Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fuzzy c-means and K-means clustering with genetic algorithm for identification of homogeneous regions of groundwater quality

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, two different clustering algorithms, fuzzy c-means (FCM) and K-means with genetic algorithm, were used to identify the homogeneous regions in terms of groundwater water quality. For this purpose, data of 14 hydrochemical parameters from 108 wells were sampled in 2016, Golestan province, northeast of Iran. The results showed that the optimal clusters of the K-means and FCM were 5 and 6, respectively. The evaluation of water quality by FCM for drinking uses showed that in terms of total dissolved solid (TDS) and chlorine (Cl) parameters, cluster 3 was in an unfavorable condition. Moreover, according to the K-means algorithm, cluster 1 was in inappropriate condition in terms of the TDS and Cl. Water quality assessment by FCM for agricultural use showed that in general, cluster 3 was not in a good condition, especially for the electrical conductivity (EC) parameter. Also, according to the K-means, in general, cluster 1 had an inappropriate state for the EC and sodium adsorption ratio parameters. Investigating the hydrochemical facies of clusters using the FCM and K-means showed that in the northern half of the Golestan province, most samples are Cl–Na and in the southern half, most of the samples are HCO3–Ca. In general, by comparing the results of clustering algorithms, it was found that the FCM algorithm has better results than the K-means clustering algorithm, mainly due to consideration of uncertainty conditions in determining the class boundary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bricker OP, Jones BF (1995) Main factors affecting the composition of natural waters. In: Salbu B, Steinnes E (eds) Trace elements in natural waters. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mohammadrezapour O, Yoosefdoost I, Ebrahimi M (2017) Cuckoo optimization algorithm in optimal water allocation and crop planning under various weather conditions (case study: Qazvin plain, Iran). Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3160-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kathy P (2005) Water recreation and disease acute plausibility of associated infections: effects, sequelae and mortality. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  4. James CS (1999) Analytical chemistry of foods. Springer, New York, pp 136–140

    Google Scholar 

  5. Palamuleni LG (2002) Effect of sanitation facilities, domestic solid waste disposal and hygiene practices on water quality in Malawi’s urban poor areas: a case study of South Lunzu Township in the city of Blantyre. Phys Chem Earth 27(11–22):845–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Msonda KWM, Masamba WRL, Fabiano E (2007) A study of fluoride groundwater occurrence in Nathenje, Lilongwe, Malawi. Phys Chem Earth 32(15–18):1178–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Farooqi A, Masuda H, Firdous N (2007) Toxic fluoride and arsenic contaminated groundwater in the Lahore and Kasur districts, Punjab, Pakistan and possible contaminant sources. Environ Pollut 145(3):839–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaonga CC, Chiotha SS, Monjerezi M, Fabiano E, Henry EM (2008) Levels of cadmium, manganese and lead in water and algae; Spirogyra aequinoctialis. Int J Environ Sci Technol 5(4):471–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Makkasap T, Satapanajaru T (2010) Spatial distribution of Cd, Zn and Hg in groundwater at Rayong province. World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology, Istanbul, p 72

    Google Scholar 

  10. Srinivasa KD, Nagesh Kumar D (2011) Classification of micro watersheds based on morphological characteristics. Hydro-environ Res 5:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mumtaz R, Baig S, Kazmi SSA et al (2018) Delineation of groundwater prospective resources by exploiting geo-spatial decision-making techniques for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3370-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rizzo DM, Mouser JM (2000) Evaluation of geostatistics for combined hydrochemistry and microbial community fingerprinting at a waste disposal site. In: Critical transitions in water and environmental resources management. World water and environmental resources congress 2004, pp 1–11

  13. Thapinta A, Hudak P (2003) Use of geographic information systems for assessing groundwater pollution potential by pesticides in Central Thailand. Environ Int J 29:87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pisinaras V, Petalas C, Tsihrintzis VA, Zagana E (2007) A groundwater flow model for water resources management in the Ismarida plain, North Greece. Environ Model Assess 12:75–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rojas R, Dassargues A (2007) Groundwater flow modelling of the regional aquifer of the Pampa del Tamarugal, northern Chile. Hydrogeol J 15:537–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Valente JO, Pedrycz W (2007) Advances in fuzzy clustering and its applications. Wiley, England, p 434

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Williiams R (1982) Statistical identification of hydraulic connections between the surface of a mountain and internal mineral mineralized zones. Ground Water 20:466–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Farnham IK, Stetzenbach A, Singh JK (2000) Deciphering groundwater flow systems in Oasis Valley, Nevada, using trace element geochemistry, multivariate statistics, and geographical information system. Math Geol 32:943–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Güler C, Thyne GD, McCray JE, Turner KA (2002) Evaluation of graphical and multivariate statistical methods for classification of water chemistry data. Hydrogeol J 10(4):455–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hajalilou B, Khaleghi F (2009) Investigation of hydrogeochemical factors and groundwater quality assessment in Marand Municipality, northwest of Iran: a multivariate statistical approach. J Food Agric Environ 7(3–4):930–937

    Google Scholar 

  21. Edet A, Nganje Tn AJ, Ukpong AJ, Ekwere AS (2011) Groundwater chemistry and quality of Nigeria: a status review. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 5(13):1152–1169

    Google Scholar 

  22. Guler C, Thyne GD (2004) Delineation of hydrochemical facies distribution in a regional groundwater system by means of fuzzy c-means clustering. Water Resour Res 40:W12503. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goyal MK, Gupta V (2014) Identification of homogeneous rainfall regimes in northeast region of India using fuzzy cluster analysis. Water Resour Manag 28:4491–4511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bezdek JC (1981) Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective algorithms. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Chang YC, Chang B (2003) Applying fuzzy cluster method for marine environmental monitoring data analysis. Environ Inf Arch 1:114–124

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tutmez B, Hatipoglu Z, Kaymak U (2006) Modelling electrical conductivity of groundwater using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Comput Geosci 23(4):421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Guler C, Kurt M, Alpasalan M, Akbulut C (2012) Assessment of the impact of anthropogenic activities on the groundwater hydrology and chemistry in Tarsus coastal plain (Mersin, SE Turkey) using fuzzy clustering, multivariate statistics and GIS techniques. J Hydrol 414(415):435–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sivasankar V, Kameswari M, Msagati TAM, Venkarapathy M, Senthil Kumar M (2013) Fuzzy set approach—a tool to cluster Holy samples of groundwater quality parameters at Rameswaram South India. J Water Resour Ocean Sci 2(3):33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pourjabbar A, Sarbu C, Kostarelos K, Einax J, Buchel G (2014) Fuzzy hierarchical cross-clustering of data from abandoned mine site contaminated with heavy metals. Comput Geosci 72:122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zou H, Zou Z, Wang X (2015) An enhanced K-means algorithm for water quality analysis of the Haihe River in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(11):14400–14413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Caniani D, Esposito G, Gori R, Mannina G (2015) Toward a new decision support system for design, management and operation of wastewater treatment plants for the reduction of greenhouse gases emission. Water 7(10):5599–5616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Orkavalan G, Madurai Chidambaram S, Mariappan V, Kandaswammy G, Natarjana S (2016) Cluster analysis to assess groundwater quality in Erode District, Tamil Nadu, India. Circuits Syst 7(6):877–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, pp 92–97

  35. Rousseeuw PJ (1987) Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math 20:53–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunn JC (1974) A fuzzy relative ISODATA process and its use in detecting compact well-separated clusters. J Cybern 3:32–57

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Rao AR, Srinivas VV (2006) Regionalization of watersheds by fuzzy cluster analysis. J Hydrol 1(4):57–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bezdek JC, Ehrlich R, Full W (1984) FCM: the fuzzy c-means Clustering algorithm. Comput Geosci 10(2–3):191–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bezdek JC, Chuah SK, Leep D (1986) Generalized K-nearest neighbor rules. Fuzzy Sets Syst 18(3):237–256

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Wikaisuksakul S (2014) A multi-objective genetic algorithm with fuzzy c-means for automatic data clustering. Appl Soft Comput 24:679–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by university of Zabol. Omolbani Mohammadrezapour would like to thank the University of Zabol for financing this project (Grant number: UOZ-GR- 9517-33).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Water and Soil, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran

    Omolbani Mohammadrezapour & Fariba Pourahmad

  2. Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Ozgur Kisi

Authors
  1. Omolbani Mohammadrezapour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ozgur Kisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fariba Pourahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omolbani Mohammadrezapour.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohammadrezapour, O., Kisi, O. & Pourahmad, F. Fuzzy c-means and K-means clustering with genetic algorithm for identification of homogeneous regions of groundwater quality. Neural Comput & Applic 32, 3763–3775 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3768-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3768-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation