Abstract: The crucial role which groundwater resource plays in our environment and the overall well-being of all living things can not be underestimated. Nonetheless, mismanagement of resources, over-exploitation, inadequate supply of surface water and pollution have led to severe drought and an overall drop in groundwater resources’ levels over the past decades. To address this, a groundwater flow model and several mathematical data-driven models have been developed for forecasting groundwater levels. However, there is a problem of unavailability and scarcity of the on-site input data needed by the data-driven models to forecast the groundwater level. Furthermore, as a result of the dynamics and stochastic characteristics of groundwater, there is a need for an appropriate, accurate and reliable forecasting model to solve these challenges. Over the years, the broad application of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) models are gaining attraction as an alternative solution for forecasting groundwater levels. Against this background, this article provides an overview of forecasting methods for predicting groundwater levels. Also, this article uses ML models such as Regressions Models, Deep Auto-Regressive models, and Nonlinear Autoregressive Neural Networks with External Input (NARX) to forecast groundwater levels using the groundwater region 10 at Karst belt in South Africa as a case study. This was done using Python Mx. Version 1.9.1., and MATLAB R2022a machine learning toolboxes. Moreover, the Coefficient of Determination (R2);, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mutual Information gain, Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and the Mean Absolute Scaled Error (MASE)) models were the forecasting statistical performance metrics used to assess the predictive performance of these models. The results obtained showed that NARX and Support Vector Machine (SVM) have higher performance metrics and accuracy compared to other models used in this study.

Abstract: Most of the World’s germanium (Ge) is mined from Ge-rich lignite, where it is commonly associated with elevated arsenic (As), tungsten (W) and beryllium (Be) contents. Over the past decade, new evidence showing that World-class Ge deposits result from the interaction of hydrothermal fluids with organic matter in coal seams has emerged. Yet, the chemical state of Ge and associated metals in lignite remains poorly understood. We used Mega-pixel Synchrotron X-ray Fluorescence (MSXRF), X-ray Absorption Near Edge Structure (XANES) and Extended X-ray Absorption Fine Structure (EXAFS) to characterize the oxidation states and chemical bonding environment of Ge, As, and W in two world-class Mesozoic Ge-in-lignite deposits (Lincang, Yunnan, southwestern China; Wulantuga, Inner Mongolia, northeastern China); in lignite-bearing uranium (U) ores from the Beverley deposit (South Australia) hosted in Eocene sandstones; and in lignite and preserved wood in late Oligocene-Miocene fluviatile sediments (Gore, Southland, New Zealand). The aim was to improve our understanding of the enrichment mechanism of Ge in lignite and better evaluate the environmental mobility of Ge and some of the associated metals (specifically As and W) in lignite ores. In all samples, chemical maps show that Ge is distributed homogeneously (down to 2μm) within the organic matter. XANES and EXAFS data show that Ge exists in the tetravalent oxidation state and in a distorted octahedral coordination with O, consistent with complexing of Ge by organic ligands. In some pyrite-bearing samples, a minor fraction of Ge is also present as Ge(IV) in association with pyrite. In contrast, As displays a more complex speciation pattern, sometimes even in a single sample, including As(III), As(V), and As(−I/+II) in solid solution in sulfides. Arsenic in sulfides occurs in anionic and cationic forms, i.e., it shows both the common substitution for S22− and the substitution for Fe recently discovered in some hydrothermal pyrites. Tungsten was present as W(VI) in distorted octahedral (3+3) coordination. The EXAFS data confirm the absence or minor contribution of individual W-rich minerals such as scheelite or ferberite to W mass balance in the studied samples. These data show that Ge, W, and probably some As are scavenged via formation of insoluble, oxygen-bridged metal organic complexes in lignite. Destruction of the organic ligands responsible for fixing Ge and W (As) in these lignites is required for liberating the metals, e.g. from waste materials. Geochemical modelling suggests that Ge, W, Be and As all can be extracted from granitic rocks by dilute, low temperature hydrothermal fluids. Germanium is transported mainly as the tetrahedral Ge(OH)4(aq) complex, but fixed as an octahedral oxy-bridged organic complex. The same situation is valid for W, which is transported at the tetrahedral tungstate ion, but most likely scavenged via formation of a 6-coordinated metal-organic species. The Ge-Be-W±As association in Ge-rich coals reflects the source of the metals as well as related scavenging mechanisms.