Using sequential indicator simulation to assess the uncertainty of delineating heavy-metal contaminated soils.

Mapping the spatial distribution of soil pollutants is essential for delineating contaminated areas. Currently, geostatistical interpolation, kriging, is increasingly used to estimate pollutant concentrations in soils. The kriging-based approach, indicator kriging (IK), may be used to model the uncertainty of mapping. However, a smoothing effect is usually produced when using kriging in pollutant mapping. The detailed spatial patterns of pollutants could, therefore, be lost. The local uncertainty of mapping pollutants derived by the IK technique is referred to as the conditional cumulative distribution function (ccdf) for one specific location (i.e. single-location uncertainty). The local uncertainty information obtained by IK is not sufficient as the uncertainty of mapping at several locations simultaneously (i.e. multi-location uncertainty or spatial uncertainty) is required to assess the reliability of the delineation of contaminated areas. The simulation approach, sequential indicator simulation (SIS), which has the ability to model not only single, but also multi-location uncertainties, was used, in this study, to assess the uncertainty of the delineation of heavy metal contaminated soils. To illustrate this, a data set of Cu concentrations in soil from Taiwan was used. The results show that contour maps of Cu concentrations generated by the SIS realizations exhausted all the spatial patterns of Cu concentrations without the smoothing effect found when using the kriging method. Based on the SIS realizations, the local uncertainty of Cu concentrations at a specific location of x', refers to the probability of the Cu concentration z(x') being higher than the defined threshold level of contamination (z(c)). This can be written as Prob(SIS)[z(x')>z(c)], representing the probability of contamination. The probability map of Prob(SIS)[z(x')>z(c)] can then be used for delineating contaminated areas. In addition, the multi-location uncertainty of an area A,delineated as contaminated based on the probability map of Prob(SIS)[z(x')>z(c)], can be calculated to assess the reliability of delineation. Multi-location uncertainty refers to the probability of Cu concentrations in several locations, x'(1), x'(2), em leader, x'(m,) in the area A, being higher than the threshold (z(c)) as denoted by Prob(SIS)[z(x'(1))>z(c), z(x'(2))>z(c), em leader, andz(x'(m))>z(c)] or Prob(SIS)[z(A)>z(c)]. The multi-location uncertainty Prob(SIS)[z(A)>z(c)], obtained from the SIS, can be used to assess the reliability of delineation for regions suspected of contamination, (A), which has been delineated as contaminated. Reliance on this information facilitates the decision making process in determining which areas are contaminated and require cleanup action.

[1]  I. Marr Principles of environmental sampling , 1991 .

[2]  Guangxing Wang,et al.  Spatial prediction and uncertainty analysis of topographic factors for the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) , 2000 .

[3]  K. Juang,et al.  Simple indicator kriging for estimating the probability of incorrectly delineating hazardous areas in a contaminated site , 1998 .

[4]  Shang-Lien Lo,et al.  Prototype SDSS for using probability analysis in soil contamination , 1997 .

[5]  J.-P. Dubois,et al.  Assessing the risk of soil contamination in the Swiss Jura using indicator geostatistics , 1997, Environmental and Ecological Statistics.

[6]  Pierre Goovaerts,et al.  Geostatistical modelling of uncertainty in soil science , 2001 .

[7]  E. J. Englund,et al.  Geo-EAS (Geostatistical Environmental Assessment Software) user's guide , 1988 .

[8]  M. Meirvenne,et al.  Cadmium variability in leaves of a Salix fragilis: simulation and implications for leaf sampling , 2001 .

[9]  P. Burrough,et al.  The indicator approach to categorical soil data. II: Application to mapping and land use suitability analysis , 1993 .

[10]  P. Burrough,et al.  The indicator approach to categorical soil data: I. Theory , 1993 .

[11]  T. W. Bradigan Assessing risk. , 1997, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[12]  K. Juang,et al.  Using rank-order geostatistics for spatial interpolation of highly skewed data in a heavy-metal contaminated site. , 2001, Journal of environmental quality.

[13]  R. Webster,et al.  Mapping heavy metals in polluted soil by disjunctive kriging. , 1996, Environmental pollution.

[14]  Pierre Goovaerts,et al.  Stochastic simulation of categorical variables using a classification algorithm and simulated annealing , 1996 .

[15]  P Goovaerts,et al.  Geostatistical assessment and validation of uncertainty for three-dimensional dioxin data from sediments in an estuarine river. , 2001, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  K. Juang,et al.  A Comparison of Three Kriging Methods Using Auxiliary Variables in Heavy-Metal Contaminated Soils , 1998 .

[17]  B. Minasny,et al.  Kriging method evaluation for assessing the spatial distribution of urban soil lead contamination. , 2002, Journal of environmental quality.

[18]  Clayton V. Deutsch,et al.  GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide , 1993 .

[19]  Timothy C. Coburn,et al.  Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation , 2000, Technometrics.

[20]  A C Turner,et al.  Environmental pollution. , 1970, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[21]  Pierre Goovaerts,et al.  Evaluating the probability of exceeding a site-specific soil cadmium contamination threshold , 2001 .

[22]  R. Zhang,et al.  GEOSTATISTICAL ANALYSES OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN SOILS AND PLANTS , 1995 .