| Literature DB >> 28626652 |
Zulfiqar Ali Raza1, Naseer Ahmad1,2, Shahid Kamal2.
Abstract
The present paper envisages the multi-response optimization of certain process parameters like total sugars concentration, C/N ratio and incubation time onEntities:
Keywords: Biosurfactant; Grey relational analysis; Taguchi method
Year: 2014 PMID: 28626652 PMCID: PMC5466101 DOI: 10.1016/j.btre.2014.06.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Rep (Amst) ISSN: 2215-017X
Factors and levels.
| Factor | Code | Unit | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |||
| TS | A | % (w/v) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| C/N ratio | B | – | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| Incubation time | C | days | 3 | 5 | 7 |
L9 Orthogonal array with factors and responses.
| Run | TS | C/N ratio | Incubation time | Utilized TS | DCBM | RL | ST | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % (w/v) | – | (days) | % (w/v) | (g/L) | (g/L) | (mN/m) | (g/g) | (g/g) | (g/g) | (g/L/h) | |
| 1 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 24 | 0.65 | 0.80 | 32.0 | 3.33 | 1.23 | 2.71 | 0.0111 |
| 2 | 1 | 20 | 5 | 39 | 1.11 | 0.90 | 31.0 | 2.31 | 0.81 | 2.85 | 0.0075 |
| 3 | 1 | 30 | 7 | 47 | 1.10 | 0.88 | 31.0 | 1.87 | 0.80 | 2.34 | 0.0052 |
| 4 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 19 | 1.30 | 1.00 | 30.0 | 2.63 | 0.77 | 3.42 | 0.0083 |
| 5 | 2 | 20 | 7 | 26 | 1.50 | 1.45 | 28.0 | 2.79 | 0.97 | 2.88 | 0.0086 |
| 6 | 2 | 30 | 3 | 13 | 1.20 | 1.20 | 29.0 | 4.62 | 1.00 | 4.61 | 0.0167 |
| 7 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 19 | 0.85 | 0.95 | 31.0 | 1.67 | 1.12 | 1.49 | 0.0056 |
| 8 | 3 | 20 | 3 | 10 | 1.21 | 0.90 | 29.5 | 3.00 | 0.74 | 4.03 | 0.0125 |
| 9 | 3 | 30 | 5 | 15 | 1.00 | 1.04 | 30.0 | 2.31 | 1.04 | 2.22 | 0.0087 |
Fig. 1Cause and effect diagram for rhamnolipid production.
Fig. 2Plots of normal probability (a), and standard residuals versus fitted values (b) for RL.
Fig. 3Factor effects on (a) utilized TS, (b) DCBM, (c) RL, (d) ST, (e) YP/S, (f) YP/X, (g) YX/S and (h) PV.
S/N ratio values at all runs.
| Run | Utilized TS | DCBM | RL | ST | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −27.604 | 3.742 | −1.938 | −30.103 | 10.449 | 1.805 | −8.659 | −39.094 |
| 2 | −31.821 | −0.906 | −0.915 | −29.827 | 7.272 | 1.820 | −9.097 | −42.499 |
| 3 | −33.44 | −0.828 | −1.110 | −29.827 | 5.437 | 1.938 | −7.384 | −45.680 |
| 4 | −25.575 | −2.279 | 0.000 | −29.542 | 8.399 | 2.282 | −10.680 | −41.618 |
| 5 | −28.300 | −3.522 | 3.227 | −28.943 | 8.912 | 0.292 | −9.188 | −41.310 |
| 6 | −22.279 | −1.584 | 1.584 | −29.248 | 13.293 | 0.000 | −13.274 | −35.546 |
| 7 | −25.575 | 1.412 | −0.446 | −29.827 | 4.454 | −0.969 | −3.464 | −45.0362 |
| 8 | −20.000 | −1.656 | −0.915 | −29.396 | 9.542 | 2.568 | −12.106 | −38.062 |
| 9 | −23.522 | 0.000 | 0.341 | −29.542 | 7.272 | −0.341 | −6.927 | −41.210 |
Normalized S/N ratio values at all runs.
| Run | Utilized TS | DCBM | RL | ST | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.566 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.678 | 0.784 | 0.530 | 0.650 |
| 2 | 0.879 | 0.640 | 0.1980 | 0.762 | 0.319 | 0.788 | 0.574 | 0.314 |
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.629 | 0.1603 | 0.762 | 0.111 | 0.822 | 0.400 | 0.000 |
| 4 | 0.415 | 0.829 | 0.375 | 0.517 | 0.446 | 0.919 | 0.736 | 0.401 |
| 5 | 0.617 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.504 | 0.356 | 0.583 | 0.431 |
| 6 | 0.1170 | 0.733 | 0.682 | 0.263 | 1.000 | 0.274 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 7 | 0.415 | 0.321 | 0.289 | 0.762 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.064 |
| 8 | 0.000 | 0.743 | 0.198 | 0.391 | 0.576 | 1.000 | 0.881 | 0.752 |
| 9 | 0.262 | 0.515 | 0.441 | 0.517 | 0.319 | 0.178 | 0.353 | 0.441 |
Quality loss function values at all runs.
| Run | ΔutilizedTS | ΔDCBM | ΔRL | ΔST | Δ. | Δ. | Δ. | Δ. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.434 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.322 | 0.216 | 0.470 | 0.350 |
| 2 | 0.1206 | 0.360 | 0.802 | 0.238 | 0.681 | 0.212 | 0.426 | 0.686 |
| 3 | 0.000 | 0.371 | 0.840 | 0.238 | 0.889 | 0.178 | 0.600 | 1.000 |
| 4 | 0.585 | 0.171 | 0.625 | 0.483 | 0.554 | 0.0812 | 0.264 | 0.599 |
| 5 | 0.383 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.496 | 0.644 | 0.416 | 0.569 |
| 6 | 0.830 | 0.267 | 0.318 | 0.737 | 0.000 | 0.726 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 7 | 0.585 | 0.679 | 0.711 | 0.238 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.936 |
| 8 | 1.000 | 0.257 | 0.802 | 0.609 | 0.424 | 0.000 | 0.119 | 0.248 |
| 9 | 0.738 | 0.485 | 0.559 | 0.483 | 0.681 | 0.822 | 0.647 | 0.559 |
Grey relational co-efficient and grey grade values at all runs.
| Run | GCutilizedTS | GCDCBM | GCRL | GCST | GC. | GC. | GC. | GC. | G | Grey relational order |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.697 | 0.5 | 0.5.00 | 1.000 | 0.757 | 0.822 | 0.680 | 0.741 | 0.712 | 6 |
| 2 | 0.892 | 0.735 | 0.555 | 0.808 | 0.595 | 0.825 | 0.701 | 0.593 | 0.713 | 5 |
| 3 | 1.000 | 0.729 | 0.544 | 0.808 | 0.529 | 0.849 | 0.625 | 0.500 | 0.698 | 7 |
| 4 | 0.631 | 0.854 | 0.615 | 0.674 | 0.644 | 0.925 | 0.791 | 0.625 | 0.720 | 4 |
| 5 | 0.723 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.500 | 0.669 | 0.608 | 0.706 | 0.637 | 0.730 | 3 |
| 6 | 0.546 | 0.789 | 0.759 | 0.576 | 1.000 | 0.579 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.781 | 1 |
| 7 | 0.631 | 0.596 | 0.584 | 0.808 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.516 | 0.580 | 9 |
| 8 | 0.500 | 0.796 | 0.555 | 0.621 | 0.702086 | 1.000 | 0.894 | 0.801 | 0.734 | 2 |
| 9 | 0.575 | 0.673 | 0.642 | 0.674 | 0.594821 | 0.549 | 0.607 | 0.641 | 0.620 | 8 |
Main effects on grey grades.
| Factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | Max − Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.708 | 0.644 | 0.100 | |
| B | 0.670 | 0.700 | 0.056 | |
| C | 0.684 | 0.669 | 0.073 |
Fig. 4Factors effects on grade values.
Comparison of Taguchi method and grey relational analysis results.
| Response | Taguchi method (at A2B2C3) | Great relational analysis (at A2B2C1) | Variation rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utilized TS | 26.0 | 14.00 | −46 |
| DCBM | 1.50 | 1.00 | −33 |
| RL | 1.45 | 1.50 | 3 |
| ST | 28.00 | 28.00 | 0 |
| 2.79 | 5.36 | 92 | |
| 0.97 | 1.50 | 55 | |
| 2.88 | 3.57 | 24 | |
| 0.0086 | 0.0208 | 142 |
Table of ANOVA.
| Factor | SS | Df | MS | % Contribution | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.0153 | 2 | 0.0076 | 9.71 | 50.30 |
| B | 0.0046 | 2 | 0.0023 | 2.91 | 15.10 |
| C | 0.0089 | 2 | 0.0045 | 5.67 | 29.41 |
| Error | 0.0016 | 2 | 0.0008 | 5.18 | |
| Total | 0.0304 | 8 |
Fig. 5Percentage contribution of factors in the grey relational grade.