journal article·2021-10-26Open access

Assessing Nitrate Contamination Risks in Groundwater: A Machine Learning Approach

Muhammad Awais, Bilal Aslam, Ahsen Maqsoom, Umer Khalil, Fahim Ullah, Sheheryar Azam, Muhammad Imran

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 21

Abstract

Groundwater is one of the primary sources for the daily water requirements of the masses, but it is subjected to contamination due to the pollutants, such as nitrate, percolating through the soil with water. Especially in built-up areas, groundwater vulnerability and contamination are of major concern, and require appropriate consideration. The present study develops a novel framework for assessing groundwater nitrate contamination risk for the area along the Karakoram Highway, which is a part of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) route in northern Pakistan. A groundwater vulnerability map was prepared using the DRASTIC model. The nitrate concentration data from a previous study were used to formulate the nitrate contamination map. Three machine learning (ML) models, i.e., Support Vector Machine (SVM), Multivariate Discriminant Analysis (MDA), and Boosted Regression Trees (BRT), were used to analyze the probability of groundwater contamination incidence. Furthermore, groundwater contamination probability maps were obtained utilizing the ensemble modeling approach. The models were calibrated and validated through calibration trials, using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve method (AUC), where a minimum AUC threshold value of 80% was achieved. Results indicated the accuracy of the models to be in the range of 0.82–0.87. The final groundwater contamination risk map highlights that 34% of the area is moderately vulnerable to groundwater contamination, and 13% of the area is exposed to high groundwater contamination risk. The findings of this study can facilitate decision-making regarding the location of future built-up areas properly in order to mitigate the nitrate contamination that can further reduce the associated health risks.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Groundwater and Isotope Geochemistry · Groundwater and Watershed Analysis · Hydrological Forecasting Using AI

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore 637551, Singapore

School of Informatics, Computing, and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA

Department of Civil Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Cantt 47040, Pakistan

ITC Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands

School of Civil Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, QLD 4300, Australia

Department of Engineering and Sciences, University of Greenwich at Medway, Gillingham ME7 1FT, UK

School of Engineering, Information Technology, and Physical Sciences, Federation University, Brisbane City, QLD 4000, Australia

References (98)

Show source-provided references
1. An ensemble forecast of semi-arid rainfall using large-scale climate predictors10.1002/met.1635 ↗
2. Shafri; Estimating groundwater vulnerability to pollution using a modified DRASTIC model in the Kerman agricultural area, Iran10.1007/s12665-013-2690-7 ↗
3. Maqsoom, A., Aslam, B., Khalil, U., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Ashraf, H., Tufail, R.F.F., Farooq, D., and Blaschke, T. (2020). A GIS-based DRASTIC Model and an Adjusted DRASTIC Model (DRASTICA) for Groundwater Susceptibility Assessment along the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) Route. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 9.10.3390/ijgi9050332 ↗
4. Fluoride prevalence in groundwater around a fluorite mining area in the flood plain of the River Swat, Pakistan10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.064 ↗
5. Combined impacts of future land-use and climate stressors on water resources and quality in groundwater and surface waterbodies of the upper Thames river basin, UK10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.052 ↗
6. Groundwater nitrate response to sustainable nitrogen management10.1038/s41598-017-07147-2 ↗
7. Nitrate Pollution of groundwater by pit latrines in developing countries10.3934/environsci.2015.2.302 ↗
8. Source apportionment of pollution in groundwater source area using factor analysis and positive matrix factorization methods10.1080/10807039.2017.1322894 ↗
9. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability and risk to pollution in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.021 ↗
10. Ullah, F., Sepasgozar, S.M., Thaheem, M.J., Wang, C.C., and Imran, M. (2021). It’s all about perceptions: A DEMATEL approach to exploring user perceptions of real estate online platforms. Ain Shams Eng. J.10.1016/j.asej.2021.04.023 ↗
11. Modelling users’ perception of the online real estate platforms in a digitally disruptive environment: An integrated KANO-SISQual approach10.1016/j.tele.2021.101660 ↗
12. Ullah, F. (2021). A beginner’s guide to developing review-based conceptual frameworks in the built environment. Architecture, 1.10.3390/architecture1010003 ↗
13. Munawar, H.S., Ullah, F., Qayyum, S., and Heravi, A. (2021). Application of Deep Learning on UAV-Based Aerial Images for Flood Detection. Smart Cities, 4.10.3390/smartcities4030065 ↗
14. Performance of CMORPH, TMPA, and PERSIANN rainfall datasets over plain, mountainous, and glacial regions of Pakistan10.1007/s00704-016-2027-z ↗
15. A novel machine learning-based approach for the risk assessment of nitrate groundwater contamination10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.054 ↗
16. Geochemical modeling, source apportionment, health risk exposure and control of higher fluoride in groundwater of sub-district Dargai, Pakistan10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125409 ↗
17. Water quality assessment and apportionment of northern Pakistan by multivariate statistical techniques, a case study
18. Groundwater risk assessment model (GRAM): Groundwater risk assessment model for wellfield protection10.3390/w5031419 ↗
19. The aquifer pollution vulnerability concept: Aid or impediment in promoting groundwater protection?10.1007/s10040-013-1019-7 ↗
20. Vrba, J., and Zaporozec, A. (1994). Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability, Heise.
21. Current trends and future challenges in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay and index methods10.1007/s002540050466 ↗
22. DRAV model and its application in assessing groundwater vulnerability in arid area: A case study of pore phreatic water in Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, Northwest China10.1007/s12665-009-0250-y ↗
23. Comparative study of specific groundwater vulnerability of a karst aquifer in central Florida10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.09.005 ↗
24. Foster, S. (1987). Fundamental Concepts in Aquifer Vulnerability, Pollution Risk and Protection Strategy, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research.
25. De Filippis, G., Ercoli, L., and Rossetto, R. (2021). A Spatially Distributed, Physically-Based Modeling Approach for Estimating Agricultural Nitrate Leaching to Groundwater. Hydrology, 8.10.3390/hydrology8010008 ↗
26. Narany, T.S., Ramli, M.F., Sulaiman, W.N.A., and Fakharian, K. (2014). Assessment of the Potential Contamination Risk of Nitrate in Groundwater Using Indicator Kriging (in Amol–Babol Plain, Iran). From Sources to Solution, Springer.10.1007/978-981-4560-70-2_50 ↗
27. Evaluation of an intrinsic and a specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinisation and nitrate contamination levels in two agricultural regions in the south of Portugal10.1007/s10040-004-0396-3 ↗
28. Comparison of the accuracy of kriging and IDW interpolations in estimating groundwater arsenic concentrations in Texas10.1016/j.envres.2013.12.005 ↗
29. Factors affecting the spatial pattern of nitrate contamination in shallow groundwater10.2134/jeq2006.0361 ↗
30. Development and evaluation of GIS-based ArcPRZM-3 system for spatial modeling of groundwater vulnerability to pesticide contamination10.1016/j.cageo.2011.01.011 ↗
31. The role of sensitivity analysis in groundwater risk modeling for pesticides10.1017/S0890037X00036101 ↗
32. GLEAMS: Groundwater loading effects of agricultural management systems10.13031/2013.30578 ↗
33. Vulnerability and risk evaluation of agricultural nitrogen pollution for Hungary’s main aquifer using DRASTIC and GLEAMS models10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.009 ↗
34. Nitrate transport modeling to evaluate source water protection scenarios for a municipal well in an agricultural area10.1016/j.agsy.2011.02.001 ↗
35. Assessing the impact of natural and anthropogenic activities on groundwater quality in coastal alluvial aquifers of the lower Liaohe River Plain, NE China10.1016/j.apgeochem.2013.01.001 ↗
36. Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS, modeling and a fuzzy logic tool10.1016/j.jconhyd.2007.07.008 ↗
37. Approaches to groundwater vulnerability to pollution: A literature review
38. GIS-based DRASTIC, Pesticide DRASTIC and the Susceptibility Index (SI): Comparative study for evaluation of pollution potential in the Nabeul-Hammamet shallow aquifer, Tunisia10.1007/s10040-013-0952-9 ↗
39. Integrated use of GLEAMS and GIS to prevent groundwater pollution caused by agricultural disposal of animal waste10.1007/s002679900144 ↗
40. Assigning land use to supply wells for the statistical characterization of regional groundwater quality: Correlating urban land use and VOC occurrence10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.056 ↗
41. Predicting groundwater nitrate concentrations in a region of mixed agricultural land use: A comparison of three approaches10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00111-7 ↗
42. Combined gamma and M-test-based ANN and ARIMA models for groundwater fluctuation forecasting in semiarid regions10.1007/s12665-017-6870-8 ↗
43. Precipitation forecasting using classification and regression trees (CART) model: A comparative study of different approaches10.1007/s12665-018-7498-z ↗
44. Delineation of groundwater potential zones using remote sensing and GIS-based data-driven models
45. Risk management in sustainable smart cities governance: A TOE framework10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120743 ↗
46. Maqsoom, A., Aslam, B., Gul, M.E., Ullah, F., Kouzani, A.Z., Mahmud, M.A., and Nawaz, A. (2021). Using Multivariate Regression and ANN Models to Predict Properties of Concrete Cured under Hot Weather: A Case of Rawalpindi Pakistan. Sustainability, 13.10.3390/su131810164 ↗
47. Ullah, F., Sepasgozar, S.M., Thaheem, M.J., and Al-Turjman, F. (2021). Barriers to the digitalisation and innovation of Australian Smart Real Estate: A managerial perspective on the technology non-adoption. Environ. Technol. Innov., 101527.10.1016/j.eti.2021.101527 ↗
48. Liakos, K.G., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S., and Bochtis, D. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18.10.3390/s18082674 ↗
49. Ullah, F., Khan, S.I., Munawar, H.S., Qadir, Z., and Qayyum, S. (2021). UAV Based Spatiotemporal Analysis of the 2019–2020 New South Wales Bushfires. Sustainability, 13.10.3390/su131810207 ↗
50. Investigating the flood damages in Lower Indus Basin since 2000: Spatiotemporal analyses of the major flood events10.1007/s11069-021-04783-w ↗
51. Machine learning algorithms for modeling groundwater level changes in agricultural regions of the US10.1002/2016WR019933 ↗
52. Mapping groundwater contamination risk of multiple aquifers using multi-model ensemble of machine learning algorithms10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.185 ↗
53. Large scale prediction of groundwater nitrate concentrations from spatial data using machine learning10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.045 ↗
54. Predicting uncertainty of machine learning models for modelling nitrate pollution of groundwater using quantile regression and UNEEC methods10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.320 ↗
55. Construction of environmental risk score beyond standard linear models using machine learning methods: Application to metal mixtures, oxidative stress and cardiovascular disease in NHANES10.1186/s12940-017-0310-9 ↗
56. A conceptual framework for blockchain smart contract adoption to manage real estate deals in smart cities
57. Applications of machine learning methods for engineering risk assessment—A review10.1016/j.ssci.2019.09.015 ↗
58. Prediction of bioconcentration factors in fish and invertebrates using machine learning10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.122 ↗
59. Machine learning for environmental monitoring10.1038/s41893-018-0142-9 ↗
60. Groundwater risk assessment based on optimization framework using DRASTIC method10.1007/s12517-016-2756-4 ↗
61. Aller, L. (1985). DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory.10.1021/bk-1986-0315.ch008 ↗
62. A modified-DRASTIC model (DRASTICA) for assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution in an urbanized environment in Lucknow, India10.1007/s12665-015-4558-5 ↗
63. A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh, India10.1016/j.apgeog.2007.07.008 ↗
64. Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based elementary multi criteria decision analysis as a spatial prediction tool–a case of predicting potential zones of sustainable groundwater resources10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.03.028 ↗
65. Groundwater potential mapping using C5. 0, random forest, and multivariate adaptive regression spline models in GIS. Environ10.1007/s10661-018-6507-8 ↗
66. Groundwater productivity potential mapping using evidential belief function10.1111/gwat.12197 ↗
67. Application of Dempster–Shafer theory, spatial analysis and remote sensing for groundwater potentiality and nitrate pollution analysis in the semi-arid region of Khuzestan, Iran10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.176 ↗
68. Spatial prediction of soil erosion susceptibility using a fuzzy analytical network process: Application of the fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach10.1002/ldr.3058 ↗
69. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x ↗
70. Schapire, R.E. (2003). The boosting approach to machine learning: An overview. Nonlinear Estimation and Classification, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-21579-2_9 ↗
71. Identification of soil erosion-susceptible areas using fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process modeling in an agricultural watershed of Burdwan district, India10.1007/s12665-019-8658-5 ↗
72. A simplified method of determining the average slope of land surfaces10.2475/ajs.s5-20.117.184 ↗
73. RivWidth: A software tool for the calculation of river widths from remotely sensed imagery10.1109/LGRS.2007.908305 ↗
74. Land-use classification schemes
75. Nohani, E., Moharrami, M., Sharafi, S., Khosravi, K., Pradhan, B., Pham, B.T., Lee, S., and Melesse, A.M. (2019). Landslide susceptibility mapping using different GIS-based bivariate models. Water, 11.10.3390/w11071402 ↗
76. Habibi, V., Ahmadi, H., Jafari, M., and Moeini, A. (2021). Mapping soil salinity using a combined spectral and topographical indices with artificial neural network. PLoS ONE, 16.10.1371/journal.pone.0228494 ↗
77. Support vector machine10.1007/BF00994018 ↗
78. River suspended sediment modelling using the CART model: A comparative study of machine learning techniques10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.293 ↗
79. Predicting nitrate concentration and its spatial distribution in groundwater resources using support vector machines (SVMs) model10.1007/s10666-015-9468-0 ↗
80. Hair, F.J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., and Tatham, L.R. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall.
81. Seismic activity prediction of the northern part of Pakistan from novel machine learning technique10.1007/s10950-021-09982-3 ↗
82. Correction to: Development of integrated deep learning and machine learning algorithm for the assessment of landslide hazard potential10.1007/s00500-021-06249-4 ↗
83. Integration of convolutional neural network and conventional machine learning classifiers for landslide susceptibility mapping10.1016/j.cageo.2020.104470 ↗
84. GIS-based groundwater potential mapping using boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and random forest machine learning models in Iran10.1007/s10661-015-5049-6 ↗
85. Application of a weights-of-evidence method and GIS to regional groundwater productivity potential mapping10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.09.016 ↗
86. Lee, S., and Oh, H.-J. (2012). Ensemble-Based Landslide Susceptibility Maps in Jinbu Area, Korea, in Terrigenous Mass Movements, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-25495-6_7 ↗
87. Using a binary logistic regression method and GIS for evaluating and mapping the groundwater spring potential in the Sultan Mountains (Aksehir, Turkey)10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.05.015 ↗
88. Application of analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio, and certainty factor models for groundwater potential mapping using GIS10.1007/s12145-015-0220-8 ↗
89. Yesilnacar, E.K. (2005). The Application of Computational Intelligence to Landslide Susceptibility Mapping in Turkey. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne].10.1007/1-4020-2409-6_1 ↗
90. Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability using DRASTIC model and GIS in Kiti aquifer, Cyprus
91. Dewan, A. (2013). Floods in a Megacity: Geospatial Techniques in Assessing Hazards, Risk and Vulnerability, Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-5875-9 ↗
92. Risk assessment of groundwater pollution using Monte Carlo approach in an agricultural region: An example from Kerman Plain, Iran10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.11.004 ↗
93. Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statistic10.1016/0304-3800(92)90003-W ↗
94. Financial distress prediction based on SVM and MDA methods: The case of Chinese listed companies10.1007/s11135-010-9376-y ↗
95. Performance assessment of individual and ensemble data-mining techniques for gully erosion modeling10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.198 ↗
96. Seasonal variations in N and O isotopes of nitrate in snow at Summit, Greenland: Implications for the study of nitrate in snow and ice cores10.1029/2004JD004991 ↗
97. Exact analytical solution of the convolution integral for classical hydrogeological lumped-parameter models and typical input tracer functions in natural gradient systems10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.027 ↗
98. Joint identification of contaminant source location, initial release time, and initial solute concentration in an aquifer via ensemble Kalman filtering10.1002/2016WR019111 ↗