Stochastic capture zone analysis of an arsenic-contaminated well using the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimator (GLUE) methodology

Water Resources Research

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2003, Pages

  Morse, Brad S ^c   Pohll, Greg ^c   Huntington, Justin ^a   Rodriguez Castillo, Ramiro ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^c DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Capture zone; GLUE; Zimapan

Indexed keywords

ARSENIC; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PROBABILITY; RANDOM PROCESSES;

ISOTROPIC CONDITIONS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

WATER WELLS;

AQUIFER POLLUTION; ARSENIC; NUMERICAL METHOD; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA]; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 1542651231     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2002WR001470     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Armienta, M. A., R. Rodriquez, A. Aguayo, N. Ceniceros, G. Villasenor, and O. Cruz, Arsenic contamination of groundwater at Zimapan Mexico, Hydrogeol. J., 5, 39-46, 1997.
2. Armienta, M. A., G. Villasenor, R. Rodriguez, L. K. Ongley, and H. Mango, The role of arsenic-bearing rocks in the groundwater pollution at Zimapan Valley, Mexico, Environ. Geol., 40, 571-581, 2001.
3. Bair, E. S., C. M. Safreed, and E. A. Stasny, A Monte Carlo-based approach for determining traveltime-related capture zones of wells using convex hulls as confidence regions, Ground Water, 29(6), 849-855, 1991.
4. Bear, J., and M. Jacobs, On the movement of water bodies injected into aquifers, J. Hydrol., 3, 37-57, 1965.
5. Beven, K. J., and A. M. Binley, The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Processes, 6, 279-298 1992.
6. Beven, K. J., and J. Freer, Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modeling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology, J. Hydrol., 249, 11-29, 2001.
7. Box, G., and G. Tiao, Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis, John Wiley, New York, 1973.
8. Buckley, K. M., A. M. Binley, and K. J. Beven, Calibration and predictive uncertainty estimation of groundwater quality models: Application to the Twin Lake Tracer Test, in Groundwater Quality Management: Proceedings of the GQM 3 Conference Held in Tallinn, September 1993, IAHS Publ., 220, 205-214, 1994.
9. Feyen, L., K. J. Beven, F. De Smedt, and J. Freer, Stochastic capture zone delineation within the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation methodology: Conditioning on head observations, Water Resour. Res., 37(3), 625-638, 2001.
10. Franks, S. W., and K. J. Beven, Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in land-atmosphere flux predictions, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 23, 991-23, 999, 1997.
11. Franks, S. W., K. J. Beven, and J. H. C. Gash, Multi-objective conditioning of a simple SVAT model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 3(4), 477-489, 1999.
12. Franzetti, S., and A. Guadagnini, Probabilistic estimation of well catchments in heterogeneous aquifers, J. Hydrol., 174, 149-171, 1996.
13. Freer, J., K. J. Beven, and B. Ambroise, Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2161-2173, 1996.
14. Guadagnini, A., and S. Franzetti, Time-related capture zones for contaminants in randomly heterogeneous formations, Ground Water, 37(2), 253-260, 1999.
15. Gupta, H. V., S. Sorooshian, and P. Yapo, Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information, Water Resour. Res., 34, 751-763, 1998.
16. Kuczera, G., and E. Parent, Monte Carlo assessment of parameter uncertainty in conceptual catchment models: The Metropolis algorithim, J. Hydrol., 211, 69-85, 1998.
17. McDonald, M., and A. Harbaugh, A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model, U. S. Geol. Surv. Techniques Water Resour. Invest., 1988.
18. Morse, B. S., Comment on "The role of arsenic-bearing rocks in groundwater pollution at Zimapan Valley, Mexico" by Armienta and others [Environmental Geology 40(4/5)], Environ. Geology, 41, 241-243, 2001.
19. Pollock, D. W., Users guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, version 3: A particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, the US Geological Survey finite-difference ground-water flow model, U. S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 94-464, 1994.
20. Thiemann, M., M. Trosset, H. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian, Bayesian recursive parameter estimation for hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 37(10), 2521-2535, 2001.
21. van Leeuwen, M., C. B. M. te Stroet, A. P. Butler, and J. A. Tompkins, Stochastic determination of well capture zones, Water Resour. Res., 34(9), 2215-2223, 1998.
22. Varljen, M. D., and J. M. Shafer, Assessment of uncertainty in time-related capture zones using conditional simulation of hydraulic conductivity, Ground Water, 29, 737-748, 1991.