ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2019
Evaluation of geostatistical techniques and their hybrid in modelling of groundwater quality index in the Marand Plain in Iran.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy assessment of inverse distance weighting interpolation of groundwater nitrate concentrations in Bavaria (Germany).Environmental science and pollution research international · 2023Article
- Assessment of hydro-geochemical properties of groundwater under the effect of desalination wastewater discharge in an arid area.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Arsenic health risk assessment and the evaluation of groundwater quality using GWQI and multivariate statistical analysis in rural areas, Hashtroud, Iran.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Modeling groundwater quality by using hybrid intelligent and geostatistical methods.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Using Principal Components Analysis and IDW Interpolation to Determine Spatial and Temporal Changes of Surface Water Quality of Xin'anjiang River in Huangshan, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In many parts of the world, groundwater is considered as one of the main sources of urban and rural drinking water. Over the past three decades, the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of aquifers have been negatively affected by different factors such as excessive use of chemical fertilizers in agriculture, indiscreet, and over-exploitation use of groundwater. Therefore, finding the effective method for mapping the water quality index (WQI) is important for locating suitable and non-suitable areas for urban and rural drinking waters. In the present paper, the best method to estimate the spatial distribution of WQI was assessed using the inverse distance weighted, kriging, cokriging, geographically weighted regression (GWR), and hybrid models. Creating hybrid models can increase modeling capabilities. Hybrid methods make use of a combination of estimated model capabilities. In addition, to improve the results of cokriging, GWR, and hybrid methods, the auxiliary parameters of land slope, groundwater table, and groundwater transmissibility were used. In order to assess the proposed methodology, 11 qualitative parameters obtained from 63 observation wells in Marand Plain (Iran) were utilized. Four statistical measures, namely the root mean square error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE), the Akaike coefficient (AIC), and the correlation coefficient (R
Indexed as
Identifiers
31659709What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.