# An Evaluation of À Trous-Based Record Extension Techniques for Water Quality Record Extension

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- It generates extended records with an underestimated variance [4,9,10,11,12]. Producing extended records with underestimated variance results from a bias in the estimation of extreme values, which as a result produces a bias in the estimation of exceedance and non-exceedance probabilities [4,5]. For WQ management generally and particularly for WQ assessment, high percentiles and extreme values are critical for evaluating whether WQ is within accepted limits or standards [13].

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Ordinary Least Squares Regression (OLS)

#### 2.2. Maintenance of Variance Extension Techniques (MOVE)

#### 2.3. Kendall–Theil Robust Line (KTRL & KTRL2)

#### 2.4. Robust Line of Organic Correlation (RLOC)

#### 2.5. Wavelet Transform

## 3. Empirical Experiment

## 4. Results and Discussion

_{1}= 90), and the WT-MOVE1 provided more precise results for small sizes (e.g., 60 records). Higher accuracy of the extended records’ standard deviation provided by the MOVE3 and MOVE4 approaches than the MOVE1 and MOVE2 is noted. This is attributed to the main difference between those techniques, where MOVE3 and MOVE4 were developed for small-size samples, unlike MOVE1 and MOVE2, which are based on population parameters. These results are in agreement with the results obtained by [10,27], where the four MOVE techniques were compared using streamflow and WQ data, respectively. This indicates the usefulness of the MOVE3 and MOVE4 for such small period of WQ records. The better accuracy provided by the KTRL2, RLOC, WT-KTRL2, and WT-RLOC approaches is due to the advantage of being insensitive to the existence of outliers and the ability to maintain variance of the extended records. These results are in agreement with results obtained by [27,28], which showed the better accuracy and precision provided by the KTRL2 and RLOC compared to MOVE techniques in the presence of outliers. For the extended records’ standard deviation, the WT data preprocessing step smooths the raw data into an approximation component that minimizes the influence of extreme values, which affects the extended records’ variance more than their mean value.

_{1}= 60 and 70) or the second least accuracy and precision for n

_{1}= 80 or 90.

## 5. Conclusions and Recommendations

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Halbe, J.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Sendzimir, J.; Adamowski, J. Towards adaptive and integrated management paradigms to meet the challenges of water governance. Water Sci. Technol.
**2013**, 67, 2651–2660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nalley, D.; Adamowski, J.; Khalil, B.; Biswas, A. A comparison of conventional and wavelet transform based methods for streamflow record extension. J. Hydrol.
**2019**, 582, 124503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Horne, J. Water Information as a Tool to Enhance Sustainable Water Management—The Australian Experience. Water
**2015**, 7, 2161–2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Khalil, B.; Ouarda, T.B.M.J.; St-Hilaire, A. Comparison of Record-Extension Techniques for Water Quality Variables. Water Resour. Manag.
**2012**, 26, 4259–4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khalil, B.; Adamowski, J. Record extension for short-gauged water quality parameters using a newly proposed robust version of the Line of Organic Correlation technique. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2012**, 16, 2253–2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Rabi, A.; Šperac, M. Implementation of Artificial Neural Networks in Modeling the Water-Air Temperature Relationship of the River Drava. Water Resour. Manag.
**2014**, 28, 1379–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nevitt, J.; Tam, H.P. A Comparison of Robust and Nonparametric Estimators under the Simple Linear Regression Model. In Proceedings of the Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA, 24–28 March 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Granato, G.E. United States, Office of the Natural and Human Environment, Geological Survey (U.S.). In Kendall-Theil Robust Line (KTRLine-Version 1.0): A Visual Basic Program for Calculating and Graphing Robust Nonparametric Estimates of Linear-Regression Coefficients between Two Continuous Variables; Techniques and methods of the, U.S. Geological Survey; Bibliogov: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Volume 4, p. 31. [Google Scholar]
- Hirsch, R.M. A comparison of four streamflow record extension techniques. Water Resour. Res.
**1982**, 18, 1081–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vogel, R.M.; Stedinger, J.R. Minimum variance streamflow record augmentation procedures. Water Resour. Res.
**1985**, 21, 715–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Robinson, R.; Wood, M.S.; Smoot, J.L.; Moore, S.E. Parametric modeling of water quality and sampling strategy in a high-altitude appalachian stream. J. Hydrol.
**2004**, 287, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Koutsoyiannis, D.; Langousis, A. Treatise on Water Science Chapter 27: Precipitation. Treatise Water Sci.
**2011**, 2, 27–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2015. Available online: https://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/water/water_quality.html (accessed on 1 June 2015).
- Lettenmaier, D.P. Multivariate Nonparametric Tests for Trend in Water Quality. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
**1988**, 24, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Berryman, D.; Bobee, B.; Cluis, D.; Haemmerli, J. Nonparametric metric tests for trend detection in water quality time series. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
**1988**, 24, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dietz, E.J. A comparison of robust estimators in simple linear regression. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput.
**1987**, 16, 1209–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Albek, E. Estimation of point and diffuse contaminant loads to streams by non-parametric regression analysis of monitoring data. Water Air Soil Pollut.
**2003**, 147, 229–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Olsson, O.; Gassmann, M.; Wegerich, K.; Bauer, M. Identification of the effective water availability from streamflows in the Zerafshan river basin, Central Asia. J. Hydrol.
**2010**, 390, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dery, S.J.; Mlynowski, T.J.; Hernandez-Henriquez, M.A.; Straneo, F. Interannual variability and interdecadal trends in Hudson Bay streamflow. J. Mar. Syst.
**2011**, 88, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vorogushyn, S.; Merz, B. Flood trends along the Rhine: The role of river training. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2013**, 17, 3871–3884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Calarullo, S.J.; Sullivan, S.L.; McHugh, A.R. Implementation of MOVE.1, Censored MOVE.1, and Piecewise MOVE.1 Low-Flow Regressions with Applications at Partial-Record Streamgaging Stations in New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1089. 20p. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2018/1089/ofr20181089.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2018).
- Jia, Y.; Culver, T.B. Bootstrapped artificial neural networks for synthetic flow generation with a small data sample. J. Hydrol.
**2006**, 331, 580–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ryu, J.H.; Svoboda, M.D.; Lenters, J.D.; Tadesse, T.; Knutson, C.L. Potential extents for ENSO-driven hydrologic drought forecasts in the United States. Clim. Chang.
**2009**, 101, 575–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Raziei, T.; Saghafian, B.; Paulo, A.A.; Pereira, L.S.; Bordi, I. Spatial Patterns and Temporal Variability of Drought in Western Iran. Water Resour. Manag.
**2008**, 23, 439–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Raziei, T.; Bordi, I.; Pereira, L.S. An application of GPCC and NCEP/NCAR datasets for draught variability analysis in Iran. Water Resour. Manag.
**2011**, 25, 1075–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khalil, B.; Awadallah, A.G.; Adamowski, J.; Elsayed, A. A Novel Record-Extension Technique for Water Quality Variables Based on L-Moments. Water Air Soil Pollut.
**2016**, 227, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khalil, B.; Adamowski, J. Comparison of OLS, ANN, KTRL, KTRL2, RLOC, and MOVE as record-extension techniques for water quality variables. Water Air Soil Pollut.
**2014**, 225, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khalil, B.; Adamowski, J. Evaluation of the performance of eight record-extension techniques under different levels of association, presence of outliers and different sizes of concurrent records: A Monte Carlo study. Water Resour. Manag.
**2014**, 28, 5139–5155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Helsel, D.; Hirsch, R.M. Statistical Methods in Water Resources (USGS Numbered Series No. 04-A3), Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Draper, N.R.; Smith, H. Applied Regression Analysis; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1966; 736p. [Google Scholar]
- Serinaldi, F.; Grimaldi, S.; Abdolhosseini, M.; Corona, P.; Cimini, D. Testing copula regression against benchmark models for point and interval estimation of tree wood volume in beech stands. Forstwiss. Centralblatt
**2012**, 131, 1313–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Moog, D.B.; Whiting, P.J.; Thomas, R.B. Streamflow record extension using power transformations and application to sediment transport. Water Resour. Res.
**1999**, 35, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Matalas, N.; Jacobs, B. A Correlation Procedure for Augmenting Hydrologic Data; (USGS Numbered Series No. 434-E), a Correlation Procedure for Augmenting Hydrologic Data, Professional Paper; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theil, H. A rank-invariant method of linear and polynomial regression analysis I and II. Indag. Math.
**1950**, 12, 173. [Google Scholar] - Groeneveld, R.A.; Conover, W.J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1980; 493p. [Google Scholar]
- Partal, T.; Kişi, Ö. Wavelet and neuro-fuzzy conjunction model for precipitation forecasting. J. Hydrol.
**2007**, 342, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Partal, T.; Cigizoglu, K. Estimation and forecasting of daily suspended sediment data using wavelet-neural networks. J. Hydrol.
**2008**, 358, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Adamowski, J.; Chan, H.F. A wavelet neural network conjunction model for groundwater level forecasting. J. Hydrol.
**2011**, 407, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pandey, B.K.; Tiwari, H.; Khare, D. Trend analysis using discrete wavelet transform (DWT) for long-term precipitation (1851–2006) over India. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2017**, 62, 2187–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Graf, R.; Zhu, S.; Sivakumar, B. Forecasting river water temperature time series using a wavelet–neural network hybrid modelling approach. J. Hydrol.
**2019**, 578, 124115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, Q.-J.; Shi, Z.-H.; Fang, N.-F.; Zhu, H.-D.; Ai, L. Modeling the daily suspended sediment concentration in a hyperconcentrated river on the Loess Plateau, China, using the Wavelet–ANN approach. Geomorphology
**2013**, 186, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tiwari, M.K.; Chatterjee, C. A new wavelet–bootstrap–ANN hybrid model for daily discharge forecasting. J. Hydroinform.
**2010**, 13, 500–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Mallat, S. A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Du, K.; Zhao, Y.; Lei, J. The incorrect usage of singular spectral analysis and discrete wavelet transform in hybrid models to predict hydrological time series. J. Hydrol.
**2017**, 552, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Renaud, O.; Starck, J.-L.; Murtagh, F. Wavelet-Based Combined Signal Filtering and Prediction. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cibern. Part B
**2005**, 35, 1241–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shensa, M. The discrete wavelet transform: Wedding the a trous and Mallat algorithms. IEEE Trans. Signal Process.
**1992**, 40, 2464–2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Zheng, G.; Starck, J.-L.; Campbell, J.; Murtagh, F. Multiscale transforms for filtering financial data streams. J. Comput. Intell. Financ.
**1999**, 7, 18–35. [Google Scholar] - Murtagh, F.; Starck, J.L.; Renaud, O. On neuro-wavelet modeling. Decis. Support Syst.
**2004**, 37, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El-Saadi, A. Economics and Uncertainty Considerations in Water Quality Monitoring Networks Design. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Engineering, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, N.E.; Shen, Z.; Long, S.R.; Wu, M.C.; Shih, H.H.; Zheng, Q.; Yen, N.-C.; Tung, C.C.; Liu, H.H. The empirical mode decomposition and the Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.
**1998**, 454, 903–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nelsen, B.; Williams, D.A.; Williams, G.P.; Berrett, C. An Empirical Mode-Spatial Model for Environmental Data Imputation. Hydrology
**2018**, 5, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Eze, E.; Halse, S.; Ajmal, T. Developing a Novel Water Quality Prediction Model for a South African Aquaculture Farm. Water
**2021**, 13, 1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chu, T.-Y.; Huang, W.-C. Application of Empirical Mode Decomposition Method to Synthesize Flow Data: A Case Study of Hushan Reservoir in Taiwan. Water
**2020**, 12, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]

**Figure 3.**The BIAS and RMSE results for the extended Na records for four different periods of concurrent records = 60; 70; 80; and 90.

**Figure 4.**The BIAS and RMSE results for the extended Na records mean value for four different periods of concurrent records = 60; 70; 80; and 90.

**Figure 5.**The BIAS and RMSE results for the extended Na records standard deviation for four different concurrent sizes = 60; 70; 80; and 90.

**Figure 8.**The BIAS (

**a**) and RMSE (

**b**) results for the extended Na records’ low percentiles for n

_{1}= 60 and 90.

**Figure 9.**The BIAS (

**a**) and RMSE (

**b**) results for the extended Na records’ high percentiles for n

_{1}= 60 and 90.

Monitoring Locations | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | St. Deviation | Skewness | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Na | TDS | Na | TDS | Na | TDS | Na | TDS | Na | TDS | |

(mg/l) | ||||||||||

WE01 | 1.13 | 203.00 | 16.79 | 1411.00 | 4.14 | 667.99 | 1.96 | 179.36 | 2.84 | 0.61 |

WE02 | 1.20 | 216.00 | 58.71 | 4155.61 | 21.45 | 2138.95 | 10.40 | 772.74 | 0.52 | 0.16 |

WE03 | 1.16 | 213.00 | 68.02 | 4734.70 | 9.17 | 1118.71 | 6.57 | 450.35 | 6.38 | 4.46 |

WE05 | 0.31 | 232.00 | 33.05 | 2978.05 | 6.31 | 950.24 | 3.09 | 266.01 | 5.61 | 3.43 |

WE06 | 1.09 | 197.00 | 16.96 | 1602.07 | 7.01 | 946.12 | 2.51 | 207.51 | 1.31 | 0.43 |

WE07 | 1.13 | 210.00 | 37.71 | 3737.00 | 9.47 | 1141.43 | 6.14 | 514.64 | 2.66 | 2.97 |

WE08 | 3.00 | 562.00 | 62.41 | 6390.00 | 23.73 | 2313.47 | 14.24 | 1153.32 | 0.66 | 0.64 |

WE10 | 1.00 | 259.00 | 11.61 | 1426.00 | 5.70 | 835.95 | 1.88 | 168.32 | 0.86 | 0.41 |

WE11 | 3.52 | 642.00 | 44.53 | 3556.00 | 6.78 | 913.38 | 4.14 | 306.54 | 6.86 | 6.20 |

WE21 | 1.27 | 232.00 | 43.88 | 3624.00 | 17.36 | 1774.25 | 7.91 | 577.39 | 0.98 | 0.82 |

Monitoring Locations | p Value | |
---|---|---|

Na | TDS | |

WE01 | 3.35 × 10^{−91} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE02 | 6.03 × 10^{−99} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE03 | 5.76 × 10^{−96} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE05 | 4.71 × 10^{−94} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE06 | 3.19 × 10^{−99} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE07 | 6.58 × 10^{−99} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE08 | 3.40 × 10^{−102} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE10 | 8.20 × 10^{−97} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE21 | 6.03 × 10^{−99} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE11 | 2.00 × 10^{−102} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

WE21 | 6.03 × 10^{−99} | 1.80 × 10^{−102} |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Anwar, S.; Khalil, B.; Seddik, M.; Eltahan, A.; Saadi, A.E.
An Evaluation of À Trous-Based Record Extension Techniques for Water Quality Record Extension. *Water* **2022**, *14*, 2264.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142264

**AMA Style**

Anwar S, Khalil B, Seddik M, Eltahan A, Saadi AE.
An Evaluation of À Trous-Based Record Extension Techniques for Water Quality Record Extension. *Water*. 2022; 14(14):2264.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142264

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Anwar, Samah, Bahaa Khalil, Mohamed Seddik, Abdelhamid Eltahan, and Aiman El Saadi.
2022. "An Evaluation of À Trous-Based Record Extension Techniques for Water Quality Record Extension" *Water* 14, no. 14: 2264.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142264