Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 686

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Machine learning methods for better water quality prediction

Najah Ahmed, Ali, Binti Othman, Faridah, Abdulmohsin Afan, Haitham, Khaleel Ibrahim, Rusul, Ming Fai, Chow, Shabbir Hossain, Md, Ehteram, Mohammad, Elshafie, Ahmed·2019·Journal of Hydrology

Abstract

Abstract In any aquatic system analysis, the modelling water quality parameters are of considerable significance. The traditional modelling methodologies are dependent on datasets that involve large amount of unknown or unspecified input data and generally consist of time-consuming processes. The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) leads to a flexible mathematical structure that has the capability to identify non-linear and complex relationships between input and output data. There has been a major degradation of the Johor River Basin because of several developmental and human activities. Therefore, setting up of a water quality prediction model for better water resource management is of critical importance and will serve as a powerful tool. The different modelling approaches that have been implemented include: Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS), Radial Basis Function Neural Networks (RBF-ANN), and Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Networks (MLP-ANN). However, data obtained from monitoring stations and experiments are possibly polluted by noise signals as a result of random and systematic errors. Due to the presence of noise in the data, it is relatively difficult to make an accurate prediction. Hence, a Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (WDT-ANFIS) based augmented wavelet de-noising technique has been recommended that depends on historical data of the water quality parameter. In the domain of interests, the water quality parameters primarily include ammoniacal nitrogen (AN), suspended solid (SS) and pH. In order to evaluate the impacts on the model, three evaluation techniques or assessment processes have been used. The first assessment process is dependent on the partitioning of the neural network connection weights that ascertains the significance of every input parameter in the network. On the other hand, the second and third assessment processes ascertain the most effectual input that has the potential to construct the models using a single and a combination of parameters, respectively. During these processes, two scenarios were introduced: Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Scenario 1 constructs a prediction model for water quality parameters at every station, while Scenario 2 develops a prediction model on the basis of the value of the same parameter at the previous station (upstream). Both the scenarios are based on the value of the twelve input parameters. The field data from 2009 to 2010 was used to validate WDT-ANFIS. The WDT-ANFIS model exhibited a significant improvement in predicting accuracy for all the water quality parameters and outperformed all the recommended models. Also, the performance of Scenario 2 was observed to be more adequate than Scenario 1, with substantial improvement in the range of 0.5% to 5% for all the water quality parameters at all stations. On validating the recommended model, it was found that the model satisfactorily predicted all the water quality parameters (R2 values equal or bigger than 0.9).

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.jhydrol.2019.124084

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

See all 686

Metadata

Authors
Najah Ahmed, A., Binti Othman, F., Abdulmohsin Afan, H., Khaleel Ibrahim, R., Ming Fai, C., Shabbir Hossain, M., Ehteram, M., & Elshafie, A.
Venue
Journal of Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
578
Pages
124084
ISSN
0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2970835038
Cited by
686
References
30
FWCI
20.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Machine learning methods for better water quality prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124084
The paper
Najah Ahmed, A., Binti Othman, F., Abdulmohsin Afan, H., Khaleel Ibrahim, R., Ming Fai, C., Shabbir Hossain, M., Ehteram, M., & Elshafie, A. (2019). Machine learning methods for better water quality prediction. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124084

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.