Literature DB >> 28142127

The Sequential Probability Ratio Test: An efficient alternative to exact binomial testing for Clean Water Act 303(d) evaluation.

Connie Chen1, Matthew O Gribble2, Jay Bartroff3, Steven M Bay4, Larry Goldstein3.   

Abstract

The United States's Clean Water Act stipulates in section 303(d) that states must identify impaired water bodies for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of pollution inputs into water bodies are developed. Decision-making procedures about how to list, or delist, water bodies as impaired, or not, per Clean Water Act 303(d) differ across states. In states such as California, whether or not a particular monitoring sample suggests that water quality is impaired can be regarded as a binary outcome variable, and California's current regulatory framework invokes a version of the exact binomial test to consolidate evidence across samples and assess whether the overall water body complies with the Clean Water Act. Here, we contrast the performance of California's exact binomial test with one potential alternative, the Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT). The SPRT uses a sequential testing framework, testing samples as they become available and evaluating evidence as it emerges, rather than measuring all the samples and calculating a test statistic at the end of the data collection process. Through simulations and theoretical derivations, we demonstrate that the SPRT on average requires fewer samples to be measured to have comparable Type I and Type II error rates as the current fixed-sample binomial test. Policymakers might consider efficient alternatives such as SPRT to current procedure.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clean water act; Sediment quality objectives; Sequential probability ratio test; Study design; Water quality

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28142127      PMCID: PMC5331907          DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.01.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Manage        ISSN: 0301-4797            Impact factor:   6.789


  6 in total

1.  Confidence of compliance: a Bayesian approach for percentile standards.

Authors:  G B McBride; J C Ellis
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.236

2.  Comparison of national and regional sediment quality guidelines for classifying sediment toxicity in California.

Authors:  Steven M Bay; Kerry J Ritter; Doris E Vidal-Dorsch; L Jay Field
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.992

3.  Framework for interpreting sediment quality triad data.

Authors:  Steven M Bay; Stephen B Weisberg
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 2.992

4.  Assessing the US Clean Water Act 303(d) listing process for determining impairment of a waterbody.

Authors:  Arturo A Keller; Lindsey Cavallaro
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 6.789

5.  Combining model results and monitoring data for water quality assessment.

Authors:  Song S Qian; Kenneth H Reckhow
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2007-07-15       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Transitioning sediment quality assessment into regulations: Challenges and solutions in implementing California's sediment quality objectives.

Authors:  Chris Beegan; Steven M Bay
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.992

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.