0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Sign in to save

Machine learning-guided determination of Acinetobacter density in waterbodies receiving municipal and hospital wastewater effluents

Scientific Reports 2023 10 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 40 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Temitope Cyrus Ekundayo, Temitope Cyrus Ekundayo, Mary A. Adewoyin, Oluwatosin Ademola Ijabadeniyi, Anthony I. Okoh Oluwatosin Ademola Ijabadeniyi, Etinosa O. Igbinosa, Anthony I. Okoh Anthony I. Okoh Etinosa O. Igbinosa, Anthony I. Okoh Anthony I. Okoh Temitope Cyrus Ekundayo, Anthony I. Okoh

Summary

Researchers trained 18 machine learning algorithms to predict levels of Acinetobacter bacteria — an indicator of water contamination — in rivers near wastewater treatment plants, finding that a gradient boosting model (XGBoost) achieved over 99% accuracy and that water temperature was the single most important predictor.

A smart artificial intelligent system (SAIS) for Acinetobacter density (AD) enumeration in waterbodies represents an invaluable strategy for avoidance of repetitive, laborious, and time-consuming routines associated with its determination. This study aimed to predict AD in waterbodies using machine learning (ML). AD and physicochemical variables (PVs) data from three rivers monitored via standard protocols in a year-long study were fitted to 18 ML algorithms. The models' performance was assayed using regression metrics. The average pH, EC, TDS, salinity, temperature, TSS, TBS, DO, BOD, and AD was 7.76 ± 0.02, 218.66 ± 4.76 µS/cm, 110.53 ± 2.36 mg/L, 0.10 ± 0.00 PSU, 17.29 ± 0.21 °C, 80.17 ± 5.09 mg/L, 87.51 ± 5.41 NTU, 8.82 ± 0.04 mg/L, 4.00 ± 0.10 mg/L, and 3.19 ± 0.03 log CFU/100 mL respectively. While the contributions of PVs differed in values, AD predicted value by XGB [3.1792 (1.1040-4.5828)] and Cubist [3.1736 (1.1012-4.5300)] outshined other algorithms. Also, XGB (MSE = 0.0059, RMSE = 0.0770; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.9912; MAD = 0.0440) and Cubist (MSE = 0.0117, RMSE = 0.1081, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.9827; MAD = 0.0437) ranked first and second respectively, in predicting AD. Temperature was the most important feature in predicting AD and ranked first by 10/18 ML-algorithms accounting for 43.00-83.30% mean dropout RMSE loss after 1000 permutations. The two models' partial dependence and residual diagnostics sensitivity revealed their efficient AD prognosticating accuracies in waterbodies. In conclusion, a fully developed XGB/Cubist/XGB-Cubist ensemble/web SAIS app for AD monitoring in waterbodies could be deployed to shorten turnaround time in deciding microbiological quality of waterbodies for irrigation and other purposes.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper