| Literature DB >> 25798288 |
Seyed Ahmad Mirbagheri1, Majid Bagheri1, Siamak Boudaghpour1, Majid Ehteshami1, Zahra Bagheri2.
Abstract
Treatment process models are efficient tools to assure proper operation and better control of wastewater treatment systems. The current research was an effort to evaluate performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor (SMBR) treating combined municipal and industrial wastewater and to simulate effluent quality parameters of the SMBR using a radial basis function artificial neural network (RBFANN). The results showed that the treatment efficiencies increase and hydraulic retention time (HRT) decreases for combined wastewater compared with municipal and industrial wastewaters. The BOD, COD, [Formula: see text] and total phosphorous (TP) removal efficiencies for combined wastewater at HRT of 7 hours were 96.9%, 96%, 96.7% and 92%, respectively. As desirable criteria for treating wastewater, the TBOD/TP ratio increased, the BOD and COD concentrations decreased to 700 and 1000 mg/L, respectively and the BOD/COD ratio was about 0.5 for combined wastewater. The training procedures of the RBFANN models were successful for all predicted components. The train and test models showed an almost perfect match between the experimental and predicted values of effluent BOD, COD, [Formula: see text] and TP. The coefficient of determination (R(2)) values were higher than 0.98 and root mean squared error (RMSE) values did not exceed 7% for train and test models.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial neural network; Combined wastewater; Radial basis function; Submerged membrane bioreactor; Treatment efficiency
Year: 2015 PMID: 25798288 PMCID: PMC4367972 DOI: 10.1186/s40201-015-0172-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Health Sci Eng
Figure 1Schematic flow diagram of the experimental apparatus.
Specifications of the hollow fiber membrane used in this study
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Material | Polypropylene |
| Capillary Thickness | 40 ~ 50 μm |
| Capillary Outer Diameter | 450 μm |
| Capillary Pore Diameter | 0.01 ~ 0.2 μm |
| Gas permeation | 7.0 * 10−2 cm3/cm2 • S • cm Hg |
| Porosity | 40 ~ 50% |
| Lengthways strength | 120,000 kPa |
| Designed flux | 6 ~ 9 L/M2/H |
| Area of membrane module | 8 m2/module |
| Operating Pressure | −10 ~ −30 kPa |
| Flow rate | 1.0 ~ 1.2 m3/ day |
Municipal wastewater characteristics in the critical conditions
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | 25.8 | Org-N (mg/L) | 16.8 |
| DO (mg/L) | 0 | TKN (mg/L) | 39.9 |
| BOD5 (mg/L) | 180 | TS (mg/L) | 810 |
| COD (mg/L) | 380 | TDS (mg/L) | 630 |
|
| 0.96 | TSS (mg/L) | 180 |
|
| 23.1 | TP (mg/L) | 16.54 |
Characteristics of high strength wastewater for different industries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tannery [ | 2000 | - | - | - | - | 400 | - | - | - | |
| Tannery [ | 16000 | 5000 | 0.313 | 450 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Textile [ | 2 | 6000 | 700 | 0.117 | 20 | - | - | 120 | - | - |
| Textile [ | 0.7-4 | 4000 | 500 | 0.125 | 4.8 | - | 200 | 2 | - | - |
| Dyeing [ | 1300 | 250 | 0.192 | 100 | 200 | - | - | 40 | - | |
| Textile [ | 0.58 | 1500 | 500 | 0.333 | 50 | 140 | - | 7 | - | - |
| Wheat starch [ | 35000 | 16000 | 0.457 | - | 13300 | - | - | - | - | |
| Dairy [ | 3500 | 2200 | 0.629 | 120 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Beverage [ | 1800 | 1000 | 0.556 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Palm oil [ | 0.8 | 67000 | 34000 | 0.507 | 50 | 24000 | - | - | 100000 | - |
| Pet food [ | 2.9 | 21000 | 10000 | 0.476 | 110 | 54000 | - | 200 | - | - |
| Dairy product [ | 880 | 680 | 0.773 | - | 2480 | - | - | - | - | |
| Phenolic [ | 0.42 | 797 | - | - | 131 | - | - | - | - | 37.3 |
| Pharmaceutical [ | 1 | 6300 | 3225 | 0.51 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Characteristics of measured variables used for modeling by RBFANN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Influent conc. | Effluent conc. | ||
| BOD (mg/L) | 500–600 | BOD (mg/L) | 5.5–172.3 | |
| COD (mg/L) | 1000–12000 | COD (mg/L) | 11–396.5 | |
|
| 21–27 |
| 0.2–3.1 | |
| TP (mg/L) | 15–16.4 | TP (mg/L) | 1.4–6.4 | |
| 2 | HRT (h) | 3–11 | ||
| 3 | MLVSS (mg/L) | 4120–5990 | ||
| 4 | TDS (mg/L) | 500–4900 | ||
| 5 | pH | 6.2–7.6 |
Figure 2Topological architecture of the RBF artificial neural network used in this study.
Figure 3Simulated effluent concentration of BOD by RBFANN model for train and test data.
Effect of different single and joint variables on the effluent BOD models
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 0.804 | 0.863 | 35.62 | 32.80 | 5 |
| 2 | 0.991 | 0.999 | 8.15 | 2.79 | 1 |
| 3 | 0.907 | 0.995 | 24.76 | 6.43 | 2 |
| 4 | 0.705 | 0.674 | 48.71 | 42.27 | 4 |
| 5 | 0.804 | 0.863 | 35.62 | 32.8 | 3 |
| 2-1 | 0.973 | 0.961 | 17.39 | 16.28 | 4 |
| 2-3 | 0.998 | 0.999 | 2.98 | 2.15 | 1 |
| 2-4 | 0.996 | 0.978 | 6.82 | 2.46 | 3 |
| 2-5 | 0.995 | 0.999 | 6.65 | 1.76 | 2 |
| 2-3-1 | 0.992 | 0.999 | 6.17 | 2.41 | 2 |
| 2-3-4 | 0.998 | 1 | 4.08 | 0.12 | 1 |
| 2-3-5 | 0.996 | 0.998 | 5.62 | 4.23 | 3 |
| 2-3-4-1 | 0.998 | 0.998 | 3.69 | 3.07 | 1 |
| 2-3-4-5 | 0.997 | 0999 | 4.29 | 3.25 | 2 |
| 2-3-4-1-5 | 0.990 | 0.998 | 8.67 | 4.56 | 1 |
The numbers 1 to 5 refers to input variables identified in Table 4.
Figure 4Simulated effluent concentration of COD by RBFANN model for train and test data.
Effect of different single and joint variables on the effluent COD models
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 0.179 | 0.599 | 153.49 | 91.66 | 5 |
| 2 | 0.947 | 0.997 | 44.36 | 14.1 | 1 |
| 3 | 0.941 | 0.994 | 48.23 | 35.67 | 2 |
| 4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 123 | 63.41 | 3 |
| 5 | 0.862 | 0.715 | 70 | 109.03 | 4 |
| 2-1 | 0.951 | 0.999 | 47 | 4.3 | 4 |
| 2-3 | 0.995 | 0.999 | 15.43 | 6.19 | 1 |
| 2-4 | 0.998 | 0.994 | 11.23 | 13.58 | 3 |
| 2-5 | 0.987 | 0.998 | 22.45 | 7.66 | 2 |
| 2-3-1 | 0.984 | 0.996 | 26.66 | 13.34 | 3 |
| 2-3-4 | 0.994 | 0.996 | 16.48 | 8.48 | 1 |
| 2-3-5 | 0.974 | 0.997 | 33.13 | 11.56 | 2 |
| 2-3-4-1 | 0.992 | 0.999 | 19.58 | 2.61 | 1 |
| 2-3-4-5 | 0.987 | 0.991 | 22.08 | 14.93 | 2 |
| 2-3-4-1-5 | 0.992 | 0.985 | 25.62 | 9.12 | 1 |
The numbers 1 to 5 refers to input variables identified in Table 4.
Figure 5Simulated effluent concentration of by RBFANN model for train and test data.
Effect of different single and joint variables on the effluent models
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 0.59 | 0.44 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 5 |
| 2 | 0.983 | 0.998 | 0.16 | 0.12 | 1 |
| 3 | 0.923 | 0.985 | 0.35 | 0.17 | 2 |
| 4 | 0.54 | 0.6 | 0.81 | 0.52 | 4 |
| 5 | 0.78 | 0.94 | 0.56 | 0.29 | 3 |
| 2-1 | 0.99 | 0.993 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 3 |
| 2-3 | 0.99 | 0.994 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 1 |
| 2-4 | 0.99 | 0.964 | 0.12 | 0.23 | 4 |
| 2-5 | 0.99 | 0.992 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 2 |
| 2-3-1 | 0.987 | 0.995 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 3 |
| 2-3-4 | 0.99 | 0.996 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 2 |
| 2-3-5 | 0.988 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 1 |
| 2-3-5-1 | 0.99 | 0.998 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 1 |
| 2-3-5-4 | 0.97 | 0.996 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 2 |
| 2-3-5-1-4 | 0.98 | 0.991 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 1 |
The numbers 1 to 5 refers to input variables identified in Table 4.
Figure 6Simulated effluent concentration of TP by RBFANN model for train and test data.
Effect of different single and joint variables on the effluent TP models
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 0.34 | 0.3 | 1.15 | 1.88 | 5 |
| 2 | 0.972 | 0.992 | 0.35 | 0.14 | 1 |
| 3 | 0.878 | 0.978 | 0.7 | 0.29 | 2 |
| 4 | 0.51 | 0.8 | 1.39 | 0.82 | 4 |
| 5 | 0.77 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 0.4 | 3 |
| 2-1 | 0.975 | 0.97 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 4 |
| 2-3 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.22 | 0.16 | 2 |
| 2-4 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.53 | 0.09 | 3 |
| 2-5 | 0.995 | 0.997 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 1 |
| 2-5-1 | 0.99 | 0.998 | 0.2 | 0.13 | 2 |
| 2-5-3 | 0.991 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 1 |
| 2-5-4 | 0.96 | 0.999 | 0.35 | 0.09 | 3 |
| 2-5-3-1 | 0.99 | 0.998 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1 |
| 2-5-3-4 | 0.99 | 0.993 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 2 |
| 2-5-3-1-4 | 0.988 | 0.994 | 0.32 | 0.17 | 1 |
The numbers 1 to 5 refers to input variables identified in Table 4.