481
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Water quality monitoring at a virtual watershed monitoring station using a modified deep extreme learning machine

, , , &
Pages 415-426 | Received 15 Feb 2019, Accepted 02 Oct 2019, Published online: 17 Dec 2019

Figures & data

Figure 1. Structure of the basic auto-encoder.

Figure 1. Structure of the basic auto-encoder.

Figure 2. Structure of the ELM-CDAE.

Figure 2. Structure of the ELM-CDAE.

Figure 3. Structure of the proposed model (ELM-CDAE).

Figure 3. Structure of the proposed model (ELM-CDAE).

Figure 4. Distribution of the water quality monitoring stations in the study area.

Figure 4. Distribution of the water quality monitoring stations in the study area.

Table 1. Correlation coefficient of water temperature and electrical conductivity between different stations. #1 is the First Zengwen Bridge station and #8 is Xigang Bridge station (see ).

Table 2. Reference stations for different virtual stations in predicting water temperature and electrical conductivity.

Figure 5. Predictive effect of the model on water temperature at different depths: (a) station #1, (b) station #3, (c) station #5 and (d) station #7.

Figure 5. Predictive effect of the model on water temperature at different depths: (a) station #1, (b) station #3, (c) station #5 and (d) station #7.

Figure 6. Predictive effect of the model on electrical conductivity at different depths: (a) station #1, (b) station #3, (c) station #5 and (d) station #7.

Figure 6. Predictive effect of the model on electrical conductivity at different depths: (a) station #1, (b) station #3, (c) station #5 and (d) station #7.

Figure 7. Prediction of water temperature for four virtual monitoring stations by different models: (a) station #1, (b) station #3, (c) station #5 and (d) station #7.

Figure 7. Prediction of water temperature for four virtual monitoring stations by different models: (a) station #1, (b) station #3, (c) station #5 and (d) station #7.

Figure 8. Predictions of electrical conductivity for four virtual monitoring stations by different models: (a) station #1, (b) station #3, (c) station #5 and (d) station #7.

Figure 8. Predictions of electrical conductivity for four virtual monitoring stations by different models: (a) station #1, (b) station #3, (c) station #5 and (d) station #7.

Table 3. Prediction results of different models for water temperature at different stations.

Table 4. Prediction results of different models for electrical conductivity at different stations.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.