[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Inhalation of Microplastics—A Toxicological Complexity
Previous Article in Journal
Adsorption of Cadmium and Lead Capacity and Environmental Stability of Magnesium-Modified High-Sulfur Hydrochar: Greenly Utilizing Chicken Feather
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/toxics12050357
toxics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Deep Learning Approach for Chromium Detection and Characterization from Soil Hyperspectral Data

by
Chundi Ma
1,
Xinhang Xu
1,
Min Zhou
1,
Tao Hu
1 and
Chongchong Qi
1,2,3,*
1
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
2
School of Metallurgy and Environment, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
3
Fankou Lean-Zinc Mine, NONFEMET, Shaoguan 511100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2024, 12(5), 357; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050357
Submission received: 15 April 2024 / Revised: 7 May 2024 / Accepted: 9 May 2024 / Published: 11 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Innovative Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of Mining)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Descriptive diagram of the dataset: (<b>a</b>) Geological map of the sampling points; (<b>b</b>) Schematic diagram of the hyperspectral curve; (<b>c</b>) Distribution of Cr content.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Hyperspectral curves with different spectral preprocessing: (<b>a</b>) Original spectral curve; (<b>b</b>) D1 preprocessed curve; (<b>c</b>) D2 preprocessed curve; (<b>d</b>) SG preprocessed curve; (<b>e</b>) MSC preprocessed curve; (<b>f</b>) SNV preprocessed curve. The curve represents the average value for each corresponding Cr group and the shadow represents the standard deviation.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Schematic illustration of the DNN.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The influence of spectral preprocessing on DNN modeling performance.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>The optimized DNN structure.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>The optimized batch size and learning rate.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Evaluation of modeling performance: (<b>a</b>) Values of model evaluation metrics at each modeling stage; (<b>b</b>) Comparison of the actual and predicted Cr values using the optimal model; (<b>c</b>–<b>e</b>) Distribution of the difference between predicted and actual Cr values in the training, validation, and testing sets of the optimal model, respectively. The ‘default model’ refers to the initial DNN model, ‘preprocess model’ to the model post preprocessing, ‘structure model’ to the model after optimizing the neural network structure, and ‘optimal model’ to the model achieving the best performance.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>The distribution of the prediction residual across the EU.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Permutation importance across the whole spectra. The blue curve is a representative hyperspectral curve after D1 preprocessing, the red curve represents the permutation importance value across the spectra, and the four regions are the sensitive band ranges.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>LIME importance analysis.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
High levels of chromium (Cr) in soil pose a significant threat to both humans and the environment. Laboratory-based chemical analysis methods for Cr are time consuming and expensive; thus, there is an urgent need for a more efficient method for detecting Cr in soil. In this study, a deep neural network (DNN) approach was applied to the Land Use and Cover Area frame Survey (LUCAS) dataset to develop a hyperspectral soil Cr content prediction model with good generalizability and accuracy. The optimal DNN model was constructed by optimizing the spectral preprocessing methods and DNN hyperparameters, which achieved good predictive performance for Cr detection, with a correlation coefficient value of 0.79 on the testing set. Four important hyperspectral bands with strong Cr sensitivity (400–439, 1364–1422, 1862–1934, and 2158–2499 nm) were identified by permutation importance and local interpretable model-agnostic explanations. Soil iron oxide and clay mineral content were found to be important factors influencing soil Cr content. The findings of this study provide a feasible method for rapidly determining soil Cr content from hyperspectral data, which can be further refined and applied to large-scale Cr detection in the future.

1. Introduction

Chromium (Cr) contamination is a major global environmental problem [1]. With increasing urbanization, there has been a pronounced rise in industrial waste discharge from mining, metallurgy, and electronic equipment manufacturing industries, which has resulted in the continuous accumulation of Cr in the natural environment. For example, indiscriminate waste discharge from tanneries in India’s Vellore district resulted in more than 65% of tested soil samples exceeding the maximum permissible Cr content limits established by environmental protection agencies [2,3,4,5]. Given the non-degradable and highly toxic nature of Cr, it poses a significant threat to the ecological environment [6,7].
Cr occurs stably in nature [8]. Cr can accumulate in living organisms by contaminating soil and water resources and then biomagnifying through the food chain [9,10]. In plants, high Cr content can damage cells and inhibit growth [11], while in humans, Cr can cause skin system, liver, and kidney dysfunction and even cancer [12,13]. Different countries have set different soil Cr thresholds (e.g., 100 mg/kg for Romania and 90 mg/kg for China), which shows that soil Cr content is a key environmental risk factor [14,15]. Therefore, detecting Cr content in soil is essential for evaluating soil Cr contamination and subsequent soil remediation.
Although it is one of the most widely used techniques for soil Cr detection, laboratory chemical analysis has some limitations, including slow speed, high cost, and environmental contamination by chemical reagents [16]. These issues would be worsened in the case of large-scale Cr studies, which are needed given the global scale of Cr pollution issues [17]. As an alternative to laboratory-based analytical methods, reflectance spectroscopy is increasingly being used to measure soil quality [18]. This method primarily relies on the principle that energy is absorbed or reflected by the vibrations of molecular bonds. This technique leverages the numerous advantages of spectroscopic measurements, including their rapid, non-destructive, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly nature, especially when processing numerous samples [19]. At present, most physical and chemical properties of soils can be predicted from soil spectra; however, there is still a significant knowledge gap in the detection of soil Cr content from soil spectra [19,20].
Soil spectra can be considered non-specific and high-dimensional data due to the overlapping reflectance signatures of many soil components [21,22,23,24]. In contrast to the commonly used principal component regression and partial least squares regression techniques, deep learning-based methods, which are directly trained on the data to predict the desired soil properties, are attracting increasing attention [25,26,27,28]. The nonlinear nature of deep learning makes it well suited to handling large volumes of high-dimensional data, and this approach has been successfully applied to similar environmental fields [29,30]. However, few studies to date have applied deep learning to Cr detection from soil spectra.
To address this research gap, this study employed a deep neural network (DNN) method to predict soil Cr content from soil spectra. As an important algorithm in the field of deep learning, the DNN approach can effectively handle large volumes of data with high dimensionality [31]; thus, this approach is suitable for large-scale Cr detection. The Land Use and Cover Area frame Survey (LUCAS) dataset was used to train the DNN model, whose performance was verified by several evaluation metrics. The trained DNN model was then interpreted to identify the spectral bands sensitive to Cr content.

2. Materials and Methods

As noted above, the LUCAS 2009 dataset and corresponding Cr content values were used to train and validate the DNN model. To determine the optimal spectral preprocessing methods for Cr detection, the first derivative, second derivative, convolution smoothing, and multivariate scattering correction approaches were compared. The optimal model’s network structure and hyperparameters were determined using a grid search method. Model interpretation on the optimal DNN model was then performed to identify the spectral bands that were most sensitive to Cr content in soil.

2.1. Dataset

2.1.1. Data Collection

This study used the LUCAS 2009 dataset from the European Soil Data Center (ESDAC) with topsoil samples from 23 EU member states. A total of 18,675 topsoil samples were employed based on the LUCAS project (Figure 1a). In the original acquisition of this dataset, the samples from these points were collected using a standardized sampling procedure and sent to the same laboratory for physical and chemical analysis [32,33]. The topsoil samples were ground, dried, and scanned using an XDS™ Rapid Content Analyzer (Foss, Hillerød, Denmark) to obtain reflectance spectra data in the wavelength range of 400–2500 nm with a resolution of 0.5 nm; thus, the reflectance of 4200 wavelengths were measured in this region [34]. The hyperspectral curve is schematically illustrated in Figure 1b.
The LUCAS 2009 dataset has immense value for understanding soil characteristics and properties across the EU member states. By incorporating a large quantity of topsoil samples systematically collected from diverse locations, this dataset provides a comprehensive overview of soil variations and compositions within the EU. The standardized sampling procedure ensures data consistency and reliability across a large geographic area, making this dataset a valuable resource for soil-related studies.
The application of hyperspectral analysis enables detailed characterization of the reflectance spectra of the topsoil samples. This analysis allows for the identification of specific wavelengths that correspond to various soil properties and components. The reflectance spectra data, which span a broad range of wavelengths, provide important insights into the chemical, physical, and mineralogical properties of the topsoil samples [35]. Overall, the LUCAS 2009 dataset can be used to gain a deeper understanding of soil variability, nutrient content, organic matter composition, and other essential factors that influence soil health and fertility [36]. The rich and spatially extensive data provided by the LUCAS 2009 dataset can be used for in-depth soil studies, statistical modeling, and the development of predictive models to enhance soil management practices, land use planning, and environmental assessments.
The soil Cr content values were extracted from Cr maps [37]. Note that the Cr measurements were collected at the same sampling sites as the LUCAS 2009 study, ensuring consistency when integrating these two datasets. The distribution of Cr content indicates that most of the samples were not contaminated, when a Cr contamination threshold of 100 mg/kg was used (Figure 1c) [38]. The contaminated samples were primarily concentrated in countries located in South and South Central Europe, such as Italy and Greece.

2.1.2. Spectral Preprocessing Methods

Spectral preprocessing techniques can transform reflectance measurements using various mathematical methods that remove physical variability from light scattering and enhance features of interest [39]. Many studies have shown that applying appropriate spectral preprocessing can improve model accuracy [40,41,42]. In this study, five commonly used spectral preprocessing methods were applied and compared, including the first-order derivative (D1), second-order derivative (D2), Sazitzky–Golay (SG), multiplicative scattering correction (MSC), and standard normal variate normalization (SNV) (Figure 2) [43].
All five hyperspectral preprocessing techniques can potentially enhance hyperspectral curve quality and analytical precision [44,45,46,47,48]. D1 and D2 effectively counteract baseline drift, refining peak recognition and quantification accuracy [49]. The advantage of SG smoothing is its ability to eliminate noise without altering peak attributes and improve signal-to-noise ratios and resolution; however, excessive smoothing can potentially worsen the peak definition [50]. The MSC method tackles scattering variations, amplifies spectrum-content correlations, and refines quantitative analysis, but its benefits may be limited in non-scattering-dominant scenarios [4]. SNV promotes spectrum comparability and aids feature identification; however, this technique may cause noise amplification, particularly in low-intensity zones, which can in turn influence subsequent interpretations [51]. These preprocessing methods can be applied to optimize specific data attributes and objectives and improve hyperspectral analysis precision; however, a comparison of these techniques is essential for optimal Cr detection.

2.2. Deep Learning

2.2.1. DNN Architecture

DNN models consist of multiple processing layers used to learn from and compute data [52]. Compared to other common regression models, the DNN approach is uniquely suited to compute large data with high dimensionality [53]. A DNN is composed of three main parts: an input layer, hidden layers, and an output layer, where each neuron within a layer is interconnected with all the neurons from the preceding layer, and nonlinearity is introduced by using activation functions on these connections (Figure 3) [54]. Each layer contains a specified number of neurons, and each neuron receives a set of inputs, which are weighted and aggregated then transformed via the activation function.
Activation functions are key components within a DNN, introducing non-linearity and enabling the network to capture complex patterns [55]. The selection of activation functions depends on the data characteristics and network architecture. Selecting suitable activation functions can significantly enhance the DNN’s ability to capture intricate relationships in hyperspectral data, which can contribute to accurate Cr prediction [56].
Layers represent the fundamental building blocks of a DNN and facilitate the extraction of hierarchical and abstract features from raw data. Each layer in a DNN serves as a specialized processing unit, transforming the input data through learned weights and activation functions [57]. The overall DNN structure typically consists of an input layer, multiple hidden layers, and an output layer. The data are received through the input layer, and feedforward processing is performed, during which the difference between the predicted and true values is calculated using a loss function. The parameter weights of each layer are then updated by an optimizer using backpropagation to minimize the misfit between the model predictions and true values. [58].

2.2.2. DNN Structure and Parameter Optimization

The construction of ML models must be optimized to achieve ideal performance on specific problems [59]. Both the DNN’s structure and its hyperparameters will directly affect modeling performance. When a DNN is trained, the data are usually computed in batches, and the batch size will affect the model’s training efficiency and generalization ability. Batch size is the number of training samples used in one iteration and plays a critical role in the training efficiency of a DNN. A larger batch size can accelerate the training process as more data are processed simultaneously, leading to faster convergence. However, this speed comes at the cost of accuracy. Larger batches provide a less accurate estimate of the gradient, potentially leading the training process to converge to suboptimal solutions. Conversely, a smaller batch size tends to provide a more accurate gradient estimate, enhancing the model’s ability to generalize but slowing down the training process. Therefore, selecting an optimal batch size represents the balance between training speed and model accuracy. The larger the batch size, the faster the model’s training speed but the lower its accuracy.
The dropout rate aims to reduce the risk of model overfitting by randomly dropping some neurons during the training process so that each neuron is more independent. During training, a randomly selected subset of neurons is ignored or ‘dropped out’. This process prevents neurons from co-adapting too much, encouraging individual neurons to learn features independently, thereby reducing the model’s reliance on any small set of neurons and thus mitigating overfitting. However, setting the dropout rate too high can lead to underfitting, where the model fails to learn the data’s underlying pattern adequately. Thus, the dropout rate must be carefully calibrated to ensure the model learns sufficiently complex patterns without overfitting to the training data. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully optimize the batch size and dropout rate hyperparameters to enhance the model’s performance.
In this study, the number of layers, the number of neurons, the activation function, batch size, dropout, and learning rate were optimized using the grid search approach (Table 1) [60]. The performance of each combination was calculated as the average of 10 repetitions to avoid the effect of randomness during dataset splitting. The dataset was split in an 8:1:1 ratio of training, validation, and testing sets [61].

2.2.3. Model Evaluation Metrics

Model evaluation is an important step in ML modeling and different evaluation metrics focus on different aspects of the trained models. In this study, the Pearson coefficient (R), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were chosen to evaluate the model’s performance [62]. R measures the correlation between the model’s predicted variables and the actual variables, thereby assessing the quality of the model’s predictions. The RMSE is the square difference between the true and predicted values and represents the magnitude of the error generated in the model’s predictions. The MAE is the average absolute difference between the true and predicted values. In general, lower RMSE and MAE values and higher R values indicate better model performance. The above metrics are calculated as follows:
R = C o v ( X , Y ) V a r X V a r [ Y ]
R M S E = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − y ^ i ) 2
M A E = ∑ i = 1 n x i − y i n
where n is the number of samples, y i is the true Cr content of soil sample i , and y ^ i is the Cr content predicted by the model for sample i .

2.3. Model Interpretation

2.3.1. Overview of Model Interpretation

Deep learning models have proven to be highly effective in processing large-scale datasets, but their inherent “black box” nature often obscures the understanding of the internal mechanics influencing their results. This opacity can cast doubts on their reliability, especially in critical applications. To address this, the development of interpretable methods has become essential, providing insights into how these models arrive at their conclusions [63].
Interpretable methods in machine learning are broadly categorized into two types: global and local interpretable methods. Global interpretable methods aim to identify the overall internal working mechanisms of deep learning models. These methods are designed to provide a comprehensive view of how input data are transformed and processed through various layers and nodes of a neural network. By understanding these global mechanisms, it becomes possible to gain insights into the model’s overall decision-making process, enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of the model. In contrast, local interpretable methods focus on elucidating the causal relationships between specific inputs and their corresponding model predictions. They break down the prediction process for individual instances, enabling researchers to understand why a model made a particular decision for a specific input. This level of granular insight is invaluable for diagnosing and refining models, especially when dealing with complex datasets where the interactions between input variables can be intricate and non-intuitive [64]. In summary, interpretable models enhance the transparency and credibility of deep learning models, offering avenues for processing and optimizing the models.

2.3.2. Permutation Importance

Permutation importance is a valuable and insightful feature importance assessment technique that plays a crucial role in understanding and interpreting the outputs of machine learning (ML) models. This method, based on the predicted outputs of the ML model, offers a straightforward yet powerful way to determine the significance of different features in the model’s predictions [65]. The process of permutation importance involves a systematic alteration of each feature in the dataset. To assess the importance of a particular feature, that feature’s values are shuffled or ‘permuted’, while keeping the values of all other features unchanged. This shuffling disrupts the relationship between the feature and the target, essentially simulating a scenario where the feature does not provide any useful information to the model.
Once the data with the disrupted feature is prepared, it is fed back into the model for prediction. The key step in permutation importance is comparing the model’s predictions on this perturbed data against its predictions on the original, unaltered data. The difference in performance, typically measured in terms of accuracy or error, indicates how much the model relies on the feature. A large degradation in the model’s performance upon permuting a feature indicates its high importance. Conversely, if the model’s performance remains relatively unchanged, the feature is likely less important or even redundant. This method of evaluating feature importance has several advantages. Firstly, it is model-agnostic, meaning it can be applied to any ML model regardless of its internal mechanics. This makes permutation importance particularly versatile and widely applicable across various types of models and algorithms. Secondly, it is computationally efficient, often requiring only a few additional rounds of prediction, making it suitable for large datasets and complex models [66,67]. Furthermore, permutation importance provides a more intuitive understanding of feature importance compared to other methods like coefficients in linear models or feature importance scores in tree-based models. It helps in identifying not just the highly influential features but also those which might be misleading or non-informative. This can guide the feature selection process, leading to simpler, more interpretable, and often more generalizable models.

2.3.3. Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME)

The main concept of the LIME method is to interpret a complex model by constructing a simple model. This method begins by perturbing the input data and creating a new, representative dataset that reflects the original data distribution and characteristics. The newly generated dataset is then used to train a simpler model, which is inherently more interpretable than the complex model. The key objective of LIME is to ensure that the predictions made by this simpler model on the new dataset closely align with those made by the complex model on the same data. By achieving this alignment, LIME effectively reveals how the complex model behaves locally around specific instances. It also verifies the local fidelity of the simple model to the complex global model. The goal of this method is to identify the features with a high degree of importance to the model [68]. The underlying principle of LIME is shown in Equation (4). To make the local model more accurately represent the global complex model, the error between the predicted values of the global complex model f and the new simple model g must be minimized. Subsequently, the locality-aware loss function is constructed as Equation (5).
E x p l a n a t i o n x = arg ⁡ min g ∈ G ⁡ L f , g , π x + Ω g
L f , g , π z = ∑ z , z ′ ∈ Z π x ( z ) ( f z − g ( z ′ ) ) 2
where f   denotes the global complex model, i.e., the model to be explained, g denotes the simple model, G is a collection of simple models, e.g., all possible linear models, π x denotes the proximity measure of data z ′ in the new dataset to the original data z , and Ω ( g ) denotes the complexity of simple model g .

2.4. Implementation and Visualization

Python 3.8 was used as the programming language in the current study. Spectral preprocessing calculations were conducted using NumPy 1.25.2, Pandas, and SciPy 1.11.4. Keras 2.15.0 and scikit-learn 1.2.2 were utilized for the establishment, training, and performance assessment of the DNN models. The interpretability analysis of the models was conducted using Lime 0.2.0.1, SHAP 0.42.0, and eli5 0.13.0.

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Model Optimization Results

In this study, the influence of five preprocessing methods (SNV, SG, D1, D2, SG, and MSC) on the modeling performance was compared based on the R value, as shown in Figure 4. D1 performed optimally on both the training and validation sets, with R values of 0.83 and 0.75, respectively. Compared to the original spectra, the DNN model trained on D1 preprocessed spectra exhibited a significant improvement, achieving the R increase of 0.30 in the training set and 0.247 in the testing set.
To obtain the optimal DNN structure, the number of hidden layers and the number of neurons in the hidden layer were adjusted [59]. After the architecture optimization, the selected DNN structure comprised seven hidden layers. These layers contained 2000, 1500, 1000, 600, 400, 200, and 100 neurons, respectively, and were connected by the Leaky ReLU activation function. To prevent gradient explosion and overfitting, the dropout and early stopping mechanisms were also used during DNN model construction (Figure 5) [69,70].
As described above, different combinations of dropout rate, batch size, and learning rate will affect the modeling performance. After comparing the performance of learning rates of 0.01, 0.001, and 0.0001, a value of 0.001 was found to achieve better performance and was thus used for the subsequent optimization (Figure 6) [71]. The grid search of the dropout rate and batch size hyperparameters indicates that the model’s performance was optimized when the dropout rate was 0.15 and the batch size value was 70. For the above optimal parameter combination, the DNN model achieved the R values of 0.85 and 0.79 on the training and validation sets, respectively.

3.2. Model Evaluation

Figure 7a presents a comparative analysis of the DNN model’s performance throughout the optimization process, ranging from the default model to the optimal model. A marked enhancement in the DNN’s performance was observed during the whole model construction process. Specifically, the R of the model improved from 0.6 to 0.8 on the validation set, indicating a significant increase in the correlation between the model’s predictions and the actual values (Figure 7b). In the meantime, RMSE was decreased from 168.6 to 68.4 and MSE was decreased from 8.16 to 5.84. These improvements in evaluation metrics demonstrate enhanced accuracy and reliability of the model in predicting chromium content in soil. The discrepancies between the actual and predicted values in the training, validation, and testing sets were predominantly concentrated within a range of 10, further underscoring the effectiveness of the DNN modeling (Figure 7c–e). On the testing set, the optimal DNN model exhibited robust predictive performance with an R value of 0.79, RMSE of 96.98, and MAE of 5.79. These results indicate that the model’s capability to predict chromium content from soil hyperspectral data was enhanced after the optimization of DNN architecture and hyperparameters.

3.3. Spatial Autocorrelation and Residual Analysis of the DNN Prediction

Considering that the soil chromium content might have some spatial patterns, Moran’s index was calculated at 0.287 with a p-value of 0.001 using the residuals and geographical coordinates from the DNN model. This indicates a tendency for chromium to cluster within the spatial scope of the European Union, confirming the presence of significant spatial autocorrelation in the data.
Further analysis was performed on the residuals through kriging interpolation, as shown in Figure 8. This revealed that large residuals were predominantly distributed among Southern and Central European countries, while predictions for countries in Northern Europe were more reliable. In future research, more tailored DNN models could be established for different regions or countries within the European Union to enhance the robustness of the model’s predictions.

3.4. Model Interpretation Analysis

As detailed above, the permutation importance can be calculated by randomly disrupting a single feature in all the samples. This can then be used to calculate the impact on the model’s accuracy due to the change in that feature and, thus, the importance of each feature [72]. The calculated feature permutation importance using the optimized DNN model exhibited a relatively smooth trend (Figure 9); however, there were significant fluctuations in four specific band ranges: 400–439 nm (region I), 1364–1422 nm (region II), 1862–1934 nm (region III), and 2158–2499 nm (region IV). More pronounced absorption peaks were also observed in these ranges in the hyperspectral reflection curves processed using the first-order differential method.
Among these four band regions, region I is mainly attributed to the iron oxide content, while the peaks in regions II and III are primarily related to the presence of clay minerals and hydroxyl groups in water [73]. Region IV involves vibrations of metal–OH bonds and indicates a key absorption peak near 2200 nm; this peak is mainly influenced by Al–OH bonds, with the main contributing substances being kaolinite, montmorillonite, and illite [74].
The above permutation importance results indicate that soil Cr content is mainly correlated with clay minerals and iron oxides. Clay minerals directly influence soil texture and play a crucial role in the growth of plants and microorganisms. These factors, in turn, exert a significant influence on Cr content and flow within ecosystems [75]. For example, montmorillonite, a clay mineral characterized by a layered structure and active surface sites, can adsorb Cr through processes such as ion exchange with water within its lattice or complexation on its surface [75,76]. As an iron-loving element, Cr can be adsorbed with iron oxides to produce stable precipitates or surface complexes—these promote the binding of Cr to soil particles and thus reduce damage to the environment [77,78]. Therefore, the summarized high correlation between Cr content with clay minerals and iron oxides agrees well with the findings in the literature.
In this study, 1000 samples were randomly selected for LIME analysis and their 10 most important features were classified based on the four important regions identified in Figure 8. The LIME results are summarized in Figure 10. As shown, 77% of the important features identified in the LIME analysis belonged to one of the four intervals, while the other 23% were irregularly distributed in the other regions. The above results indicate a good agreement between LIME and permutation importance results. Notably, the number of important features in region IV was much higher than those in regions I, II, and III, and the top 10 most important features identified from the permutation importance were also distributed in region IV. Therefore, clay minerals were observed to be the most important indicators for Cr content in soil.
The above importance analysis indicates that the chemical properties of soil significantly affect the accumulation of Cr in soil. To prevent excess Cr accumulation in the soil, heavy metal industries should not be distributed in soils with high clay minerals and iron oxide content. This measure can help minimize the extent and impact of Cr pollution resulting from industrial accidents and improper sewage treatment. For soils that have accumulated large amounts of Cr, remediation using iron oxide or clay minerals can be performed to absorbed Cr from soil.

4. Conclusions

In this study, various analyses were performed based on the LUCAS dataset to establish a DNN model for Cr detection from soil spectra. As part of the optimization process, the optimal preprocessing method was determined, and the model’s hyperparameters were tuned. The resulting optimum DNN model can accurately predict soil Cr content from soil spectra. Meanwhile, four Cr-sensitive bands were identified through the interpretation using the optimal DNN model. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1)
D1 was identified as the optimal preprocessing method for the DNN model to predict soil Cr content. The R value of the DNN model increased from 0.50 to 0.75 on the testing set after spectral preprocessing.
(2)
The adjustment of DNN architecture and hyperparameters resulted in the further improvements in the model performance. The R, RMSE, and MAE values of the optimal model on the testing set were 0.79, 96.98, and 5.79, respectively, which were significantly improved compared to the default model.
(3)
Four important sensitive band regions of Cr content in soil were identified, namely, 400–439 nm (region I), 1364–1422 nm (region II), 1862–1934 nm (region III), and 2158–2499 nm (region IV). These bands correspond primarily to iron oxide and clay mineral content in the soil.

Author Contributions

C.M.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing—Original draft preparation; X.X.: Formal analysis, Methodology, Software; M.Z.: Conceptualization, Software; T.H.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis; C.Q.: Data curation, Project administration, Writing—Original draft preparation, Funding. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 22376221, 52274151), Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (No. 2024JJ2074), Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CAST (No. 2023QNRC001), and Unveiling and Commanding Project from Fankou Lean-Zinc Mine. This work was also supported in part by the High Performance Computing Center of Central South University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Chongchong Qi was employed by the company NONFEMET. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liu, Y.-R.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Riedo, J.; Sanz-Lazaro, C.; Eldridge, D.J.; Bastida, F.; Moreno-Jiménez, E.; Zhou, X.-Q.; Hu, H.-W.; He, J.-Z.; et al. Soil contamination in nearby natural areas mirrors that in urban greenspaces worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Coetzee, J.J.; Bansal, N.; Chirwa, E.M.N. Chromium in Environment, Its Toxic Effect from Chromite-Mining and Ferrochrome Industries, and Its Possible Bioremediation. Expo. Health 2020, 12, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Peng, H.; Guo, J. Removal of chromium from wastewater by membrane filtration, chemical precipitation, ion exchange, adsorption electrocoagulation, electrochemical reduction, electrodialysis, electrodeionization, photocatalysis and nanotechnology: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 18, 2055–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Buddenbaum, H.; Steffens, M. The Effects of Spectral Pretreatments on Chemometric Analyses of Soil Profiles Using Laboratory Imaging Spectroscopy. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2012, 2012, 274903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rangasamy, S.; Purushothaman, G.; Alagirisamy, B.; Santiago, M. Chromium contamination in soil and groundwater due to tannery wastes disposals at Vellore district of Tamil Nadu. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 6, 114–124. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tumolo, M.; Ancona, V.; De Paola, D.; Losacco, D.; Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Uricchio, V.F. Chromium Pollution in European Water, Sources, Health Risk, and Remediation Strategies: An Overview. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Prasad, S.; Yadav, K.K.; Kumar, S.; Gupta, N.; Cabral-Pinto, M.M.S.; Rezania, S.; Radwan, N.; Alam, J. Chromium contamination and effect on environmental health and its remediation: A sustainable approaches. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 285, 112174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Jobby, R.; Jha, P.; Yadav, A.K.; Desai, N. Biosorption and biotransformation of hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)]: A comprehensive review. Chemosphere 2018, 207, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dhal, B.; Thatoi, H.N.; Das, N.N.; Pandey, B.D. Chemical and microbial remediation of hexavalent chromium from contaminated soil and mining/metallurgical solid waste: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 250, 272–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zheng, C.J.; Yang, Z.H.; Si, M.Y.; Zhu, F.; Yang, W.C.; Zhao, F.P.; Shi, Y. Application of biochars in the remediation of chromium contamination: Fabrication, mechanisms, and interfering species. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 407, 124376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xia, S.P.; Song, Z.L.; Jeyakumar, P.; Shaheen, S.M.; Rinklebe, J.; Ok, Y.S.; Bolan, N.; Wang, H.L. A critical review on bioremediation technologies for Cr(VI)-contaminated soils and wastewater. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 1027–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kapoor, R.T.; Mfarrej, M.F.B.; Alam, P.; Rinklebe, J.; Ahmad, P. Accumulation of chromium in plants and its repercussion in animals and humans. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 301, 119044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Azeez, N.A.; Dash, S.S.; Gummadi, S.N.; Deepa, V.S. Nano-remediation of toxic heavy metal contamination: Hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)]. Chemosphere 2021, 266, 129204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jennings, A.A. Analysis of worldwide Regulatory Guidance Values for less frequently regulated elemental surface soil contaminants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 128, 561–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Anca Maria, M. Assessment of Soil Pollution with Heavy Metals in Romania. In Environmental Risk Assessment of Soil Contamination; Maria, C.H.-S., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2014; Chapter 9. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kania, M.; Gruba, P.; Wiecheć, M. Applying the near-infrared spectroscopy to calculate the Soil Trophic Index. Sylwan 2017, 161, 935–939. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hou, D.; Ok, Y.S. Soil pollution--speed up global mapping. Nature 2019, 566, 455–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jia, X.; O’Connor, D.; Shi, Z.; Hou, D. VIRS based detection in combination with machine learning for mapping soil pollution. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 268, 115845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nocita, M.; Stevens, A.; van Wesemael, B.; Aitkenhead, M.; Bachmann, M.; Barthes, B.; Ben Dor, E.; Brown, D.J.; Clairotte, M.; Csorba, A.; et al. Soil Spectroscopy: An Alternative to Wet Chemistry for Soil Monitoring. Adv. Agron. 2015, 132, 139–159. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nocita, M.; Stevens, A.; Noon, C.; van Wesemael, B. Prediction of soil organic carbon for different levels of soil moisture using Vis-NIR spectroscopy. Geoderma 2013, 199, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qi, C.; Wu, M.; Liu, H.; Liang, Y.; Liu, X.; Lin, Z. Machine learning exploration of the mobility and environmental assessment of toxic elements in mining-associated solid wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 401, 136771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, M.; Qi, C.; Derrible, S.; Choi, Y.; Fourie, A.; Ok, Y.S. Regional and global hotspots of arsenic contamination of topsoil identified by deep learning. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhou, M.; Hu, T.; Wu, M.; Ma, C.; Qi, C. Rapid estimation of soil Mn content by machine learning and soil spectra in large-scale. Ecol. Inform. 2024, 81, 102615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xu, X.; Qi, C.; Aretxabaleta, X.M.; Ma, C.; Spagnoli, D.; Manzano, H. The initial stages of cement hydration at the molecular level. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 2731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wold, S.; Ruhe, A.; Wold, H.; Dunn, W.J., III. The Collinearity Problem in Linear Regression. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Generalized Inverses. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 1984, 5, 735–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Conforti, M.; Castrignanò, A.; Robustelli, G.; Scarciglia, F.; Stelluti, M.; Buttafuoco, G. Laboratory-based Vis–NIR spectroscopy and partial least square regression with spatially correlated errors for predicting spatial variation of soil organic matter content. Catena 2015, 124, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Morellos, A.; Pantazi, X.E.; Moshou, D.; Alexandridis, T.; Whetton, R.; Tziotzios, G.; Wiebensohn, J.; Bill, R.; Mouazen, A.M. Machine learning based prediction of soil total nitrogen, organic carbon and moisture content by using VIS-NIR spectroscopy. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 152, 104–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, S.; Guan, K.; Zhang, C.; Lee, D.; Margenot, A.J.; Ge, Y.; Peng, J.; Zhou, W.; Zhou, Q.; Huang, Y. Using soil library hyperspectral reflectance and machine learning to predict soil organic carbon: Assessing potential of airborne and spaceborne optical soil sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 2022, 271, 112914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ahmed, A.N.; Othman, F.B.; Afan, H.A.; Ibrahim, R.K.; Fai, C.M.; Hossain, M.S.; Ehteram, M.; Elshafie, A. Machine learning methods for better water quality prediction. J. Hydrol. 2019, 578, 124084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bellinger, C.; Mohomed Jabbar, M.S.; Zaïane, O.; Osornio-Vargas, A. A systematic review of data mining and machine learning for air pollution epidemiology. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Alom, M.Z.; Taha, T.M.; Yakopcic, C.; Westberg, S.; Sidike, P.; Nasrin, M.S.; Hasan, M.; Van Essen, B.C.; Awwal, A.A.S.; Asari, V.K. A State-of-the-Art Survey on Deep Learning Theory and Architectures. Electronics 2019, 8, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Orgiazzi, A.; Ballabio, C.; Panagos, P.; Jones, A.; Fernandez-Ugalde, O. LUCAS Soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: A review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gergely, T.; Arwyn, J.; Luca, M.; Christine, A.; Cristiano, B.; Florence, C.; Delphine, D.B.; Anna, G.R.; Ciro, G.; Tamás, H.; et al. LUCAS Topoil Survey—Methodology, Data and Results; Publications Office of the European Union: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  34. Safanelli, J.L.; Chabrillat, S.; Ben-Dor, E.; Dematte, J.A.M. Multispectral Models from Bare Soil Composites for Mapping Topsoil Properties over Europe. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gao, Y.; Liu, L.; Zhang, X.; Chen, X.; Mi, J.; Xie, S. Consistency Analysis and Accuracy Assessment of Three Global 30-m Land-Cover Products over the European Union using the LUCAS Dataset. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Panagos, P.; Meusburger, K.; Ballabio, C.; Borrelli, P.; Alewell, C. Soil erodibility in Europe: A high-resolution dataset based on LUCAS. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 479-480, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Szatmári, G.; Pásztor, L. Maps of heavy metals in the soils of the European Union and proposed priority areas for detailed assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 565, 1054–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Da Silva, M.R.; Montanarella, L. Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the European Union with implications for food safety. Environ. Int. 2016, 88, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dotto, A.C.; Dalmolin, R.S.D.; ten Caten, A.; Grunwald, S. A systematic study on the application of scatter-corrective and spectral-derivative preprocessing for multivariate prediction of soil organic carbon by Vis-NIR spectra. Geoderma 2018, 314, 262–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vasques, G.M.; Grunwald, S.; Sickman, J.O. Comparison of multivariate methods for inferential modeling of soil carbon using visible/near-infrared spectra. Geoderma 2008, 146, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Peng, X.; Shi, T.; Song, A.; Chen, Y.; Gao, W. Estimating Soil Organic Carbon Using VIS/NIR Spectroscopy with SVMR and SPA Methods. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 2699–2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Javadi, S.H.; Munnaf, M.A.; Mouazen, A.M. Fusion of Vis-NIR and XRF spectra for estimation of key soil attributes. Geoderma 2021, 385, 114851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nawar, S.; Buddenbaum, H.; Hill, J.; Kozak, J.; Mouazen, A.M. Estimating the soil clay content and organic matter by means of different calibration methods of vis-NIR diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 155, 510–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ben-Dor, E.; Inbar, Y.; Chen, Y. The reflectance spectra of organic matter in the visible near-infrared and short wave infrared region (400–2500 nm) during a controlled decomposition process. Remote Sens. Environ. 1997, 61, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Demetriades-Shah, T.H.; Steven, M.D.; Clark, J.A. High resolution derivative spectra in remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 1990, 33, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Burger, J.; Geladi, P. Spectral pre-treatments of hyperspectral near infrared images: Analysis of diffuse reflectance scattering. J. Near Infrared Spectrosc. 2007, 15, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Savitzky, A.; Golay, M.J.E. Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures. Anal. Chem. 1964, 36, 1627–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Barnes, R.J.; Dhanoa, M.S.; Lister, S.J. Standard Normal Variate Transformation and De-Trending of Near-Infrared Diffuse Reflectance Spectra. Appl. Spectrosc. 1989, 43, 772–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Qiao, X.-X.; Wang, C.; Feng, M.-C.; Yang, W.-D.; Ding, G.-W.; Sun, H.; Liang, Z.-Y.; Shi, C.-C. Hyperspectral estimation of soil organic matter based on different spectral preprocessing techniques. Spectrosc. Lett. 2017, 50, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stevens, A.; Udelhoven, T.; Denis, A.; Tychon, B.; Lioy, R.; Hoffmann, L.; van Wesemael, B. Measuring soil organic carbon in croplands at regional scale using airborne imaging spectroscopy. Geoderma 2010, 158, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kobori, H.; Gorretta, N.; Rabatel, G.; Bellon-Maurel, V.; Chaix, G.; Roger, J.-M.; Tsuchikawa, S. Applicability of Vis-NIR hyperspectral imaging for monitoring wood moisture content (MC). Holzforschung 2013, 67, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, L.; Yoon, K.J. Knowledge Distillation and Student-Teacher Learning for Visual Intelligence: A Review and New Outlooks. Ieee Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2022, 44, 3048–3068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Maimaitijiang, M.; Sagan, V.; Sidike, P.; Hartling, S.; Esposito, F.; Fritschi, F.B. Soybean yield prediction from UAV using multimodal data fusion and deep learning. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 237, 111599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Khelifi, L.; Mignotte, M. Deep Learning for Change Detection in Remote Sensing Images: Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 126385–126400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sharma, S.; Sharma, S.; Athaiya, A. Activation functions in neural networks. Towards Data Sci. 2017, 6, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Karlik, B.; Olgac, A.V. Performance analysis of various activation functions in generalized MLP architectures of neural networks. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Expert Syst. 2011, 1, 111–122. [Google Scholar]
  57. Albawi, S.; Mohammed, T.A.; Al-Zawi, S. Understanding of a convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICET), Antalya, Turkey, 21–23 August 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  58. Guo, H.Q.; Zhou, J.; Koopialipoor, M.; Armaghani, D.J.; Tahir, M.M. Deep neural network and whale optimization algorithm to assess flyrock induced by blasting. Eng. Comput. 2021, 37, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Patel, A.K.; Ghosh, J.K.; Pande, S.; Sayyad, S.U. Deep-Learning-Based Approach for Estimation of Fractional Abundance of Nitrogen in Soil From Hyperspectral Data. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2020, 13, 6495–6511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Padarian, J.; Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B. Using deep learning to predict soil properties from regional spectral data. Geoderma Reg. 2019, 16, e00198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Geras, K.J.; Wolfson, S.; Shen, Y.; Wu, N.; Kim, S.; Kim, E.; Heacock, L.; Parikh, U.; Moy, L.; Cho, K. High-resolution breast cancer screening with multi-view deep convolutional neural networks. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1703.07047. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, F.; Yang, M.; Ma, L.; Zhang, T.; Qin, W.; Li, W.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Wang, Z.; Li, F.; et al. Estimation of Above-Ground Biomass of Winter Wheat Based on Consumer-Grade Multi-Spectral UAV. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rudin, C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2019, 1, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Du, M.; Liu, N.; Hu, X. Techniques for interpretable machine learning. Commun. ACM 2019, 63, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Linardatos, P.; Papastefanopoulos, V.; Kotsiantis, S. Explainable ai: A review of machine learning interpretability methods. Entropy 2020, 23, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Huang, N.; Lu, G.; Xu, D. A permutation importance-based feature selection method for short-term electricity load forecasting using random forest. Energies 2016, 9, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Murdoch, W.J.; Singh, C.; Kumbier, K.; Abbasi-Asl, R.; Yu, B. Definitions, methods, and applications in interpretable machine learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 22071–22080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ribeiro, M.T.; Singh, S.; Guestrin, C. “Why should i trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 August 2016; pp. 1135–1144. [Google Scholar]
  69. Srivastava, N.; Hinton, G.; Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Salakhutdinov, R. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2014, 15, 1929–1958. [Google Scholar]
  70. Li, L.S.; Jamieson, K.; DeSalvo, G.; Rostamizadeh, A.; Talwalkar, A. Hyperband: A Novel Bandit-Based Approach to Hyperparameter Optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2018, 18, 1–52. [Google Scholar]
  71. Bergstra, J.; Bengio, Y. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012, 13, 281–305. [Google Scholar]
  72. Altmann, A.; Toloşi, L.; Sander, O.; Lengauer, T. Permutation importance: A corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 1340–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ge, Y.; Morgan, C.L.S.; Wijewardane, N.K. Visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy analysis of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2020, 84, 1495–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Stenberg, B.; Viscarra Rossel, R.A.; Mouazen, A.M.; Wetterlind, J. Chapter Five—Visible and Near Infrared Spectroscopy in Soil Science. Adv. Agron. 2010, 107, 163–215. [Google Scholar]
  75. Griffin, R.A.; Au, A.K.; Frost, R.R. Effect of pH on adsorption of chromium from landfill-leachate by clay minerals. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A Environ. Sci. Eng. 1977, 12, 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. de Pablo, L.; Chávez, M.L.; Abatal, M. Adsorption of heavy metals in acid to alkaline environments by montmorillonite and Ca-montmorillonite. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 171, 1276–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wu, Y.; Chen, J.; Ji, J.; Gong, P.; Liao, Q.; Tian, Q.; Ma, H. A Mechanism Study of Reflectance Spectroscopy for Investigating Heavy Metals in Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 918–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Buerge, I.J.; Hug, S.J. Influence of Mineral Surfaces on Chromium(VI) Reduction by Iron(II). Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 4285–4291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Toxics 12 00357 g001
Figure 1. Descriptive diagram of the dataset: (a) Geological map of the sampling points; (b) Schematic diagram of the hyperspectral curve; (c) Distribution of Cr content.
Figure 1. Descriptive diagram of the dataset: (a) Geological map of the sampling points; (b) Schematic diagram of the hyperspectral curve; (c) Distribution of Cr content.
Toxics 12 00357 g001
Toxics 12 00357 g002
Figure 2. Hyperspectral curves with different spectral preprocessing: (a) Original spectral curve; (b) D1 preprocessed curve; (c) D2 preprocessed curve; (d) SG preprocessed curve; (e) MSC preprocessed curve; (f) SNV preprocessed curve. The curve represents the average value for each corresponding Cr group and the shadow represents the standard deviation.
Figure 2. Hyperspectral curves with different spectral preprocessing: (a) Original spectral curve; (b) D1 preprocessed curve; (c) D2 preprocessed curve; (d) SG preprocessed curve; (e) MSC preprocessed curve; (f) SNV preprocessed curve. The curve represents the average value for each corresponding Cr group and the shadow represents the standard deviation.
Toxics 12 00357 g002
Toxics 12 00357 g003
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of the DNN.
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of the DNN.
Toxics 12 00357 g003
Toxics 12 00357 g004
Figure 4. The influence of spectral preprocessing on DNN modeling performance.
Figure 4. The influence of spectral preprocessing on DNN modeling performance.
Toxics 12 00357 g004
Toxics 12 00357 g005
Figure 5. The optimized DNN structure.
Figure 5. The optimized DNN structure.
Toxics 12 00357 g005
Toxics 12 00357 g006
Figure 6. The optimized batch size and learning rate.
Figure 6. The optimized batch size and learning rate.
Toxics 12 00357 g006
Toxics 12 00357 g007
Figure 7. Evaluation of modeling performance: (a) Values of model evaluation metrics at each modeling stage; (b) Comparison of the actual and predicted Cr values using the optimal model; (c–e) Distribution of the difference between predicted and actual Cr values in the training, validation, and testing sets of the optimal model, respectively. The ‘default model’ refers to the initial DNN model, ‘preprocess model’ to the model post preprocessing, ‘structure model’ to the model after optimizing the neural network structure, and ‘optimal model’ to the model achieving the best performance.
Figure 7. Evaluation of modeling performance: (a) Values of model evaluation metrics at each modeling stage; (b) Comparison of the actual and predicted Cr values using the optimal model; (c–e) Distribution of the difference between predicted and actual Cr values in the training, validation, and testing sets of the optimal model, respectively. The ‘default model’ refers to the initial DNN model, ‘preprocess model’ to the model post preprocessing, ‘structure model’ to the model after optimizing the neural network structure, and ‘optimal model’ to the model achieving the best performance.
Toxics 12 00357 g007
Toxics 12 00357 g008
Figure 8. The distribution of the prediction residual across the EU.
Figure 8. The distribution of the prediction residual across the EU.
Toxics 12 00357 g008
Toxics 12 00357 g009
Figure 9. Permutation importance across the whole spectra. The blue curve is a representative hyperspectral curve after D1 preprocessing, the red curve represents the permutation importance value across the spectra, and the four regions are the sensitive band ranges.
Figure 9. Permutation importance across the whole spectra. The blue curve is a representative hyperspectral curve after D1 preprocessing, the red curve represents the permutation importance value across the spectra, and the four regions are the sensitive band ranges.
Toxics 12 00357 g009
Toxics 12 00357 g010
Figure 10. LIME importance analysis.
Figure 10. LIME importance analysis.
Toxics 12 00357 g010
Table 1. Hyperparameter selection range.
Table 1. Hyperparameter selection range.
ParameterSearch Range
Layer[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Neurons[100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500, 2000]
Activation function[ReLU, Leakly_ReLU, Swish, Sigmoid]
Batch size[25, 50, 75, 100, 500, 100]
Dropout rate[0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5]
Learning rate[0.01, 0.001, 0.0001]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, C.; Xu, X.; Zhou, M.; Hu, T.; Qi, C. A Deep Learning Approach for Chromium Detection and Characterization from Soil Hyperspectral Data. Toxics 2024, 12, 357. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050357

AMA Style

Ma C, Xu X, Zhou M, Hu T, Qi C. A Deep Learning Approach for Chromium Detection and Characterization from Soil Hyperspectral Data. Toxics. 2024; 12(5):357. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050357

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Chundi, Xinhang Xu, Min Zhou, Tao Hu, and Chongchong Qi. 2024. "A Deep Learning Approach for Chromium Detection and Characterization from Soil Hyperspectral Data" Toxics 12, no. 5: 357. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050357

APA Style

Ma, C., Xu, X., Zhou, M., Hu, T., & Qi, C. (2024). A Deep Learning Approach for Chromium Detection and Characterization from Soil Hyperspectral Data. Toxics, 12(5), 357. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050357

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop