Susan T.

Williams
Geog 597K
Lesson 7

Assessing exposure to uranium in groundwater using GIS

Introduction
This activity introduced fictitious data in regards to a scenario involving a nuclear processing
plant in a rural area of eastern Europe. The data was to be analyzed to determine whether or
not there is a possible link between kidney damage and the exposure status of children to
uranium. This exercise enables us to understand techniques utilized in analyzing point data and
disease prevalence in a spatial context.
Tasks
Task 1: Choose one method for creating a map of uranium exposure. How would you
classify the method that you have used (e.g. indicator-based, dispersion modelling,
personal monitoring, etc.)?
The information provided was limited: the point vector location of the nuclear processing plant,
the point vector locations of uranium concentrations in well water samples, and the point vector
locations of properties in the area where children reside. Without additional information, we are
unable to utilize personal monitoring to monitor the movement of the children. Indicator-based
methods are generally considered the least-desirable option, implemented as a last resort
when further information is unavailable (GIS, n.d.) Although we lack information such as
meteorological data that would enable us to truly optimize dispersion monitoring, it is still a
useful method in this situation since we do have information regarding uranium levels at various
wells in the study site. As such, I opted to use the ambient pollution monitoring and dispersion
method.
Although we do heave measurements from some of the wells in the study area, interpolation is
necessary to estimate values in locations where we have no measurements to work from.
Although there are several possible interpolation methods, Kriging is widely used, particularly
when exploring environmental health issues, and is generally considered advantageous as it
considers the spatial autocorrelation of measurements among the control points as well as the
distances to control points (Cromley and McLafferty, 2012).
Kriging was performed on the data to generate a continuous surface map of the study area
which displays interpolated concentration levels of uranium. The locations of the nuclear
processing plant, residences, and well water sample sites were then added to the Kriging map.

One might argue that this methodology falls more under the category of indicator-based, since
the majority of the map was generated on an estimation rather than actual concrete
measurements. Admittedly, this model could be greatly improved with hydrologic data revealing
groundwater flow, bedrock permeability, and so forth. Nevertheless, a kriging calculation based
on the actual measurements that we do have fits the definition of a dispersion model as a
mathematical prediction of how pollutants from an emission source will be distributed into the
surrounding environment under given conditions (GIS, n.d.).

Task 2: Using the available data, assess the exposure status of children to uranium in
groundwater. Include a copy of your exposure map in your report.
I used Kriging under the Interpolation category in the Spatial Analyst toolbox to produce the first
map (Figure 1).
For the second map (Figure 2), I ran the Geostatistical Analysis Wizard and selected Ordinary
Kriging. I wanted to try this option so that I could run a cross-validation and view the
semivariogram model to help determine the predictive performance of the Kriging model (ESRI,
2011).
On both maps, there are four residences which are coded as Temporary or Vacation housing,
which were identified as a square with an x-mark through them to differentiate between the
solid-colored squares indicating permanent housing. Although this particular information was
not fully utilized in my study, this data would be very useful if further study was to monitor the
movement patterns of the children in the area.
The residences of the children who had reported to the hospital with kidney damage have been
identified with a dark red square, whereas the residences of children who did not attend the
hospital with kidney damage are indicated with a black square.
Please see pages 3 and 4 below to view the two exposure maps generated for this study.

Figure 1: Estimated levels of uranium in groundwater shown in relation to the nuclear processing plant, wells sampled for uranium
measurements, and residences of both healthy controls and kidney damage cases. Data interpolated using Spatial Analyst Kriging.

Figure 2: Estimated levels of uranium in groundwater shown in relation to the nuclear processing plant, wells sampled for uranium
measurements, and residences of both healthy controls and kidney damage cases. Data interpolated and cross-validated using
ordinary Kriging in the Geostatistical Analysis Wizard.

Figure 3: The semivariogram model which depicts the spatial

autocorrelation of the measured well sample points.

Figure 4: Results of the Stable model

cross-validation of the interpolated well
data. With autocorrelation and a good
kriging model, the blue line should be
closer to the black dashed 1:1 line.
5

The cross-validation results seem to indicate that interpolation of the study area will not be very
accurate. I did attempt a fe different types of semivariograms, selecting Stable, Circular,
Spherical, Rational Quadratic, and Gaussian to see if any provided a better fit. There was very
little difference in the results of the varying models.
In this situation, as our given information is quite limited, we are therefore limited in our options
for providing an accurate analysis.

Task 3: Using the data concerning kidney damage among children, assess whether
exposure to uranium in groundwater is affecting childrens health in this area.
Determining a connection between exposure to uranium in groundwater and kidney damage
among children would ideally require various statistical analyses, which I did not perform due to
a lack of statistical software. The interpolated levels of uranium vary widely from 6.4
micrograms per litre to 79.6 micrograms per litre. A simple visual inspection of the generated
map reveals a fairly equal distribution of both cases and controls in all areas of uranium
exposure, which would infer that there is not a strong connection.
Uranium is an element that occurs naturally in virtually all rock, soil, and water (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2012). The EPA currently sets the Maximum Contaminant Level for uranium
in drinking water at 30 g/l (micrograms per liter (ibid). It should be noted that the EPA is a
governing body in the United States and therefore their guidelines do not necessarily apply to
the particular region in this study, although the information is useful in determining a possible
safety and health correlation. The World Health Organization recommends similar standards
(World Health Organization, 2012).
With these guidelines in mind, it appears that some of the areas in our region of study have
uranium exposure levels that are much higher than recommended.
We must keep in mind that cross-validation inferred that our predictive model of interpolation is
not terribly accurate, however, so an assessment of the childrens health in this area would
therefore not be terribly accurate without more information.

Task 4: If you were able to collect more information or spend more on software, what
might you do to improve the quality of the study?
Additional data layers regarding hydrology and groundwater movement would be helpful, as
would information on typical air dispersion in the area. The movement patterns of the children
in the area would also be helpful.

The studys quality could be further improved if the measurements of uranium levels were all
taken at approximately the same time rather than over a six-month time period, and if a greater
number of wells in the study area could be sampled to provide additional points of data.
Furthermore, as uranium does occur naturally in groundwater, obtaining base measurements
could be useful along with the natural distribution of the naturally-occurring uranium across the
area. This would enable us to compare with adjacent regions to more accurately determine
whether or not the values in this study area are cause for concern.
With more money to spend on software, the study could be much improved with the purchase of
a statistical software package to analyze the data.

Conclusion
My conclusion is that we do not have enough information at this point to determine whether or
not the nuclear processing plant is contributing to increased uranium exposure in the
groundwater and causing kidney damage among children who reside in the region.

References
Cromley, Ellen K., and McLafferty, Sara L. (2012). GIS and Public Health. (2nd ed., p. 203-204).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1 October 2012). Uranium. Accessed April 2013 at
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.html
ESRI ArcGIS Resource Center (2011). Desktop 10.0 Help. Performing cross-validation and
validation. Accessed April 2013 at
http://help.arcgis.com/en/arcgisdesktop/10.0/help/index.html#//003100000059000000.
htm
GIS for the Analysis of Health. (n.d.) Geography and Environment Department, University of
Southampton. Accessed April 2013 at
http://www2.geog.soton.ac.uk/users/TrevesR/obs/gah/frame_normal.htm
World Health Organization (2012). Uranium in Drinking water. Accessed April 2013 at
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2012/background_uranium.pdf