In traditional research, monitoring data and samples are limited, and it is difficult to achieve ideal results in real-time monitoring and rapid response to environmental risks. By leveraging extensive environmental data gathered from nuclear power plants, the research employed machine learning methodologies for accurate feature selection and extraction of environmental parameters. An efficient environmental risk assessment model was successfully established by using a random forest algorithm. The 95% confidence interval for the area under the curve value spanned from 0.6894 to 0.9292. This provided a more dynamic and effective means for assessing and managing the environmental risks of nuclear power plants.
SadiqMShinwariRUsmanMOzturkIMaghyerehAI. Linking nuclear energy, human development and carbon emission in BRICS region: do external debt and financial globalization protect the environment? Nuclear Engineering and Technology.2022; 54(9): 3299-3309. doi: 10.1016/j.net.2022.03.024.
2.
SungheethaDA. Real time monitoring and fire detection using internet of things and cloud based drones. Journal of Soft Computing Paradigm.2020; 2(3): 168-174. doi: 10.36548/jscp.2020.3.004.
3.
GibbRBrowningEGlover-KapferPJonesKE. Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and monitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution.2019; 10(2): 169-185. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13101.
4.
WangSWangJLinSLiJ. Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement. Energy Policy.2019; 126: 352-360. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.040.
5.
KostisPDincerHYukselS. Knowledge-based energy investments of European economies and policy recommendations for sustainable development. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2023; 14(3): 2630-2662. doi: 10.1007/s13132-022-00972-5.
6.
HazenELAbrahmsBBrodieSCarrollGJacoxMGSavocaMS, et al. Marine top predators as climate and ecosystem sentinels. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.2019; 17(10): 565-574. doi: 10.1002/fee.2125.
7.
PysekPHulmePESimberloffDBacherSBlackburnTMCarltonJT, et al. Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biological Reviews.2020; 95(6): 1511-1534. doi: 10.1111/brv.12627.
8.
SaifNYanPNiotisKScheyerORahmanABerkowitzM, et al. Feasibility of using a wearable biosensor device in patients at risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.2020; 7: 104-111. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2019.39.
9.
MaZLiuJLiHZhangWWiliamsMAGuddaFO, et al. A fast and easily parallelizable biosensor method for measuring extractable tetracyclines in soils. Environmental Science & Technology.2019; 54(2): 758-767. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04051.
10.
TranNHHoangLNghiemLDNguyenNMHNgoHNGuoW, et al. Occurrence and risk assessment of multiple classes of antibiotics in urban canals and lakes in Hanoi, Vietnam. Science of The Total Environment.2019; 692: 157-174. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.092.
11.
AshfaqMLiYRehmanMSUZubairMMustafaGNazarMF, et al. Occurrence, spatial variation and risk assessment of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in urban wastewater, canal surface water, and their sediments: A case study of Lahore, Pakistan. Science of the Total Environment.2019; 688: 653-663. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.285.
12.
LiuKWangXFangTXuPZhuLLiD. Source and potential risk assessment of suspended atmospheric microplastics in Shanghai. 2019; 675: 462-471. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.110.
DavereyADuttaKSarkarA. An overview of analytical methodologies for environmental monitoring. Tools, Techniques and Protocols for Monitoring Environmental Contaminants.2019; 3-17. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814679-8.00001-7.
15.
ZhouSDi PaoloCWuXShaoYSeilerTBHollertH. Optimization of screening-level risk assessment and priority selection of emerging pollutants – the case of pharmaceuticals in European surface waters. Environment International.2019; 128: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.034.
16.
ArisantyDMuhaiminMRosadiDSaputraANHastutiKPRajianiI. Spatiotemporal patterns of burned areas based on the geographic information system for fire risk monitoring. International Journal of Forestry Research.2021; 2021: 1-10. doi: 10.1155/2021/2784474.
17.
de RuijterVNRedondo-HasselerharmPEGouinTKoelmansAA. Quality criteria for microplastic effect studies in the context of risk assessment: a critical review. Environmental Science & Technology.2020; 54(19): 11692-11705. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03057.
18.
EbeleAJOluseyiTDrageDSHarradSAbdallahMAE. Occurrence, seasonal variation and human exposure to pharmaceuticals and personal care products in surface water, groundwater and drinking water in Lagos State, Nigeria. Emerging Contaminants.2020; 6: 124-132. doi: 10.1016/j.emcon.2020.02.004.
19.
BilalMMehmoodSRasheedTIqbalHMN. Antibiotics traces in the aquatic environment: persistence and adverse environmental impact. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health.2020; 13: 68-74. doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2019.11.005.
20.
KongQTrugmanDTRossZEBiancoMJMeadeBJGerstoftP. Machine learning in seismology: Turning data into insights. Seismological Research Letters.2019; 90(1): 3-14. doi: 10.1785/0220180259.
21.
AdnanRMPetroselliAHeddamSAdamowskiJ. Short term rainfall-runoff modelling using several machine learning methods and a conceptual event-based model. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment.2021; 35(3): 597-616. doi: 10.1007/s00477-020-01776-2.
22.
CostacheR. Flood susceptibility assessment by using bivariate statistics and machine learning models-a useful tool for flood risk management. Water Resources Management.2019; 33(9): 3239-3256. doi: 10.1007/s11269-019-02301-z.
23.
SunWBocchiniPDavisonBD. Applications of artificial intelligence for disaster management. Natural Hazards.2020; 103(3): 2631-2689. doi: 10.1007/s11069-020-04124-3.
24.
Jahangoshai RezaeeMYousefiSEshkevariMValipourMSaberiM. Risk analysis of health, safety and environment in chemical industry integrating linguistic FMEA, fuzzy inference system and fuzzy DEA. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment.2020; 34: 201-218. doi: 10.1007/s00477-019-01754-3.
25.
ZhongSZhangKBagheriMBurkenJGGuALiB, et al. Machine learning: new ideas and tools in environmental science and engineering. Environmental Science & Technology.2021; 55(19): 12741-12754. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01339.
26.
ChenYZhengWLiWHuangY. Large group activity security risk assessment and risk early warning based on random forest algorithm. Pattern Recognition Letters.2021; 144: 1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2021.01.008.
27.
WillardJJiaXXuSSteinbachMKumarV. Integrating scientific knowledge with machine learning for engineering and environmental systems. ACM Computing Surveys.2022; 55(4): 1-37. doi: 10.1145/3514228.
28.
ShamshirbandSHashemiSSalimiHSamadianfardSAsadiEShadkaniS, et al. Predicting standardized streamflow index for hydrological drought using machine learning models. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics.2020; 14(1): 339-350. doi: 10.1080/19942060.2020.1715844.
29.
SpeiserJLMillerMEToozeJIpE. A comparison of random forest variable selection methods for classification prediction modeling. Expert Systems with Applications.2019; 134: 93-101. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.028.
30.
TzeniosN. Examining the Impact of EdTech Integration on Academic Performance Using Random Forest Regression. ResearchBerg Review of Science and Technology.2020; 3(1): 94-106.
