| Literature DB >> 35269163 |
Muhammad Irfan1, Sharjeel Waqas2,3, Ushtar Arshad2, Javed Akbar Khan4, Stanislaw Legutko5, Izabela Kruszelnicka6, Dobrochna Ginter-Kramarczyk6, Saifur Rahman1, Anna Skrzypczak7.
Abstract
Membrane fouling is a major hindrance to widespread wastewater treatment applications. This study optimizes operating parameters in membrane rotating biological contactors (MRBC) for maximized membrane fouling through Response Surface Methodology (RSM) and an Artificial Neural Network (ANN). MRBC is an integrated system, embracing membrane filtration and conventional rotating biological contactor in one individual bioreactor. The filtration performance was optimized by exploiting the three parameters of disk rotational speed, membrane-to-disk gap, and organic loading rate. The results showed that both the RSM and ANN models were in good agreement with the experimental data and the modelled equation. The overall R2 value was 0.9982 for the proposed network using ANN, higher than the RSM value (0.9762). The RSM model demonstrated the optimum operating parameter values of a 44 rpm disk rotational speed, a 1.07 membrane-to-disk gap, and a 10.2 g COD/m2 d organic loading rate. The optimization of process parameters can eliminate unnecessary steps and automate steps in the process to save time, reduce errors and avoid duplicate work. This work demonstrates the effective use of statistical modeling to enhance MRBC system performance to obtain a sustainable and energy-efficient treatment process to prevent human health and the environment.Entities:
Keywords: artificial neural networks (ANN); attached growth process; biofilm; membrane fouling; response surface methodology (RSM)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35269163 PMCID: PMC8911570 DOI: 10.3390/ma15051932
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Characteristics of the influent wastewater.
| Sr # | Contaminant | Unit | Concentration |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | COD | mg/L | 298 ± 45.6 |
| 2 | TN | mg/L | 2.4 ± 0.2 |
| 3 | Ammonium | mg/L | 0.92 ± 0.07 |
| 4 | Nitrate | mg/L | 0.52 ± 0.08 |
| 5 | Turbidity | NTU | 15.2 ± 0.6 |
| 6 | pH | -- | 6.35 ± 0.18 |
COD: chemical oxygen demand, TN: total nitrogen.
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the membrane rotating biological contactor configuration.
Independent variables and levels used in central composite design.
| Levels | Independent Variable | Low Level | Medium Level | High Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Disk rotational speed | 30 | 40 | 50 |
| 2 | Membrane-to-disk gap | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | Organic loading rate | 10 | 20 | 30 |
Figure 2Process flow of artificial neural networks modelling.
Design of experimental runs for the independent variables and response functions.
| Run | Independent Variables | Permeability (L/m2 h bar) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disk Rotational Speed (rpm) | Membrane-to-Disk Gap (cm) | Organic Loading Rate (g COD/m2 d) | Actual Value | Predicted Value | |
| 1 | 50 | 3 | 10 | 274 | 273.95 |
| 2 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 296.5 | 297.10 |
| 3 | 50 | 1 | 10 | 300 | 304.03 |
| 4 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 298 | 297.10 |
| 5 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 297 | 297.10 |
| 6 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 276.5 | 275.86 |
| 7 | 30 | 3 | 30 | 269 | 265.95 |
| 8 | 50 | 3 | 10 | 274 | 273.95 |
| 9 | 40 | 2 | 37 | 294 | 294.10 |
| 10 | 57 | 2 | 20 | 277 | 272.31 |
| 11 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 289.5 | 286.99 |
| 12 | 23 | 2 | 20 | 245 | 249.95 |
| 13 | 50 | 3 | 30 | 273.5 | 275.49 |
| 14 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 297.5 | 297.10 |
| 15 | 40 | 0.3 | 20 | 305 | 303.70 |
| 16 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 296.5 | 297.10 |
| 17 | 50 | 3 | 30 | 274 | 275.49 |
| 18 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 289 | 286.99 |
| 19 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 298 | 297.10 |
| 20 | 40 | 3.7 | 20 | 268 | 270.07 |
| 21 | 40 | 2 | 3.2 | 302 | 302.16 |
| 22 | 40 | 2 | 37 | 294 | 294.10 |
| 23 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 297 | 297.10 |
| 24 | 30 | 3 | 10 | 271 | 269.16 |
| 25 | 57 | 2 | 20 | 277 | 272.31 |
| 26 | 50 | 1 | 30 | 295 | 297.66 |
| 27 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 297.5 | 297.10 |
| 28 | 40 | 2 | 37 | 294.5 | 294.10 |
| 29 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 290 | 286.99 |
| 30 | 30 | 3 | 10 | 271 | 269.16 |
| 31 | 40 | 0.3 | 20 | 304.5 | 303.70 |
| 32 | 50 | 3 | 30 | 272 | 275.49 |
| 33 | 50 | 3 | 10 | 272 | 273.95 |
| 34 | 30 | 3 | 30 | 269.5 | 265.95 |
| 35 | 30 | 3 | 30 | 270 | 265.95 |
| 36 | 40 | 2 | 3.2 | 301.5 | 302.16 |
| 37 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 277 | 275.86 |
| 38 | 40 | 3.7 | 20 | 269 | 270.07 |
| 39 | 57 | 2 | 20 | 278 | 272.31 |
| 40 | 23 | 2 | 20 | 244 | 249.95 |
| 41 | 50 | 1 | 30 | 295.5 | 297.66 |
| 42 | 50 | 1 | 10 | 301 | 304.03 |
| 43 | 30 | 3 | 10 | 272 | 269.16 |
| 44 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 296.5 | 297.10 |
| 45 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 276.5 | 275.86 |
| 46 | 40 | 0.3 | 20 | 305.5 | 303.70 |
| 47 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 297 | 297.10 |
| 48 | 40 | 3.7 | 20 | 268.5 | 270.07 |
| 49 | 40 | 2 | 3.2 | 302 | 302.16 |
| 50 | 23 | 2 | 20 | 245 | 249.95 |
| 51 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 297.5 | 297.10 |
| 52 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 297 | 297.10 |
| 53 | 50 | 1 | 10 | 301 | 304.03 |
| 54 | 50 | 1 | 30 | 296.5 | 297.66 |
| 55 | 40 | 2 | 20 | 296.5 | 297.10 |
ANOVA results of the coefficient of quadratic model for permeability.
| Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | Parameter Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 13,229.15 | 9 | 1469.91 | 204.66 | <0.0001 | Significant |
| A-Disk rotational speed | 1809.98 | 1 | 1809.98 | 252.01 | <0.0001 | - |
| B-Membrane-to-disk gap | 4096.07 | 1 | 4096.07 | 570.32 | <0.0001 | - |
| C-Organic loading rate | 235.28 | 1 | 235.28 | 32.76 | <0.0001 | - |
| AB | 225.09 | 1 | 225.09 | 31.34 | <0.0001 | - |
| AC | 33.84 | 1 | 33.84 | 4.71 | 0.0353 | - |
| BC | 94.01 | 1 | 94.01 | 13.09 | 0.0007 | - |
| A² | 6316.25 | 1 | 6316.25 | 879.45 | <0.0001 | - |
| B² | 510.08 | 1 | 510.08 | 71.02 | <0.0001 | - |
| C² | 5.15 | 1 | 5.15 | 0.7173 | 0.4015 | - |
| Residual | 323.19 | 45 | 7.18 | - | - | - |
| Lack of Fit | 308.45 | 5 | 61.69 | 167.37 | <0.0001 | significant |
| Pure Error | 14.74 | 40 | 0.3686 | - | - | - |
| Cor Total | 13,552.35 | 54 | - | |||
| Other statistical parameters | ||||||
| R2 | Adjusted R2 | S.D. | A.P. | C.V. (%) | - | - |
| 0.9762 | 0.9714 | 2.68 | 47.3233 | 0.9396 | - | - |
Figure 3Design-Expert plot of predicted vs. actual values plot for permeability.
Figure 4Effect on 2-D contours of (a) disk rotational speed and membrane-to-disk gap, (b) disk rotational speed and organic loading rate, and (c) membrane-to-disk gap and organic loading rate; and 3-D response surface plots of (d) disk rotational speed and membrane-to-disk gap, (e) disk rotational speed and organic loading rate, and (f) membrane-to-disk gap and organic loading rate.
Optimized operational parameter values at maximum permeability.
| Variables | Optimum Values | Steady-State Permeability (L/m2 h Bar) | Error (%) | Standard Deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive | Experimental | ||||
| Disk rotational speed | 44 rpm | 309 | 309.5 | 0.16 | 2.68 |
| Membrane-to-disk gap | 1.07 cm | ||||
| Organic loading rate | 10.2 g COD/m2 d | ||||
Permeability response function for the experimental and model values.
| Steady-State Permeability | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Predictive | Experimental | Error (%) | Standard Deviation |
| 1 | 143.5 | 143.00 | 0.35 | 0.26 |
| 2 | 137.3 | 137 | 0.18 | 0.13 |
Figure 5The architecture of the trained artificial neural networks model.
Figure 6Regression plots for R values with overall R-squared = 0.99824.
Comparison of response surface methodology and artificial neural networks models based on statistical performance indices.
| Statistical Performance Index | RSM | ANN |
|---|---|---|
| R2 | 0.9762 | 0.9982 |
| MSE | 5.8709 | 0.4680 |
| RMSE | 2.4230 | 0.6840 |