4.6 Article

Response Surface Methodology and Artificial Neural Network Modelling of Membrane Rotating Biological Contactors for Wastewater Treatment

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15051932

关键词

artificial neural networks (ANN); attached growth process; biofilm; response surface methodology (RSM); membrane fouling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study successfully reduced membrane fouling by optimizing the operating parameters in a membrane rotating biological contactor. The application of optimized process parameters can improve treatment efficiency, save time and resources, and protect human health and the environment.
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 R-2 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/m(2) 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.

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

4.6
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