Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 923–937 | Cite as

Determination of biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen for semi-arid river environment: application of soft computing models

  • Hai Tao
  • Aiman M. Bobaker
  • Majeed Mattar Ramal
  • Zaher Mundher YaseenEmail author
  • Md Shabbir Hossain
  • Shamsuddin Shahid
Research Article


Surface and ground water resources are highly sensitive aquatic systems to contaminants due to their accessibility to multiple-point and non-point sources of pollutions. Determination of water quality variables using mathematical models instead of laboratory experiments can have venerable significance in term of the environmental prospective. In this research, application of a new developed hybrid response surface method (HRSM) which is a modified model of the existing response surface model (RSM) is proposed for the first time to predict biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and dissolved oxygen (DO) in Euphrates River, Iraq. The model was constructed using various physical and chemical variables including water temperature (T), turbidity, power of hydrogen (pH), electrical conductivity (EC), alkalinity, calcium (Ca), chemical oxygen demand (COD), sulfate (SO4), total dissolved solids (TDS), and total suspended solids (TSS) as input attributes. The monthly water quality sampling data for the period 2004–2013 was considered for structuring the input-output pattern required for the development of the models. An advance analysis was conducted to comprehend the correlation between the predictors and predictand. The prediction performances of HRSM were compared with that of support vector regression (SVR) model which is one of the most predominate applied machine learning approaches of the state-of-the-art for water quality prediction. The results indicated a very optimistic modeling accuracy of the proposed HRSM model to predict BOD and DO. Furthermore, the results showed a robust alternative mathematical model for determining water quality particularly in a data scarce region like Iraq.


Water quality variables Environmental prospects Soft computing models Euphrates River 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Acherjee B, Misra D, Bose D, Venkadeshwaran K (2009) Prediction of weld strength and seam width for laser transmission welding of thermoplastic using response surface methodology. Opt Laser Technol 41:956–967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afan HA, Keshtegar B, Mohtar WHMW, El-Shafie A (2017) Harmonize input selection for sediment transport prediction. J Hydrol 552:366–375Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed AAM, Shah SMA (2015) Application of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) to estimate the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of Surma River. J King Saud Univ Eng Sci.
  4. Balabin RM, Lomakina EI, Safieva RZ (2011) Neural network (ANN) approach to biodiesel analysis: analysis of biodiesel density, kinematic viscosity, methanol and water contents using near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. Fuel 90:2007–2015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barzegar R, Adamowski J, Moghaddam AA (2016) Application of wavelet-artificial intelligence hybrid models for water quality prediction: a case study in Aji-Chay River, Iran. Stoch Env Res Risk A 30:1797–1819. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behmel S, Damour M, Ludwig R, Rodriguez MJ (2016) Water quality monitoring strategies—a review and future perspectives. Sci Total Environ 571:1312–1329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beven K (2006) On undermining the science? Hydrol Process 20:3141–3146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouamar M, Ladjal M (2008) A comparative study of RBF neural network and SVM classification techniques performed on real data for drinking water quality. 2008 5th International MultiConference on Systems Signals and Devices 1–5.
  9. Ch S, Sohani SK, Kumar D, Malik A, Chahar BR, Nema AK, Panigrahi BK, Dhiman RC (2014) A support vector machine-firefly algorithm based forecasting model to determine malaria transmission. Neurocomputing 129:279–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chau KW (2005) Characterization of transboundary POP contamination in aquatic ecosystems of Pearl River delta. Mar Pollut Bull 51:960–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen XY, Chau KW (2016) A hybrid double feedforward neural network for suspended sediment load estimation. Water Resour Manag 30:2179–2194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho T (2007) Prediction of cyclic freeze-thaw damage in concrete structures based on response surface method. Constr Build Mater 21:2031–2040. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho SJ, Hermsmeier MA (2002) Genetic algorithm guided selection: variable selection and subset selection. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 42:927–936. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deng W, Wang G, Zhang X (2015) A novel hybrid water quality time series prediction method based on cloud model and fuzzy forecasting. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 149:39–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebtehaj I, Bonakdari H, Shamshirband S, Ismail Z, Hashim R (2017) New approach to estimate velocity at limit of deposition in storm sewers using vector machine coupled with firefly algorithm. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 8:04016018. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards JR (2007) Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. Perspectives on organizational fit:361–372Google Scholar
  17. Emamgholizadeh S, Kashi H, Marofpoor I, Zalaghi E (2014) Prediction of water quality parameters of Karoon River (Iran) by artificial intelligence-based models. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11:645–656. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahimi F, Yaseen ZM, El-shafie A (2016) Application of soft computing based hybrid models in hydrological variables modeling: a comprehensive review. Theor Appl Climatol 128:1–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fengxiang R, Xuanchi Z, Chao Z (2010) Application of rough set-SVM model in the evaluation on water quality. In: Proceedings - 2010 International Conference on Communications and Intelligence Information Security, ICCIIS 2010. pp 156–159Google Scholar
  20. Gazzaz NM, Yusoff MK, Aris AZ, Juahir H, Ramli MF (2012) Artificial neural network modeling of the water quality index for Kinta River (Malaysia) using water quality variables as predictors. Mar Pollut Bull 64:2409–2420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghorbani MA, Deo RC, Karimi V, et al (2017a) Implementation of a hybrid MLP-FFA model for water level prediction of Lake Egirdir, Turkey. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 1–15Google Scholar
  22. Ghorbani MA, Deo RC, Yaseen ZM, H. Kashani M, Mohammadi B (2017b) Pan evaporation prediction using a hybrid multilayer perceptron-firefly algorithm (MLP-FFA) model: case study in North Iran. Theor Appl Climatol 133:1119–1131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ghorbani MA, Deo RC, Yaseen ZM, Kashani MH (2017c) Pan evaporation prediction using a hybrid multilayer perceptron-firefly algorithm ( MLP-FFA ) model : case study in North Iran.
  24. Griensven A, Meixner T (2006) Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for river basin water quality models. Water Sci Technol 53:51–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gümrah F, Öz B, Güler B, Evin S (2000) The application of artificial neural networks for the prediction of water quality of polluted aquifer. Water Air Soil Pollut 119:275–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jadhav MS, Khare KC, Warke AS (2015) Water quality prediction of Gangapur reservoir (India) using LS-SVM and genetic programming. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 20:275–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jian C, Hongsheng H, Suxiang Q, Gongbiao Y (2010) Research on the water quality forecast method Based on SVM. In: ICMIT 2009: MECHATRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYGoogle Scholar
  28. Kadhem AJ (2013) Assessment of water quality in Tigris River-Iraq by using GIS mapping. Nat Resour 04:441–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keshtegar B, Heddam S (2017) Modeling daily dissolved oxygen concentration using modified response surface method and artificial neural network: a comparative study. Neural Comput & Applic:1–12Google Scholar
  30. Keshtegar B, Allawi MF, Afan HA, El-Shafie A (2016) Optimized river stream-flow forecasting model utilizing high-order response surface method. Water Resour Manag 30:3899–3914. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keshtegar B, Kisi O, Asce M (2017) Modified response-surface method : new approach for modeling pan evaporation. 22:1–14.
  32. Kewlani G, Iagnemma K (2008) A stochastic response surface approach to statistical prediction of robotic mobility. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 22–26.
  33. Khalil B, Ouarda TBMJ, St-Hilaire a (2011) Estimation of water quality characteristics at ungauged sites using artificial neural networks and canonical correlation analysis. J Hydrol 405:277–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim C, Choi KK (2008) Reliability-based design optimization using response surface method with prediction interval estimation. J Mech Des 130:121401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klaslan Y, Tuna G, Gezer G et al (2014) ANN-based estimation of groundwater quality using a wireless water quality network. Int J Distribut Sensor Netw 10:458329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu M, Lu J (2014) Support vector machine―an alternative to artificial neuron network for water quality forecasting in an agricultural nonpoint source polluted river? Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:11036–11053. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu S, Tai H, Ding Q, Li D, Xu L, Wei Y (2013) A hybrid approach of support vector regression with genetic algorithm optimization for aquaculture water quality prediction. Math Comput Model 58:458–465. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. May RJ (2008) Application of partial mutual information variable selection to ANN forecasting of water quality in water distribution systems. Environ Model Softw 23:1289–1299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moeeni H, Bonakdari H, Fatemi SE (2017) Stochastic model stationarization by eliminating the periodic term and its effect on time series prediction. J Hydrol 547:348–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moghaddam TB, Soltani M, Shahraki HS, Shamshirband S, Noor NBM, Karim MR (2016) The use of SVM-FFA in estimating fatigue life of polyethylene terephthalate modified asphalt mixtures. Measurement 90:526–533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muttil N, Chau K-W (2006) Neural network and genetic programming for modelling coastal algal blooms. Int J Environ Pollut 28:223–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muttil N, Chau KW (2007) Machine-learning paradigms for selecting ecologically significant input variables. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20:735–744. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Najah A, El-Shafie A, Karim OA, El-Shafie AH (2014) Performance of ANFIS versus MLP-NN dissolved oxygen prediction models in water quality monitoring. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:1658–1670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Noori R, Karbassi A, Ashrafi K et al (2013) Development and application of reduced-order neural network model based on proper orthogonal decomposition for BOD5 monitoring in river systems: uncertainty analysis. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 32:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olyaie E, Banejad H, Chau KW, Melesse AM (2015) Erratum to a comparison of various artificial intelligence approaches performance for estimating suspended sediment load of river systems: a case study in United States. Environ Monit Assess 187(4):4381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olyaie E, Zare Abyaneh H, Danandeh Mehr A (2017) A comparative analysis among computational intelligence techniques for dissolved oxygen prediction in Delaware River. Geosci Front 8:517–527. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Orouji H, Haddad O (2013) Modeling of water quality parameters using data-driven models. J Environ Eng 139:947–957. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Page RM, Besmer MD, Epting J, Sigrist JA, Hammes F, Huggenberger P (2017) Online analysis: deeper insights into water quality dynamics in spring water. Sci Total Environ 599–600:227–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palani S, Liong SY, Tkalich P (2008) An ANN application for water quality forecasting. Mar Pollut Bull 56:1586–1597. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahi KA, Halihan T (2010) Changes in the salinity of the Euphrates River system in Iraq. Reg Environ Chang 10:27–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ravansalar M, Rajaee T, Zounemat-Kermani M (2016) A wavelet-linear genetic programming model for sodium (Na+) concentration forecasting in rivers. J Hydrol 537:398–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roussouly N, Petitjean F, Salaun M (2012) A new adaptive response surface method for reliability analysis. Probabilistic Engineering MechanicsGoogle Scholar
  53. Sahu M, Mahapatra SS, Sahu HB, Patel RK (2011) Prediction of water quality index using neuro fuzzy inference system. Water Qual Expo Health 3:175–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shamshirband S, Mohammadi K, Tong CW, Zamani M, Motamedi S, Ch S (2016) A hybrid SVM-FFA method for prediction of monthly mean global solar radiation. Theor Appl Climatol 125:53–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shi B, Wang P, Jiang J, Liu R (2018) Applying high-frequency surrogate measurements and a wavelet-ANN model to provide early warnings of rapid surface water quality anomalies. Sci Total Environ 610–611:1390–1399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Singh KP, Basant A, Malik A, Jain G (2009) Artificial neural network modeling of the river water quality—a case study. Ecol Model 220:888–895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Singh KP, Basant N, Gupta S (2011) Support vector machines in water quality management. Anal Chim Acta 703:152–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Song S, Zheng X, Li F (2010) Surface water quality forecasting based on ANN and GIS for the Chanzhi reservoir, China. In: 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Engineering, ICISE2010 - Proceedings. pp 4094–4097Google Scholar
  59. Sreekanth J, Datta B (2010) Multi-objective management of saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers using genetic programming and modular neural network based surrogate models. J Hydrol 393:245–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sudheer KP, Chaubey I, Garg V (2006) Lake water quality assessment from landsat thematic mapper data using neural network: an approach to optimal band combination selection. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:1683–1695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tao H, Diop L, Bodian A, et al (2018) Reference evapotranspiration prediction using hybridized fuzzy model with firefly algorithm: regional case study in Burkina FasoGoogle Scholar
  62. Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res Atmos 106:7183–7192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vapnik V (1995) The Nature of statistical Learning TheoryGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang Z, Huang K, Zhou PJ, Guo HC (2010) A hybrid neural network model for cyanobacteria bloom in Dianchi Lake. Procedia Environ Sci 2:67–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang W, Xu D, Chau K (2014) Assessment of river water quality based on theory of variable fuzzy sets and fuzzy binary comparison method. Water Resour Manag 28:4183–4200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wei D, Cui Z, Chen J (2008) Optimization and tolerance prediction of sheet metal forming process using response surface model. Comput Mater Sci 42:228–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu W, Dandy GC, Maier HR (2014) Protocol for developing ANN models and its application to the assessment of the quality of the ANN model development process in drinking water quality modelling. Environ Model Softw 54:108–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu Z, Wang X, Chen Y, Cai Y, Deng J (2018) Assessing river water quality using water quality index in Lake Taihu Basin, China. Sci Total Environ 612:914–922. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xu L, Wang J, Guan J, Huang F (2007) A support vector machine model for mapping of lake water quality from remote-sensed images. Ic-Med 1:57–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yang XS (2010) Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1003–1409Google Scholar
  71. Yeniay O (2014) Comparative study of algorithms for response surface optimization. Math Comput Appl 19(1):93–104Google Scholar
  72. Yunrong X, Liangzhong J (2009a) Water quality prediction using LS-SVM with particle swarm optimization. In: WKDD: 2009 SECOND INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY AND DATA MINING, PROCEEDINGS. pp 900–904Google Scholar
  73. Yunrong XYX, Liangzhong JLJ (2009b) Water quality prediction using LS-SVM and particle swarm optimization. 2009 Second International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 900–904.
  74. Zhang R, Qian X, Li H, Yuan X, Ye R (2012) Selection of optimal river water quality improvement programs using QUAL2K: a case study of Taihu Lake Basin, China. Sci Total Environ 431:278–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zolnikov TR (2013) The maladies of water and war: addressing poor water quality in Iraq. Am J Public Health 103:980–987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zou R, Lung W-S, Wu J (2007) An adaptive neural network embedded genetic algorithm approach for inverse water quality modeling. Water Resour Res 43:1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentBaoji University of Arts and SciencesBaojiChina
  2. 2.Chemistry Department, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of BenghaziBenghaziLibya
  3. 3.Dams and Water Resources Department, College of EngineeringUniversity Of AnbarRamadiIraq
  4. 4.Sustainable Developments in Civil Engineering Research Group, Faculty of Civil EngineeringTon Duc Thang UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  5. 5.Institute of Energy Infrastructure, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Tenaga NasionalKajangMalaysia
  6. 6.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia

Personalised recommendations