2016 AEHS Statistics Sediment Forensic Presentation CHERRY
-
Upload
eric-cherry -
Category
Documents
-
view
19 -
download
0
Transcript of 2016 AEHS Statistics Sediment Forensic Presentation CHERRY
Forensic Sediment Evaluation: Differentiating Basin Derived Media vs. Anthropogenic Sources using Multivariate StatisticsEric M. Cherry, Principal ScientistGina Groom, MPH Health Scientist
Hexagon Environmental Solutions LLCEnvironmental Chemistry | Forensics | Data Evaluation | Risk Analysis
Every Story has a Beginning• A Little History
• Geochemical Prospecting• Geophysics (statistics on a sphere)• Multivariate Analysis since 1980 (punch cards)• Learning to “keep it simple”
• Initiating Quotes• “What do you mean these metals came from the
watershed? There is a source right here.” Opposing counsel
• “What do you mean that most of these PAHs came from upstream? That’s undeveloped land and there are sources here in the harbor!” Senior technical colleague
• “We use accepted protocols and high precision analytical instruments, so that we can put data in spreadsheets then run statistical models, and ultimately derive a reasonable story of what is going on. We are high-tech story tellers!” Eric Cherry
Hexagon Environmental Solutions2
Sediment Assessment - Fundamental Questions • Do the sediments in this river or harbor pose
a risk to the aquatic ecosystem or to human health?
• If so, by what chemicals or elements?
• If so, where?
• If so, who is responsible and who will pay?
Hexagon Environmental Solutions3
• What are these sediments composed of?
• Are there multiple chemical signatures in the sediments?
• Are there locations that are clearly different from others?
• How are they different?
• Can we identify a specific source?
• Do these sediments pose a risk?
• Why is the question being asked?
• Who is the audience?
• Who are the Stakeholders?
Approaches to Sediment Evaluation
Hexagon Environmental Solutions4
• Traditional Approach• Develop and Implement Sampling &
Analysis Plan
• Calculate chemical-specific distributions
• Compare to Sediment Quality Values
• Refine and Delineate Impacted Areas
• Develop and Implement Remedial Plan
• Obtain Funds from PRPs/RPs
• Alternate Forensic Approach• Develop and Implement Tiered and Sequential
Sampling & Analysis Plan
• Evaluate multiple chemical relationships to identify associated and unique sample groups by multivariate methods
• Conduct supplemental sampling for delineation, sequential extraction and toxicity testing
• Refine and Delineate Impacted Areas based on supplemental testing
• Develop and Implement Remedial Plan
• Obtain Funds from PRPs/RPs
The Traditional Approach to Sediment Evaluation
• Identify Contamination based on Criteria or Limit• Freshwater
Lowest Effects Level (LEL)Probable Effects Level (PEL)Severe Effects Level (SEL)
• Marine Effects Range Low (ERL)Effects Range Medium (ERM)
• State Values• International Values
Hexagon Environmental Solutions5
USEPA/Weston, 2012. Sediment Assessment Report – St. Louis Bay-St. Louis River Area of Concern. DCN 1023-2A-ATMN
The Math of How the Traditional Approach Works
• Obtain sediment data for arsenic (or other chemical)
• Sort by Concentration• Compare to Consensus
Value
• Green Data Set• 43.8% Exceed Tel• 5.5% Exceed Background• 1.8% Exceed PEL• 0.0% Exceed SEL
Hexagon Environmental Solutions6
Background Metals vs. Potentially Impacted Sediments
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161
S ample Number
Severe Effects Level 33 mg/kg
Probable Effects Level 17 mg/kg
Threshold Effects Level 5.9 mg/kg
Background = mean + 2 sd 13.9 mg/kg
Arsenic vs. Consensus Value
Evaluation of Traditional Approach
• Advantages of Traditional Approach
• Easy to perform evaluation
• Clear decision points
• Delineation sampling to refine extent of impact
• Very conservative approach (i.e. “protective”)
• Easy to communicate to Stakeholders
• Disadvantages• Default classification of “contamination”
based on Consensus values (how do we define contamination?)
• Non-holistic
• Is not capable of identifying natural relationships
• Oversimplifies a complex system
• Probably overestimates extent of toxic impacts
• More expensive to implement remedy
Hexagon Environmental Solutions7
Overview of the Forensic Approach• Defining “Forensics”
• It’s all about “making the argument” in a science-based and logical manner
• Start with a “Single Blind” approach to identify what the data is saying chemically, then expand to spatial relationships (minimize investigator bias)
• Does not require, but may include, advanced analytical methods
• Does include more sophisticated data evaluation techniques
• Objective is to translate complex information into a story that is understandable to multiple Stakeholders
• Forensic Toolbox• Given . . . A big data set!
• Pair-wise regression (Fe:As, Pb:Zn)
• Cluster Analysis (Family Associations)
• Principal Component Analysis
• Concentration Distributions
• Spatial Distribution of Families
• Association of Family Composition Profiles to Potential Source Profiles
• Toxicity Testing and Sequential Extraction
• Infographics! Hexagon Environmental Solutions
8
Meet the Stakeholders!• What are our goals?
• Understand the concerns• Protect/Restore the environment• Be true to the science• Understand the physical system• Be fiscal stewards with limited resources• Communicate clearly and involve
stakeholders
Hexagon Environmental Solutions10
I’m Roy the
Regulator
I’m Black Hat
Industries
I’m Freddy Fisherman,
Nature Lover
Quick Summary with Legos!
Hexagon Environmental Solutions11
Sediments are “in the Basin”Complex mixture, but we have a sampling and analysis plan . . . And a sequential protocol for data evaluation
Each sample (n=10) contains target and non-target analytes
Quick Summary with Legos!
Hexagon Environmental Solutions12
Target analyte concentrations vary within a sample and total (sum) of analytes varies
Relative proportions of different analytes may vary between samples, and some analytes may be absent
Dealing with real data
• Given a real data set, what are the questions?• What are the baseline relationships
between chemical parameters?
• Where are the commonalities?
• Where are the differences?
• What is unique?
• What are the methods?• Regression – line, lines, shotguns• Cluster Analysis – family groups• Principal Component – prom night• Confounders - yea, that influences things• Spatial Relationships – there but not here• Supplemental evaluation – how bad is it,
really• Infographics – every picture tells a story• Conclusions – many legs make a stable
table
Hexagon Environmental Solutions13
Regression and Cross-Plots
Hexagon Environmental Solutions14
45000
30000
15000
0.20.10.0
1000
500
0 300
150
0 80400 420 0. 010
0. 005
0 .000
1000
500
01000
500
0300
150
0100
50
0 80
40
010
5
0 4
2
050
25
0
0.010
0.005
0.000
4500
030
000
1 5000
0.2
0.1
0.0
100050
0010
0500 1050 50250
Fe
Zn
Pb
Cu
Cr
Ni
As
Cd
Hg
2b-TIN
3b-TIN
Matrix Plot of Fe, Zn, Pb, Cu, Cr, Ni, As, Cd, Hg, 2b-TIN, 3b-TIN
Fe
Zn
Pb
Cu
Cr
Ni
As
Hg
Cd
2Sb
3Sb
Fe:CdShotgun(?)
HgOutlier!
Zn:PbMulti-Linear
Fe:NiLinear
Regression and Cross-Plots: Parsed!
Hexagon Environmental Solutions15
45000
30000
15000
0.10
0 .050. 00
1000
500
0 300
150
0 453015 420 0. 009
0.006
0.003
1000
500
01000
500
0300
150
0100
50
0 45
30
15
10
5
0 4
2
02
1
0 0.009
0.006
0.003
4500
030
000
150 00
0.10
0.05
0.00
100050
0010
0500 1050 210
Fe
Zn
Pb
Cu
Cr
Ni
As
Cd
Hg
2b-TIN
3b-TIN
Matrix Plot of Fe, Zn, Pb, Cu, Cr, Ni, As, Cd, Hg, 2b-TIN, 3b-TIN
Cluster Analysis – Finding Family Groups
Hexagon Environmental Solutions16
155413318
110
965191902
193
1976353420
820
619
519
220
914
213
612
312
113
537174
191
151
153
150
129
1729414
313
116
011
76648148
134
213
171
11844982218
320
720
018
519
615
7471542591240214
189
1642717
311201
215
176
156
145
12756015
835774630216
177
175
1861820
313
014
011
613
914
912
515
211
185138
1945510
311
310
289165
1125095398617
8701265715
4261793414
7871108020
421
211
918
0319990254923210
199
120
166
107817618
721
114
458101843818
8927974615167161009120
26814124
106
1598817
0920
5872128
105455413
716
2292413198
184
1159311
412
29782161
141757316
72820108966916
313
3831326410
452171697862433210771316
814
656362161821
0.00
33.33
66.67
100.00
Observations
Sim
ilari
ty
DendrogramComplete Linkage, Pearson Distance
• Purpose is to classify samples based on criteria
• Multiple methods are available
• Evaluator judgement should be based on project requirements
• Data pre-processing may be necessary
Clusters by Relative Proportion of Target Metals
Hexagon Environmental Solutions17
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mean ALL Group MCA D 1n=151
Group MCA D 4n=51
Group MCA D 3n=5
Group MCA D 5n=4
Group MCA D 2n=2
Group MCA D 7n=2
Group MCA D 6n=1
Relative Metal Proportions in MCA Cluster Groups
Zn Pb Cu Cr Ni As
Clusters by Concentration
Hexagon Environmental Solutions18
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Mean ALL Group MCA D 1n=151
Group MCA D 4n=51
Group MCA D 3n=5
Group MCA D 5n=4
Group MCA D 2n=2
Group MCA D 7n=2
Group MCA D 6n=1
Cum
ulat
ive
Met
als
Conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/kg
)
Cumulative Metal Concentrations in MCA Cluster Groups
Zn Pb Cu Cr Ni As
Principal Component Analysis – Let’s Dance
Hexagon Environmental Solutions19
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Prin
cipa
l Com
pone
nt 2
(fro
m M
CA D
Gro
upin
gs)
Principal Component 1 (from MCA D Groupings)
Group 1 PCA 2 Group 4 PCA 2 Group 3 PCA 2 Group 5 PCA 2
Group 2 PCA 2 Group 7 PCA 2 Group 6 PCA 2
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Prin
cipa
l Com
pone
nt 3
(fro
m M
CA D
Gro
upin
gs)
Principal Component 1 (from MCA D Groupings)
Group 1 PCA 2 Group 4 PCA 2 Group 3 PCA 2 Group 5 PCA 2
Group 2 PCA 2 Group 7 PCA 2 Group 6 PCA 2
What about those Anthropogenic Metals!
Hexagon Environmental Solutions20
y = 0.1202x - 0.3098R² = 0.8416
y = 0.0003x + 0.0078R² = 0.0005
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Trib
utyl
Tin
(mg/
kg)
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Tributyltin vs. Arsenic
As As-lo Linear (As) Linear (As-lo)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Trib
utyl
tin (m
g/kg
)
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Tributyltin vs. Arsenic
TBT Fraser Shipyard TBT Other Howard's Bay
Tributyltin is an anthropogenic organometallic compoundIts primary function is as an additive to marine paints to prevent biofouling on ships. It is intentionally toxic.
Tributyltin and other Metals: Paint formulations?
Hexagon Environmental Solutions21
In regression analysis, one must consider both statistical relevance and physical plausibility.
y = 1.1072x - 0.0618R² = 0.6488
y = 0.0191x + 0.0017R² = 0.1018
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Trib
utyl
Tin
(mg/
kg)
Mercury (mg/kg)
Tributyltin vs. Mercury
Hg Hg-lo
Linear (Hg) Linear (Hg-lo)
y = 0.4659x - 0.128R² = 0.779
y = 0.0238x - 0.0096R² = 0.2448
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Trib
utyl
Tin
(mg/
kg)
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Tributyltin vs. Cadmium
Cd Cd-lo
Linear (Cd) Linear (Cd-lo)
y = 0.0053x - 0.0046R² = 0.6287
y = -1E-05x + 0.0099R² = 0.002
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0 100 200 300 400
Trib
utyl
Tin
(mg/
kg)
Lead(mg/kg)
Tributyltin vs. Lead
Pb Pb-lo
Linear (Pb) Linear (Pb-lo)
Confounding Variables
• A confounding variable is something that may affect the correlates with the dependent and independent variable
• It is a factor that may need to be adjusted for in interpreting a data set
• Potential confounders for metals in sediments include grainsize and organic carbon
• Important general questions• Where do sediments actually
come from?• How is the sediment source area
characterized?• What changes have happened in
the source area and when?• What changes have happened in
the receiving are (sediment basin) and when?
Hexagon Environmental Solutions22
Grainsize as a Confounding Factor
Hexagon Environmental Solutions23
y = 0.2476x + 7.4777R² = 0.5784
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Nic
kel (
mg/
kg)
Percent Silt+Clay
Nickle vs Grain Size
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Nic
kel (
mg/
kg)
Percent Silt+Clay
Nickle vs Grain Size
<LEL samples = 31.2% n=128
>LEL & <PEL samples=65.1% n=267
>PEL samples=3.7% n=15
That Next? Supplemental Analyses
• Sequential Extraction• Surrogate for bioavailability
• More expensive than standard analyses
• Easily soluble
• Carbonate bound
• Organic bound
• Iron Oxide bound
• Residual
• Sediment toxicity testing• Surrogate for actual toxicity based
on specified organisms
• More expensive than chemical analysis or sequential extraction
• Probably best estimate of actual ecological toxicity measure
Hexagon Environmental Solutions24
Spatial Distribution – “Taking the blinders off”
• How does “what the data says” from compositional profiles compare with “location of samples”?
• How does the “location of samples” compare with reasonable “potential source areas”?
• Example from large sediment study
• Active marine harbor
• Urban setting
• Drainage basin characterized by mixed industry, agriculture and large forest tracts
Hexagon Environmental Solutions25
PAH Profiles and PCA Diagram
Hexagon Environmental Solutions26
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
-15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0
Title
Title
Sediment PAH - PCA ResultsPC 1 vs PC 2
Sed PAH Group A Sed PAH Group B Sed PAH Group C
Sed PAH Group D Sed PAH Group E Sed PAH Group F
Sed PAH Group G Sed PAH Group H Sed PAH Group I
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
NAP
1mN
AP2m
NAP AN
YAC
EFL
UAN
TPH
EFL
APY
RBa
ACH
RBb
FBk
FBa
PBe
PD
BA PER IP
BPE
PAH 1462 Group A n=677 (46.31%)
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18
NAP
1mN
AP2m
NAP AN
YAC
EFL
UAN
TPH
EFL
APY
RBa
ACH
RBb
FBk
FBa
PBe
PDB
APE
R IPBP
E
PAH 1462 Group D n=40 (2.74%)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
NAP
1mN
AP2m
NAP AN
YAC
EFL
UAN
TPH
EFL
APY
RBa
ACH
RBb
FBk
FBa
PBe
PDB
APE
R IPBP
E
PAH 1462 Group F n=13 (0.89%)
Spatial Distribution after Cluster Analysis
Hexagon Environmental Solutions27
620,000
640,000
660,000
680,000
700,000
720,000
7,600,0007,610,0007,620,0007,630,0007,640,0007,650,0007,660,000
Nor
thin
g
Easting
Sediment PAH Group A Distributions
Sed Samples Group A
620,000
640,000
660,000
680,000
700,000
720,000
7,600,0007,610,0007,620,0007,630,0007,640,0007,650,0007,660,000
Nor
thin
g
Easting
Sediment PAH Group D Distributions
Sed Samples Group D
620,000
640,000
660,000
680,000
700,000
720,000
7,600,0007,610,0007,620,0007,630,0007,640,0007,650,0007,660,000
Nor
thin
g
Easting
Sediment PAH Group F Distributions
Sed Samples Group F
Urban Background Petroleum Combustion and Asphalt/Creosote
Coal and Natural Diagenetic PAHs
Conclusions• Clearly identify the goals and objectives of a sediment project
prior to establishing all methods of evaluation
• Application of multivariate statistical methods in a forensic approach can identify relationships within the basin
• Professional judgement combined with proper application of methods is essential for resolving the story in complex data sets
• Multiple lines of evidence can help to determine whether high concentration samples are associated with natural materials or anthropogenic sources of contamination
• Forensic methods of data evaluation may be slightly more expensive during investigation, but are negligible in comparison to undertaking remediation of natural sediments without significant contribution from anthropogenic sources.
Hexagon Environmental Solutions28
Questions?