TRUE AND FALSE POSITIVE RATES IN MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL TESTS

被引:0
|
作者
OLER, J
机构
[1] Drexel University, Philadelphia
关键词
D O I
10.1007/BF00399297
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating a revised national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) which includes a monthly sample size and maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total coliform bacteria in public water systems. No previous quantification has been made of the coliform content that must be present in the sampled water in order for an MCL to be exceeded. This paper presents a method for evaluating the coliform level an MCL will detect with likelihood P. Our approach is to treat an MCL as a decision rule, with Type I (false positive) and Type II (false negative) error rates. The stringency of an MCL is quantified as the mean coliform level in the sampled system that it will detect with likelihood P. MCLs are contrasted on stringency by comparing the mean coliform level each targets for detection, with fixed error rates. Interim rules (NIPDWR), in effect since 1975, are shown to vary widely on the coliform content each targets for detection, that is, on stringency. Yes/no decisions on contamination have not been decided based on mean coliform content. Coliform levels permitted in monitored public water systems have been determined by the particular MCL used for testing. The same coliform level will test positively with one MCL 90 times in 100 yet be guaranteed 95% nondetection by a second MCL. EPA's reasonably safe standard for drinking water is reformulated on our stringency criteria. Its proposed monthly MCL is evaluated on its capability for maintaining this standard. Smaller systems will not provide its users this level of protection under the new rule. In addition, our evaluation of the safe water standard on stringency and the rationale for a monthly MCL require that coliform levels be identically distributed (i.d.) across month and sampled system. Empirical data strongly refute this model and question the utility of a monthly MCL. This work suggests an alternative, single sample MCL, with repeat sampling for verification, which can be configured to provide monitoring to discover mean coliform values at any level, in any size of system, at minimal extra cost.
引用
收藏
页码:123 / 136
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Bootstrap estimated true and false positive rates and ROC curve
    Adler, Werner
    Lausen, Berthold
    [J]. COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 2009, 53 (03) : 718 - 729
  • [2] Maximum Margin Classifiers with Specified False Positive and False Negative Error Rates
    Nath, J. Saketha
    Bhattacharyya, C.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH SIAM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DATA MINING, 2007, : 35 - 46
  • [3] Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests
    Alonzo, TA
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2005, 24 (03) : 403 - 417
  • [4] CONTAMINANT BLOOD CULTURES AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION - THE TRUE CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE-POSITIVE RESULTS
    BATES, DW
    GOLDMAN, L
    LEE, TH
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1991, 265 (03): : 365 - 369
  • [5] Impact of new screening tests on true seropositive and false reactive rates
    Hermansen, SW
    Glynn, S
    Busch, MP
    Kleinman, S
    Schreiber, G
    [J]. TRANSFUSION, 1998, 38 (10) : 72S - 72S
  • [6] SOME PROBLEMS IN DETERMINATION OF FALSE POSITIVE AND FALSE NEGATIVE RATES OF TUBERCULIN TESTS
    GREENBERG, RA
    JEKEL, JF
    [J]. AMERICAN REVIEW OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE, 1969, 100 (05): : 645 - +
  • [7] Specifying the True- and False-Positive Rates in Basket Trials
    Cunanan, Kristen M.
    Iasonos, Alexia
    Shen, Ronglai
    Hyman, David M.
    Riely, Gregory J.
    Goenen, Mithat
    Begg, Colin B.
    [J]. JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY, 2017, 1 : 1 - 5
  • [8] High false positive rates in common sensory threshold tests
    Cordelia A. Running
    [J]. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2015, 77 : 692 - 700
  • [9] High false positive rates in common sensory threshold tests
    Running, Cordelia A.
    [J]. ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 2015, 77 (02) : 692 - 700
  • [10] False false positive rates
    Suojanen, JN
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 341 (02): : 131 - 131