How to evaluate sediment fingerprinting source apportionments

被引:32
|
作者
Batista, P. V. G. [1 ]
Laceby, J. P. [2 ]
Evrard, O. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Basel, Dept Environm Sci, Bernoullistr 30, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
[2] Alberta Environm & Pk, 3535 Res Rd NW, Calgary, AB T2L 2K8, Canada
[3] Univ Paris Saclay, Lab Sci Climat & Environm LSCE, IPSL, CEA,CNRS,UVSQ, Gif Sur Yvette, France
关键词
MixSIAR; Sediment fingerprinting; Sediment tracing; Model testing; Artificial mixtures; MULTIVARIATE MIXING MODEL; ACCURACY; UNCERTAINTY; SENSITIVITY; KNOWLEDGE; FORECASTS; IMPACT; TOOLS; PLUME;
D O I
10.1007/s11368-022-03157-4
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose Evaluating sediment fingerprinting source apportionments with artificial mixtures is crucial for supporting decision-making and advancing modeling approaches. However, artificial mixtures are rarely incorporated into fingerprinting research and guidelines for model testing are currently lacking. Here, we demonstrate how to test source apportionments using laboratory and virtual mixtures by comparing the results from Bayesian and bootstrapped modeling approaches. Materials and methods Laboratory and virtual mixtures (n = 79) with known source proportions were created with soil samples from two catchments in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Soil samples were sieved at 63 mu m and analyzed for colorimetric and geochemical parameters. The MixSIAR Bayesian framework and a bootstrapped mixing model (BMM) were used to estimate source contributions to the artificial mixtures. In addition, we proposed and demonstrated the use of multiple evaluation metrics to report on model uncertainty, residual errors, performance, and contingency criteria. Results and discussion Overall, there were negligible differences between source apportionments for the laboratory and virtual mixtures, for both models. The comparison between MixSIAR and BMM illustrated a trade-off between accuracy and precision in the model results. The more certain MixSIAR solutions encompassed a lesser proportion of known source values, whereas the BMM apportionments were markedly less precise. Although model performance declined for mixtures with a single source contributing greater than 0.75 of the material, both models represented the general trends in the mixtures and identified their major sources. Conclusions Virtual mixtures are as robust as laboratory mixtures for assessing fingerprinting mixing models if analytical errors are negligible. We therefore recommend to always include virtual mixtures as part of the model testing process. Additionally, we highlight the value of using evaluation metrics that consider the accuracy and precision of model results, and the importance of reporting uncertainty when modeling source apportionments.
引用
收藏
页码:1315 / 1328
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] How to evaluate sediment fingerprinting source apportionments
    P. V. G. Batista
    J. P. Laceby
    O. Evrard
    Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2022, 22 : 1315 - 1328
  • [2] Sediment source fingerprinting and the temporal variability of source contributions
    Liu, Ying
    Walling, Des E.
    Yang, Mingyi
    Zhang, Fengbao
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2023, 338
  • [3] Storm event sediment fingerprinting for temporal and spatial sediment source tracing
    Vale, Simon S.
    Fuller, Ian C.
    Procter, Jonathan N.
    Basher, Les R.
    Dymond, John R.
    HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2020, 34 (15) : 3370 - 3386
  • [4] Sediment Fingerprinting to Determine the Source of Suspended Sediment in a Southern Piedmont Stream
    Mukundan, R.
    Radcliffe, D. E.
    Ritchie, J. C.
    Risse, L. M.
    McKinley, R. A.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2010, 39 (04) : 1328 - 1337
  • [5] Using source-specific models to test the impact of sediment source classification on sediment fingerprinting
    Vercruysse, Kim
    Grabowski, Robert C.
    HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2018, 32 (22) : 3402 - 3415
  • [6] Application of the Bayesian approach to sediment fingerprinting and source attribution
    Davies, Joe
    Olley, Jon
    Hawker, Darryl
    McBroom, James
    HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2018, 32 (26) : 3978 - 3995
  • [7] Sediment source fingerprinting: are we going in the right direction?
    Owens, Philip N.
    JOURNAL OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS, 2022, 22 (06) : 1643 - 1647
  • [8] Sensitivity of source sediment fingerprinting to tracer selection methods
    Chalaux-Clergue, Thomas
    Bizeul, Remi
    Batista, Pedro V. G.
    Martinez-Carreras, Nuria
    Laceby, J. Patrick
    Evrard, Olivier
    SOIL, 2024, 10 (01) : 109 - 138
  • [9] Sediment Source Fingerprinting of the Lake Urmia Sand Dunes
    Ahmady-Birgani, Hesam
    Agahi, Edris
    Ahmadi, Seyed Javad
    Erfanian, Mahdi
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2018, 8
  • [10] Comparison of Sampling Designs for Soil Sediment Source Fingerprinting
    Gharahi, Nasrin
    Gheibipor, Azita
    Bidaki, Rafat Zare
    Zamani-Ahmadmahmoodi, Rasool
    SOIL & SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION, 2024, 33 (07): : 784 - 798