4.7 Article

Modeling and optimization of antidepressant drug Fluoxetine removal in aqueous media by ozone/H2O2 process: Comparison of central composite design and artificial neural network approaches

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtice.2014.10.022

Keywords

Fluoxetine; Modeling and optimization; Central composite design; Artificial neural network; Ozonation

Funding

  1. Sahand University of Technology and University of Tabriz, Iran

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Modeling and optimization of Fluoxetine degradation in aqueous solution by ozone/H2O2 process was investigated using central composite design (CCD) and the results were compared with the artificial neural network (ANN) predicted values. We studied the influence of basic operational parameters such as ozone concentration, initial concentration of H2O2 and Fluoxetine and reaction time. The ANN model was developed by feed-forward back propagation network with trainscg algorithm and topology (4: 8: 1). A good agreement between predicted values of Fluoxetine removal using CCD and ANN with experimental results was observed (R-2 values were 0.989 and 0.975 for the ANN and CCD models, respectively). The results showed that ANNs were superior in capturing the nonlinear behavior of the system and could estimate the values of Fluoxetine removal efficiency accurately. Pareto analysis indicated that all selected factors and some interactions were effective on removal efficiency. It was found that the reaction time with a percentage effect of 45.04% was the most effective parameter in the ozone/H2O2 process. The maximum removal efficiency (86.14%) was achieved at ozone concentration of 30 mg L-1, initial H2O2 concentration of 0.02 mM, reaction time of 20 min and initial Fluoxetine concentration of 50 mg L-1 as the optimal conditions. (C) 2014 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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