Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Computational Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jocs

Assessment of groundwater arsenic contamination level in Jharkhand, India

using machine learning
Siddharth Kumar ∗, Jayadeep Pati
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Information Technology Ranchi, Namkum, Ranchi, 834010, Jharkhand, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper presents a machine learning approach for assessing groundwater arsenic contamination levels in
Naive Bayes Jharkhand, India. The water is essential for sustaining life, and the presence of heavy metals like arsenic
Multilayer Perceptron poses a carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk. In this study, various machine learning models viz Decision
Random Forest
tree, Random Forest, Multilayer Perceptron, and Naive Bayes algorithms were applied to classify the samples
Decision tree
as safe or unsafe, considering a provisional guide value of 0.01 mg/l as the benchmark. For classification,
different parameters viz DEM, subsoil clay content, subsoil silt content, subsoil sand content, subsoil organic
content, type of soil, and LULC were considered. Pearson correlation exhibited a positive and a negative
relation between considered parameters and arsenic occurrence. Parameters obtained were considered for the
classification of arsenic, and various evaluation criteria, such as accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, were used
to analyze models’ performance. Among the models, the Random Forest classifier outperforms other classifier
models in terms of performance. Thus, the Random Forest model can be used to approximation people prone
to arsenic contamination.

1. Introduction groundwater based on the spatial distribution map of arsenic. Ground-

Sustaining terrestrial and aquatic ecosphere groundwater plays an
important role. Ninety-eight percent of freshwater resource available
on the planet is in the form of groundwater; the rest, 2 percent, are
part of the cryosphere. Contamination of arsenic (As) in groundwater
is a growing concern because of its carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
risk, specifically in the plains of the Indo-Gangetic region of India [1].
Degradation of groundwater quality is due to runoffs and leaching
of minerals into groundwater aquifer due to weathering of rocks [2].
Other factors, i.e., geochemical, mineralogical composition of aquifers,
and anthropogenic sources, are also responsible for water quality degra-
dation. Elevated arsenic concentration above the guideline set by World
Health Organization 10 μg/L or 0.01 mg/l [3] in aquifer poses a severe
health risk [4]. Continuous water consumption with elevated arsenic
levels affects the body’s liver, bladder, and cardiovascular system. It
also affects the nervous system of children, is responsible for acute
skin-related conditions, and causes lung cancer [5]. According to the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) [6], arsenic
contamination in groundwater has been graded as a top substance
affecting humans’ health.
In the literature, most of the work assesses the risk associated due to
continuous consumption or dermal contact with arsenic-contaminated
water arsenic contamination is due to geologic, topography, sediment
characteristics, biogeochemical, hydro-geologic, and anthropogenic fac-
tors [7,8]. Various literature suggests that due to the dissolution of
minerals found in Quaternary deposits, groundwater aquifers are con-
taminated with arsenic [9,10]. As the Himalayan Glaciers melt the
arsenic-rich sediments carried by rivers are flooded in the plains of
Uttar Pradesh [11], Bihar [12], Jharkhand [13], West Bengal [14–
16], Assam [17], Punjab and Haryana [18]. There are various po-
tential mechanisms responsible for aquifers being contaminated with
arsenic in the plains of river Ganga and other parts of India. Firstly,
due to oxidation of arsenic-rich pyrite present in aquifers [19]. Sec-
ondly, due to the reduction of arsenic-bearing Fe (III) oxyhydroxides
present in aquifers [20]. Moreover, other intrinsic factors like ge-
ology, hydro-geochemistry, geomorphology, etc., and exogenous pa-
rameters like mining-related activities, agricultural pumping, LULC,
etc., are accountable for the contamination of arsenic in groundwater
aquifers [20].
In recent years several machine learning models have been created
to assess the quality of arsenic-contaminated groundwater. The logistic
regression model was used by [21] to create a spatial distribution map
of arsenic worldwide. Further, the logistic regression model has been
used to assess the risk of Shanxi province of China [22] considering

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: siddharth.rs@iiitranchi.ac.in (S. Kumar), jayadeeppati@iiitranchi.ac.in (J. Pati).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101779
Received 6 December 2021; Received in revised form 5 July 2022; Accepted 11 July 2022
Available online 20 July 2022
1877-7503/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Kumar and J. Pati
soil, topology, and geological parameters. Some studies considered
Holocene sediments, soil’s salinity, texture, and the topographic wet-
ness index to predict the quality of arsenic groundwater contamina-
tion [23]. Arsenic distribution in Cambodia’s groundwater [24] used
principal component and regression-kriging. In 2013 [25], the Linear
Regression model was used to assess the arsenic evolution in ground-
water of China’s Datong and Hetao basins. Moreover, Artificial Neural
Networks (ANN) were used to detect arsenic in groundwater [26] of
Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand. Furthermore, Bayesian modeling [27]
approach was used to characterize the arsenic groundwater contami-
nation of the Mekong river basin. A hybrid Random forest model was
proposed by [28] to create an arsenic distribution model for the Uttar
Pradesh district of India. Logistic regression was used [29] to model the
arsenic distribution in Gujarat state of India.
Machine learning models are more accurate in establishing the
relationship between different parameters. The country level model
created by [30] using random forest considered field observation of
arsenic data collected from March to July 2019 from the Ministry of Jal
Shakti [31] government of India database. Moreover, very few water
samples from wells and tube wells were tested for Jharkhand during
that period. Furthermore, the country-level model created by [32] con-
sidered secondary data collected from various published sources. Some
arsenic data for different states were collected from Central Ground
Water Board, Groundwater Year Book [32] from 2015–2016 and 2019–
2020. However, no detailed model had been created to assess the risk of
arsenic contamination in Jharkhand, India. The primary groundwater
source in Jharkhand are wells, borewells, and surface water like rivers,
lakes, and ponds. Various projects had been implemented with the
world bank’s assistance for proper drinking water supply and sanitation
in Jharkhand. As per the latest IMIS reports, out of 24 districts, only
4 districts have tap water connections in the range of 25%–50%, 14
districts have 10%–25%, and 8 districts have less than 10% tap water
connections. Therefore, most of the population depends on groundwa-
ter for daily use. An arsenic investigation approach is needed to monitor
and manage the public health related to arsenic poisoning in the state
of Jharkhand.
Thus, the study is significant as the machine learning model cre-
ated uses relevant parameters as inputs selected based on Pearson’s
correlation and classify the arsenic contamination level in Jharkhand.
The model created can be used for the classification analysis of new
groundwater samples. Moreover, based on the model’s accuracy, the
health risk of the people living in affected zones was approximated.
This work involves the application of different classification algorithms,
namely Decision tree, Random Forest, Multilayer Perceptron, and Naive
Bayes, to classify the samples as safe or unsafe. The models created
were analyzed based on assessment criteria like accuracy, sensitivity,
and specificity.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area and arsenic data acquisition
Jharkhand is located in the eastern part of India and has an area
of 79,714 km2 (30,778 sq mi) Fig. 1. It lies between 83◦ 329646′ to
87◦ 962287′ E longitude and 21◦ 970346′ to 25◦ 349452′ N latitude. The
state of Jharkhand is made of Proterozoic, Late Paleozoic–Mesozoic,
Archean, and Tertiary rock succession. The state is rich in mineral
deposits, i.e., coal, iron ore, bauxite, limestone, copper, etc. Out of
the total area of Jharkhand, 23,611.41 km2 , i.e., 29.62% of the state’s
geographical region, are covered with forest. As per the report of
the Indian census, the state’s population is 32.96 million, and the
population density is 414 per km2 . There are a total of 32 620 villages in
Jharkhand. Out of the total population, 75.95% of people live in rural
areas, whereas 24.05% people live in urban areas. As per the Jal Jeevan
Mission report, there are 59,23,320 households in Jharkhand, and to
date, 9,51,317 households had been provided tap water connection,
2
Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779
Table 1
Database sources used for classification.
Database Organization Website
Clay content Soil grids [33] https://soilgrids.org/
Silt content Soil grids https://soilgrids.org/
Sand content Soil grids https://soilgrids.org/
Organic content Soil grids https://soilgrids.org/
Type of soil Soil grids https://soilgrids.org/
LULC Esri [34] https://www.arcgis.com/
DEM United State Geological https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
Survey (USGS) [35]
which is 16.06%. Rest households, mostly in rural areas, depend on
bore wells, wells, lakes, and ponds for day-to-day uses.
A total of 32 620 arsenic concentration data was collected from
January 2012 to December 2020 at the village level for a broader and
more robust analysis of arsenic contamination levels in Jharkhand. The
groundwater samples were collected from the Ministry of Jal Shakti,
National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) Government of
India database [32]. NRDWP monitors groundwater quality through a
network of wells at the village level throughout the year. The ground-
water samples were laboratory tested to detect the presence of heavy
metal such as arsenic using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
(AAS) and Ultraviolet-Visible (UV–VIS) spectrophotometry.
2.2. Spatial analysis and data extraction
Based on various literature and findings, seven independent pre-
dictor variables were considered for classification. The data collected
from multiple sources used for modeling are shown in Table 1. The
data of independent variables, i.e., subsoil clay content, subsoil silt
content, subsoil sand content, subsoil organic content, Land Use and
land Cover (LULC), and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Jharkhand
was acquired from various databases in raster format. The datasets were
projected in Universe Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system
with the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 to maintain uniformity
among the parameters. These independent variables were indirectly or
directly associated with the occurrence of arsenic in groundwater.
ArcGis10.8 software was used to create the spatial maps of subsoil
clay content, subsoil silt content, subsoil sand content, subsoil organic
content, Land Use, and land Cover (LULC), and Digital Elevation Model
(DEM). A spatial map was created for all parameters at 30–60 cm
depth in the raster(.tif) file. After downloading all the raster files as
per the latitude and longitude of Jharkhand, the mosaic operation
was performed for uniformity in raster data. A shapefile of Jharkhand
was layered on the combined raster files, and a clip operation was
performed to get the spatial maps of the parameters.
After creating a spatial variability map of all the independent pa-
rameters, the village-level boundary shapefile of Jharkhand was pro-
jected on the top of each independent variable. The shapefile as Jhark-
hand has a total 32 620 number of villages, so as many data points were
created on the top of each variable. Using the extraction tool in ArcGis
software, the village-level data of Jharkhand for each independent
variable were extracted.
2.3. Statistical analysis
Before using the independent variables for model creation, all in-
dependent variables were statistically tested using IBM SPSS Statistical
Software 25 to find the arsenic relation and occurrence. The Univariate
feature selection method Pearson’s correlation was used to find the di-
rect or indirect association between independent variables and arsenic
occurrence. Before performing the feature selection method, the Null
Hypothesis (H0 ) was assumed that there is no relation between the oc-
currence of arsenic to independent variables, i.e., the correlation value
will be 0. Moreover, Alternate Hypothesis (H1 ) was assumed that there
S. Kumar and J. Pati
Fig. 1. Location map of the study area.
is either a positive or negative relationship between the occurrence
of arsenic to independent variables, i.e., the value ranges from −1 to
1 except 0. The Correlation obtained from Pearson’s correlation was
significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
2.4. Implementation of machine learning classifiers
2.4.1. Decision tree
The decision tree is the most preferred algorithm for classification
problems. Internal nodes represent the parameters in the decision tree,
and branches represent the decision rule. Leaf nodes represent the
classification result. A decision tree takes decisions based on the result,
and to get a class; it further splits trees into sub trees. The extracted
data were pre-processed and divided into 70:30 training and testing
sets. Entropy criteria for splitting the nodes and the maximum depth of
5 were chosen for fitting a decision tree.
2.4.2. Random forest
Random Forest is a machine learning algorithm used for classifica-
tion and regression tasks. Random Forest divides a dataset into several
subsets, and based on those subsets, the number of decision trees was
created. Random forest takes the average accuracy of all the decision
trees to give a final prediction. The extracted data were pre-processed
and divided into 70:30 training and testing sets. For fitting a Random
Forest, 300 numbers of estimators, entropy as a criterion, square root
as a max feature, and a maximum depth of 10 were chosen for better
accuracy.
2.4.3. Multilayer perceptron
MLP is a feed-forward Neural network. The previous layer’s output
was fed as input to the next layer, and their weights were associated
with them. The output of the nodes was multiplied by these weights
before reaching the input for the next layer. For training and testing the
model, two hidden layers with Relu activation function and a maximum
of 1000 iterations were used for classification. The extracted data were
pre-processed and divided into 70:30 training and testing sets.
3
Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779
2.4.4. Naive Bayes
Naive Bayes is a classifier algorithm based on the Bayes theorem.
It uses the Bayes theorem to predict the class based on the probabil-
ity of occurrence of a class. The extracted data were pre-processed
and divided into 70:30 training and testing sets. The variables con-
tain continuous data; therefore, Gaussian Naive Bayes was used for
classification.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Spatial analysis of parameters
Soil is a heterogeneous material found on the upper surface of the
earth. It consists of a mixture of air, water, and solid particles. Clay
is the fine-grained inorganic fraction with a particle size less than
0.0002 mm. The subsoil clay fraction value in the state of Jharkhand
ranges from 0 to 523 g/kg. From the spatial analysis of subsoil clay
fraction, as shown in Fig. 2.a., it was observed that the area near water
bodies had low clay content compared to the site away from water
bodies.
The organic content in soil is derived from the decomposition of
plant and animal debris into the soil. It has less than 10% of composi-
tion in soil. It consists of two types of fractions living and non-living.
The organic content value in the state of Jharkhand ranges from 0 to
383 dg/kg. From the spatial analysis of subsoil organic content Fig. 2.b.,
it was observed that the area near water bodies and forests had high
organic content compared to the site away from water bodies.
Sands are coarse-grained inorganic fragments with a particle size
of 0.06–2 mm. The subsoil sand content of Jharkhand (Fig. 3.a) was
derived from the soil grid database in digital format. The value of sand
content ranges from 0 to 611 g/kg. From the spatial analysis of subsoil
sand content, it was observed that the area with less elevation from sea
level had high sand content compared to the site with high elevation.
DEM represents the earth’s surface elevation, excluding buildings,
other surface objects, and forests. DEM of Jharkhand was derived
from the USGS database in the form of raster files. The elevation of
Jharkhand ranges from −150 m to 1308 m with reference to sea level.
The spatial analysis of DEM of Jharkhand is as shown in Fig. 3.b.
S. Kumar and J. Pati Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution map of (a) Subsoil clay fraction (g/kg), (b) Subsoil organic content (dg/kg) in Jharkhand.

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution map of (a) Subsoil sand fraction (g/kg), (b) DEM (m) of Jharkhand.

Different type of soils found in Jharkhand was downloaded from
the soilgrid database in raster files. In Jharkhand, 30 different types
of soils were found; as per literature, Fluvisols are responsible for the
occurrence of arsenic. The deposits form fluvisols bought down by the
rives and are younger alluvial deposits rich in Iron. The spatial map of
various types of soils of Jharkhand is shown in Fig. 4.a.
Subsoil silt is fine-grained inorganic fragments with a 0.002–0.06
mm particle size. The spatial analysis of subsoil silt content is as shown
in Fig. 4.b. The areas near water bodies had very low silt content
compared to areas away from water bodies.
LULC database of Jharkhand was extracted from the Esri website
and published on July 2021. The database was prepared using Sentinel
2 satellite imagery. The LULC of Jharkhand consists of 9 classes,
i.e., water, trees, grass, flooded vegetation, crops, shrubs, built area,
bare ground, and cloud. The Spatial analysis of LULC of Jharkhand is
shown in Fig. 5.a.
A spatial variability map of arsenic in groundwater of Jharkhand
(Fig. 5.b) was created using the Inverse distance weighting (IDW) spa-
tial Interpolation method using ArcGis 10.8 software. A total of 32 620
data was collected from January 2012 to December 2020 for each vil-
lage in Jharkhand from the Ministry of Jal Shakti, National Rural Drink-
ing Water Programme (NRDWP) Government of India database [32].
As per the World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline, the arsenic
concentration ≥0.01 mg/l poses serious health concerns. Based on these
criteria, the data points where the arsenic concentration is <0.01 mg/l

4
S. Kumar and J. Pati Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution map of (a) Types of soil, (b) Subsoil silt content (g/kg) in Jharkhand.

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution map of (a) LULC, (b) Arsenic concentration (mg/l) of Jharkhand.

were termed as safe(0), otherwise marked unsafe(1). The Inverse dis-
tance weighting method presumes that the distance between neighbors
is proportionate to the similarities and the proportion of association
between them. The samples’ weights in IDW decrease as the distance
between the samples and the projected points decreases. The weights
in IDW are distributed as per the distance of the estimated points. A
point with high power reduces to farther estimated points, distribut-
ing smaller power to neighboring points. Inverse distance weighting
assumes that the neighbor’s estimated points are more related to its
neighbors’ weight than distanced weights.
3.2. Data extraction from each independent variable
A total of 32 620 samples were extracted for eight independent
variables. The descriptive statistic and data description is as shown in
Table 2. The extracted value of subsoil clay content for the state of
Jharkhand is of continuous type and was measured in g/kg. Similarly,
DEM is of continuous type and was measured in meters. Moreover, the
type of soil was categorical type data, and a total of 30 types of soils
were found in Jharkhand.

5
S. Kumar and J. Pati Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779

Table 2 Table 4
Descriptive statistic and data description. Confusion matrix and results obtained for machine learning algorithms.
Variable Type Max Min Mean Mode Median Algorithms Safe Unsafe Accuracy Sensitivity Specificity
Arsenic Continuous 0.98 0 0.19 0 0.12 Safe 3327 819
Random forest 90.11 80.24 97.33
Clay Continuous 526 0 356.01 325 351 Unsafe 151 5518
DEM Continuous 1308 −43 222.65 144 184
Safe 3284 862
Organic content Continuous 383 0 61.13 52 56 Decision tree 84.65 79.20 88.63
Unsafe 644 5025
Sand Continuous 611 0 305.68 324 318
Silt Continuous 482 0 336.35 335 339 Safe 3012 1149
MLP 82.77 72.64 90.17
Type of soil Categorical NA NA NA NA NA Unsafe 542 5112
LULC Categorical NA NA NA NA NA Safe 3793 953
Naive Bayes 86.65 77.01 93.70
Unsafe 357 5312

Table 3
Pearson correlation with occurrence of arsenic.
Variable Pearson’s correlation of arsenic
Clay content −.020
Silt content .035
Sand content −.081
Organic content −.063
Type of soil .021
LULC .036
DEM .027
LULC is a categorical data type, and there are 9 classes of land
use and land cover patterns found in Jharkhand. The value of subsoil
organic content extracted for Jharkhand is of continuous data type
and was measured in dg/kg. The value subsoil sand content extracted
for Jharkhand is the continuous data type and was measured in g/kg.
Moreover, the value of subsoil silt content extracted for Jharkhand
is of continuous data type and was measured in g/kg. The value
arsenic distribution extracted for Jharkhand is of continuous type and
was measured in mg/l. The data extracted from arsenic distribution
across Jharkhand was converted into two classes(0 and 1) based on the
guideline value (0.01 mg/l) of WHO. Total 32 620 arsenic data were
extracted for each village of Jharkhand, based on binary class 13 825
data were less than 0.01 mg/l and 18 795 data points were ≥0.01 mg/l.
The feature engineering process had been performed on the dataset to
get better accuracy before applying attribute selection to remove the
outliers and missing values.
3.3. Variable selection using Pearson’s correlation
Pearson’s correlation found that subsoil clay, organic, and subsoil
sand content were negatively associated with the arsenic occurrence.
Moreover, DEM, LULC, Type of Soil, and Silt were positively associated
with the arsenic occurrence.
Thus, the Null Hypothesis(H0 ) was rejected based on the result
obtained, and the Alternate Hypothesis(H1 ) was accepted. Therefore,
independent variables, as shown in Table 3, are considered for model
creation to classify arsenic as safe or unsafe in Jharkhand.
3.4. Classification using machine learning algorithms
The result obtained from Pearson’s correlation shows that all inde-
pendent variables were responsible for the arsenic occurrence. Machine
learning algorithms viz Decision tree, Random Forest, Multilayer Per-
ceptron, and Naïve Bayes were trained and tested after correlation
analysis on the extracted dataset. The confusion matrix and result of
various parameters viz accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were used
to analyze the performance of various machine learning classifiers. The
model that had overall high performance based on the accuracy (%),
sensitivity (%) (True Positive Rate), and specificity (%) (True Negative
Rate) was termed the best-suited model for the classification of arsenic
in Jharkhand.
The Random forest algorithms had the highest accuracy of 90.11%
(Table 4) compared to other machine learning models Fig. 6. The ability
of the model to correctly classify the content of arsenic in groundwater
of Jharkhand as ≥0.01 mg/l was represented by sensitivity or True Pos-
itive Rate(TPR). Moreover, after applying machine learning algorithms,
it was observed that the Random Forest algorithm had the highest
sensitivity value of 80.24% compared with other algorithms Fig. 7.a.
Furthermore, the specificity measures the ability of a model to correctly
classify the content of arsenic in groundwater of Jharkhand as <0.01
mg/l. From the simulation, it was observed that Random Forest had
the highest specificity value of 97.33% as compared to other models
Fig. 7.b.
Finally, from the results obtained, it was concluded that the Random
Forest model had the overall highest accuracy (%) of 90.11%, sensi-
tivity (%) of 97.33%, and specificity (%) of 80.24% with respect to
other algorithms. Thus, the Random Forest model accuracy result can
approximate the number of people prone to arsenic contamination.
3.5. Comparison of model performance with previous studies
Very few research had been performed to assess the groundwater
quality and potential risk of arsenic contamination in Jharkhand. The
previous study by [13,36] assessed groundwater quality and health risk
assessment in the Sahibganj and Ranchi districts of Jharkhand, India.
This study used machine learning techniques based on the groundwater
arsenic contamination in Jharkhand, India. Four machine learning
algorithms viz Decision tree, Random Forest, Multilayer Perceptron,
and Naïve Bayes were trained and tested to classify data as safe or
unsafe. Based on the result obtained Random Forest model performance
was best compared to other algorithms. A comparison of the result
obtained in this study and the previous research is shown in Table 5.
The accuracy obtained by this study was better as compared to other
state-level studies carried by [26,29]. Moreover, the performance of
this study in terms of accuracy was better compared to the county-level
research carried out by [32].
Country-level model created by [30] considered field observation
of arsenic data collected from March to July 2019 from the Ministry
of Jal Shakti government of India database. Moreover, after careful
data analysis in those periods, very few water samples from wells
and tube wells were tested for Jharkhand. For a broader and more
robust analysis of arsenic levels in Jharkhand, a total of 32 620 arsenic
concentration data were collected from January 2012 to December
2020 at the village level. The accuracy result obtained by this study
is comparable to the accuracy obtained by [30].
3.6. Application of machine learning classifier model outcomes
3.6.1. Approximation of population affected by arsenic contamination
As per the India census, the population of Jharkhand is 32 988 134
people and has a population density of 414 per sq km. Moreover, this
study found that the Jharkhand had 79 714 sq. km, out of which 5593
sq km had a high arsenic concentration (≥0.01 mg/l).
𝑃 𝐸 = 𝑅𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑃 𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ∗ 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝐹 𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 (1)

6
S. Kumar and J. Pati Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779

Fig. 6. Accuracy score of Random forest, Decision tree, MLP and Naive Bayes algorithms.

Fig. 7. (a) Sensitivity score of random forest, Decision tree, MLP and Naive Bayes algorithms (b) Specificity score of random forest, Decision tree, MLP and Naive Bayes algorithms.

Table 5
Result comparison of previous studies and this study.
Reference Study region Models used Accuracy (%)
Bindal et al. (2019) [28] Uttar Pradesh, India Hybrid random forest 84.6
Chakraborty et al. (2020) [37] Ganges River Delta, India and Bangladesh Random forest 93.0
Podgorski et al. (2020) [32] India Random forest 79.0
Wu et al. (2021) [29] Gujarat, India Logistic regression 70.0
Mukherjee et al. (2021) [30] India Random forest 94.0
Kumar et al Jharkhand, India Random forest 90.11

The approximate number of people exposed (PE) to arsenic was calcu-
lated using Eq. (1) [28], which is the product of the Random Forest
model’s accuracy and the study area’s population. Using Eq. (1), ap-
proximately 2,086 499 people live in high arsenic concentration region
of (≥0.01 mg/l) and are at high risk of developing carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic diseases.
3.6.2. Mitigation based on spatial map of arsenic
Based on the spatial distribution map of arsenic, various infrastruc-
tures must be developed in the affected regions. Creation of community
oxidation plants in affected regions that uses O3 , H2 O2 , Cl2 , NH2 Cl, that
oxidizes As𝐼𝐼𝐼 to As𝑣 [38]. As𝑣 is absorbed and removed more easily
onto the solid surface as compared to As𝐼𝐼𝐼 , giving arsenic-free water

7
S. Kumar and J. Pati
to the community. Moreover, the Coagulation–Flocculation plant can
be built for the community to treat water. It uses Fe and Al based coag-
ulants [39] that combine with floc created, and arsenic is precipitated
to get arsenic-free water. Iron oxides and hydroxides absorbents like
Zero Valent Iron (ZVI) Fe(0) [40], granular ferric hydroxide [41] and
hydrous ferric oxide [42] are most widely used to remove As𝐼𝐼𝐼 and As𝑣
from water. People should be encouraged to switch to another source
of arsenic-free water wells. Moreover, policymakers and government
can devise some plans to supply piped water and other arsenic removal
techniques of filtering water to the affected areas of Jharkhand.
4. Conclusion
This research article assesses the groundwater arsenic concentration
level of Jharkhand using machine learning. Arsenic poses a severe
threat to the population living in the affected areas. Based on the find-
ing of this study, parameters responsible for the occurrence of arsenic
such as subsoil clay content, subsoil silt content, subsoil sand content,
subsoil organic content, type of soil, LULC, and DEM were considered.
Moreover, the overall performance of the Random Forest Model was
the best, with an accuracy of 90.11%. Based on model performance, ap-
proximately 2,086 499 people live in high arsenic concentration region
of (≥0.01 mg/l) and are at increased risk of developing carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic diseases. A spatial map of arsenic can be used
to identify the regions affected, and various infrastructures can be
developed in the affected areas to safeguard the populations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Siddharth Kumar: Feature engineering, Statistical analysis, Spa-
tial analysis, Modeling, Risk assessment, Authored the manuscript.
Jayadeep Pati: Conceptualized the idea of the study and the
manuscript.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the fellowship provided by
University Grant Commission (UGC), New Delhi, in the form of Junior
Research Fellowship (JRF) and Senior Research Fellowship (SRF), to
conduct this research.
References
[1] A. Chattopadhyay, A.P. Singh, S.K. Singh, A. Barman, A. Patra, B.P. Mondal, K.
Banerjee, Spatial variability of arsenic in indo-gangetic basin of varanasi and its
cancer risk assessment, Chemosphere 238 (2020) 124623.
[2] S.A. Lone, A.A. Lone, G. Jeelani, Characterization of groundwater potential of
Sindh Watershed Western Himalayas, J. Res. Dev. 16 (2016) 29–41.
[3] WHO, Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Vol. 216, World Health
Organization, 2011, pp. 303–304.
[4] S. Bhowmick, S. Pramanik, P. Singh, P. Mondal, D. Chatterjee, J. Nriagu, Arsenic
in groundwater of West Bengal, India: a review of human health risks and
assessment of possible intervention options, Sci. Total Environ. 612 (2018)
148e169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.216.
[5] A. Das, S.S. Das, N.R. Chowdhury, M. Joardar, B. Ghosh, T. Roychowdhury,
Quality and health risk evaluation for groundwater in Nadia district, West
Bengal: An approach on its suitability for drinking and domestic purpose,
Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 10 (2020) 100351.
[6] ATSDR, Substance priority list, 2019, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/spl/index.html.
(Accessed 26 July 2021).
[7] M. Chakraborty, S. Sarkar, A. Mukherjee, M. Shamsudduha, K.M. Ahmed, A.
Bhattacharya, A. Mitra, Modeling regional-scale groundwater arsenic hazard
in the transboundary Ganges River Delta, India and Bangladesh: infusing
physically-based model with machine learning, Sci. Total Environ. 748 (2020)
141107.
8
Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779
[8] M. Shamsudduha, A. Uddin, J.A. Saunders, M.-K. Lee, Quaternary stratigra-
phy, sediment characteristics and geochemistry of arsenic-contaminated alluvial
aquifers in the Ganges–Brahmaputra floodplain in central Bangladesh, J. Contam.
Hydrol. 99 (1–4) (2008) 112–136.
[9] A. Mukherjee, A.E. Fryar, W.A. Thomas, Geologic, geomorphic and hydrologic
framework and evolution of the Bengal basin, India and Bangladesh, J. Asian
Earth Sci. 34 (3) (2009) 227e244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2008.05.
011.
[10] D. Postma, T.K.T. Pham, H.U. Sø, V.H. Hoang, M.L. Vi, T.T. Nguyen, F. Larsen,
H.V. Pham, R. Jakobsen, A model for the evolution in water chemistry of an
arsenic contaminated aquifer over the last 6000 years, red river floodplain,
Vietnam, Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta 195 (2016) 277e292, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.gca.2016.09.014.
[11] V.S. Chauhan, R.T. Nickson, D. Chauhan, L. Iyengar, N. Sankararamakrishnan,
Ground water geochemistry of Ballia district, Uttar Pradesh, India and mecha-
nism of arsenic release, Chemosphere 75 (1) (2009) 83e91, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.11.065.
[12] D. Saha, Arsenic groundwater contamination in parts of middle Ganga plain,
Bihar, Curr. Sci. 2597 (6) (2009) 753–755.
[13] P. Tirkey, T. Bhattacharya, S. Chakraborty, S. Baraik, Assessment of groundwater
quality and associated health risks: a case study of Ranchi city, Jharkhand,
India, Groundw. Sustain. Dev. (ISSN: 2352-801X) 5 (2017) (2017) 85–100,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2017.05.002.
[14] A. Mukherjee, A.E. Fryar, B.R. Scanlon, P. Bhattacharya, A. Bhattacharya,
Elevated arsenic in deeper groundwater of the western Bengal basin, India: extent
and controls from regional to local scale, ApplGeochem 26 (4) (2011) 600–613.
[15] D. Chakraborti, B. Das, M.M. Rahman, U.K. Chowdhury, B. Biswas, A.B.
Goswami, et al., Status of groundwater arsenic contamination in the state of
West Bengal, India:a 20-year study report, Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 53 (5) (2009)
542–551.
[16] R. Nickson, C. Sengupta, P. Mitra, S.N. Dave, A.K. Banerjee, A. Bhattacharya,
et al., Current knowledge on the distribution of arsenic in groundwater in five
states of India, J. Environ. Sci. Health A 42 (12) (2007) 1707–1718.
[17] S. Verma, A. Mukherjee, C. Mahanta, R. Choudhury, R.P. Badoni, G. Joshi,
Arsenic fate in the Brahmaputra river basin aquifers: controls of geogenic
processes, provenance and water-rock interactions, ApplGeochem 107 (2019)
171–186.
[18] A. Kumar, C.K. Singh, Arsenic enrichment in groundwater and associated health
risk in Bari doab region of Indus basin, Punjab, India, Environ. Pollut. 256 (2020)
113324, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113324.
[19] S.K. Acharyya, P. Chakraborty, S. Lahiri, B.C. Raymahashay, S. Guha, A.
Bhowmik, Arsenic poisoning in the Ganges delta, Nature 401 (6753) (1999) 545.
[20] F.S. Islam, A.G. Gault, C. Boothman, D.A. Polya, J.M. Charnock, D. Chatterjee,
J.R. Lloyd, Role of metal-reducing bacteria in arsenic release from Bengal delta
sediments, Nature 430 (6995) (2004) 68–71.
[21] T.J.B. Dummer, Z.M. Yu, L. Nauta, J.D. Murimboh, L. Parker, Geostatisti-
cal modelling of arsenic in drinking water wells and related toenail arsenic
concentrations across nova scotia. Canada, Sci. Total Environ. 505 (2014)
1248e1258.
[22] Q. Zhang, L. Rodríguez-Lado, C.A. Johnson, H. Xue, J. Shi, Q. Zheng, G. Sun,
Predicting the risk of arsenic contaminated groundwater in shanxi province,
northern China, Environ. Pollut. 165 (2012) 118e123.
[23] J.J. Lee, C.S. Jang, C.W. Liu, C.P. Liang, S.W. Wang, Determining the probability
of arsenic in groundwater using a parsimonious model, Environ. Sci. Technol.
43 (17) (2009) 6662e6668.
[24] L.R. Lado, D. Polya, L. Winkel, M. Berg, A. Hegan, Modelling arsenic hazard
in Cambodia: a geostatistical approach using ancillary data, Appl. Geochem. 23
(11) (2008) 3010e3018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2008.06.028.
[25] T. Luo, S. Hu, J. Cui, H. Tian, C. Jing, Comparison of arsenic geochemical
evolution in the datong basin (shanxi) and hetao basin (inner Mongolia), China,
Appl. Geochem. 27 (12) (2012) 2315e2323.
[26] K.H. Cho, S. Sthiannopkao, Y.A. Pachepsky, K.W. Kim, J.H. Kim, Prediction of
contamination potential of groundwater arsenic in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand
using artificial neural network, Water Res. 45 (2011) 5535–5544.
[27] Y.K. Cha, Y.M. Kim, J.W. Choi, S. Sthiannopkao, K.H. Cho, Bayesian modeling
approach for characterizing groundwater arsenic contamination in the mekong
river basin, Chemosphere 143 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2015.02.045.
[28] S. Bindal, C.K. Singh, Predicting groundwater arsenic contamination: regions at
risk in highest populated state of India, Water Res. 159 (2019) 65–76, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.054, Basin: insight from surface complexation
modeling. Water research 55, 30–39.
[29] R. Wu, J. Podgorski, M. Berg, D.A. Polya, Geostatistical model of the spatial
distribution of arsenic in groundwaters in Gujarat State, India, Environ. Geochem.
Health 43 (7) (2021) 2649–2664.
[30] A. Mukherjee, S. Sarkar, M. Chakraborty, S. Duttagupta, A. Bhattacharya, D.
Saha . . ., S. Gupta, Occurrence, predictors and hazards of elevated groundwater
arsenic across India through field observations and regional-scale AI-based
modeling, Sci. Total Environ. 759 (2021) 143511.
S. Kumar and J. Pati Journal of Computational Science 63 (2022) 101779

[31] National Rural Drinking Water Programme, 2021, https://ejalshakti.gov.in/ [41] W. Driehaus, M. Jekel, U. Hildebrandt, Granular ferric hydroxide—a new
imisreports/ (Accessed 7 September 2021). adsorbent for the removal of arsenic from natural water, J. Water Supply: Res.
[32] J. Podgorski, R. Wu, B. Chakravorty, D.A. Polya, Groundwater arsenic distri- Technol.—Aqua (1998) 30–35.
bution in India by machine learning geospatial modeling, Int. J. Environ. Res. [42] J.A. Wilkie, J.G. Hering, Adsorption of arsenic onto hydrous ferric oxide: effects
Public Health 17 (19) (2020) 7119. of adsorbate/adsorbent ratios and co-occurring solutes, Colloids Surf. A (1996)
[33] N.H. Batjes, E. Ribeiro, A. van Oostrum, Standardised soil profile data to support 97–110.
global mapping and modelling (WoSIS snapshot 2019), Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12
(2020) 299–320, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-299-2020.
Siddharth Kumar received the M.Tech. Degree in Computer
[34] Esri sentinel-2 10-meter land use land cover, 2021, https://livingatlas.arcgis.
Science and Engineering from the Central University of
com/landcover/ (Accessed 18 September 2021).
Punjab, Bhatinda, India, in 2015. He is currently pursuing
[35] United States Geological Survey, 2021, https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ (Accessed
Ph.D. degree in Computer Science and Engineering from
10 October 2021).
Indian Institute of Information Technology, Ranchi. His
[36] M. Alam, W.A. Shaikh, S. Chakraborty, K. Avishek, T. Bhattacharya, Groundwater
research interests include Data Science, Machine learning
arsenic contamination and potential health risk assessment of Gangetic Plains of
and Data Mining.
Jharkhand, India, Expo. Health 8 (1) (2016) 125–142.
[37] M. Chakraborty, S. Sarkar, A. Mukherjee, M. Shamsudduha, K.M. Ahmed, A.
Bhattacharya, A. Mitra, Modeling regional-scale groundwater arsenic hazard
in the transboundary Ganges River Delta, India and Bangladesh: Infusing
physically-based model with machine learning, Sci. Total Environ. 748 (2020)
141107. Jayadeep Pati received the B.Tech. Degree from the In-
[38] Y. Lee, I.H. Um, J. Yoon, Arsenic (III) oxidation by iron (VI)(ferrate) and stitute of Technical Education and Research, Bhubaneswar,
subsequent removal of arsenic (V) by iron (III) coagulation, Environ. Sci. Technol. India, in 2010, the M.Tech. Degree from the National
(2003) 5750–5756. Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India, in 2012, and the
[39] V. Pallier, G. Feuillade-Cathalifaud, B. Serpaud, J.C. Bollinger, Effect of organic Ph.D. degree from IIT (BHU), Varanasi. He is currently an
matter on arsenic removal during coagulation/flocculation treatment, J. Colloid Assistant Professor with the Indian Institute of Information
Interface Sci. (2010) 26–32. Technology, Ranchi. His research interests include machine
[40] D.E. Giles, M. Mohapatra, T.B. Issa, S. Anand, P. Singh, Iron and aluminium learning and software engineering.
based adsorption strategies for removing arsenic from water, J. Environ. Manag.
(2011) 3011–3022.