Author
Listed:
- Yanna Xiong
(Technical Centre for Soil, Agricultural and Rural Ecology and Environment, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing 100012, China)
- Tianyi Zhang
(Faculty of Architecture, Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China)
- Xi Sun
(School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Anyang Institute of Technology, Anyang 455000, China)
- Wenchao Yuan
(Technical Centre for Soil, Agricultural and Rural Ecology and Environment, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing 100012, China)
- Mingjun Gao
(Technical Centre for Soil, Agricultural and Rural Ecology and Environment, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing 100012, China)
- Jin Wu
(Faculty of Architecture, Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China)
- Zhijun Han
(Sino-Japan Friendship Centre for Environmental Protection, Beijing 100012, China)
Abstract
In the past few decades, global industrial development and population growth have led to a scarcity of water resources, making sustainable management of groundwater a global challenge. The Water Quality Index (WQI) serves as a comprehensive method for assessing water quality and can provide valuable recommendations at the water quality level, optimizing policies for groundwater management. However, the subjectivity and uncertainty of the traditional WQI have negative impacts on evaluation outcomes, particularly in determining indicator weights and selecting aggregation functions. The proposed water quality index for groundwater based on the random forest (RFWQI) model in this study addresses these issues. It selects water quality indicators based on the actual pollution situation in the study area, employs an advanced random forest model to rank water quality indicators, determines indicator weights using the rank centroid method, scores the indicators using a sub-index function designed for groundwater development, and compares the results of two commonly used aggregation functions to identify the optimal one. Based on the aggregated scores, the water quality at 137 monitoring sites is classified into five levels: “Excellent”, “Good”, “Medium”, “Poor”, or “Unacceptable”. Among the 11 water quality indicators (sodium, sulfate, chloride, bicarbonate, total dissolved solids, fluoride, boron, nitrate, pH, COD Mn , and hardness), chloride was given the highest weight (0.236), followed by total dissolved solids (0.156), and sodium was given the lowest weight (0.008). The random forest model exhibits a good prediction capability before hyperparameter tuning (86% accuracy, RMSE of 0.378), and after grid search and five-fold cross-validation, the optimal hyperparameter combination is determined, further improving the performance of the random forest model (94% accuracy, F1-Score of 0.967, AUC of 0.91, RMSE of 0.232). For the newly developed groundwater sub-index function, interpolation is used to score each indicator, and after comparing two aggregation functions, the NSF aggregation function is selected as the most suitable for groundwater assessment. Overall, most of the groundwater in the study area was of poor quality (52.5% of low quality) and not suitable for drinking.
Suggested Citation
Yanna Xiong & Tianyi Zhang & Xi Sun & Wenchao Yuan & Mingjun Gao & Jin Wu & Zhijun Han, 2023.
"Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on the Random Forest Water Quality Index—Taking Karamay City as an Example,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-18, October.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14477-:d:1253601
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14477-:d:1253601. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.