The Water⁃Sediment Regulation Scheme at Xiaolangdi Reservoir and Its Impact on Sulfur Cycling in the Yellow River Basin

被引：0
|
作者：
Zhang D. [1 ]
Zhu S. [1 ]
Zhao Z. [2 ]
Li Y. [1 ]
Yang J. [1 ]
Duan H. [1 ]
Guo W. [1 ]
Liu Y. [3 ,4 ]
机构：
[1] School of Resource and Environment, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo
[2] School of Earth Science and Resources, Chang'an University, Xi'an
[3] The Fifth Institute of Geo⁃Exploration, Henan Bureau of Geo⁃Exploration & Mineral Development, Zhengzhou
[4] Henan Province Research Center on Applied Engineering Technology of Hydrogeology, Zhengzhou
来源：
Diqiu Kexue - Zhongguo Dizhi Daxue Xuebao/Earth Science - Journal of China University of Geosciences | 2022年 / 47卷 / 02期
关键词：
Hydrogeology; Sulfate; Sulfur and oxygen isotopes; Sulfur cycling; Water⁃sediment regulation scheme; Xiaolangdi reservoir in the Yellow River;
D O I：
10.3799/dqkx.2022.109
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Weathering⁃derived sulfate (SO42-) from the Continent could be transported to the Ocean by river systems, and sulfate flux coupled with sulfur and oxygen isotope compositions (δ34SSO4 and δ18OSO4) were vital to the global sulfur cycling and sulfate isotope compositions in ocean. SO42- contents together with δ34SSO4 and δ18OSO4 values were not only controlled by SO42- sources, but affected by sulfate bacterial reduction (SBR) in internal riversystem, however, these effects were still unclear, and particularly the influences from dam and water⁃sediment regulation scheme (WSRS) on sulfur cycling in watershed were still unknown. The Xiaolangdi Reservoir in the Yellow River was selected to solve this problem, and hydrochemical compositions, water isotope compositions (δDH2O and δ18OH2O), and δ34SSO4 and δ18OSO4 were determined to constrain the effects of WSRS on riverine sulfate flux and isotope compositions by comparing the SO42- contents and isotope compositions before and after the WSRS. The results indicated that (1) WSRS occurred in July 2018, sediment discharge in August was due to sediment scoured by precipitation in midstream of Yellow River. The discharged river water during these two sediment removal had average δ18OH2O values of -8.1‰ and -8.9‰, and average SO42- concentrations of 1.43 mmol/L and 1.77 mmol/L, and average δ34SSO4 values of 8.3‰ and 7.4‰, and average δ18OSO4 values of 5.4‰ and 5.7‰, respectively. (2) The dischared river water before the WSRS (June) had positive average δ18OH2O value of -7.0‰, moderate average SO42- concentration of 1.59 mmol/L, positive average δ34SSO4 and δ18OSO4 values of 8.0‰ and 7.5‰, resepectively. The dischared river water after the WSRS (October) had negative average δ18OH2O value of -9.2‰, low average SO42- concentration of 1.26 mmol/L, negative average δ34SSO4 value of 6.7‰ and positive average δ18OSO4 value of 7.3‰, respectively. (3) The WSRS in July resulted in the exposure of sediment, and the organic sulfur and sulfide from SBR had been reoxidized to sulfate, during which water oxygen was incorporated into fresh sulfate with low oxygen isotope composition, but there was small varitaion of δ34SSO4 and δ18OSO4 values in downstream river water. (4) The SO42- flux was about 0.061 Tmol/a in 2018, and the proporation of SO42- flux during WSRS was about 14.8%. The flow⁃weighted average δ34SSO4 and δ18OSO4 values of SO42- into the Ocean were 7.6‰ and 6.8‰, respectively. The conclusion is that the WSRS had altered the water⁃sediment environment in the Yellow River, and corresponding organic and sulfide were released into the air and reoxidized, which changed the sulfate flux and sulfur and oxygen isotope compostion to the Ocean. © 2022, Editorial Department of Earth Science. All right reserved.
引用
收藏
页码：589 / 606
页数：17
相关论文
共 52 条
  • [1] Balci N., Shanks W. C., Mayer B., Et al., Oxygen and Sulfur Isotope Systematics of Sulfate Produced by Bacterial and Abiotic Oxidation of Pyrite, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 71, 15, pp. 3796-3811, (2007)
  • [2] Bao H., Lyons J. R., Zhou C, Triple Oxygen Isotope Evidence for Elevated CO<sub>2 </sub>Levels after a Neoproterozoic Glaciation, Nature, 453, 7194, pp. 504-506, (2008)
  • [3] Burke A., Present T. M., Paris G., Et al., Sulfur Isotopes in Rivers: Insights into Global Weathering Budgets, Pyrite Oxidation, and the Modern Sulfur Cycle, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 496, pp. 168-177, (2018)
  • [4] Canfield D. E., Raiswell R, The Evolution of the Sulfur Cycle, American Journal of Science, 299, 7, pp. 697-723, (1999)
  • [5] Chen J.S., Wang F.Y., He D.W., Geochemistry of Water Quality of the Yellow River Basin, Earth Science Frontiers, 13, 1, pp. 58-73, (2006)
  • [6] Cheng F., Zhang H. M., Zhang G. L., Et al., Distribution and Emission of N<sub>2</sub>O in the Largest River⁃Reservoir System along the Yellow River, Science of the Total Environment, 666, pp. 1209-1219, (2019)
  • [7] Ding T., Gao J., Tian S., Et al., Chemical and Isotopic Characteristics of the Water and Suspended Particulate Materials in the Yangtze River and Their Geological and Environmental Implications, Acta Geologica Sinica, 88, 1, pp. 276-360, (2016)
  • [8] Egbi C. D., Anornu G. K., Ganyaglo S. Y., Et al., Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater in the Lower Volta River Basin of Ghana: Sources and Related Human Health Risks, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 191, (2020)
  • [9] Fan B. L., Zhao Z. Q., Tao F. X., Et al., Characteristics of Carbonate, Evaporite and Silicate Weathering in Huanghe River Basin: aComparison among the Upstream, Midstream and Downstream, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 96, pp. 17-26, (2014)
  • [10] Fan B.L., Zhang D., Tao Z.H., Et al., Compositions of Hydrogen and Oxygen Isotope Values of Yellow River Water and the Response to Climate Change, China Environmental Science, 37, 5, pp. 1906-1914, (2017)
123456