4.7 Article

Optimization of enzymatic saccharification of water hyacinth biomass for bio-ethanol: Comparison between artificial neural network and response surface methodology

Journal

SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGIES
Volume 3, Issue -, Pages 17-28

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.susmat.2015.01.001

Keywords

Response surface methodology; Artificial neural network; Genetic algorithm; Enzymatic saccharification; Water hyacinth biomass; Bio-ethanol

Funding

  1. EPSRC [EP/K036548/2, EP/K036548/1, EP/J020184/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J020184/2, EP/K036548/2, EP/K036548/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Response surface methodology (RSM) is commonly used for optimising process parameters affecting enzymatic hydrolysis. However, artificial neural network-genetic algorithm hybrid model can also serve as an effective option, primarily for non-linear polynomial systems. The present study compares these approaches for enzymatic hydrolysis of water hyacinth biomass tomaximise total reducing sugar (TRS) for bio-ethanol production. Maximum TRS (0.5672 g/g) was obtained using 9.92 (% w/w) substrate concentrations, 49.56 U/g cellulase concentrations, 280.33 U/g xylanase concentrations and 0.13 (% w/w) surfactant concentrations. The average % error for artificial neural networking (ANN) and RSM were 3.08 and 4.82 and the prediction percentage errors in optimum output are 0.95 and 1.41, respectively, which showed the supremacy of ANN in illustrating the non-linear behaviour of the system. Fermentation of the hydrolysate yielded a maximum ethanol concentration of 10.44 g/l using Pichia stipitis, followed by 8.24 and 6.76 g/l for Candida shehatae and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available