Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33988840›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022

Water quality assessment of a river using deep learning Bi-LSTM methodology: forecasting and validation.

Sakshi Khullar, Nanhey Singh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Finite-Element-Informed Pyramid Neural Network With Draco Lizard Optimizer for Accurate and Efficient Water Contamination Classification.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sakshi KhullarGuru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, 110008, India. sakshikhullar2809@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3548-3570
Nanhey SinghCSE, GGSIPU, AIACTR, Krishna Nagar Road Chacha Nahru Bal Chikitsalaya, Geeta Colony, Delhi, New Delhi, 110031, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Water is a prime necessity for the survival and sustenance of all living beings. Over the past few years, the water quality of rivers is adversely affected due to harmful wastes and pollutants. This ever-increasing water pollution is a big matter of concern as it deteriorating the water quality, making it unfit for any type of use. Recently, water quality modelling using machine learning techniques has generated a lot of interest and can be very beneficial in ecological and water resources management. However, they suffer many times from high computational complexity and high prediction error. The good performance of a deep neural network like long short-term memory network (LSTM) has been exploited for the time-series data. In this paper, a deep learning-based Bi-LSTM model (DLBL-WQA) is introduced to forecast the water quality factors of Yamuna River, India. The existing schemes do not perform missing value imputation and focus only on the learning process without including a loss function pertaining to training error. The proposed model shows a novel scheme which includes missing value imputation in the first phase, the second phase generates the feature maps from the given input data, the third phase includes a Bi-LSTM architecture to improve the learning process, and finally, an optimized loss function is applied to reduce the training error. Thus, the proposed model improves forecasting accuracy. Data comprising monthly samples of different water quality factors were collected for 6 years (2013-2019) at several locations in the Delhi region. Experimental results reveal that predicted values of the model and the actual values were in a close agreement and could reveal a future trend. The performance of our model was compared with various state of the art techniques like SVR, random forest, artificial neural network, LSTM, and CNN-LSTM. To check the accuracy, metrics like root mean square errors (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE), mean square error (MSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) have been used. Experimental analysis is carried out by measuring the COD and BOD levels. COD analysis reveals the MSE, RMSE, MAE, and MAPE values as 0.015, 0.117, 0.115, and 20.32, respectively, for the Palla region. Similarly, BOD analysis indicates the MSE, RMSE, MAE, and MAPE values as 0.107, 0.108, 0.124, and 18.22, respectively. A comparative analysis reveals that the proposed model outperforms all other models in terms of the best forecasting accuracy and lowest error rates.

Indexed as

Deep LearningWater QualityForecastingNeural Networks, ComputerRiversBi-LSTMCNNDeep learningWater quality predictionYamuna river

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.