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

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (17) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cattle, J. A. Articles by Minasny, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cattle, J. A. Articles by Minasny, B. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Cattle, J. A. Articles by Minasny, B. Related Collections Spatial Distribution Statistics Ecological Risk Assessment Heavy Metals Soil Pollution

Kriging Method Evaluation for Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Urban Soil Lead Contamination

Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science, The Univ. of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia

View larger version (157K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Sampling design and site locations of the Glebe and Camperdown metal surveys.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Frequency distributions of raw and log-transformed Pb concentrations in Glebe and Camperdown topsoil.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. The percentage of sites misclassified as either "clean" or "contaminated" by each of the kriging methods.

View larger version (48K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Map showing the loss incurred in the event of an incorrect classification of "clean" when soil is actually "contaminated" (L1; 1 = 2.5, 2 = 1).

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Map showing the loss incurred in the event of an incorrect classification of "contaminated" when soil is actually "clean" (L2; 2 = 1); the magnitude of error is not considered.

View larger version (48K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Map showing the loss incurred in the event of an incorrect classification of "contaminated" when soil is actually "clean" (L3; 1 = 2.5, 2 = 1); the magnitude of error is considered.

View larger version (45K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. The total expected loss incurred in the event of a misclassification of soil as "clean" when it is actually "contaminated" and vice versa (L1 + L3; 1 = 10, 2 = 1).

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Plot of probability threshold versus the loss incurred as a result of underestimating the Pb concentration (L1) and overestimating the Pb concentration (L2) for each of the four methods.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Plot of probability threshold versus the total expected loss incurred if soil is misclassified as either "clean" or "contaminated."

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Delineation of "clean" and "contaminated" soil with criteria for minimal misclassification; p = 0.45.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Delineation of "clean" and "contaminated" soil with criteria for minimal expected loss; p = 0.85.