• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

地下水脆弱性模型——模糊DRASTIC与模糊DRASTIC-L的比较分析

A comparative analysis on groundwater vulnerability models-fuzzy DRASTIC and fuzzy DRASTIC-L.

作者信息

Saranya Thiyagarajan, Saravanan Subbarayan

机构信息

Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India.

Department of Civil Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chennai, India.

出版信息

Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Dec;29(57):86005-86019. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16195-1. Epub 2021 Sep 5.

DOI:10.1007/s11356-021-16195-1
PMID:34482480
Abstract

Groundwater vulnerability assessment using the fuzzy logic technique is attempted in this study. A hierarchical fuzzy inference system is created to serve the selected objective. The parameters considered in this study are similar to the seven parameters used in conventional DRASTIC methods; however, the effect of land use and land cover is studied by including it as an additional parameter in a model. A hierarchy is created by comparing two input parameters, say (D and R), and the output of the same is paired as an input with the third parameter (A) and so on using the fuzzy toolbox in MATLAB. Thus, the final output of fuzzy inference systems six and seven (FI6 and FI7) is defuzzified and mapped using ArcGIS to obtain the groundwater vulnerability zones by fuzzy DRASTIC and fuzzy DRASTIC-L. Each map is grouped into five vulnerability classes: very high, high, moderate, low, and very low. Further, the results were validated using the observed nitrate concentration from 51 groundwater sampling points. The receiver operating curve (ROC) technique is adopted to determine the best suitable model for the selected study. From this, area under the curve is estimated and found to be 0.83 for fuzzy DRASTIC and 0.90 for fuzzy DRASTIC-L; the study concludes that fuzzy DRASTIC-L has a better value of AUC suits best for assessing the groundwater vulnerability in Thoothukudi District.

摘要

本研究尝试运用模糊逻辑技术进行地下水脆弱性评估。创建了一个分层模糊推理系统以实现选定目标。本研究中考虑的参数与传统DRASTIC方法中使用的七个参数相似;然而,通过将土地利用和土地覆盖作为模型中的一个附加参数来研究其影响。通过比较两个输入参数(如D和R)创建一个层次结构,并将其输出与第三个参数(A)配对作为输入,以此类推,使用MATLAB中的模糊工具箱。因此,对模糊推理系统六和七(FI6和FI7)的最终输出进行去模糊化处理,并使用ArcGIS进行映射,以通过模糊DRASTIC和模糊DRASTIC-L获得地下水脆弱性区域。每张地图分为五个脆弱性等级:极高、高、中、低和极低。此外,使用从51个地下水采样点观测到的硝酸盐浓度对结果进行验证。采用接收器操作曲线(ROC)技术来确定所选研究的最佳适用模型。据此,估计曲线下面积,发现模糊DRASTIC为0.83,模糊DRASTIC-L为0.90;研究得出结论,模糊DRASTIC-L的AUC值更好,最适合评估杜蒂戈林地区的地下水脆弱性。

相似文献

1
A comparative analysis on groundwater vulnerability models-fuzzy DRASTIC and fuzzy DRASTIC-L.地下水脆弱性模型——模糊DRASTIC与模糊DRASTIC-L的比较分析
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Dec;29(57):86005-86019. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16195-1. Epub 2021 Sep 5.
2
A fuzzy logic-based approach for groundwater vulnerability assessment.一种基于模糊逻辑的地下水脆弱性评估方法。
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024 Mar;31(12):18010-18029. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-26236-6. Epub 2023 Mar 20.
3
Assessing groundwater vulnerability potential using modified DRASTIC in Ajabshir Plain, NW of Iran.采用修正后的 DRASTIC 模型评估伊朗西北部阿贾布希尔平原的地下水脆弱性潜力。
Environ Monit Assess. 2023 Mar 22;195(4):497. doi: 10.1007/s10661-023-10992-6.
4
Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in an urban area: a comparative study based on DRASTIC, EBF, and LR models.城市地区地下水脆弱性评估:基于 DRASTIC、EBF 和 LR 模型的比较研究。
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Oct;29(48):72908-72928. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-20767-0. Epub 2022 May 26.
5
Groundwater vulnerability and contamination risk mapping of semi-arid Totko river basin, India using GIS-based DRASTIC model and AHP techniques.利用 GIS 支持的 DRASTIC 模型和层次分析法技术对印度半干旱的托特科河流域的地下水脆弱性和污染风险进行制图。
Chemosphere. 2022 Nov;307(Pt 2):135831. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135831. Epub 2022 Aug 6.
6
Assessment of groundwater vulnerability using supervised committee to combine fuzzy logic models.基于监督委员会的模糊逻辑模型集成方法评估地下水脆弱性。
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017 Mar;24(9):8562-8577. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-8489-4. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
7
Enhancing groundwater vulnerability assessment: Comparative study of three machine learning models and five classification schemes for Cuddalore district.增强地下水脆弱性评估:三种机器学习模型和五种分类方案在库达洛尔地区的比较研究。
Environ Res. 2024 Feb 1;242:117769. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.117769. Epub 2023 Nov 28.
8
DRASTIC model adjusted with lineament density to map groundwater vulnerability: a case study in Rania basin, Kurdistan, Iraq.利用线性密度调整的 DRASTIC 模型进行地下水脆弱性制图:以伊拉克库尔德斯坦拉尼娅流域为例。
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021 Nov;28(42):59731-59744. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14912-4. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
9
Fuzzy-based assessment of groundwater intrinsic vulnerability of a volcanic aquifer in the Chilean Andean Valley.基于模糊理论的智利安第斯山谷火山含水层地下水固有脆弱性评估。
Environ Monit Assess. 2018 Jun 11;190(7):390. doi: 10.1007/s10661-018-6758-4.
10
Comparative assessment of groundwater vulnerability using GIS-based DRASTIC and DRASTIC-AHP for Thoothukudi District, Tamil Nadu India.基于 GIS 的 DRASTIC 和 DRASTIC-AHP 方法对印度泰米尔纳德邦图蒂库迪区地下水脆弱性的比较评估。
Environ Monit Assess. 2022 Nov 3;195(1):57. doi: 10.1007/s10661-022-10601-y.

引用本文的文献

1
Selection of AI model for predicting disability diseases through bipolar complex fuzzy linguistic multi-attribute decision-making technique based on operators.基于算子的双极复杂模糊语言多属性决策技术选择用于预测残疾疾病的人工智能模型
Sci Rep. 2025 Jun 1;15(1):19195. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-01909-z.