Md Tausif Akram, Rameez Ahmad Aftab, Khursheed B. Ansari, Iram Arman, Mohammad Abdul Hakeem, Sadaf Zaidi, Mohammad Danish
{"title":"利用机理和机器学习相结合的模型表征奶酪乳清厌氧消化的创新方法","authors":"Md Tausif Akram, Rameez Ahmad Aftab, Khursheed B. Ansari, Iram Arman, Mohammad Abdul Hakeem, Sadaf Zaidi, Mohammad Danish","doi":"10.1007/s12155-024-10785-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Whey, a cheese production byproduct, can be anaerobically digested to reduce pollution and generate energy. Yet, stability is challenging due to organic content sensitivity and influent fluctuations. The present work attempts to implement the mechanistic model and machine learning (ML) models (support vector regression (SVR) and artificial neural networks (ANNs)) together to predict the concentration dataset of substrate 1 (S<sub>1</sub>) (i.e., carbohydrates and proteins), substrate 2 (S<sub>2</sub>) (i.e., glucids and amino acids), VFA, and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) as a function of input independent variables, namely time and organic loading rate (OLR). The R<sup>2</sup> values for S<sub>1</sub>, S<sub>2</sub>, VFA, and CH<sub>4</sub> obtained through the mechanistic model remained as 0.953, 0.918, 0.84, and 0.976, respectively; for ANN models, 0.982, 0.928, 0.958, and 0.99; and for SVR models, 0.984, 0.939, 0.938, and 0.999, respectively. ML models have been discovered to be among the most precise and versatile compared to the mechanistic model. Moreover, other performance metrics, such as RMSE (0.022–2.177), MRE (0.007–0.100), and AARE (0.008–0.104) for ANN and RMSE (0.083–1.961), MRE (0.021–0.091), and AARE (0.037–0.089) for SVR, are obtained, indicating good prediction performances for both ML models. SVR and ANN models excel, aligning concentration curves to the optimum line when input parameters are adjusted, unlike the subpar traditional-based mechanistic model. Therefore, ML methods offer a tool to predict anaerobic digestion more effectively, enhancing design and operations.</p><h3>Graphical Abstract</h3>\n<div><figure><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></figure></div></div>","PeriodicalId":487,"journal":{"name":"BioEnergy Research","volume":"17 4","pages":"2474 - 2486"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Innovative Approach to Characterize Cheese Whey Anaerobic Digestion Using Combined Mechanistic and Machine Learning Models\",\"authors\":\"Md Tausif Akram, Rameez Ahmad Aftab, Khursheed B. Ansari, Iram Arman, Mohammad Abdul Hakeem, Sadaf Zaidi, Mohammad Danish\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12155-024-10785-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Whey, a cheese production byproduct, can be anaerobically digested to reduce pollution and generate energy. Yet, stability is challenging due to organic content sensitivity and influent fluctuations. The present work attempts to implement the mechanistic model and machine learning (ML) models (support vector regression (SVR) and artificial neural networks (ANNs)) together to predict the concentration dataset of substrate 1 (S<sub>1</sub>) (i.e., carbohydrates and proteins), substrate 2 (S<sub>2</sub>) (i.e., glucids and amino acids), VFA, and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) as a function of input independent variables, namely time and organic loading rate (OLR). The R<sup>2</sup> values for S<sub>1</sub>, S<sub>2</sub>, VFA, and CH<sub>4</sub> obtained through the mechanistic model remained as 0.953, 0.918, 0.84, and 0.976, respectively; for ANN models, 0.982, 0.928, 0.958, and 0.99; and for SVR models, 0.984, 0.939, 0.938, and 0.999, respectively. ML models have been discovered to be among the most precise and versatile compared to the mechanistic model. Moreover, other performance metrics, such as RMSE (0.022–2.177), MRE (0.007–0.100), and AARE (0.008–0.104) for ANN and RMSE (0.083–1.961), MRE (0.021–0.091), and AARE (0.037–0.089) for SVR, are obtained, indicating good prediction performances for both ML models. SVR and ANN models excel, aligning concentration curves to the optimum line when input parameters are adjusted, unlike the subpar traditional-based mechanistic model. Therefore, ML methods offer a tool to predict anaerobic digestion more effectively, enhancing design and operations.</p><h3>Graphical Abstract</h3>\\n<div><figure><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></figure></div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BioEnergy Research\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"2474 - 2486\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BioEnergy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12155-024-10785-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioEnergy Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12155-024-10785-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Innovative Approach to Characterize Cheese Whey Anaerobic Digestion Using Combined Mechanistic and Machine Learning Models
Whey, a cheese production byproduct, can be anaerobically digested to reduce pollution and generate energy. Yet, stability is challenging due to organic content sensitivity and influent fluctuations. The present work attempts to implement the mechanistic model and machine learning (ML) models (support vector regression (SVR) and artificial neural networks (ANNs)) together to predict the concentration dataset of substrate 1 (S1) (i.e., carbohydrates and proteins), substrate 2 (S2) (i.e., glucids and amino acids), VFA, and methane (CH4) as a function of input independent variables, namely time and organic loading rate (OLR). The R2 values for S1, S2, VFA, and CH4 obtained through the mechanistic model remained as 0.953, 0.918, 0.84, and 0.976, respectively; for ANN models, 0.982, 0.928, 0.958, and 0.99; and for SVR models, 0.984, 0.939, 0.938, and 0.999, respectively. ML models have been discovered to be among the most precise and versatile compared to the mechanistic model. Moreover, other performance metrics, such as RMSE (0.022–2.177), MRE (0.007–0.100), and AARE (0.008–0.104) for ANN and RMSE (0.083–1.961), MRE (0.021–0.091), and AARE (0.037–0.089) for SVR, are obtained, indicating good prediction performances for both ML models. SVR and ANN models excel, aligning concentration curves to the optimum line when input parameters are adjusted, unlike the subpar traditional-based mechanistic model. Therefore, ML methods offer a tool to predict anaerobic digestion more effectively, enhancing design and operations.
期刊介绍:
BioEnergy Research fills a void in the rapidly growing area of feedstock biology research related to biomass, biofuels, and bioenergy. The journal publishes a wide range of articles, including peer-reviewed scientific research, reviews, perspectives and commentary, industry news, and government policy updates. Its coverage brings together a uniquely broad combination of disciplines with a common focus on feedstock biology and science, related to biomass, biofeedstock, and bioenergy production.