4.4 Article

Evaluation of Contemporary Computational Techniques to Optimize Adsorption Process for Simultaneous Removal of COD and TOC in Wastewater

期刊

ADSORPTION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 2022, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7874826

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deputyship for Reseach amp
  2. Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia [IFPRC-031-612-2020]
  3. King Abdulaziz University, DSR, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the effectiveness of different methods for simulating and optimizing the adsorptive removal of COD and TOC in produced water using tea waste biochar. The results showed that the ANFIS model outperformed other methods in predicting adsorption data. By utilizing various optimization approaches, maximum removal rates of COD and TOC were achieved.
This study was aimed at evaluating the artificial neural network (ANN), genetic algorithm (GA), adaptive neurofuzzy interference (ANFIS), and the response surface methodology (RSM) approaches for modeling and optimizing the simultaneous adsorptive removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total organic carbon (TOC) in produced water (PW) using tea waste biochar (TWBC). Comparative analysis of RSM, ANN, and ANFIS models showed mean square error (MSE) as 5.29809, 1.49937, and 0.24164 for adsorption of COD and MSE of 0.11726, 0.10241, and 0.08747 for prediction of TOC adsorption, respectively. The study showed that ANFIS outperformed the ANN and RSM in terms of fast convergence, minimum MSE, and sum of square error for prediction of adsorption data. The adsorption parameters were optimized using ANFIS-surface plots, ANN-GA hybrid, RSM-GA hybrid, and RSM optimization tool in design expert (DE) software. Maximum COD (88.9%) and TOC (98.8%) removal were predicted at pH of 7, a dosage of 300 mg/L, and contact time of 60 mins using ANFIS-surface plots. The optimization approaches showed the performance in the following order: ANFIS-surface plots>ANN-GA>RSM-GA>RSM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据