Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2018, Vol. 12 Issue (5) : 6    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-018-1081-4
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Inverse uncertainty characteristics of pollution source identification for river chemical spill incidents by stochastic analysis
Jiping Jiang1,2(), Feng Han2, Yi Zheng2, Nannan Wang3, Yixing Yuan1
1. School of Environment, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
2. School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 581055, China
3. School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, Beijing 102617, China
 Download: PDF(718 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Uncertainty rules of pollution source inversion are revealed by stochastic analysis

A release load is most easily inversed and source locations own largest uncertainty

Instantaneous spill assumption has much less uncertainty than continuous spill

The estimated release locations and times negatively deviate from real values

The new findings improve monitoring network design and emergency response to spills

Identifying source information after river chemical spill occurrences is critical for emergency responses. However, the inverse uncertainty characteristics of this kind of pollution source inversion problem have not yet been clearly elucidated. To fill this gap, stochastic analysis approaches, including a regional sensitivity analysis method (RSA), identifiability plot and perturbation methods, were employed to conduct an empirical investigation on generic inverse uncertainty characteristics under a well-accepted uncertainty analysis framework. Case studies based on field tracer experiments and synthetic numerical tracer experiments revealed several new rules. For example, the release load can be most easily inverted, and the source location is responsible for the largest uncertainty among the source parameters. The diffusion and convection processes are more sensitive than the dilution and pollutant attenuation processes to the optimization of objective functions in terms of structural uncertainty. The differences among the different objective functions are smaller for instantaneous release than for continuous release cases. Small monitoring errors affect the inversion results only slightly, which can be ignored in practice. Interestingly, the estimated values of the release location and time negatively deviate from the real values, and the extent is positively correlated with the relative size of the mixing zone to the objective river reach. These new findings improve decision making in emergency responses to sudden water pollution and guide the monitoring network design.

Keywords River chemical spills      Emergency response      Pollution source inversion      Inverse uncertainty analysis      Regional Sensitivity Analysis method (RSA)      Monte Carlo analysis toolbox (MCAT)     
Corresponding Author(s): Jiping Jiang   
Issue Date: 28 September 2018
 Cite this article:   
Jiping Jiang,Feng Han,Yi Zheng, et al. Inverse uncertainty characteristics of pollution source identification for river chemical spill incidents by stochastic analysis[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(5): 6.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-018-1081-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2018/V12/I5/6
Fig.1  Diagram of Direct Monte Carlo method for pollution source inversion.
ID River name Location Tracer material Length Discharge type
Case-T1 Truckee River USA RWT 44 km Instantaneous
Case-T2 Lagan River North Ireland RWT, Krypton 2.6 km Instantaneous
Case-T3 West Hobolochitto Creek USA Ethylene 4.2 km Continuous
Tab.1  Basic information of field tracer experiments
Case ID Source Information
Ms (g) or
Cs (mg/L)
xs (m) ts (min) ts (min)
Case-S1 Real 3000 -750 -80 abs.ave.PBIAS b:
1%
Inversed 3041.6±83.1 -755.0±101.7 -80.8±5.6
PBIASa 1.4% 0.7% 1%
Case-S2 Real 0.30 -750 -80 30
Inversed 0.302±0.084 -644.5±198.0 -76.0±8.2 32.7±8.3
PBIAS 0.7% -14% -5% 9%
Case-T1c Real 1300 -22100 -215 abs.ave.PBIAS:
-5.3%
Inversed 1278±40 -19200±1800 -212±22
PBIAS -1.6% -13% -1.4%
Case-T2 Real 12 -600 -31.8 abs.ave.PBIAS:
-35.7%
Inversed 10.5±0.3 -314±30 -17±1.1
PBIAS -13% -48% -47%
Case-T3d Real 0.377 -2680 -389 100
Inversed 0.16±0.11 -2320±265 -210±12 102±44
PBIAS -57% -13% -46% 2%
Tab.2  Summary of the main source inversion results
Fig.2  Regional sensitivity analysis results for behavioral parameter set of (A, Dx, U, K) in instantaneous release model with respect to RMSE smaller than 0.03. Dx and U are more sensitive within the model structure than A and K, as shown by the ‘spread’ of the ten curves of cumulative parameter distribution.
Fig.3  Projections of different objective function values on three dimensions of source vector in Case-S1: Source loading (Ms) in the left column, location (xs) in the middle column, and release time (ts) in the right column.
Fig.4  Performance of different objective functions on inversion (a) instantaneous discharge source and (b) continuous discharge source based on Case-S1 and Case-S2 both without added noise. Inverse model of each objective function run 20 times with 100,000 random samples each.
Fig.5  Boxplot of inversion results by using different forward model to solve Case-S1 and Case-S2 (with 20% noise). RMSE was used and results statistic evaluated based on 20 runs.
Fig.6  Performance of different objective functions on inversion (a) instantaneous discharge source and (b) continuous discharge source based on Case-S1 and Case-S2 both added 20% noise. Inverse model of each objective function run 20 times with 100,000 random samples each.
1 Atmadja J, Bagtzoglou A C (2001). State of the art report on mathematical methods for groundwater pollution source identification. Environmental Forensics, 2(3): 205–214
https://doi.org/10.1006/enfo.2001.0055
2 Benjamin R, Dmitri K, George K, Mark T, Franks S W (2010). Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: The challenge of identifying input and structural errors. Water Resources Research, 46: W05521
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008328
3 Benson D A, Wheatcraft S W, Meerschaert M M (2004). Application of a fractional advection-dispersion equation. Water Resources Research, 36(6): 1403–1412
https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900031
4 Beven K, Smith P, Freer J (2007). Comment on “Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: Incoherence of the GLUE methodology” by Pietro Mantovan and Ezio Todini. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 338(2–4): 315–318
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.023
5 Bigiarini M Z (2012). Goodness-of-fit (GOF) functions for numerical and graphical comparison of simulated and observed time series, focused on hydrological modelling. R Documentation
6 Boano F, Revelli R, Ridolfi L (2005). Source identification in river pollution problems: A geostatistical approach. Water Resources Research, 41(7): 226–244
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003754
7 Caplow T, Schlosser P, Ho D (2004). Tracer study of mixing and transport in the Upper Hudson River with multiple dams. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 130(12): 1498–1506
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:12(1498)
8 Chapra S, Pelletier G J, Tao H (2008). QUAL2K: A modeling framework for simulating river and stream water quality, version 2.11: Documentation and users manual. Civil and environmental engineering dept., Tufts university, Medford, MA.
9 Chen Y H, Wang P, Jiang J P, Guo L (2011). Contaminant point source identification of rivers chemical spills based on correlation coefficients optimization method. China Environmental Science, 31(11): 1802–1807 (in Chinese)
10 Cheng W P, Jia Y (2010). Identification of contaminant point source in surface waters based on backward location probability density function method. Advances in Water Resources, 33(4): 397–410
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.01.004
11 Clark M P, Kavetski D, Fenicia F. (2012). Reply to comment by K. Beven et al. on “Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling”. Water Resources Research, 48(11), doi: 10.1029/2012WR012547
12 Crompton J (2008). Traveltime Data for the Truckee River Between Tahoe City, California, and Vista, Nevada, 2006 and 2007. USGS OFR2008–1084
13 Demaria E M, Nijssen B, Wagener T (2007). Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of land surface parameters using the Variable Infiltration Capacity model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112,D11113,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007534
14 Douagui A G, Kouame I K, Koffi K, Goula A T B, Dibi B, Gone D L, Coulibaly K, Seka A M, Kouassi A K, Oi Mangoua J M, Savane I (2012). Assessment of the bacteriological quality and nitrate pollution risk of quaternary groundwater in the southern part of Abidjan District (Côte D’Ivoire). Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 6(3): 227–238
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2012.05.001
15 Fischer H B (1973). Longitudinal dispersion and turbulent mixing in open-channel flow. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 5(1): 59–78
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fl.05.010173.000423
16 Franssen H, Alcolea A, Riva M, Bakr M, Wiel N, Stauffer F, Guadagnini A (2009). A comparison of seven methods for the inverse modelling of groundwater flow. Application to the characterisation of well catchments. Advances in Water Resources, 32(6): 851–872
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.02.011
17 Freer J, Beven K, Ambroise B (1996). Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach. Water Resources Research, 32(7): 2161–2173
https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR03723
18 Ghane A, Mazaheri M, Mohammad V S J (2016). Location and release time identification of pollution point source in river networks based on the Backward Probability Method. Journal of Environmental Management, 180: 164–171
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.015 pmid: 27219462
19 Hamdi A (2012). Inverse source problem in a 2D linear evolution transport equation: detection of pollution source. Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, 20(3): 1–21
https://doi.org/10.1080/17415977.2011.637207
20 Han F, Zheng Y (2018). Joint analysis of input and parametric uncertainties in watershed water quality modeling: A formal Bayesian approach. Advances in Water Resources, 116: 77–94
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.04.006
21 Hao L L, Zheng T, Jiang J P, Hu Q, Li X, Wang P (2015). Removal of As(III) from water using modified jute fibres as a hybrid adsorbent. RSC Advances, 5(14): 10723–10732
https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RA11901K
22 Hornberger G M, Spear R C (1981). Approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 12(1): 7–18
23 Jiang J, Wang P, Lung W S, Guo L, Li M (2012). A GIS-based generic real-time risk assessment framework and decision tools for chemical spills in the river basin. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 227-228(0): 280–291
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.05.051 pmid: 22664261
24 Kilpatrick F.A., Cobb E.D. (1985). Measurement of discharge using tracers: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations
25 Lee M E, Seo I W (2007). Analysis of pollutant transport in the Han River with tidal current using a 2D finite element model. Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 1(1): 30–42
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2007.04.006
26 Liang X, Liu Y, Zhang W, Sheng H, Xiao C, Wang D, Du Y, Lan Y, Yang T (2004). The study of determining the transverse diffusion coefficient of river through the indoor simulation experiments: A case study on a section of the second Songhuajiang River in Jilin City. Journal of Jilin University, 34(4): 560–565 (Earth Science Edition) (in Chinese)
27 Mantovan P, Todini E, Martina M V (2007). Reply to comment by Keith Beven, Paul Smith and Jim Freer on “Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: Incoherence of the GLUE methodology”. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 338(3): 319–324
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.029
28 Mazaheri M, Samani J M V, Samani H M V (2015). Mathematical model for pollution source identification in rivers. Environmental Forensics, 16(4): 310–321
https://doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2015.1059391
29 Michalak A M, Kitanidis P K (2004). Estimation of historical ground water contaminant distribution using the adjoint state method applied to geostatistical inverse modeling. Water Resources Research, 40(8): 474–480
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003214
30 Mosegaard K, Sambridge M (2002). Monte Carlo analysis of inverse problems. Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, 18(3): 29–54
https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/18/3/201
31 Mosegaard K, Tarantola A (1995). Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100(B7): 431–477
https://doi.org/10.1029/94JB03097
32 Mou X (2011). Research on inverse problem of pollution source term identification based on differential evolution algorithm. Chinese Journal of Hydrodynamics, 26(1): 24–30 (in Chinese)
33 Rathbun R E, Shultz D J, Stephens D W (1975). Preliminary experiments with a modified tracer technique for measuring stream reaeration coefficients. USGS Open-File Report
34 Reichert P, Borchardt D, Henze M, Rauch W, Shanahan P, Somlyódy L, Vanrolleghem P (2001). River water quality model no. 1 (RWQM1): II. Biochemical process equations. Water Science and Technology, 43(5): 11–30
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2001.0241 pmid: 11379121
35 Reid S E, Mackinnon P A, Elliot T (2007). Direct measurements of reaeration rates using noble gas tracers in the River Lagan, Northern Ireland. Water and Environment Journal : The Journal/the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 21(3): 182–191
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2007.00069.x
36 Renard B, Kavetski D, Kuczera G, Thyer M, Franks S W (2010). Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: The challenge of identifying input and structural errors. Water Resources Research, 46(5)
37 Rivera D, Rivas Y, Godoy A (2015). Uncertainty in a monthly water balance model using the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation methodology. Journal of Earth System Science, 124(1): 49–59
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-014-0528-7
38 Rivord J, Saito L, Miller G, Stoddard S (2012). Modeling contaminant spills in a Regulated River in the Western United States. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 40(3): 343–354
39 Sambridge M, Mosegaard K (2002). Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems. Reviews of Geophysics, 40(3): 1009–1037
https://doi.org/10.1029/2000RG000089
40 Shi B, Wang P, Jiang J, Liu R (2018). Applying high-frequency surrogate measurements and a wavelet-ANN model to provide early warnings of rapid surface water quality anomalies. Science of the Total Environment, 610-611: 1390–1399
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.232 pmid: 28854482
41 Shlesinger M F (2006). Mathematical physics: Search research. Nature, 443(7109): 281–282
https://doi.org/10.1038/443281a pmid: 16988697
42 Sincock A M, Wheater H S, Whitehead P G (2003). Calibration and sensitivity analysis of a river water quality model under unsteady flow conditions. Journal of Hydrology, 277(3-4): 214–229
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00127-6
43 Skaggs T H, Kabala Z J (1995). Recovering the history of a groundwater contaminant plume: Method of quasi-reversibility. Water Resources Research, 31(11): 2669–2673
https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR02383
44 Socolofsky S A, Jirka G H (2005). Mixing and Transport Processes in the Environment. Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 8: 1
45 Taormina R, Chau K W (2015). Data‐driven input variable selection for rainfall‐runoff modeling using binary‐coded particle swarm optimization and extreme learning machines. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 529(3): 1617–1632
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.08.022
46 Thoe W, Wong S, Choi K W, Lee J (2012). Daily prediction of marine beach water quality in Hong Kong. Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 6(3): 164–180
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2012.05.003
47 Thomann R V, Mueller J A (1987). Principal of Surface Water Quality Modelling and Control. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Limited
48 USEPA (2012). WASP. -simulation-program-wasp (accessed 2 Jan 2018)
49 Wagener T, Kollat J (2007). Numerical and visual evaluation of hydrological and environmental models using the Monte Carlo analysis toolbox. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(7): 1021–1033
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.017
50 Wei G, Zhang C, Li Y, Liu H, Zhou H (2016). Source identification of sudden contamination based on the parameter uncertainty analysis. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 18(6): 919–927
https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2016.002
51 Wei S, Chen W, Hon Y C (2016). Characterizing time dependent anomalous diffusion process: A survey on fractional derivative and nonlinear models. Physica A, 462: 1244–1251
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.06.145
52 Woodbury A D, Ulrych T J (1996). Minimum relative entropy inversion: Theory and application to recovering the release history of groundwater contaminant. Water Resources Research, 32(9): 2671–2681
https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR03818
53 Yang J, Jakeman A, Fang G, Chen X (2018). Uncertainty analysis of a semi-distributed hydrologic model based on a Gaussian Process emulator. Environmental Modelling & Software, 101: 289–300
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.11.037
[1] FSE-18049-OF-JJP_suppl_1 Download
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed