Abstract
Selection of appropriate interpolation methods for the conversion of discrete samples into continuous maps is a controversial issue in the environmental researches. The main objective of this study was to analyze the suitability of three interpolation methods for the discrimination of groundwater with respect to the water quality index (WQI). The groundwater quality data consisted of 17 variables associated with 65 wells located in Andimeshk-Shush Plain. Three spatial interpolation methods including ordinary kriging (OK), empirical Bayesian kriging (EBK), and inverse distance weighting (IDW) were utilized for modeling the groundwater contamination. In addition, different cross-validation indicators were applied to assess the performance of different interpolation methods. The results showed that the performance differed slightly among different methods, although the best performed interpolation method in this study was the empirical Bayesian kriging. Among the interpolation methods, IDW with weighting power of 4 estimated the most contaminated area, while OK estimated the lowest contaminated area. The weighting power of IDW had a significant influence on the estimation, meaning that the estimated contaminated area was increased when a greater weighting power was selected. The subtraction results indicated that there are slightly spatial differences among the contamination assessment results. Results of both standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) also showed that uncertainty was highest in the southern part of the study area, where the distribution of wells were more intensive than that of the northern part.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arslan H (2012) Spatial and temporal mapping of groundwater salinity using ordinary kriging and indicator kriging: the case of Bafra Plain, Turkey. Agric Water Manag 113:57–63. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2012.06.015
Carl G, Kühn I (2007) Analyzing spatial autocorrelation in species distributions using Gaussian and logit models. Ecol Model 207:159–170. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.04.024
Cheng K-S, Lin Y-C, Liou J-J (2008) Rain-gauge network evaluation and augmentation using geostatistics. Hydrol Process 22:2554–2564. doi:10.1002/hyp.6851
Dai F, Zhou Q, Lv Z, Wang X, Liu G (2014) Spatial prediction of soil organic matter content integrating artificial neural network and ordinary kriging in Tibetan Plateau. Ecol Indic 45:184–194. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.003
Falivene O, Cabrera L, Sáez A (2007) Optimum and robust 3D facies interpolation strategies in a heterogeneous coal zone (Tertiary As Pontes Basin, NW Spain). Int J Coal Geol 71:185–208. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2006.08.008
Falivene O, Cabrera L, Tolosana-Delgado R, Sáez A (2010) Interpolation algorithm ranking using cross-validation and the role of smoothing effect. A coal zone example. Comput Geosci 36:512–519. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.09.015
Gong G, Mattevada S, O’Bryant SE (2014) Comparison of the accuracy of kriging and IDW interpolations in estimating groundwater arsenic concentrations in Texas. Environ Res 130:59–69. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2013.12.005
Goovaerts P (2000) Estimation or simulation of soil properties? An optimization problem with conflicting criteria. Geoderma 97:165–186. doi:10.1016/S0016-7061(00)00037-9
Gumiere SJ, Lafond JA, Hallema DW, Périard Y, Caron J, Gallichand J (2014) Mapping soil hydraulic conductivity and matric potential for water management of cranberry: characterisation and spatial interpolation methods. Biosyst Eng 128:29–40. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.09.002
Hattermann FF, Wattenbach M, Krysanova V, Wechsung F (2005) Runoff simulations on the macroscale with the ecohydrological model SWIM in the Elbe catchment—validation and uncertainty analysis. Hydrol Process 19:693–714. doi:10.1002/hyp.5625
Heistermann M, Kneis D (2011) Benchmarking quantitative precipitation estimation by conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling. Water Resour Res W06514. doi:10.1029/2010WR009153
Horton RK (1965) An index number system for rating water quality. J Water Contam Control Fed 37:300–306
Hosseini E, Gallichand J, Marcotte D (1994) Theoretical andex-perimental performance of spatial interpolation methods for soil salinity analysis. Trans ASAE 37:1799–1807
Jager HI, King AW, Schumaker NH, Ashwood TL, Jackson BL (2005) Spatial uncertainty analysis of population models. Ecol Model 185:13–27. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.10.016
Joseph J, Sharif HO, Sunil T, Alamgir H (2013) Application of validation data for assessing spatial interpolation methods for 8-h ozone or other sparsely monitored constituents. Environ Pollut 178:411–418. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.035
Journel A, Kyriakidis P, Mao S (2000) Correcting the smoothing effect of estimators: a spectral postprocessor. Math Geol 32:787–813. doi:10.1023/A:1007544406740
Keblouti M, Ouerdachi L, Boutaghane H (2012) Spatial interpolation of annual precipitation in Annaba-Algeria—comparison and evaluation of methods. Energy Procedia 18:468–475. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.05.058
Kravchenko AN (2003) Influence of spatial structure on accuracy of interpolation methods. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1564–1571. doi:10.2136/sssaj2003.1564
Krivoruchko K (2012a) Empirical Bayesian Kriging. ArcUser Fall 2012, pp. 6–10. Also available online at http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/1012/empirical-byesian-kriging.html
Krivoruchko K (2012b) Modeling Contamination Using Empirical Bayesian Kriging. ArcUser Fall 2012 http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/1012/modeling-contamination-using-empirical-bayesian-kriging.html
Kumar V (2007) Optimal contour mapping of groundwater levels using universal kriging—a case study. Hydrol Sci J 52:1038–1050
Lee J-J, Jang C-S, Wang S-W, Liu C-W (2007) Evaluation of potential health risk of arsenic-affected groundwater using indicator kriging and dose response model. Sci Total Environ 384:151–162. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.06.021
Liu C-W, Jang C-S, Liao C-M (2004) Evaluation of arsenic contamination potential using indicator kriging in the Yun-Lin aquifer (Taiwan). Sci Total Environ 321:173–188. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.09.002
Liu R, Chen Y, Sun C, Zhang P, Wang J, Yu W, Shen Z (2014) Uncertainty analysis of total phosphorus spatial-temporal variations in the Yangtze River Estuary using different interpolation methods. Mar Pollut Bull 86:68–75. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.07.041
Lloyd CD (2005) Assessing the effect of integrating elevation data into the estimation of monthly precipitation in Great Britain. J Hydrol 308:128–150. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.10.026
Lu GY, Wong DW (2008) An adaptive inverse-distance weighting spatial interpolation technique. Comput Geosci 34:1044–1055. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2007.07.010
Mirzaei R, Ghorbani H, Hafezi Moghaddas N, Martín JAR (2014) Ecological risk of heavy metal hotspots in topsoils in the Province of Golestan, Iran. J Geochem Explor 147:268–276. doi:10.1016/j.gexplo.2014.06.011
Nabi Bidhendi GR, Karbassi AR, Nasrabadi T, Hoveidi H (2007) Influence of copper mine on surface water quality. Int J Environ Sci Tech 4:85–91. doi:10.1007/BF03325965
Nampak H, Pradhan B, Manap MA (2014) Application of GIS based data driven evidential belief function model to predict groundwater potential zonation. J Hydrol 513:283–300. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.053
Nas B, Berktay A (2010) Groundwater quality mapping in urban groundwater using GIS. Environ Monit Assess 160:215–227. doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0689-4
Neshat A, Pradhan B, Javadi S (2015) Risk assessment of groundwater pollution using Monte Carlo approach in an agricultural region: an example from Kerman Plain, Iran. Comput Environ Urban Syst 50:66–73. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.11.004
Pan H, Huang W-Q (2003) Influence of uncertainty in delimitation of seismic statistical zone on results of PSHA. Acta Seimol Sin 16:213–218. doi:10.1007/s11589-003-0024-7
Patel S, Desai KK (2006) Studies on water quality index of some villages of Suratdistrict. Poll Res 25(2):281–285
Plouffe CCF, Robertson C, Chandrapala L (2015) Comparing interpolation techniques for monthly rainfall mapping using multiple evaluation criteria and auxiliary data sources: a case study of Sri Lanka. Environ Model Softw 65:57–71. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.01.011
Rupal M, Tannushree B, Sukalyan C (2012) Quality characterization of groundwater using water quality index in Surat City, Gujarat, India. Int Res J Environ Sci 1(4):14–23.
Wagner PD, Fiener P, Wilken F, Kumar S, Schneider K (2012) Comparison and evaluation of spatial interpolation schemes for daily rainfall in data scarce regions. J Hydrol 464–465:388–400. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.07.026
Wong DW, Yuan L, Perlin SA (2004) Comparison of spatial interpolation methods for the estimation of air quality data. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 14:404–415. doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500338
Xie Y, Chen T-B, Lei M, Yang J, Guo Q-J, Song B, Zhou X-Y (2011) Spatial distribution of soil heavy metal pollution estimated by different interpolation methods: accuracy and uncertainty analysis. Chemosphere 82:468–476. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.09.053
Yasrebi J, Saffari M, Fathi H, Karimian N, Moazallahi M, Gazni R (2009) Evaluation and comparison of ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighting methods for prediction of spatial variability of some soil chemical parameters. Res J Biol Sci 4:93–102
Zhang P, Liu R, Bao Y, Wang J, Yu W, Shen Z (2014) Uncertainty of SWAT model at different DEM resolutions in a large mountainous watershed. Water Res 53:132–144. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.018
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the help of Andimeshk Health Network and Iran Ministry of Energy for providing us with water quality data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Marcus Schulz
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mirzaei, R., Sakizadeh, M. Comparison of interpolation methods for the estimation of groundwater contamination in Andimeshk-Shush Plain, Southwest of Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23, 2758–2769 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5507-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5507-2