Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment

journal homepage: www.editorialmanager.com/scenv

Environmental modelling of CO concentration using AI-based approach

supported with filters feature extraction: A direct and inverse chemometrics- ]]
]]]]]]
]]

based simulation
A.G. Usmana,b, Natacha Usanasea,d, S.I. Abbac, , Ilker Ozsahina,d, Berna Uzuna,e,f,
⁎

Mohamed A. Yassinc, Syed Masiur Rahmanh, Dilber Uzun Ozsahina,i,g

a
Operational Research Centre in Healthcare, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey
b
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey
c
Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Membranes and Water Security, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
d
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey
e
Department of Statistics, Carlos III Madrid University, Getafe, Madrid, Spain
f
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey
g
Medical Diagnostic Imaging Department, College of Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
h
Applied Research Center for Environment and Marine Studies, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
i
Research Institute for Medical and Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study explored the first direct and inverse modelling of Carbon monoxide (CO) concentration by applying
Environmental modelling three different computational approaches namely, Least Square-boost (L-Boost), Hammerstein Weiner (HW), and
Pollutant Multi-variate regression (MVR) models for modelling CO using Sulphur dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
CO and Ozone (O3). Two filters feature extraction methods were used in the input-combinations selection, which
Filters feature extraction
was classified into the direct modelling approach (C1) and inverse modelling approach (C2). Four different
Artificial intelligence
statistical metrics, including Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, Person correlation coefficient, mean absolute error and
mean absolute percentage error was used in evaluating the performance of the models. Based on the perfor­
mance skills of the models, it is indicated that the direct modelling approach showed superior performance to the
inverse approach. Furthermore, the non-linear models (HW and L-Boost) depict higher performance skills than
the linear MVR model. Overall, the L-Boost-C1 models showed higher performance based on statistical metrics.

1. Introduction
Environmental pollution issues such as water, noise, and air pollution
are increasing as cities expand economically and technologically. Because
of the direct impact of pollutants and particles on human health, air pol­
lution and its repercussions have sparked the scientific community's at­
tention. Diverse human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels,
agriculture, exhaust from factories and businesses, household heating, and
natural catastrophes are the primary contributors to air pollution [1].
According to some estimates, 4.2 million people died in 2015 due to
outdoor air pollution, with China and India leading the way [2].
Air pollution in low- and middle-income nations is gradually wor­
sening, posing significant health risks to expanding inhabitants that
consume enormous quantities of energy to fulfil residential and
industrial demands [3]. Excessive air pollution poses different health
hazards in different places based on area, weather, affluence, and var­
ious other variables [3]. In accordance with the World Health Organi­
zation [WHO], airborne effluence is described as any biochemical or
genetic factor that modifies the environment's quality by infecting the
inside or outside climate [4]. Sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (O3), and carbon
monoxide (CO) are all commonly well-known causes of air pollution
[4]. It has put the lives of seven billion people in danger. Short-term
exposure to these pollutants has caused a variety of health issues, in­
cluding lung cell degeneration, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory
disorders [1]. According to the American Lung Association, health is­
sues caused by air pollution cost the United States over 37 billion
dollars yearly, with California alone accounting for $15 billion [4].

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sani.abba@kfupm.edu.sa (S.I. Abba).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scenv.2023.100011
Received 17 February 2023; Received in revised form 15 May 2023; Accepted 22 June 2023
2949-8392/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al.
While numerous contaminants are investigated in data collection,
carbon is the air component that is responsible for greenhouse emis­
sions because varied spikes define every area's energy in carbon in­
tensities, such confined contaminants fluctuate across locations [5]. CO
is created when fossil fuels such as gasoline, natural gas, oil, coal, and
wood are burned incompletely [6]. CO is harmful because it may
combine immediately with haemoglobin in red blood cells to generate
carboxyhaemoglobin, which is very stable than oxyhaemoglobin and
stops erythrocytes from receiving O2. One part of CO in 500 parts of air
causes unconsciousness, and one part in 100 causes death within
minutes. CO alters neurons, resulting in neurobehavioral impacts.
Acute CO poisoning causes damage to the nerve system as well as the
cardiac system [7]. Globally, minimizing carbon emissions is a major
concern [5]. Because interpreting airborne pollution solely based on
chemical and physical measures is difficult, numerous techniques have
been developed across the world to overcome this matter. The quanti­
tated values created by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US-EPA) [8] and the European Environmental Agency (EEA)
[9] are now the most extensively utilized. Countries all around the
globe have responded to the problem of air pollution by making huge
investments aimed at reducing pollution depending on ecological cir­
cumstances. Investments in technology, such as artificial intelligence
(AI), are required to achieve the aim of cleaner air [1].
AI includes the field of machine learning. Regarding air pollution
prediction, AI and machine learning are the most widely utilized ap­
proaches for estimating future pollutant concentrations predicated on
information received from the simulation phase. Because of its relia­
bility and error sensitivity, machine learning is often recognized as the
most effective strategy for pollution prediction. As a result, there are an
increasing number of researches using machine learning models to
forecast pollutant concentrations. To anticipate pollutant levels or es­
tablish the variables that govern CO concentrations, two methodolo­
gical approaches are often utilized in studies. The first group uses so­
phisticated atmospheric diffusion algorithms that account for the
physiochemical equations that influence pollution levels. The second
group uses statistical tools and algorithms to represent the basic link
underlying a collection of independent and dependent values [7]. AI
provides an efficacious numerical application for modelling sophisti­
cated and non-linear relations among a collection of data input and
output. AI has been implemented in a variety of disciplines, from
medical to environmental sectors, to resolve some of these challenges
[7], [10], [11].
Various studies have been used in air pollution predictions empha­
sizing either a particular type of pollutant or combining them and
weighing their effects on the earth using diverse AI techniques. To es­
timate hourly PM2.5 values in Cyprus, a radial basis function (RBF) and
a multilayer perceptron (MLP) were employed by Paschalidou et al.
[12]. By applying generic regression neural network (GRNN), Wu et al.
[13] were able to predict PM10 concentrations regarding ozone pre­
diction. Gardner and Dorling [14] used hourly NOx and NO2 statistics,
as well as weather information to create an MLP model for Central
London (UK) and demonstrated that MLP surpassed the regression al­
gorithm. Shaban et al. [15] suggest and assessed three different
methods for predicting O3, SO2, and NO2, specifically i) regular SVM,
(ii) Simple Perceptron ANN, and (iii) Multivariate Regression Tree. The
findings reveal that MP5 is highly precise, though it is more challenging
to deploy. Using constructed ANN and adaptive network-based fuzzy
inference system (ANFIS) models, Noori et al. [16] applied an artificial
intelligence-based modelling technique to predict carbon monoxide
(CO) concentrations released daily in Tehran's and Iran's atmosphere.
They employed forward selection (FS) and gamma test (GT) meth­
odologies to choose input variables and create multiple models utilizing
ANN and ANFIS. The FSANN and FS-ANFIS algorithms were found to be
the most effective in forecasting pollution events by researchers [16].
Owing to the well-known adverse effects of air pollution on people
and the environment, the ability to analyze, predict, and monitor air
2
Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011
pollution is becoming increasingly important, especially in urban areas.
Even though, the commonly used methods in the literature are com­
posed of linear regressions, spatiotemporal analysis and traditional or
classical approaches in forecasting the highly non-linear behaviour of
the pollutants, one of the major limitations of these techniques is that
their linear mapping ability limits their accuracy and hence needs a
significant amount of computational time [1], [5].
To the authors' best knowledge and the literature scan as indicated
in Fig. 1, this is the first study that employs both direct and inverse
chemometrics-based simulation in pollution. More also, it is worthy of
note that this is the first study that utilizes both correlational matrix
analysis and sensitivity analysis as filters feature extraction in model­
ling CO. Thirdly, this is the first study that employs and compares the
performance of L-Boost, HW and MVR models for the prediction of CO
concentration. More also, the major motivation of the current study is
the implementation of different AI-based approaches for environmental
simulation of CO concentration.
The current study aimed at predicting the concentration of CO as a
potential air pollutant using multiple computational methods; Least
Square-boost (L-Boost), Hammerstein Weiner (HW), and Multi-variate
regression (MVR) using three different independent variables; NO2,
SO2, and O3. The impact and benefit of this research study could be
helpful to numerous sectors; medical, economical, technological, and
environmental sectors. Whereby the findings of the study can be used in
minimizing the effect of air pollutants on the ecosystem by various
researchers, Environmental scientists as well as policymakers.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The United States (U.S) is a prime study area for air pollution re­
search due to its diverse geography, industrial development, and po­
pulation density. The country is home to a wide range of industries,
including manufacturing, transportation, and energy production, all of
which contribute to air pollution. Additionally, the country's large and
varied population centres provide ample opportunities for studying the
health impacts of air pollution on different demographics. One area of
particular interest for air pollution research in the United States is the
Los Angeles Basin, which is known for its smog problem. This region
experiences high levels of ozone pollution, which can cause respiratory
problems and other health issues for the people who live there.
Scientists have conducted extensive studies in this area to better un­
derstand the sources of pollution and how it impacts the health of local
residents. Another important study area in the United States is the
Appalachian region, which has experienced significant air pollution
from coal mining and other industrial activities. The environmental and
health impacts of coal mining and burning have been well documented
in this region, and researchers continue to study the long-term effects
on local communities. The Great Lakes region is also an important area
for air pollution research, as it experiences high levels of pollutants
from both local and distant sources. The region's large cities, such as
Chicago and Detroit, are major contributors to air pollution, but pol­
lution from other sources, such as agricultural practices and power
plants, also affect the region.
2.2. Proposed methodology
The dataset used in this study was generated from the Kaggle
website (https://aqs.epa.gov/aqsweb/airdata/download_files.html).
All data-driven approach needs both a thorough awareness of science
and data competence [17]. In this study, three different data-driven
methods were utilized to model CO air pollution by utilizing NO2, SO2,
and O3 concentrations as input variables. The models used in the
modelling step were L-Boost, HW, and MVR. The main reason for em­
ploying multiple AI models in this study was the challenge in
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al.
Fig. 1. Major keywords used related to the application of machine learning in air pollution prediction.
determining the superiority of one model over the other in practical
situations. Hence, it is difficult for modellers to choose suitable models
for a particular situation. To simplify this complexity, various data-
driven approaches were evaluated and compared. As a result, both
linear correlation analysis and non-linear sensitivity analysis were
performed as pre-analysis filters for feature extraction before the
modelling step.
2.3. Least square boost (L-Boost)
Boosting is a controlled learning method that helps minimize pre­
conceptions and variability [18]. It turns a poor learner into a strong
one. A poor learner has a very weak correlation with the correct clas­
sification, whereas a great learner has a very strong correlation with the
genuine classification. By using the mechanism of a gradient boosting
system (GBM) [19], Friedman's suggested definition of gradient
boosting broadens the boost to regression. Gradient boosting [20] is a
phase-wise method for developing forecasting algorithms from a set of
weak estimating techniques. Decision trees are typically used for low-
level learners. To enhance a function with arbitrary differentiable loss,
generalization is used. Gradient boosting introduces forecasters to a set
in a logical manner, with each one adjusting the one before it. The
residual error is fitted to the improved predictor [21-23].
2.4. Hammerstein- Weiner (HW)
In this approach, a linear dynamic network is wedged among two
non-linear frames. The model may be implemented as a black-box al­
gorithm in certain due to its flexible modelling, or as a grey-box ap­
proach in others due to its ability to reflect basic system features. When
contrasted to linear systems like multilinear regressions (MLR) and
ANN, HW models frequently deliver more unbiased outcomes in many
applications because they incorporate both linear and non-linear cor­
relations in the available data [24].
3
Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011
Where u (t ) = f (x (t )) is a non-linear function that converts input
data, w (t ) = u (t ) B/ F is a linear function, and f and h act on the linear
block's input and output data, respectively. The variables u(t) and w(t)
specify the linear block's input and output, respectively.
The input and output nonlinearity predictors are piecewise linear
features with 10 units, and the order of the algorithm used is
nb = 2, nf 3andnk = 1, The MATLAB system identification toolbox was
utilized.
2.5. Multi-variate regression (MVR)
The existing link among the quantitative variables is studied using
linear regression. The use of independent factors (input) to forecast the
experimental outcome (dependent variables) is referred to as this re­
lationship [25]. The MVR approach is based on the same or similar
concepts as linear regression. The studies [26] and [27] can be used to
understand the approach in depth. For this investigation, an expression
[28] was used to create the model Eq. (1) for the input parameters.
y = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 +·+ bn*xn + e (1)
where y is the dependent variable, x1, x2,., xn are the independent
variables, b0, b1,., bn are the model parameters, and e is the random
error term.
2.6. Performance evaluation criteria
Four performance metrics, including Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE),
Person correlation coefficient (PCC), Mean absolute error (MAE), and
mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), were used to assess the
models' efficiencies. By eliminating the influence of negative numbers,
MAE adjusts for genuine error disparities. The prediction models’ effi­
ciency improves as the MAE value decreases. Even though residuals get
a proportionality influence at the individual scale in MAE. Furthermore,
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al. Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011

MAPE, like MAE, was employed and gives a clear comprehension. Table 1
Furthermore, when the data has a zero value, MAPE is undefined [27]. Ranking of the parameters using GPR-based sensitivity analysis.
N Parameters NSE Ranking Correlation sign/Direction
i=1
|CO(p) CO(o) |
MAE =
N (2) NO2 0.78 3 Positive
SO2 0.99 1 Positive
N
100 CO(o) CO(p) O3 0.95 2 Negative
MAPE =
n i=1
CO(o) (3)
N
using the Gaussian process regression (GPR) technique for the predic­
[CO(t ), i CO ˆ (t ), i
¯ (t ) ][CO CO(t ) ]
PCC = i=1 tion of CO concentration as a potential air pollutant.
N
[CO (t ), i ˆ (t ), i
CO(t ) ]2 [CO CO(t ) ]2 As mentioned above, the proposed sensitivity analysis was con­
i=1 (4)
ducted using the GPR technique, which is applied in arranging the input
N
(CO (p) CO(o) )2 variables to give a desired performance for the predicted output vari­
able. The variables are evaluated and computed based on the perfor­
i=1
NSE = 1 N
i=1
(CO(p) CO (o) ) 2 (5) mance shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2. The variables are equally ranked
Where N, CO(o) , CO(p) and CO(t ) stands for, the total number of data based on their NSE performance towards the CO target variable.
occurrences, experimental data, predicted data and average value of Sensitivity analysis involves assessing how changes in the input
experimental data respectively. Moreover, [29], provide more in­ variables affect the output of a model or system. It helps to identify
formation on performance evaluation. which variables are most influential in predicting the output, and how
much they contribute to the model's accuracy. In the context of air
pollution modeling, sensitivity analysis can help to determine which
3. Results and discussion
pollutant concentrations have the greatest impact on CO levels. Also, on
the other hand, it involves selecting and transforming the input vari­
Among the main objectives of any computational approach is the
ables to create a set of new variables that are more informative or easier
elucidation of a suitable feature extraction method for designing the
to use in a model than the primitive and traditional trial by error ap­
appropriate input variables in modelling the target variable. This can
proach. It helps to reduce the dimensionality of the input space, making
equally be applied to environmental-bas studies, which are associated
the model more efficient and effective. In the context of air pollution
with various physical and chemical parameters. For instance, the fea­
modelling, feature extraction can involve combining or scaling different
ture extraction method could equally be used in air pollution studies to
pollutant concentrations to create new variables that better capture the
understand collinearity, the connection between the inputs and output
underlying patterns of pollution. In the current research, even though
parameters, and the dominant and inferior parameters used before the
only three different variables were used, they provided a more reliable
modelling step. To date, there is no single technique with superior merit
and satisfactory performance by allowing for checking the individual
in selecting suitable candidates for air pollution feature extraction
input-output behavior of the parameters rather than just jumping into
elucidation. A lot of the techniques, especially the descriptor-based
an uncoordinated analysis. This, in turn, saves time and provides more
approaches, consist of clustering calculations. Even though, they are
reliable results, along with a better computational and mathematical
considered fundamental and basic approaches but are associated with
understanding of the variables.
numerous limitations, which lead to choosing suitable combinations
Based on Fig. 2 and Table 1, the variables were selected and applied
with unsatisfactory performance skills. Hence, the need for measuring
in two different scenarios. Although the correlational matrix perfor­
the multi-descriptor variables used in modelling air pollution variables
mance was given more priority because they show relatively similar
is significant, got a lot of attention from various modelers worldwide.
performance with the sensitivity analysis but depict the direction of
An important target in employing any computational approach involves
variables. Therefore, the variables are classified into two classes based
the selection of appropriate independent variables from the dataset to
on their correlational direction as Class 1 (C1) for the direct variable
estimate the target variable. Consequently, in this current study, we
combinations (SO2 and NO2) and Class 2 (C2) for the inverse variable
explore the application of both linear (Fig. 2) and non-linear methods
(O3). Hence, this pre-analysis technique gave a factual background for
(Table 1) inform of correlational matrix and robust sensitivity analysis
understanding the dataset before jumping into the modelling step. More
also, these techniques have been applied by various scientists in dif­
ferent environmental studies, despite the presence of numerous other
possible techniques [30], [31]. Furthermore, the dataset used in the
current study was obtained from the USA as mentioned before.
Whereby, the dataset was portioned into 70% calibration (700 in­
stances) and 30% validation (300 instances) out of the total 1000 in­
stances of the original datasets. Generally, the 70–30% partitioning
depicts higher performance in various studies reported in the technical
literature [32–34]. Nevertheless, the current study optimized the por­
tioning by trying different possibilities such as 90–10, 80–20%,70–30,
60–40, and 50–50, in which 70–30 depicts the optimum results and
minimizes common modelling issues such as local minima and under­
fitting. Also, the splitting of the dataset in 70–30% in the training and
testing phases is intended to prevent the overfitting of the model thus
allowing the probability of a better valid and accurate result.
Before the modelling steps, two different classes were presented as
shown in Eq. 6.

C1 = (SO2, NO2)
COnc. of CO =
C 2 = (O3) (6)
Fig. 2. : Correlation matrix results of the air pollutants.

4
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al. Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011

Table 2 ability of enhancing the prediction performance of the MVR technique

Quantitative predictive performance of the L-BOOST, HW and MVR models for up to 55% and 57% in the calibration and validation steps respectively.
modelling the concentration of CO in the calibration and validations stages. The non-linear models (HW and L-BOOST) outperform the classical
Models Calibration linear model (MVR) owing to the fact that they have the ability to
capture complex relationships and patterns that may not be easily
NSE PCC MAPE MAE modelled by linear functions. Linear models assume that there is a
linear relationship between the input features and the target variable,
MVR-C1 0.785 0.886 0.007 0.052
MVR-C2 0.433 0.658 0.009 0.065 meaning that the effect of each input feature on the target variable is
L-BOOST-C1 0.999 0.999 0.00003 0.0002 constant and independent of the other features. However, in many real-
L-BOOST-C2 0.981 0.991 0.00005 0.0004 world scenarios, this assumption does not hold true, and non-linear
HW-C1 0.895 0.946 0.008 0.060 relationships between the input features and the target variable exist.
HW-C2 0.866 0.931 0.008 0.062
Validation
Non-linear models, such as HW and L-BOOST, are capable of modelling
MVR-C1 0.418 0.646 0.092 0.153 these non-linear relationships by using more complex functions that
MVR-C2 0.392 0.626 0.178 0.173 allow for interactions between input features, whereas a linear model
L-BOOST-C1 0.999 0.999 0.00004 0.001 would struggle to capture such complex relationships. Moreover, non-
L-BOOST-C2 0.961 0.981 0.00009 0.001
linear models can learn from large and complex datasets, which often
HW-C1 0.844 0.919 0.010 0.062
HW-C2 0.844 0.918 0.020 0.089 contain a high degree of variability and noise. Non-linear models can
capture these variations and patterns better than linear models even if
there is high collinearity between the variables, which may not be able
Whereby C1 and C2 indicates the direct and inverse approaches, is to model the complexity of the data as accurately.
the function regarding of independent variable combination. Further, examination of the quantitative results depicted in Table 2
demonstrates that L-Boost outperformed all the models with significant
3.1. Performance of the L-BOOST, HW, MVR models performance in both the direct and inverse modelling approaches in the
calibration and validation steps. Hence, the models can be arranged
This section will describe the performance skills obtained from the based on their prediction performance order as MVR < HW < L-Boost
three different computational techniques for the environmental pre­ model. These findings are equally supported by recent studies con­
diction of CO concentration in two different scenarios (direct (C1) and ducted in the published literature on environmental studies [36–40]. It
inverse modelling (C2)), respectively. The modelling step using these is noteworthy to states that the performance prediction of the three
three techniques was done on MATLAB (2020a). Furthermore, the non- techniques based on the error-indices inform of MAPE and MAE in­
linear techniques (L-BOOST and HW) were known as robust tools for dicates the robust applications of the AI-based techniques over the
handing highly chaotic behaviour [35]. Therefore, the performance of classical MVR model (see Fig. 3).
these approaches was shown in Table 2. Furthermore, the performance of the techniques can equally be vi­
The statistical performance metrics: NSE, PCC, MAPE and MAE were sualized and graphically compared using both time series plot and
employed in checking the prediction skills of the proposed models to scatter plot (see Figs. 4 and 5). A scatter chart involves the use of dots to
judge and evaluate the accuracy of the models. PCC and NSE indicate presents the predicted values against the actual values based on nu­
the fitness between the measured and predicted values. At the same merical variables. The point of each of the dot indicates a single data
time, MAPE and MAE depict the error demonstrated by each paradigm point or an instance. The higher the fitness between the predicted and
to predict the concentration of CO. Based on the calibration and vali­ actual values the better the performance of the model. Therefore, Fig. 4
dation phases performances, the direct (C1) modelling approach of all depicts the relationship between the actual CO values and the predicted
the three models (MVR, L-Boost and HW) showed superior performance ones.
than the inverse (C2) modelling approach. More also, Table 2 equally Moreover, a time series plot is considered as a data visualization tool
indicates that the non-linear models (L-Boost and HW) showed out­ that depicts data points at different successive ranges in time. Each of
standing performance than the linear MVR technique. This suggests the points on the plot corresponds to the time as well as a certain
that the non-linear model informs of L-Boost can improve the perfor­ quantity that has been measured. In general, the horizontal axis in­
mance accuracy of the linear MVR model for the direct (C1) modelling dicates the change in time, while the vertical axis indicates the mea­
approach up to 21% and 58% in the calibration and validation steps sured values. If the values are joined chronologically using a straight
respectively. Whereas, for the inverse modelling the L-Boost has the line, it develops a series of various valleys and peaks. A time plot is

Fig. 3. Error-indices performance of the models a) MAPE b) MAE.

5
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al. Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011

Fig. 4. Relationship between the actual CO values and the predicted CO values.

6
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al. Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011

Fig. 5. Time series plot for CO concentration prediction using different models.

equally called a fever plot. Therefore, Fig. 5 depicts the responses of the Hence, based on the visualizations depicted in Figs. 4 and 5, the direct
predicted models in responding to the measured CO concentration va­ modelling (C1) outperformed the inverse modelling approach. It also in­
lues. Hence, the models' value that captures the measured values dis­ dicates that the AI models (HW and L-Boost) showed superior performance
plays higher performance accuracy. to the linear MVR model. More also, the newest visualization inform of

7
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al.
Fig. 6. Taylor diagram visual representation based on PCC and standard deviation values of the L-Boost, HW, and MVR models in a) Calibration and b) assurance
stages, respectively.
Taylor graph can equally be used in determining the performance of the
models graphically. The Taylor graph, which was designed by Karl E.
Taylor in the year 1994 and then published in late 2001 is considered as a
mathematical visualization that graphically demonstrates various models
or variables performance in a certain system, phenomenon, or process. It
equally used different statistics such as standard deviation, MAE, PCC, NSE
and mean square error (MSE) in depicting the performance of each model
in a system. For instance, Fig. 6 is used in the current study to depict the
models' performance in both calibration and validation steps for both the
direct (C1) and inverse (C2) model combinations. The performance of the
Taylor diagram with PCC values on the vertical axis and standard devia­
tion on the horizontal axis showed performance relatively similar to
quantitative results indicated in Table 2. More information on Taylor
diagram can be found in [37].
This finding could have several implications for the field of air pollu­
tion modeling. For example, it may suggest that the choice between direct
and inverse modeling approaches is less critical than previously thought,
and that researchers may be able to use either approach with confidence.
Alternatively, it may indicate that certain types of air pollution data are
inherently more suited to one approach or the other, and that researchers
should carefully consider the characteristics of their data before choosing a
modeling approach. In any case, the fact that direct and inverse modeling
approaches performed similarly suggests that researchers can have greater
flexibility in their modeling choices and may be able to achieve similar
results using different approaches. This could help to advance our un­
derstanding of air pollution and inform more effective mitigation strate­
gies in the future.
More also, the interaction or chemical effects of inputs on the CO
output refers to the complex relationships between different chemical
species in the atmosphere and their contributions to the overall levels of
carbon monoxide (CO) pollution. In air pollution modeling, researchers
must consider how different input variables, such as concentrations of
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ozone (O3), interact
with each other and with other atmospheric components to produce CO
pollution. This requires an understanding of the underlying chemical
and physical processes that govern the behavior of these species in the
atmosphere, as well as the interactions between them. For example, the
production of CO from NOx emissions depends on the availability of
certain other species, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
8
Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011
which can react with NOx to form ozone, peroxyacyl nitrates (PANs),
and other compounds. The presence of SO2 in the atmosphere can also
influence the production of CO by competing with NOx for available
oxidants, thereby reducing the formation of ozone and other CO pre­
cursors. Understanding the complex interactions and chemical effects of
different inputs on the CO output is critical for accurately modeling and
predicting air pollution levels, as well as for designing effective miti­
gation strategies. This requires a multidisciplinary approach that com­
bines knowledge from chemistry, physics, atmospheric science, and
other fields, as well as sophisticated modeling tools and techniques.
Furthermore, Machine learning based approaches as demonstrated
in the current study can play a crucial role in minimizing CO air pol­
lution in the ecosystem by providing a data-driven approach to identify
and mitigate the sources as well the sources of the independent vari­
ables such as NO2 that leads to CO emissions. More also, the outcomes
of the current study may equally suggest various alternatives that can
be used in minimizing CO air pollution through;.
1. Air Quality Monitoring: AI can be used to monitor air quality in real-
time using a network of sensors deployed throughout the city. This
data can be used to identify areas of high CO emissions and act to
reduce them.
2. Traffic Management: AI can be used to optimize traffic flow and
reduce congestion, which can lead to lower CO emissions from ve­
hicles.
3. Predictive Maintenance: AI can be used to predict when vehicles and
industrial equipment will need maintenance, reducing the like­
lihood of CO emissions caused by faulty equipment.
4. Energy Management: AI can be used to optimize energy usage in
buildings and reduce the need for fossil fuels, which are a major
source of CO emissions.
5. Emissions Tracking: AI can be used to track emissions from various
sources, such as power plants and factories, and provide insights
into how to reduce these emissions.
4. Conclusion
CO is a potential air pollutant of great concern owing to the fact that
it is a colourless, odorless, and poisonous gas that can cause serious
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al.
health problems when inhaled. CO can cause headaches, dizziness,
nausea, and even death in high concentrations. In addition, CO can
contribute to the formation of smog and can have a negative impact on
air quality. Even though, O3 and NO2 are also air pollutants that can
have negative impacts on human health and the environment, they are
generally less of a concern than CO because their effects tend to be
more localized. O3 is a reactive gas that can irritate the lungs and ag­
gravate respiratory problems, but it is typically not present in high
concentrations except in urban areas with high traffic. Nitrogen dioxide
is a toxic gas that can cause respiratory problems and contribute to the
formation of acid rain, but it is typically not as toxic as CO and is often
found in lower concentrations.
Breathing air with a higher concentration of CO leads to minimizing
the amount of O2, which can be circulated into the bloodstream to
delicate organs such as the brain and heart. At high levels, possibly in
enclosed or indoors, abundant CO can lead to unconsciousness, confu­
sion, dizziness and sometimes even death. Therefore, the need to un­
derstand the behaviour related to CO accumulation in the air is of
paramount importance to minimize its amount in the ecosystem.
Therefore, this study explored the application of three computational
approaches, L-Boost, HW and MVR, for predicting CO concentration
using SO2, NO2 and O3 as the independent variables. Hence, prior to the
prediction step, correlational and sensitivity analyses are used as filters
for feature extraction for the variable input combinations. Therefore,
the findings of the study are summarized as follows.
• Based on the correlational and sensitivity analysis results, the input
variables are classified into C1 (direct modelling approach) and C2
(inverse modelling approach)
• The performance of the computational techniques; L-Boost, HW and
MVR models based on the four statistical metrics; NSE, PCC, MAPE
and MAE, indicates that the non-linear models showed superior
performance to the linear MVR model.
• The direct modelling approach with SO2 and NO2 input combina­
tions depicts superior performance than the inverse chemometrics
simulation with the O3 input combination.
• Various visualization, such as the newest Taylor diagram, were
employed to graphically indicate the approaches' comparative per­
formance.
• In conclusion, the current study's models depict AI models' robust
applications in modelling environmental behaviour.
• The study equally indicates that other advanced computational
techniques can be used to improve the models' performance in
certain instances.
• The major limitations of the current study are the use of three in­
dependent variables.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­
ence the work reported in this paper. Sincerely.
References
[1] M. Castelli, F.M. Clemente, A. Popovič, S. Silva, L. Vanneschi, A machine learning
approach to predict air quality in California, Complexity vol. 2020, (2020) 1–23,
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8049504
[2] D. Schürholz, S. Kubler, A. Zaslavsky, Artificial intelligence-enabled context-aware
air quality prediction for smart cities, J. Clean. Prod. vol. 271, (2020) 121941,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121941
[3] S.L. Harlan, D.M. Ruddell, Climate change and health in cities: impacts of heat and air
pollution and potential co-benefits from mitigation and adaptation, Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. vol. 3, (3) (2011) 126–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.01.001
9
Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011
[4] J. Zhao, X. Xi, Q. Na, S. Wang, S.N. Kadry, P.M. Kumar, The technological in­
novation of hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles for environment carbon pollution
control, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. vol. 86, (2021) 106506, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eiar.2020.106506
[5] H.-B. Ly, et al., Development of an AI model to measure traffic air pollution from
multisensor and weather data, Sensors vol. 19, (22) (. 2019) 4941, https://doi.org/
10.3390/s19224941
[6] W. Yang, S.T. Omaye, Air pollutants, oxidative stress and human health, Mutat. Res.
Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. vol. 674, (1–2) (. 2009) 45–54, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.mrgentox.2008.10.005
[7] C. Heracleous, A. Michael, Experimental assessment of the impact of natural ven­
tilation on indoor air quality and thermal comfort conditions of educational
buildings in the Eastern Mediterranean region during the heating period, J. Build.
Eng. vol. 26, (August) (2019) 100917, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.
100917
[8] Y.A. Ayturan, Z.C. Ayturan, H.O. Altun, Air pollution modelling with deep learning:
a review, Int. J. Environ. Pollut. Environ. Model vol. 1, (3) (2018) 58–62.
[9] S.R. Shams, A. Jahani, S. Kalantary, M. Moeinaddini, N. Khorasani, Artificial in­
telligence accuracy assessment in NO2 concentration forecasting of metropolises
air, Sci. Rep. vol. 11, (1) (2021) 1805, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-
81455-6
[10] P. Acosta-Vargas, R. Zalakeviciute, S. Luján-Mora, W. Hernandez, Accessibility
Evaluation of Mobile Applications for Monitoring Air Quality vol. 918, Springer
International Publishing, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11890-7_61
[11] F.J. Castelhano, et al., The impact of long-term weather changes on air quality in
Brazil, Atmos. Environ. vol. 283, (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.
2022.119182
[12] A.K. Paschalidou, S. Karakitsios, S. Kleanthous, P.A. Kassomenos, Forecasting
hourly PM10 concentration in Cyprus through artificial neural networks and mul­
tiple regression models: implications to local environmental management, Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. vol. 18, (2) (. 2011) 316–327, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
010-0375-2
[13] S. Wu, Q. Feng, Y. Du, X. Li, Artificial neural network models for daily PM 10 air
pollution index prediction in the urban area of Wuhan, China, Environ. Eng. Sci.
vol. 28, (5) (2011) 357–363, https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2010.0219
[14] M. Gardner, Neural network modelling and prediction of hourly NOx and NO2
concentrations in urban air in London, Atmos. Environ. vol. 33, (5) (1999)
709–719, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00230-1
[15] K. Bashir Shaban, A. Kadri, E. Rezk, Urban air pollution monitoring system with
forecasting models, IEEE Sens. J. vol. 16, (8) (2016) 2598–2606, https://doi.org/
10.1109/JSEN.2016.2514378
[16] R. Noori, G. Hoshyaripour, K. Ashrafi, B.N. Araabi, Uncertainty analysis of devel­
oped ANN and ANFIS models in prediction of carbon monoxide daily concentration,
Atmos. Environ. vol. 44, (4) (2010) 476–482, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.
2009.11.005
[17] M. Rezaie-Balf, S.F. Nowbandegani, S.Z. Samadi, H. Fallah, S. Alaghmand, An en­
semble decomposition-based artificial intelligence approach for daily streamflow
prediction, Water (Switz. ) vol. 11, (4) (2019) 1–31, https://doi.org/10.3390/
w11040709
[18] J.H. Friedman, Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine, Ann.
Stat. (2001).
[19] T. Chen, T. He, M. Benesty, V. Khotilovich, Y. Tang, Xgboost: extreme gradient
boosting, R. Packag. Version 0. 4-2 (2015) 1–4.
[20] J. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, Additive logistic regression: a statistical view
of boosting (With discussion and a rejoinder by the authors), Ann. Stat. vol. 28, (2)
(2000) 337–407, https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1016218223
[21] W. Zhang, C. Wu, H. Zhong, Y. Li, L. Wang, Prediction of undrained shear strength
using extreme gradient boosting and random forest based on Bayesian optimization,
Geosci. Front. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.03.007
[22] X. Yu, Y. Wang, L. Wu, G. Chen, L. Wang, H. Qin, Comparison of support vector
regression and extreme gradient boosting for decomposition-based data-driven 10-
day streamflow forecasting, J. Hydrol. vol. 582, (January 2019) (2020) 124293,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124293
[23] A.O. Al-Sulttani, M. Al-Mukhtar, A.B. Roomi, A.A. Farooque, K.M. Khedher,
Z.M. Yaseen, Proposition of new ensemble data-intelligence models for surface
water quality prediction, IEEE Access vol. 9, (July) (2021) 108527–108541,
https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3100490
[24] M.H. Ahmad, A.G. Usman, S.I. Abba, Comparative performance of extreme learning
machine and Hammerstein–Weiner models for modelling the intestinal hyper-mo­
tility and secretory inhibitory effects of methanolic leaf extract of
Combretumhypopilinum Diels (Combretaceae), Silico Pharm. vol. 9, (1) (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40203-021-00090-1
[25] F. Ruggieri, A.A. D’Archivio, G. Carlucci, P. Mazzeo, Application of artificial neural
networks for prediction of retention factors of triazine herbicides in reversed-phase
liquid chromatography, J. Chromatogr. A vol. 1076, (1–2) (2005) 163–169, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2005.04.038
[26] S. Nemati, M.H. Fazelifard, Ö. Terzi, M.A. Ghorbani, Estimation of dissolved oxygen
using data-driven techniques in the Tai Po River, Hong Kong, Environ. Earth Sci.
vol. 74, (5) (2015) 4065–4073, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4450-3
[27] U.M. Ghali, M. Alhosen, A. Degm, A.N. Alsharksi, Q. Hoti, and A.G. Usman, 2020.
“Development Of Computational Intelligence Algorithms For Modelling The
Performance Of Humanin And Its Derivatives In HPLC Optimization Method
Development,” vol. 9, no. 08, pp. 110–117, 2020.
[28] K. Ciura, S. Kovačević, M. Pastewska, H. Kapica, M. Kornela, W. Sawicki, Prediction
of the chromatographic hydrophobicity index with immobilized artificial mem­
brane chromatography using simple molecular descriptors and artificial neural
A.G. Usman, N. Usanase, S.I. Abba et al.
networks, J. Chromatogr. A vol. 1660, (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.
2021.462666
[29] D. Uzun Ozsahin, et al., Clinical Modelling of RVHF Using Pre-Operative Variables:
A Direct and Inverse Feature Extraction Technique, Diagnostics vol. 12, (12)
(2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123061
[30] A. Malik, Y. Tikhamarine, D. Souag-Gamane, P. Rai, S.S. Sammen, O. Kisi, Support
vector regression integrated with novel meta-heuristic algorithms for meteor­
ological drought prediction, Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. vol. 133, (3) (2021) 891–909,
https://doi.org/10.1007/S00703-021-00787-0
[31] A. Malik, Y. Tikhamarine, S.S. Sammen, S.I. Abba, S. Shahid, Prediction of me­
teorological drought by using hybrid support vector regression optimized with HHO
versus PSO algorithms, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. vol. 28, (29) (2021) 39139–39158,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13445-0
[32] H. Tao, et al., Development of new computational machine learning models for
longitudinal dispersion coefficient determination: case study of natural streams,
United States, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. (Ml) (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-022-18554-y
[33] K. Khosravi, et al., Improving daily stochastic stream flow prediction: comparison of
novel hybrid data-mining algorithms, Hydrol. Sci. J. vol. 66, (9) (2021) 1457–1474,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2021.1928673
[34] A.M. Youssef, H.R. Pourghasemi, Z.S. Pourtaghi, M.M. Al-Katheeri, Landslide sus­
ceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted regression tree, classification and
regression tree, and general linear models and comparison of their performance at
10
Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 2 (2023) 100011
Wadi Tayyah Basin, Asir Region, Saudi Arabia, Landslides vol. 13, (5) (2016)
839–856, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0614-1
[35] E. Lotfi, M.R. Akbarzadeh-T, Brain emotional learning-based pattern recognizer, Cybern.
Syst. vol. 44, (5) (2013) 402–421, https://doi.org/10.1080/01969722.2013.789652
[36] P. Shi, G. Li, Y. Yuan, G. Huang, L. Kuang, Prediction of dissolved oxygen content in
aquaculture using clustering-based softplus extreme learning machine, Comput.
Electron. Agric. vol. 157, (December 2018) (2019) 329–338, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compag.2019.01.004
[37] M. Hameed, S.S. Sharqi, Z.M. Yaseen, H.A. Afan, A. Hussain, A. Elshafie,
Application of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques in water quality index predic­
tion: a case study in tropical region, Malaysia, Neural Comput. Appl. vol. 28, (2017)
893–905, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2404-7
[38] A.S. Mubarak, et al., Metro-environmental data approach for the prediction of chemical
oxygen demand in new nicosia wastewater treatment plant, Desalin. Water Treat. vol.
221, (May) (2021) 31–40, https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2021.27049
[39] A. Jahani, S. Allahverdi, M. Saffariha, A. Alitavoli, S. Ghiyasi, Environmental
modeling of landscape aesthetic value in natural urban parks using artificial neural
network technique, Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (0123456789) (2021), https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40808-020-01068-2
[40] I. Amini, K. Pal, Prediction of two-dimensional gas chromatography time-of-flight
mass spectrometry retention times of 160 pesticides and 25 environmental organic
pollutants in grape by multivariate chemometrics methods, Adv. J. Chem. A vol. 1,
(1) (2018) 12–31, https://doi.org/10.29088/sami/ajca.2018.3.1231