» Articles » PMID: 24559533

Comparison of the Accuracy of Kriging and IDW Interpolations in Estimating Groundwater Arsenic Concentrations in Texas

Overview
Journal Environ Res
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2014 Feb 25
PMID 24559533
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Exposure to arsenic causes many diseases. Most Americans in rural areas use groundwater for drinking, which may contain arsenic above the currently allowable level, 10µg/L. It is cost-effective to estimate groundwater arsenic levels based on data from wells with known arsenic concentrations. We compared the accuracy of several commonly used interpolation methods in estimating arsenic concentrations in >8000 wells in Texas by the leave-one-out-cross-validation technique. Correlation coefficient between measured and estimated arsenic levels was greater with inverse distance weighted (IDW) than kriging Gaussian, kriging spherical or cokriging interpolations when analyzing data from wells in the entire Texas (p<0.0001). Correlation coefficient was significantly lower with cokriging than any other methods (p<0.006) for wells in Texas, east Texas or the Edwards aquifer. Correlation coefficient was significantly greater for wells in southwestern Texas Panhandle than in east Texas, and was higher for wells in Ogallala aquifer than in Edwards aquifer (p<0.0001) regardless of interpolation methods. In regression analysis, the best models are when well depth and/or elevation were entered into the model as covariates regardless of area/aquifer or interpolation methods, and models with IDW are better than kriging in any area/aquifer. In conclusion, the accuracy in estimating groundwater arsenic level depends on both interpolation methods and wells' geographic distributions and characteristics in Texas. Taking well depth and elevation into regression analysis as covariates significantly increases the accuracy in estimating groundwater arsenic level in Texas with IDW in particular.

Citing Articles

Infiltrated Pits: Using Regional Groundwater Data to Estimate Methane Emissions from Pit Latrines.

Reddy O, Rahman M, Nijhawan A, Pregnolato M, Howard G Hydrology. 2025; 10(5):114.

PMID: 39944408 PMC: 11814424. DOI: 10.3390/hydrology10050114.


The TOPSIS method: Figuring the landslide susceptibility using Excel and GIS.

Barman J, Biswas B, Ali S, Zhran M MethodsX. 2024; 13:103005.

PMID: 39526033 PMC: 11544393. DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2024.103005.


An integrated groundwater vulnerability and artificial recharge site suitability assessment using GIS multi-criteria decision making approach in Kayseri region, Turkey.

Mouhoumed R, Ekmekcioglu O, Ozger M Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024; 31(27):39794-39822.

PMID: 38833051 PMC: 11186881. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-024-33809-6.


Individual level spatial-temporal modelling of exposure potential of livestock in the Cove Wash watershed, Arizona.

Liu Z, Lin Y, Hoover J, Beene D, Charley P, Singer N Ann GIS. 2023; 29(1):87-107.

PMID: 37090684 PMC: 10117392. DOI: 10.1080/19475683.2022.2075935.


Integration of Moran's I, geographically weighted regression (GWR), and ordinary least square (OLS) models in spatiotemporal modeling of COVID-19 outbreak in Qom and Mazandaran Provinces, Iran.

Isazade V, Qasimi A, Dong P, Kaplan G, Isazade E Model Earth Syst Environ. 2023; :1-15.

PMID: 36820101 PMC: 9930702. DOI: 10.1007/s40808-023-01729-y.