Reliability Of Sediment Quality Assessment In Puget Sound

R. Barrick, H. Beller
{"title":"Reliability Of Sediment Quality Assessment In Puget Sound","authors":"R. Barrick, H. Beller","doi":"10.1109/OCEANS.1989.586752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To be useful in environmental management, sediment criteria must, at a minimum, reliably identify environmental problems. Two measures of reliability are evaluated using actual field data from 13 urban and nonurban embayments in Puget Sound Sensitivity in detecting environmental problems (i.e., are all biologically impacted sediments identified) Efficiency in screening environmental problems (i.e., are & biologically impacted sediments identified). High overall reliability results from correct prediction of a large percentage of biologically impacted stations (i.e., high sensitivity; few false negatives) and correct prediction of a large percentage of the nonimpacted stations (i.e., high efficiency; few false positives). These measures of reliability were applied to a range of sediment criteria generated by the Equilibrium Partitioning (EP) and Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) approaches. Overall reliability ranged from 44-64 percent for the EP approach and from 42-85 percent for the AET approach, depending on the particular criterion and biological indicator tested. A higher percentage of correct predictions was made using a combination of the two approaches than by either approach alone. Unless cause-effect relationships between contaminants and adverse biological effects can be acceptably established, additional steps are necessary to ensure that remedial actions effectively mitigate predicted problems. Recommended steps based on the principles of sensitivity and efficiency include: 1) screen out sediments for which a lower range of criteria sensitively predict no adverse effects, 2) perform biological testing of sediments for which there is substantial disagreement among predictions in a middle range of available criteria, and 3) efficiently predict problem sediments from chemical data using a higher range of criteria that provides a preponderance of evidence of adverse biological effects. Optional biological testing using a battery of indicators provides a means of verifying sediment predictions for site-specific concerns. Such a management program is currently used in Puget Sound.","PeriodicalId":331017,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings OCEANS","volume":"1996 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings OCEANS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.1989.586752","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

To be useful in environmental management, sediment criteria must, at a minimum, reliably identify environmental problems. Two measures of reliability are evaluated using actual field data from 13 urban and nonurban embayments in Puget Sound Sensitivity in detecting environmental problems (i.e., are all biologically impacted sediments identified) Efficiency in screening environmental problems (i.e., are & biologically impacted sediments identified). High overall reliability results from correct prediction of a large percentage of biologically impacted stations (i.e., high sensitivity; few false negatives) and correct prediction of a large percentage of the nonimpacted stations (i.e., high efficiency; few false positives). These measures of reliability were applied to a range of sediment criteria generated by the Equilibrium Partitioning (EP) and Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) approaches. Overall reliability ranged from 44-64 percent for the EP approach and from 42-85 percent for the AET approach, depending on the particular criterion and biological indicator tested. A higher percentage of correct predictions was made using a combination of the two approaches than by either approach alone. Unless cause-effect relationships between contaminants and adverse biological effects can be acceptably established, additional steps are necessary to ensure that remedial actions effectively mitigate predicted problems. Recommended steps based on the principles of sensitivity and efficiency include: 1) screen out sediments for which a lower range of criteria sensitively predict no adverse effects, 2) perform biological testing of sediments for which there is substantial disagreement among predictions in a middle range of available criteria, and 3) efficiently predict problem sediments from chemical data using a higher range of criteria that provides a preponderance of evidence of adverse biological effects. Optional biological testing using a battery of indicators provides a means of verifying sediment predictions for site-specific concerns. Such a management program is currently used in Puget Sound.
普吉特海湾沉积物质量评价的可靠性
为了在环境管理中发挥作用,沉积物标准至少必须可靠地确定环境问题。利用普吉特海湾13个城市和非城市围场的实际现场数据,对两种可靠性指标进行了评估。检测环境问题的敏感性(即是否识别出所有受生物影响的沉积物)筛选环境问题的效率(即是否识别出受生物影响的沉积物)。高总体可靠性源于对大部分受生物影响的台站的正确预测(即高灵敏度;很少假阴性)和对大部分未受影响台站的正确预测(即高效率;很少有误报)。这些可靠性度量被应用于一系列由平衡分配(EP)和表观效应阈值(AET)方法生成的沉积物标准。根据特定的标准和测试的生物指标,EP方法的总体可靠性为44- 64%,AET方法的总体可靠性为42- 85%。使用这两种方法的组合比单独使用任何一种方法的预测准确率更高。除非污染物和不利的生物效应之间的因果关系能够得到可接受的证实,否则必须采取额外的步骤,以确保补救行动有效地减轻预期的问题。基于敏感性和效率原则的建议步骤包括:1)筛选出较低范围的标准敏感预测无不良影响的沉积物,2)对在可用标准的中间范围内的预测存在实质性分歧的沉积物进行生物测试,以及3)使用较高范围的标准从化学数据中有效预测问题沉积物,该标准提供了不利生物效应的优势证据。使用一组指标的可选生物试验提供了一种核实特定地点沉积物预测的方法。这种管理程序目前在普吉特海湾使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信