| Literature DB >> 31109129 |
Abstract
Evaluating the eutrophication level of lakes with a single method alone is challenging since uncertain, fuzzy, and complex processes exist in eutrophication evaluations. The parameters selected for assessing eutrophication include chlorophyII-a, chemical oxygen demand, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and clarity. Firstly, to deal with the uncertainties and fuzziness of data, triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN) were applied to describe the fuzziness of parameters. Secondly, to assess the eutrophication grade of lakes comprehensively, an improved fuzzy matter element (FME) approach was incorporated with TFNs with weights determined by combination of entropy method and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). In addition, the Monte Carlo (MC) approach was applied to easily simulate the arithmetic operations of eutrophication evaluation. The hybrid model of TFN, FME, and MC method is termed as the TFN⁻MC⁻FME model, which can provide more valuable information for decision makers. The developed model was applied to assess the eutrophication levels of 24 typical lakes in China. The evaluation indicators were expressed by TFNs input into the FME model to evaluate eutrophication grade. The results of MC simulation supplied quantitative information of possible intervals, the corresponding probabilities, as well as the comprehensive eutrophication levels. The eutrophication grades obtained for most lakes were identical to the results of the other three methods, which proved the correctness of the model. The presented methodology can be employed to process the data uncertainties and fuzziness by stochastically simulating their distribution characteristics, and obtain a better understanding of eutrophication levels. Moreover, the proposed model can also describe the trend of eutrophication development in lakes, and provide more valuable information for lake management authorities.Entities:
Keywords: Monte Carlo approach; eutrophication evaluation; fuzzy matter element model; triangle fuzzy number
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31109129 PMCID: PMC6572366 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16101769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Comparison of eutrophication evaluation methods.
| Approach | Examples | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multivariate statistical techniques | Including cluster analysis (CA), discriminant analysis (DA), principle component analysis/factor analysis (PCA/FA). | -Can solve randomness of monitored data | -Require larger samples |
| Comprehensive assessment method | Including fuzzy set theory based on fuzzy membership function, matter element model, etc. | -Reflected the fuzziness in the evaluation of the classification standard, evaluation class, and degree of eutrophication | Weak to distinguish the adjacent characteristic indicators |
| Machine learning approaches | Including artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machine, and random forests (RF), etc. | -Provide predictive models with good generalization abilities | -Lacks to accurately analyze each performance index |
| Hybrid models | Including method combined with neuro fuzzy networks with factor analysis, cloud model considering randomness with fuzziness, etc. | Combine the advantages of different methods | -Complicated model structure |
Criteria of grading index for eutrophication of lake.
| Rank | Chl-a (mg/m3) | CODMn (mg/L) | TP (mg/m3) | TN (mg/m3) | SD (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | ≤0.5 | ≤0.15 | ≤1 | ≤20 | ≥10 |
| II | ≤1 | ≤0.4 | ≤4 | ≤50 | ≥5 |
| III | ≤4 | ≤2.0 | ≤25 | ≤300 | ≥1.5 |
| IV | ≤10 | ≤4.0 | ≤50 | ≤500 | ≥1.0 |
| V | ≤64 | ≤10.0 | ≤200 | ≤2000 | ≥0.4 |
| VI | >64 | >10 | >200 | >2000 | <0.4 |
Note: Chl-a, CODMn, TP, TN, SD refer to chlorophyII-a, chemical oxygen demand, total phosphorus, total nitrogen (TN), and clarity (SD), respectively.
Figure 1Nonlinear regression of the upper boundaries for (a) chlorophyII-a (Chl-a), (b) total phosphorus (TP), (c) total nitrogen (TN), (d) chemical oxygen demand (CODMn), and (e) clarity (SD).
Weights of indicators for eutrophication assessment.
| Indicators | Entropy | Entropy Weight | AHP Weight | Entropy–AHP Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chl-a | 2.97 | 0.12 | 0.46 | 0.32 |
| CODMn | 4.54 | 0.21 | 0.15 | 0.19 |
| TP | 5.12 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 0.13 |
| TN | 4.85 | 0.23 | 0.05 | 0.077 |
| SD | 4.48 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.30 |
Definition of eutrophication grade by non-integral eutrophication feature value J.
| J | (1, 1.5] | (1.5, 2.5] | (2.5, 3.5] | (3.5, 4.5] | (4.5, 5.5] | (5.5, 6] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | I | II | III | IV | V | VI |
Figure 2Flowchart of eutrophication assessment.
Lower, expected and upper value of TFN approach for Lake (termed as A1, A2, and A3, respectively).
| Sampling Sites | Chl-a (mg/m3) | CODMn (mg/L) | TP (mg/m3) | TN (mg/m3) | SD (m) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Erhai Lake (S1) | 0.49 | 1.86 | 3.00 | 1.70 | 3.09 | 3.24 | 4 | 22 | 40 | 160 | 246 | 465 | 1.22 | 2.77 | 3.45 |
| Gaoshan Lake (S2) | 0.28 | 1.49 | 5.24 | 0.56 | 1.47 | 3.28 | 17 | 46 | 86 | 187 | 358 | 652 | 1.08 | 1.72 | 2.54 |
| Bosten Lake (S3) | 1.74 | 3.52 | 6.59 | 2.85 | 5.96 | 11.08 | 12 | 23 | 41 | 457 | 932 | 1598 | 0.58 | 1.46 | 3.04 |
| Dianshan Lake (S4) | 1.35 | 3.00 | 9.34 | 1.76 | 2.87 | 4.98 | 6 | 29 | 50 | 408 | 1086 | 1732 | 0.19 | 0.67 | 1.47 |
| Yuqiao reservoir (S5) | 2.83 | 10.79 | 22.71 | 1.08 | 4.11 | 9.65 | 4 | 25 | 53 | 325 | 1220 | 2564 | 0.38 | 1.42 | 2.16 |
| Gucheng Lake (S6) | 0.54 | 4.99 | 8.32 | 0.95 | 2.75 | 4.58 | 12 | 52 | 118 | 598 | 2374 | 5462 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.59 |
| Nansi Lake (S7) | 0.28 | 3.77 | 8.76 | 2.58 | 6.96 | 11.49 | 63 | 194 | 432 | 1248 | 3201 | 6325 | 0.12 | 0.44 | 0.76 |
| Ci Lake (S8) | 3.68 | 14.47 | 42.36 | 0.87 | 3.74 | 7.64 | 26 | 77 | 186 | 350 | 1000 | 2512 | 0.10 | 0.36 | 0.64 |
| Dali Lake (S9) | 1.38 | 7.24 | 15.24 | 8.27 | 16.25 | 34.58 | 24 | 153 | 354 | 425 | 1671 | 3514 | 0.16 | 0.48 | 1.14 |
| Chao Lake (S10) | 3.85 | 11.80 | 31.65 | 2.56 | 4.01 | 9.86 | 36 | 115 | 364 | 546 | 1786 | 3256 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.62 |
| Dianchi Lake(Outer sea) (S11) | 16.52 | 44.43 | 85.36 | 2.58 | 7.11 | 14.56 | 36 | 108 | 328 | 357 | 1309 | 2658 | 0.19 | 0.49 | 0.87 |
| Dianchi Lake (Cao Sea) (S12) | 98.27 | 298.86 | 456.92 | 5.68 | 16.58 | 38.75 | 357 | 931 | 1456 | 685 | 15,273 | 24,365 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.42 |
| West Lake (S13) | 15.68 | 58.95 | 115.64 | 0.68 | 6.94 | 17.28 | 39 | 161 | 426 | 426 | 2478 | 2768 | 0.15 | 0.43 | 0.84 |
| Gantang Lake (S14) | 29.56 | 75.69 | 158.64 | 0.98 | 7.23 | 21.32 | 38 | 141 | 325 | 346 | 1417 | 2541 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 0.73 |
| Mogu Lake (S15) | 8.96 | 54.77 | 128.47 | 2.38 | 10.38 | 24.19 | 56 | 287 | 574 | 624 | 2206 | 4567 | 0.21 | 0.53 | 0.87 |
| Li Lake (S16) | 37.54 | 119.51 | 326.98 | 2.13 | 9.92 | 34.67 | 84 | 372 | 753 | 1524 | 3038 | 5367 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.62 |
| Dongshan Lake (S17) | 29.34 | 149.45 | 514.28 | 3.48 | 13.40 | 25.86 | 158 | 428 | 796 | 1645 | 5350 | 7658 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.43 |
| Moshui Lake (S18) | 48.37 | 153.59 | 358.69 | 2.49 | 13.51 | 38.62 | 95 | 232 | 467 | 7853 | 15,692 | 26,342 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.54 |
| Liwan Lake (S19) | 46.32 | 162.92 | 362.97 | 5.62 | 14.46 | 34.25 | 249 | 743 | 1124 | 2405 | 7337 | 11,246 | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.64 |
| Liuhua Lake (S20) | 75.49 | 323.51 | 615.24 | 8.37 | 25.26 | 42.63 | 342 | 643 | 1024 | 3248 | 6777 | 9754 | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.32 |
| Xuanwu Lake (S21) | 28.67 | 168.14 | 324.56 | 3.62 | 10.08 | 25.98 | 158 | 663 | 1247 | 1125 | 4073 | 7654 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.42 |
| Jingpo Lake (S22) | 0.98 | 4.96 | 14.35 | 1.67 | 5.96 | 24.37 | 88 | 316 | 647 | 324 | 1270 | 2485 | 0.26 | 0.73 | 1.08 |
| Nan Lake (S23) | 21.71 | 120.60 | 328.45 | 2.38 | 8.22 | 21.57 | 65 | 228 | 497 | 1028 | 2630 | 3782 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.41 |
| Qionghai Lake (S24) | 0.19 | 0.88 | 3.28 | 0.54 | 1.43 | 4.52 | 57 | 130 | 268 | 217 | 410 | 862 | 1.08 | 2.98 | 4.32 |
Note: 1. Chl-a, CODMn, TP, TN, SD refer to ChlorophyII-a, chemical oxygen demand, total phosphorus, total nitrogen (TN), and clarity (SD), respectively. 2. The data for calculating A1, A2, and A3 were taken from literatures published in Chinese during period from 1993 to 2017.
Figure 3Locations of 24 typical lakes/reservoirs in China.
Figure 4Simulation results of Bosten Lake (S3).
Non-integral eutrophication grade rank feature of each lake.
| Cases | Minimum Values | Average Values | Maximum Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Erhai Lake (S1) | 3.33 | 3.77 | 4.13 |
| Gaoshan Lake (S2) | 3.32 | 3.89 | 4.45 |
| Bosten Lake (S3) | 3.85 | 4.24 | 4.85 |
| Dianshan Lake (S4) | 3.90 | 4.48 | 4.99 |
| Yuqiao reservoir (S5) | 3.56 | 4.55 | 5.19 |
| Gucheng Lake (S6) | 4.07 | 4.83 | 5.19 |
| Nansi Lake (S7) | 4.32 | 5.00 | 5.37 |
| Ci Lake (S8) | 4.56 | 5.16 | 5.44 |
| Dali Lake (S9) | 4.56 | 5.13 | 5.61 |
| Chao Lake (S10) | 4.81 | 5.26 | 5.56 |
| Dianchi Lake(Outer sea) (S11) | 4.87 | 5.26 | 5.68 |
| Dianchi Lake (Cao Sea) (S12) | 5.60 | 5.82 | 5.91 |
| West Lake (S13) | 4.82 | 5.36 | 5.82 |
| Gantang Lake (S14) | 4.93 | 5.48 | 5.83 |
| Mogu Lake (S15) | 4.96 | 5.44 | 5.83 |
| Li Lake (S16) | 5.21 | 5.69 | 5.87 |
| Dongshan Lake (S17) | 5.37 | 5.78 | 5.90 |
| Moshui Lake (S18) | 5.28 | 5.75 | 5.90 |
| Liwan Lake (S19) | 5.34 | 5.74 | 5.89 |
| Liuhua Lake (S20) | 5.69 | 5.87 | 5.91 |
| Xuanwu Lake (S21) | 5.40 | 5.77 | 5.91 |
| Jingpo Lake (S22) | 4.39 | 5.02 | 5.53 |
| Nan Lake (S23) | 5.16 | 5.69 | 5.90 |
| Qionghai Lake (S24) | 3.41 | 3.85 | 4.47 |
Probable intervals of non-integral eutrophication grade, corresponding probabilities, and comprehensive eutrophication status.
| Cases | Possible Intervals of Non-Integral Eutrophication Feature Value Eutrophication Grade | Probability (%) | Eutrophication Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Erhai Lake (S1) | [3.30, 3.50] | 2.87 | III |
| [3.50, 4.16] | 97.13 | IV | |
| Gaoshan Lake (S2) | [3.32, 3.50] | 1.37 | III |
| [3.50, 4.45] | 98.63 | IV | |
| Bosten Lake (S3) | [3.85, 4.50] | 92.05 | IV |
| [4.50, 4.85] | 7.95 | V | |
| Dianshan Lake (S4) | [3.90, 4.50] | 53.49 | IV |
| [4.50, 4.99] | 46.51 | V | |
| Yuqiao reservoir (S5) | [3.56, 4.50] | 41.82 | IV |
| [4.50, 5.19] | 58.18 | V | |
| Gucheng Lake (S6) | [4.07, 4.50] | 1.09 | IV |
| [4.50. 5.19] | 98.91 | V | |
| Nansi Lake (S7) | [4.32, 4.50] | 0.14 | IV |
| [4.50, 5.37] | 99.86 | V | |
| Ci Lake (S8) | [4.56, 5.44] | 100 | V |
| Dali Lake (S9) | [4.56, 5.50] | 99.63 | V |
| [5.50, 5.61] | 0.37 | VI | |
| Chao Lake (S10) | [4.81, 5.50] | 99.66 | V |
| [5.50, 5.56] | 0.34 | VI | |
| Dianchi Lake (Outer sea) (S11) | [4.87, 5.50] | 99.26 | V |
| [5.50, 5.68] | 0.74 | VI | |
| Dianchi Lake (Cao Sea) (S12) | [5.60, 5.91] | 100 | VI |
| West Lake (S13) | [4.82, 5.50] | 85.66 | V |
| [5.50, 5.82] | 14.34 | VI | |
| Gantang Lake (S14) | [4.93, 5.50] | 54.03 | V |
| [5.50, 5.83] | 45.97 | VI | |
| Mogu Lake (S15) | [4.96, 5.50] | 69.41 | V |
| [5.50, 5.83] | 30.59 | VI | |
| Li Lake (S16) | [5.21, 5.50] | 3.50 | V |
| [5.50, 5.87] | 96.50 | VI | |
| Dongshan Lake (S17) | [5.37, 5.50] | 0.19 | V |
| [5.50, 5.90] | 99.81 | VI | |
| Moshui Lake (S18) | [5.28, 5.50] | 0.59 | V |
| [5.50, 5.90] | 99.41 | VI | |
| Liwan Lake (S19) | [5.34, 5.50] | 0.29 | V |
| [5.50, 5.89] | 99.71 | VI | |
| Liuhua Lake (S20) | [5.69, 5.91] | 100 | VI |
| Xuanwu Lake (S21) | [5.40, 5.50] | 0.04 | V |
| [5.50, 5.91] | 99.61 | VI | |
| Jingpo Lake (S22) | [4.39, 4.50] | 0.04 | IV |
| [4.50, 5.50] | 99.94 | V | |
| [5.50, 5.53] | 0.02 | VI | |
| Nan Lake (S23) | [5.16, 5.50] | 4.13 | V |
| [5.50, 5.90] | 95.87 | VI | |
| Qionghai Lake (S24) | [3.41, 3.50] | 1.31 | III |
| [3.50, 4.47] | 98.69 | IV |
Comprehensive eutrophication values of lakes.
| Cases | Comprehensive Eutrophication Values | Final Eutrophication Grades |
|---|---|---|
| Erhai Lake (S1) | 3.971 | IV |
| Gaoshan Lake (S2) | 3.986 | IV |
| Bosten Lake (S3) | 4.080 | IV |
| Dianshan Lake (S4) | 4.465 | IV |
| Yuqiao reservoir (S5) | 4.582 | V |
| Gucheng Lake (S6) | 4.989 | V |
| Nansi Lake (S7) | 4.999 | V |
| Ci Lake (S8) | 5.000 | V |
| Dali Lake (S9) | 5.004 | V |
| Chao Lake (S10) | 5.003 | V |
| Dianchi Lake(Outer sea) (S11) | 5.007 | V |
| Dianchi Lake (Cao Sea) (S12) | 6.000 | VI |
| West Lake (S13) | 5.143 | V |
| Gantang Lake (S14) | 5.460 | V |
| Mogu Lake (S15) | 5.306 | V |
| Li Lake (S16) | 5.965 | VI |
| Dongshan Lake (S17) | 5.998 | VI |
| Moshui Lake (S18) | 5.994 | VI |
| Liwan Lake (S19) | 5.997 | VI |
| Liuhua Lake (S20) | 6.000 | VI |
| Xuanwu Lake (S21) | 5.979 | VI |
| Jingpo Lake (S22) | 5.000 | V |
| Nan Lake (S23) | 5.959 | VI |
| Qionghai Lake (S24) | 3.987 | IV |
Comparison of eutrophication grade between the proposed TFN–MC–FME model and the other relevant methods.
| Cases | Hybrid Method | Trophic Level Index (TLI) [ | Back Propagation Neutral Network [ | Projection Pursuit Method [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erhai Lake (S1) | IV | III | III | III |
| Gaozhou Reservoir (S2) | IV | III | III | III |
| Bosten Lake (S3) | IV | IV | IV | V |
| Dianshan Lake (S4) | IV | IV | IV | IV |
| Yuqiao reservoir (S5) | V | IV | IV | V |
| Gucheng Lake (S6) | V | V | V | V |
| Nansi Lake (S7) | V | V | V | V |
| Ci Lake (S8) | V | V | V | V |
| Dali Lake (S9) | V | V | V | V |
| Chao Lake (S10) | V | V | V | V |
| Dianchi Lake(Outer sea) (S11) | V | V | V | V |
| Dianchi Lake (Cao Sea) (S12) | VI | VI | VI | VI |
| West Lake (S13) | V | V | V | V |
| Gantang Lake (S14) | V | V | V | V |
| Mogu Lake (S15) | V | V | V | VI |
| Li Lake (S16) | VI | VI | VI | VI |
| Dongshan Lake (S17) | VI | VI | VI | VI |
| Moshui Lake (S18) | VI | VI | VI | VI |
| Liwan Lake (S19) | VI | VI | VI | VI |
| Liuhua Lake (S20) | VI | VI | VI | VI |
| Xuanwu Lake (S21) | VI | VI | VI | VI |
| Jingpo Lake (S22) | V | V | V | V |
| Nan Lake (S23) | VI | VI | VI | VI |
| Qionghai Lake (S24) | IV | III | VI | IV |