朱晓晶^1,2,
于洋¹,
竹涛²,
郑玉婷¹,
任幸¹,
林军¹
1. 生态环境部固体废物与化学品管理技术中心, 北京 100029;
2. 中国矿业大学(北京), 北京 100083

作者简介: 朱晓晶(1994-),女,硕士研究生,研究方向为大气污染控制工程,E-mail:13641200511@163.com.

中图分类号: X171.5

A Comparative Study of Copeland Method and Weight-of-Evidence Method Application on Hazard Ranking of Pollutants

Zhu Xiaojing^1,2,
Yu Yang¹,
Zhu Tao²,
Zheng Yuting¹,
Ren Xing¹,
Lin Jun¹
1. Solid Waste and Chemicals Management Center, MEE, Beijing 100029, China;
2. China University of Mining & Technology-Beijing, Beijing 100083, China

CLC number: X171.5

-->

摘要
HTML全文
图(0)表(0)
参考文献(0)
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件(0)
访问统计

摘要:化学物质可能对生态环境或通过不同环境介质对人体健康造成危害。为识别出高危害的污染物，采用Copeland计分排序法和证据权重法，分别选择4、6和8个筛选指标，开展了50种污染物危害特性优先性排序。结果表明：筛选因子数量相同时，2种方法危害性排序结果的斯皮尔曼相关性在0.94以上，具有较好的相关性，可见2种方法均可用于污染物危害性排序；方法相同时，不同指标排序结果之间的相关性相对较小，表明选择不同的筛选指标对结果影响较大。
关键词: 污染物/
优先性排序/
Copeland计分排序法/
证据权重法

Abstract:Chemical substances may cause harm to ecological environment or human health through different environmental media. In order to identify high-risk pollutants, Copeland scoring method and weight-of-evidence method were used with 4, 6 and 8 screening indexes respectively, and the prioritization of the hazard characteristics of 50 kinds of pollutants was carried out. The results show that when the number of screening factors is the same, the Spearman correlation coefficient of the two methods is more than 0.94 indicating that the correlation is good. It can be seen that both methods can be used to classify hazardous pollutants. When the same method is used, the correlation between the ranking results by the method with different indexes is relatively poor, indicating that the selection of different screening indexes has a great impact on the results.
Key words:pollutants/
priority ranking/
Copeland scoring ranking method/
weight-of-evidence method.