Geostatistics for Contaminated Sites and Soils: Some Pending Questions

  • D. D’Or
  • H. Demougeot-Renard
  • M. Garcia
Part of the Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics book series (QGAG, volume 15)

abstract

This paper addresses three key issues when using geostatistics in soil remediation studies. Firstly, we point out the necessity of using an appropriate model when the contaminant grade distributions are highly skewed due to a large proportion of samples that do not contain the pollutants. In this case, a valuable solution may consist in combining an indicator variable for describing the presence or absence of pollutant and a Gaussian random variable for modelling the transformed contaminant grades at locations where they were present. This model is shown to reduce the uncertainty on the classification of the soils into safe or polluted. Secondly, we address the problem of change of support between the soil samples and the remediation units. A method is proposed to achieve the upscaling. But at the unit scale, average grades above some critical threshold may be explained by the occurrence, at the soil sample scale, either of a large proportion of (possibly moderately) excessive grades or by a few sample with (possibly very) high grades. In one or the other situation, the health or environmental risk is certainly different. The third issue discussed relates to the evaluation of contaminated soil volumes when those soils are affected by numerous contaminants. Multiplying the number of potential contaminants also multiplies the risk for soils to be contaminated. Better integrating the correlation between contaminants then appears essential.

Keywords

Critical Threshold Ordinary Kriging Average Grade Multivariate Distribution Variogram Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. De Oliveira V (2004) A simple model for spatial rainfall fields. Stochastic Environmental Research And Risk Assessment, 18: 131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kyriakidis P (1997) Selecting panels for remediation in contaminated soils via stochastic imaging. In: Baafi E, Schofield N (eds) Geostatistics Wollongong ’96, vol.2. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, HollandGoogle Scholar
  3. Lajaunie C, Wackernagel H (2000) Geostatistical approaches to change of support problems theoretical framework. Technical Report N30/01/G, ENSMP- ARMINES, Centre de Géostatistique. Fontainebleau, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. Leuangthong O, Deutsch C (2003) Stepwise conditional transformation for simulation of multiple variables. Math Geol 35: 155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Rivoirard J (1994) Introduction to disjunctive kriging and nonlinear geostatistics Clarendon Press, Oxford 181 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Saito H, Goovaerts P (2000) Geostatistical interpolation of positively skewed and censored data in a dioxin-contaminated site. Environ Sci Technol 34: 4228–4235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schnabel U, Tietje O, Scholz R (2004) Uncertainty assessment for management of soil contaminants with sparse data. Environ Manage 33: 911–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. D’Or
    • 1
  • H. Demougeot-Renard
  • M. Garcia
  1. 1.FSS International r&d 195692370 ChavilleFrance

Personalised recommendations