeol. J. , 3(4), 89 (1995)
    11. Park JK, Kim RH, Lee JY, Choi DH, Kim TD, J. Soil Groundwater Environ. , 12(6), 92 (2007)
    12. Lee JY, Yi MJ, Yoo YK, Ahn KH, Kim GB, Won JH, Hydrol. Process. , 21(7), 907 (2007)
    13. Lee JY, Kwon KD, Water , 8(4), 168 (2016)
    14. Choi BY, Yun ST, Kim KH, Kim JW, Kim HM, Koh YK, J. Geochem. Explor. , 137, 73 (2014)
    15. Bang S, Yoo K, Park J, J. Korean Soc. Water Quality , 27(1), 120 (2011)
    16. Cha SY, Seo YG, Clean Technol. , 26(1), 39 (2020)
    17. Ministry of Environment, “2020 Groundwater Annular Report,” (2020).
    18. http://sgis.nier.go.kr/ (accessed Jun. 2019).
    19. Seo YG, Ph. D. Dissertation, The University of Suwon (2015).
    20. Han SW, Kim BJ, Lee GJ, J. Ind. Technol. , 3(1), 434 (2000)
    21. Kim JK, Kwon KA, Byeon JH, Park JH, Park HG, Lim YJ, J. KIHE , 20, 207 (2007)
    22. Yang KH, MS Thesis, Inha University (2011).
    23. Han SW, Yang DS, Kim BJ, J. Ind. Technol. , 5(1), 713 (2002)
    24. Ministry of Environment and National Institute of Environmental Research, “Explanation of Standards of Drinking Water Quality,”(2017).
    25. Kim G, Chio D, Yoon P, Kim K, J. Kor. Geo-Environ. Soc. , 11(3), 5 (2010)
    26. Lee EJ, Woo NC, Lee BS, Kim YB, Econ. Environ. Geol. , 41(4), 393 (2008)
    Create a Mobile Website
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: