Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comprehensive method for improvement of water quality index (WQI) models for coastal water quality assessment

Open access
Uddin, Md Galal, Nash, Stephen, Rahman, Azizur, Olbert, Agnieszka I.·2022·Water Research

Abstract

Here, we present an improved water quality index (WQI) model for assessment of coastal water quality using Cork Harbour, Ireland, as the case study. The model involves the usual four WQI components – selection of water quality indicators for inclusion, sub-indexing of indicator values, sub-index weighting and sub-index aggregation – with improvements to make the approach more objective and data-driven and less susceptible to eclipsing and ambiguity errors. The model uses the machine learning algorithm, XGBoost, to rank and select water quality indicators for inclusion based on relative importance to overall water quality status. Of the ten indicators for which data were available, transparency, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, ammoniacal nitrogen, BOD5, chlorophyll, temperature and orthophosphate were selected for summer, while total organic nitrogen, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, pH, transparency and dissolved oxygen were selected for winter. Linear interpolation functions developed using national recommended guideline values for coastal water quality are used for sub-indexing of water quality indicators and the XGBoost rankings are used in combination with the rank order centroid weighting method to determine sub-index weight values. Eight sub-index aggregation functions were tested - five from existing WQI models and three proposed by the authors. The computed indices were compared with those obtained using a multiple linear regression (MLR) approach and R2 and RMSE used as indicators of aggregation function performance. The weighted quadratic mean function (R2 = 0.91, RMSE = 4.4 for summer; R2 = 0.97, RMSE = 3.1 for winter) and the unweighted arithmetic mean function (R2 = 0.92, RMSE = 3.2 for summer; R2 = 0.97, RMSE = 3.2 for winter) proposed by the authors were identified as the best functions and showed reduced eclipsing and ambiguity problems compared to the others.

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.watres.2022.118532

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Uddin, M. G., Nash, S., Rahman, A., & Olbert, A. I.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-07
Volume
219
Pages
118532
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225248915
Cited by
374
References
1
FWCI
21.06
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: A comprehensive method for improvement of water quality index (WQI) models for coastal water quality assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118532
The paper
Uddin, M. G., Nash, S., Rahman, A., & Olbert, A. I. (2022). A comprehensive method for improvement of water quality index (WQI) models for coastal water quality assessment. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118532

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.