| Literature DB >> 33805544 |
Paola Patricia Ariza-Colpas1, Cristian Eduardo Ayala-Mantilla2, Qaisar Shaheen3, Marlon Alberto Piñeres-Melo4, Diego Andrés Villate-Daza2, Roberto Cesar Morales-Ortega1, Emiro De-la-Hoz-Franco1, Hernando Sanchez-Moreno5, Butt Shariq Aziz6, Mehtab Afzal6.
Abstract
This article contains methods, results, and analysis agreed for the development of an application based on the internet of things and making use of machine learning techniques that serves as a support for the identification of the saline wedge in the Magdalena River estuary, Colombia. As a result of this investigation, the process of identifying the most suitable telecommunications architecture to be installed in the estuary is shown, as well as the characteristics of the software developed called SISME (Estuary Monitoring System), and the results obtained after the implementation of prediction techniques based on time series. This implementation supports the maritime security of the port of Barranquilla since it can support decision-making related to the estuary. This research is the result of the project "Implementation of a Wireless System of Temperature, Conductivity and Pressure Sensors to support the identification of the saline wedge and its impact on the maritime safety of the Magdalena River estuary".Entities:
Keywords: IOT systems; Magdalena river estuary; aquifers; machine learning; salt wedge
Year: 2021 PMID: 33805544 PMCID: PMC8036609 DOI: 10.3390/s21072374
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Study area coordinates.
| Latitude | Length |
|---|---|
| −74.819661 W | 11.128976 N |
| −74.921967 W | 11.128557 N |
| −74.921548 W | 11.056439 N |
| −74.813092 W | 11.056020 N |
Figure 1Study area location.
Buoy location coordinates.
| Geographical Position | ||
|---|---|---|
|
| LAT. −74.845796 | LONG. 11.084671 |
|
| LAT. −74.838389 | LONG. 11.058955 |
Figure 2Installation process of the buoys with the sensor systems in the Magdalena River.
Figure 3Tools used for the development of the platform.
Figure 4Buoys’ graphs.
File structures from buoys.
| File | Boya_3.csv | Boya_7.csv |
|---|---|---|
| Fields (data columns) | Date, time, Battery Voltage, Conductivity depth max, Conductivity depth average, Conductivity depth min, Temperature Internal, Pressure depth max, Pressure depth average, Pressure depth min, RF IN, RF OUT, Charging Regulator, Temperature depth max, Temperature depth average and Temperature prof min. | Date, time, Battery Voltage, Conductivity depth max, Conductivity depth average, Conductivity depth min, Pressure depth max, Pressure depth average, Pressure depth min, RF IN, RF OUT, Charging Regulator, Temperature depth max, Temperature depth average and Temperature depth min. |
| Number of fields | 16 | 15 |
| Time frame | From 18 September 2019 at 12:06:17 pm to 5 December 2019 at 1:31:45 pm | From 25 September 2019 at 10:58:38 am to 5 December 2019 at 1:39:39 pm. |
| Number of instances (rows of data) | 15.683 | 13.988 |
Dataset Structure.
| Files | Boya_3_00_conduc_train.csv | Boya_3_15_conduc_test.cvs |
| Fields (data columns) | Date | Date |
| Number of fields | 2 | 2 |
| Time frame | From 09/26/2019 to 12/4/2019 | From 09/26/2019 to 12/4/2019 |
| Number of instances (rows of data) | 70 | 70 |
Figure 5(a) Conductivity measurement on Buoy 3. (b) Measurement of conductivity in Buoy 7.
Details of the experimentation scenarios.
| No. Scenario | No. Buoy | Training Dataset | Test Dataset |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | Boya_3_00_conduc_train.csv | Boya_3_15_conduc_test.cvs |
| 2 | Boya_3_30_conduc_train.csv | Boya_3_45_conduc_test.cvs | |
| 3 | 4 | Boya_7_00_conduc_train.csv | Boya_7_15_conduc_test.cvs |
| 4 | Boya_7_30_conduc_train.csv | Boya_7_45_conduc_test.cvs |
Figure 6(a) Scenario 1 results. (b) Scenario 2 results. (c) Scenario 3 results. (d) Scenario 4 results.
Figure 7(a) Quality metrics Scenario 1, (b) Quality metrics Scenario 2, (c) Quality metrics Scenario 3, (d) Quality metrics Scenario 4.
Figure 8(a) Mean Square Error Scenario 1, (b) Mean Square Error Scenario 2, (c) Mean Square Error Scenario 3, (d) Mean Square Error Scenario 4.
Model quality metrics.
| No. Scenario | Metrics | Real | Prediction | Scenario |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mean | 0.0613490 | 0.0623860 | −0.0010370 |
| Standard deviation | 0.0126820 | 0.0118150 | 0.0043640 | |
| 2 | Mean | 0.061465 | 0.062881 | −0.001416 |
| Standard deviation | 0.012894 | 0.010674 | 0.006691 | |
| 3 | Mean | 0.103661 | 0.103459 | 0.000201 |
| Standard deviation | 0.014309 | 0.013157 | 0.003998 | |
| 4 | Mean | 0.103643 | 0.103588 | 0.000054 |
| Standard deviation | 0.014406 | 0.012566 | 0.005294 |
Figure 9Quality metrics by scenario.
ANOVA analysis.
| Origin of the Variation | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Middle Square | F Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 0.007651 | 27 | ||
| Treatments | 0.007625612 | 3 | 0.002541871 | 2419.48221 |
| Residual | 0.000025 | 24 | 1.05058 × 10−6 |
One week predictions.
| Maximum Depth Conductivity (mS/cm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 |
| 21/11/19 | 0.045417 | 0.044500 | 0.102292 | 0.102167 |
| 22/11/19 | 0.047667 | 0.045750 | 0.097958 | 0.098542 |
| 23/11/19 | 0.047167 | 0.046833 | 0.093708 | 0.094875 |
| 24/11/19 | 0.048208 | 0.048542 | 0.086833 | 0.085583 |
| 25/11/19 | 0.050667 | 0.050333 | 0.089375 | 0.088708 |
| 26/11/19 | 0.047667 | 0.047000 | 0.084458 | 0.085708 |
| 27/11/19 | 0.043667 | 0.042667 | 0.082000 | 0.082375 |
| 28/11/19 | 0.043333 | 0.042667 | 0.079083 | 0.078083 |
| 29/11/19 | 0.041000 | 0.043333 | 0.075792 | 0.075250 |
| 30/11/19 | 0.042333 | 0.041667 | 0.074417 | 0.074750 |
| 1/12/19 | 0.041917 | 0.043125 | 0.074583 | 0.073667 |
| 2/12/19 | 0.044917 | 0.044875 | 0.073958 | 0.074250 |
| 3/12/19 | 0.048375 | 0.047417 | 0.073917 | 0.073292 |
| 4/12/19 | 0.048083 | 0.046917 | 0.073667 | 0.073292 |
| 5/12/19 | 0.046493 | 0.042732 | 0.076291 | 0.075819 |
| 6/12/19 | 0.046408 | 0.043084 | 0.077089 | 0.076664 |
| 7/12/19 | 0.044692 | 0.043668 | 0.076857 | 0.076707 |
| 8/12/19 | 0.043904 | 0.043828 | 0.076837 | 0.077289 |
| 9/12/19 | 0.042995 | 0.042498 | 0.077129 | 0.077586 |
| 10/12/19 | 0.042284 | 0.044327 | 0.077053 | 0.077652 |
| 11/12/19 | 0.043292 | 0.045224 | 0.076775 | 0.077708 |
Fisher table: F2.27 (5%) = 3.35–0.532; Fisher table: F2.27 (5%) = 3.35–0.532.