Influence of threshold value in the use of statistical methods for groundwater vulnerability assessment.

Statistical techniques can be used in groundwater pollution problems to determine the relationships among observed contamination (impacted wells representing an occurrence of what has to be predicted), environmental factors that may influence it and the potential contamination sources. Determination of a threshold concentration to discriminate between impacted or non impacted wells represents a key issue in the application of these techniques. In this work the effects on groundwater vulnerability assessment by statistical methods due to the use of different threshold values have been evaluated. The study area (Province of Milan, northern Italy) is about 2000 km(2) and groundwater nitrate concentration is constantly monitored by a net of about 300 wells. Along with different predictor factors three different threshold values of nitrate concentration have been considered to perform the vulnerability assessment of the shallow unconfined aquifer. The likelihood ratio model has been chosen to analyze the spatial distribution of the vulnerable areas. The reliability of the three final vulnerability maps has been tested showing that all maps identify a general positive trend relating mean nitrate concentration in the wells and vulnerability classes the same wells belong to. Then using the kappa coefficient the influence of the different threshold values has been evaluated comparing the spatial distribution of the resulting vulnerability classes in each map. The use of different threshold does not determine different vulnerability assessment if results are analyzed on a broad scale, even if the smaller threshold value gives the poorest performance in terms of reliability. On the contrary, the spatial distribution of a detailed vulnerability assessment is strongly influenced by the selected threshold used to identify the occurrences, suggesting that there is a strong relationship among the number of identified occurrences, the scale of the maps representing the predictor factors and the model efficiency in discriminating different vulnerable areas.

[1]  Clemens Reimann,et al.  Background and threshold: critical comparison of methods of determination. , 2005, The Science of the total environment.

[2]  Simone Sterlacchini,et al.  Bayes’ rule and GIS for evaluating sensitivity of groundwater to contamination , 2001 .

[3]  A. Kehew,et al.  Correlation Between Nitrate Contamination and Ground Water Pollution Potential , 2003, Ground water.

[4]  Richard M Vogel,et al.  Predicting ground water nitrate concentration from land use , 2005, Ground water.

[5]  A. Dassargues,et al.  Current trends and future challenges in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay and index methods , 2000 .

[6]  B. Ruddy,et al.  Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged groundwaters in the conterminous United States. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  Alastair J. Sinclair,et al.  A fundamental approach to threshold estimation in exploration geochemistry: probability plots revisited , 1991 .

[8]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[9]  A. Sinclair.  Selection of threshold values in geochemical data using probability graphs , 1974 .

[10]  T N Narasimhan,et al.  Basic Tenets for Water Management , 2005, Ground water.

[11]  T. Cacoullos,et al.  Discriminant analysis and applications , 1974 .

[12]  M. Dahl,et al.  European case studies supporting the derivation of natural background levels and groundwater threshold values for the protection of dependent ecosystems and human health. , 2008, The Science of the total environment.

[13]  Chang-Jo Chung,et al.  Using likelihood ratio functions for modeling the conditional probability of occurrence of future landslides for risk assessment , 2006, Comput. Geosci..

[14]  A. Dassargues,et al.  Comparison of aquifer vulnerability assessment techniques. Application to the Néblon river basin (Belgium) , 2003 .

[15]  Simone Sterlacchini,et al.  The Use of the Weights-of-Evidence Modeling Technique to Estimate the Vulnerability of Groundwater to Nitrate Contamination , 2007 .

[16]  C. Reimann,et al.  Geochemical background--concept and reality. , 2005, The Science of the total environment.

[17]  Simone Sterlacchini,et al.  Spatial and statistical assessment of factors influencing nitrate contamination in groundwater. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[18]  Fred Worrall,et al.  The vulnerability of groundwater to pesticide contamination estimated directly from observations of presence or absence in wells , 2005 .

[19]  Gary L. Raines,et al.  Development and Implementation of a Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida , 2007 .

[20]  S. J. Press,et al.  Applied Multivariate Analysis. , 1973 .

[21]  A. LaMotte,et al.  Ground-water vulnerability to nitrate contamination at multiple thresholds in the mid-Atlantic region using spatial probability models , 2005 .

[22]  F. Voss,et al.  Predicting the Probability of Elevated Nitrate Concentrations in the Puget Sound Basin: Implications for Aquifer Susceptibility and Vulnerability , 1997 .

[23]  W. Kelly,et al.  Estimating Background and Threshold Nitrate Concentrations Using Probability Graphs , 2006, Ground water.

[24]  P. Stackelberg,et al.  Relation of Ground-Water Quality to Land Use on Long Island, New York , 1995 .