2022
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c03064
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling and Evaluation of the Permeate Flux in Forward Osmosis Process with Machine Learning

Abstract: Predicting the permeate flux is critical for evaluating and optimizing the performance of the forward osmosis (FO) process. However, the solution diffusion models have poor applicability in accessing the FO process. Recently, the data-driven eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm has been proven to be effective in processing structure data in engineering problems and has not been utilized to assess the FO process. Herein, a combination of the XGBoost model with a genetic algorithm (GA) was first propose… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The negative sign of FS concentration and the positive value of DS concentration align with this study's trend analysis result. The literature reports that osmotic pressure difference is the most influential factor on membrane flux (Jawad et al, 2021; Kim, Chang, et al, 2022; Shi et al, 2022). This is in line with our results because stating that DS concentration increases and FS concentration decreases is another way of presenting the increase in osmotic pressure difference.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The negative sign of FS concentration and the positive value of DS concentration align with this study's trend analysis result. The literature reports that osmotic pressure difference is the most influential factor on membrane flux (Jawad et al, 2021; Kim, Chang, et al, 2022; Shi et al, 2022). This is in line with our results because stating that DS concentration increases and FS concentration decreases is another way of presenting the increase in osmotic pressure difference.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CatBoost is trained by minimizing the expected loss function through gradient descent h t = arg nobreak0em.25em⁡ min nobreak0em.25em⁡ double-struckE h H ( prefix− L ( y , s ) s | s = F t 1 false( x false) j = 1 J b j double-struckl { x R j } ) where L is a smooth loss function, h is a gradient step function selected from H , R j denotes the disjoint regions ns corresponding the leaves of the tree, b j is the predictive value of the region, and double-struckE and double-struckl are the expectation and indicator functions. Further details on these ML methods can be found in previous references. ,− …”
Section: Boosting Machine Learning Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CatBoost is trained by minimizing the expected loss function through gradient descent where L is a smooth loss function, h is a gradient step function selected from H , R j denotes the disjoint regions ns corresponding the leaves of the tree, b j is the predictive value of the region, and and are the expectation and indicator functions. Further details on these ML methods can be found in previous references. ,− …”
Section: Boosting Machine Learning Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Subsequently, we applied the GA to optimize the electrolytic voltage. In contrast to a comprehensive variable optimization, this method uses only 5 key features selected through the SHAP method as decision variables. It yielded results comparable to those of full-variable optimization while substantially improving time efficiency.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%