Which is better for optimizing the biosorption process of lead – central composite design or the Taguchi technique?

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate central composite design (CCD) and the Taguchi technique in the adsorption process. Contact time, initial concentration, and pH were selected as the variables, and the removal efficiency of Pb was chosen for the designated response. In addition, face-centered CCD and the L orthogonal array were used for the experimental design. The result indicated that, at optimum conditions, the removal efficiency of Pb was 80%. However, the value of R was greater than 0.95 for both the CCD and Taguchi techniques, which revealed that both techniques were suitable and in conformity with each other. Moreover, the results of analysis of variance and Prob > F < 0.05 showed the appropriate fit of the designated model with the experimental results. The probability of classifying the contributing variables by giving a percentage of the response quantity (Pb removal) made the Taguchi model an appropriate method for examining the effectiveness of different factors. pH was evaluated as the best input factor as it contributed 66.2% of Pb removal. The Taguchi technique was additionally confirmed by three-dimensional contour plots of CCD. Consequently, the Taguchi method with nine experimental runs and easy interaction plots is an appropriate substitute for CCD for several chemical engineering functions.

Equilibrium and kinetic modeling of Cr(VI) removal by novel tolerant bacteria species along with zero-valent iron nanoparticles

“…Adsorption isotherm occupies an important space in adsorption studies 55 , 56 . They are useful in providing several insights into the adsorption mechanisms and mode of adsorption 57 , 58 . In this study, we plotted adsorption isotherms and then tried to fit these isotherms into three different isotherm models, viz.…”

Binary color adsorption by zinc@magnetite nanocomposites: Robust parametric optimization using Taguchi method

“…It was additionally necessary for evaluating the experimental outcomes to examine the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SN). In general, three different signal‐to‐noise ratios (SN) can be used: the smaller, nominal, and larger the SN, the better 26 . The ratio of signal to noise was yielded with the following equation: $$$$\begin{equation}SN = -{\mathrm{10lo}}{{{\mathrm{g}}}_{{\mathrm{10}}}}{\mathrm{[1/}}n\sum {\left( {{\mathrm{1/}}PR{{E}_i}} \right)} \end{equation}$$$$where n represented the number of experiments performed under the same experimental settings, and PRE i represented the response from measurements 27 …”

“…In general, three different signal-to-noise ratios (SN) can be used: the smaller, nominal, and larger the SN, the better. 26 The ratio of signal to noise was yielded with the following equation:…”

Dataset on photodegradation of tetracycline antibiotic with zinc stannate nanoflower in aqueous solution – Application of response surface methodology

“…These experiments include 16 factorial experiment at factor levels of -1 and +1, seven experiments at central levels (0), and eight experiments at axial points (α=2). To create connection between independent and dependent variables (presenting a model, introducing the process) the following Quadratic polynomial equation is used [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] . Where, y is the response predicted by the model, x i is the encoded amount of levels of variables and b o , b i , b ii , and b ij are the coefficients of the model.…”