Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 8;1(2):107–116. doi: 10.1016/j.eehl.2022.06.001

Table 1.

Application of machine learning models in surface water.

Task Algorithms Sample size Input parameters Evaluation results Reference
DO prediction BWNN, ANN, ARIMA, BANN 370 DO BWNN > BANN > WNN > ANN > ARIMA [18]
DO prediction LSTM 236 DO The model performed well at 74% of sites (NSE ≥ 0.4) [19]
DO prediction PNN 1912 Cl, alkalinity, BOD, PO4–P, COD, pH, temperature, NO3–N, Ca2+, P, Mg2+, and EC Good interpolation performance (R2 = 0.82) [20]
DO prediction CCNN 232 DO and water quality parameters (e.g., Cl, NOx, TDS, pH, temperature) R2 = 0.825
RMSE = 0.550
[21]
BOD prediction DNN, SVR, RF 32323 Latitude, longitude, time, site actual depth, sea state, degree of turbulence at sea, wind speed, DO, temperature, salinity, total coliform, light penetration in water, chlorophyll-a, polychlorinated biphenyls plate count, NOx–N, PO4–P, NH3–N, TP, pH, TSS, EC, sample depth, density, and transparency DNN is 19.20%–25.16% lower RMSE than traditional models [22]
EC, HCO3, SO42−, Cl, TDS, Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+ prediction SVM, ANN All data since 1960 Temperature, pH, EC, HCO3, SO42−, Cl, TDS, Na+, Mg2+, and Ca2+ SVM > ANN [23]
TN, TP prediction SVM, ANN 660 River flow, temperature, flow travel time, rainfall, DO, TN, and TP SVM > ANN [24]
Water quality level prediction DT, RF, DCF, and 10 other models 33612 pH, DO, CONMn, and NH3–N DT, RF, and DCF provide better predictive performance [25]
TRP, NO3–N, TP, NH4–N) prediction RF 21657 EC, turbulence, temperature, DO, pH, chlorophyll-a, and flow rate Compared with the linear model, RMSE decreased by 60.1% [26]
Chlorophyll-a prediction SVM, ANN 357 Chlorophyll-a, PO4–P, NH3–N, NO3–N, temperature, solar radiation, and wind speed SVM > ANN [27]
Algal bloom prediction ANFIS 896 COD, BOD, TOC, TSS, TP, DTP, PO4–P, TN, NO3–N, NH3–N, chlorophyll-a, temperature, precipitation, flowrate, DO, pH, EC, total coliform, and fecal coliform ANFIS performed best in both quantitative and classification problems [28]
Hyperparameter selection optimization SVR 223 BGA-PC, chlorophyll-a, DO, EC, fDOM, turbidity, and pollution sediments BGA-PC (accuracy = 0.77), chlorophyll-a (0.78), TSS (0.81), fDOM (−), turbidity (0.55) and DO (−) [29]
Water pollution monitoring Attention neural network 1000 Water images The resolution accuracy of clean water was 71.2%, and that of polluted water was 73.6% [30]
Water pollution monitoring CNN, SVM, RF 81 Landsat8 images and water quality level CNN (accuracy = 97.12%) > SVM (96.89%) > RF (86.21%) [31]
Heavy metal contamination assessment PCA 42 Cu, Mn, Cr, Zn, Pb, Cd, Ni, and Co Areas with heavy metal pollution were identified [32]
WQI parameters selection PCA 240 Temperature, DO, pH, EC, BOD, NO3–N, fecal coliform, total coliform, turbidity, alkalinity, Cl, COD, NH3–N, total Hardness, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, TDS, and PO4–P Nine key parameters were DO, pH, EC, BOD, total coliform, Cl, Mg, SO42−, and TDS [33]

DO, Dissolved oxygen; BWNN, bootstrapped wavelet neural network; ANN, artificial neural network; ARIMA, autoregressive integrated moving average; BANN, bootstrapped artificial neural network; LSTM, long short-term memory; NSE, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency; PNN, polynomial neural network; BOD, biological oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; EC, electrical conductivity; CCNN, cascade correlation neural network; TDS, Tsinghua/Temporary DeepSpeed; RMSE, lower root mean square error; DNN, deep neural network; SVR, support vector regression; RF, random forest; SVM, support vector machine; TP, total phosphorus; TN, total nitrogen; TRP, total reactive phosphorus; TOC, total organic carbon; TSS, total suspended solids; DTP, dissolved total phosphorus; BGA-PC, blue-green algae phycocyanin, fDOM, fluorescent dissolved organic matter, CNN, convolutional neural network; PCA, principal component analysis; WQI, water quality index.