| Literature DB >> 23369363 |
Mohd Fahmi Mohd Nasir1, Munirah Abdul Zali, Hafizan Juahir, Hashimah Hussain, Sharifuddin M Zain, Norlafifah Ramli.
Abstract
Recent techniques in the management of surface river water have been expanding the demand on the method that can provide more representative of multivariate data set. A proper technique of the architecture of artificial neural network (ANN) model and multiple linear regression (MLR) provides an advance tool for surface water modeling and forecasting. The development of receptor model was applied in order to determine the major sources of pollutants at Kuantan River Basin, Malaysia. Thirteen water quality parameters were used in principal component analysis (PCA) and new variables of fertilizer waste, surface runoff, anthropogenic input, chemical and mineral changes and erosion are successfully developed for modeling purposes. Two models were compared in terms of efficiency and goodness-of-fit for water quality index (WQI) prediction. The results show that APCS-ANN model gives better performance with high R2 value (0.9680) and small root mean square error (RMSE) value (2.6409) compared to APCS-MLR model. Meanwhile from the sensitivity analysis, fertilizer waste acts as the dominant pollutant contributor (59.82%) to the basin studied followed by anthropogenic input (22.48%), surface runoff (13.42%), erosion (2.33%) and lastly chemical and mineral changes (1.95%). Thus, this study concluded that receptor modeling of APCS-ANN can be used to solve various constraints in environmental problem that exist between water distribution variables toward appropriate water quality management.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23369363 PMCID: PMC3564820 DOI: 10.1186/1735-2746-9-18
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iranian J Environ Health Sci Eng ISSN: 1735-1979
Figure 1Percentage of land use in Kuantan River Basin.
Figure 2Monitoring station at Kuantan River Basin.
Figure 3Land-use of Kuantan River Basin.
Figure 4Example of ANN structure.
Figure 5Variables (PC1 and PC2: 45.13%) after varimax rotation.
Figure 6Graph plotting after varimax rotation: (a) Fertilizer waste (VF1); (b) Surface runoff (VF2); (c) Anthropogenic input (VF3); (d) Chemical and mineral changes (VF4); (e) Erosion (VF5).
The variability of VFs
| Eigenvalue | 4.213 | 2.656 | 1.249 | 1.184 | 1.022 |
| Variability (%) | 32.409 | 20.43 | 9.605 | 9.11 | 7.858 |
| Cumulative % | 32.409 | 52.839 | 62.444 | 71.554 | 79.412 |
Summary of regression of variable WQI
| Observations | 275 |
| Sum of weights | 275 |
| DF | 269 |
| R2 | 0.865 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.863 |
| MSE | 31.589 |
| RMSE | 5.62 |
| AIC | 955.454 |
| SBC | 977.155 |
Figure 7Standardized coefficients for each variable.
Figure 8Distribution of predicted and actual WQI.
Figure 9Residual between actual WQI and predicted WQI.
Figure 10Estimation of predicted WQI and actual WQI.
Figure 11Residual graph.
The results of sensitivity analysis
| All parameters | 0.968 | | | 2.6409 |
| L-FW | 0.8115 | 0.1565 | 59.82 | 6.9275 |
| L-SR | 0.9329 | 0.0351 | 13.42 | 4.1094 |
| L-AI | 0.9092 | 0.0588 | 22.48 | 4.5495 |
| L-CMC | 0.9629 | 0.0051 | 1.95 | 2.8014 |
| L-E | 0.9619 | 0.0061 | 2.33 | 3.0198 |
| Total | 0.2616 | 100 |