Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 649

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monitoring inland water quality using remote sensing: potential and limitations of spectral indices, bio-optical simulations, machine learning, and cloud computing

Open access
Sagan, Vasit, Peterson, Kyle T., Maimaitijiang, Maitiniyazi, Sidike, Paheding, Sloan, John, Greeling, Benjamin A., Maalouf, Samar, Adams, Craig·2020·Earth-Science Reviews

Abstract

Given the recent advances in remote sensing analytics, cloud computing, and machine learning, it is imperative to evaluate capabilities of remote sensing for water quality monitoring in the context of water resources management and decision-making. The objectives of this review were to analyze recent advances in water quality remote sensing and determine limitations of current systems, estimation methods, and suggest future improvements. To that end, we collected over 200 sets of water quality data including blue-green algae phycocyanin (BGA-PC), chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductivity (SC), fluorescent dissolved organic matter (fDOM), turbidity, and pollution-sediments from 2016 to 2018. The water quality data, generated from laboratory analysis of grab samples and in-situ real-time monitoring sensors distributed in eight lakes and rivers in Midwestern United States, were paired with synchronous proximal spectra, tripod-mounted hyperspectral imagery, and satellite data. The results showed that both proximal and satellite-based sensors have great potential to provide accurate estimate of optically active parameters, and remote sensing of non-optically active parameters may be indirectly estimated but still remains a challenge. Data-driven empirical approaches, i.e., deep learning outperformed the other competing methods, providing promising possibility for operational use of remote sensing in water quality monitoring and decision-making. As the first-time review of deep neural networks for water quality estimation, the paper concludes that anomaly detection utilizing multi-sensor data fusion and virtual constellation in cloud-computing is the most promising means for predicting impending water pollution outbreaks such as algal blooms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103187

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 118 references

Cited by

See all 649

Metadata

Authors
Sagan, V., Peterson, K. T., Maimaitijiang, M., Sidike, P., Sloan, J., Greeling, B. A., Maalouf, S., & Adams, C.
Venue
Earth-Science Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
205
Pages
103187
ISSN
0012-8252 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3018952706
Cited by
649
References
118
FWCI
18.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Monitoring inland water quality using remote sensing: potential and limitations of spectral indices, bio-optical simulations, machine learning, and cloud computing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103187
The paper
Sagan, V., Peterson, K. T., Maimaitijiang, M., Sidike, P., Sloan, J., Greeling, B. A., Maalouf, S., & Adams, C. (2020). Monitoring inland water quality using remote sensing: potential and limitations of spectral indices, bio-optical simulations, machine learning, and cloud computing. Earth-Science Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103187

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.