| Literature DB >> 36135840 |
Sharjeel Waqas1, Noorfidza Yub Harun1, Nonni Soraya Sambudi2, Ushtar Arshad1, Nik Abdul Hadi Md Nordin1, Muhammad Roil Bilad3, Anwar Ameen Hezam Saeed1, Asher Ahmed Malik1.
Abstract
Membrane fouling significantly hinders the widespread application of membrane technology. In the current study, a support vector machine (SVM) and artificial neural networks (ANN) modelling approach was adopted to optimize the membrane permeability in a novel membrane rotating biological contactor (MRBC). The MRBC utilizes the disk rotation mechanism to generate a shear rate at the membrane surface to scour off the foulants. The effect of operational parameters (disk rotational speed, hydraulic retention time (HRT), and sludge retention time (SRT)) was studied on the membrane permeability. ANN and SVM are machine learning algorithms that aim to predict the model based on the trained data sets. The implementation and efficacy of machine learning and statistical approaches have been demonstrated through real-time experimental results. Feed-forward ANN with the back-propagation algorithm and SVN regression models for various kernel functions were trained to augment the membrane permeability. An overall comparison of predictive models for the test data sets reveals the model's significance. ANN modelling with 13 hidden layers gives the highest R2 value of >0.99, and the SVM model with the Bayesian optimizer approach results in R2 values higher than 0.99. The MRBC is a promising substitute for traditional suspended growth processes, which aligns with the stipulations of ecological evolution and environmentally friendly treatment.Entities:
Keywords: artificial neural networks; biological wastewater treatment; machine learning algorithm; membrane fouling; support vector machines
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135840 PMCID: PMC9504877 DOI: 10.3390/membranes12090821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Influent wastewater characteristics.
| Contaminant | Influent |
|---|---|
| COD (mg/L) | 281 ± 8.5 |
| TN (mg/L) | 2.5 ± 0.19 |
| Ammonia (mg/L) | 0.66 ± 0.03 |
| Nitrate (mg/L) | 0.49 ± 0.04 |
| Turbidity (NTU) | 14.6 ± 0.55 |
| pH | 6.28 ± 0.21 |
COD: chemical oxygen demand, TN: total nitrogen.
Figure 1Schematic diagram of RBC-ME configuration.
Experimental Data for the Model Development.
| Run # | Sr # | (A) Disk Rotational Speed | (B) HRT | (C) SRT | Permeability (L/m2 h bar) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49 | 1 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296 |
| 16 | 2 | 50 | 12 | 15 | 275 |
| 25 | 3 | 23.2 | 15 | 10 | 245 |
| 34 | 4 | 40 | 20 | 10 | 302 |
| 8 | 5 | 30 | 18 | 5 | 272 |
| 51 | 6 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296 |
| 43 | 7 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 295 |
| 18 | 8 | 50 | 12 | 15 | 274 |
| 44 | 9 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296.5 |
| 33 | 10 | 40 | 9.95 | 10 | 291 |
| 5 | 11 | 50 | 12 | 5 | 269 |
| 36 | 12 | 40 | 20 | 10 | 303 |
| 38 | 13 | 40 | 15 | 1.6 | 286 |
| 35 | 14 | 40 | 20 | 10 | 302 |
| 10 | 15 | 50 | 18 | 5 | 277 |
| 19 | 16 | 30 | 18 | 15 | 278 |
| 48 | 17 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296 |
| 41 | 18 | 40 | 15 | 18.4 | 304 |
| 39 | 19 | 40 | 15 | 1.6 | 286 |
| 14 | 20 | 30 | 12 | 15 | 270 |
| 30 | 21 | 56.8 | 15 | 10 | 245 |
| 47 | 22 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 295 |
| 24 | 23 | 50 | 18 | 15 | 281 |
| 23 | 24 | 50 | 18 | 15 | 280.5 |
| 28 | 25 | 56.8 | 15 | 10 | 244 |
| 9 | 26 | 30 | 18 | 5 | 272 |
| 53 | 27 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296.5 |
| 11 | 28 | 50 | 18 | 5 | 276.5 |
| 1 | 29 | 30 | 12 | 5 | 268 |
| 26 | 30 | 23.2 | 15 | 10 | 244.5 |
| 32 | 31 | 40 | 9.95 | 10 | 291.5 |
| 6 | 32 | 50 | 12 | 5 | 270 |
| 20 | 33 | 30 | 18 | 15 | 279 |
| 46 | 34 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 297 |
| 15 | 35 | 30 | 12 | 15 | 271 |
| 55 | 36 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296 |
| 50 | 37 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296.5 |
| 22 | 38 | 50 | 18 | 15 | 280 |
| 4 | 39 | 50 | 12 | 5 | 269.5 |
| 3 | 40 | 30 | 12 | 5 | 268.5 |
| 2 | 41 | 30 | 12 | 5 | 268 |
| 45 | 42 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296 |
| 17 | 43 | 50 | 12 | 15 | 274.5 |
| 42 | 44 | 40 | 15 | 18.4 | 304.5 |
| 29 | 45 | 56.8 | 15 | 10 | 245.5 |
| 12 | 46 | 50 | 18 | 5 | 275 |
| 40 | 47 | 40 | 15 | 18.4 | 304 |
| 54 | 48 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 296 |
| 31 | 49 | 40 | 9.95 | 10 | 291 |
| 27 | 50 | 23.2 | 15 | 10 | 245 |
| 13 | 51 | 30 | 12 | 15 | 271 |
| 37 | 52 | 40 | 15 | 1.6 | 286.5 |
| 52 | 53 | 40 | 15 | 10 | 295.5 |
| 21 | 54 | 30 | 18 | 15 | 280 |
| 7 | 55 | 30 | 18 | 5 | 272 |
Figure 2Process flow of artificial neural network and support vector machine.
Figure 3Support vector regression for non-linear response modelling from (a) higher dimensional domain to (b) lower dimensional domain.
Figure 4R2 values for trained artificial neural networks.
Figure 5(a) Training performance and (b) error histogram of the trained network.
Figure 6Actual vs. predicted permeability by ANN.
Figure 7(a) Experimental vs. predicted membrane permeability and (b) training of SVM using random search optimization.
Figure 8(a) Experimental vs. predicted membrane permeability and (b) training of SVM using Bayesian optimization.
Figure 9(a) Experimental vs. predicted membrane permeability and (b) training of SVM using grid search optimization.
Performance comparison of trained models.
| Error Index | ANN 13 | SVM Bayesian Optimizer | SVM Grid Search | SVM Random Search | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train | Unseen Data | Train | Unseen Data | Train | Unseen Data | Train | Unseen Data | |
| RMSE | 0.514 | 5.80 | 2.141 | 6.014 | 2.343 | 5.883 | 1.803 | 6.602 |
| MBE | 0.044 | 1.636 | −0.152 | −0.75 | −0.013 | −0.58 | 0.258 | −0.284 |
| MAE | 0.367 | 3.77 | 2 | 4.124 | 2.189 | 4.15 | 1.618 | 4.456 |
| NSE | 0.999 | 0.713 | 0.984 | 0.7 | 0.981 | 0.706 | 0.989 | 0.63 |
| R2 | 0.999 | 0.74 | 0.992 | 0.798 | 0.983 | 0.793 | 0.989 | 0.805 |