HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Juang, K.-W. Articles by Lee, D.-Y. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Juang, K.-W. Articles by Lee, D.-Y. Agricola Articles by Juang, K.-W. Articles by Lee, D.-Y.

Comparison of Three Nonparametric Kriging Methods for Delineating Heavy-Metal Contaminated Soils

Graduate Institute of Agricultural Chemistry, National Taiwan Univ., Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

^* Corresponding author (dylee{at}ccms.ntu.edu.tw)

ABSTRACT

The probability of pollutant concentrations greater than a cutoff value is useful for delineating hazardous areas in contaminated soils. It is essential for risk assessment and reclamation. In this study, three nonparametric kriging methods [indicator kriging, probability kriging, and kriging with the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of order statistics (CDF kriging)] were used to estimate the probability of heavy-metal concentrations lower than a cutoff value. In terms of methodology, the probability kriging estimator and CDF kriging estimator take into account the information of the order relation, which is not considered in indicator kriging. Since probability kriging has been shown to be better than indicator kriging for delineating contaminated soils, the performance of CDF kriging, which we propose, was compared with that of probability kriging in this study. A data set of soil Cd and Pb concentrations obtained from a 10-ha heavy-metal contaminated site in Taoyuan, Taiwan, was used. The results demonstrated that the probability kriging and CDF kriging estimations were more accurate than the indicator kriging estimation. On the other hand, because the probability kriging was based on the cokriging estimator, some unreliable estimates occurred in the probability kriging estimation. This indicated that probability kriging was not as robust as CDF kriging. Therefore, CDF kriging is more suitable than probability kriging for estimating the probability of heavy-metal concentrations lower than a cutoff value.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K.-W. Juang, D.-Y. Lee, and T. R. Ellsworth Using Rank-Order Geostatistics for Spatial Interpolation of Highly Skewed Data in a Heavy-Metal Contaminated Site J. Environ. Qual., May 1, 2001; 30(3): 894 - 903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]