2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159348
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of organic contaminant rejection by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes using interpretable machine learning models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
1

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
1
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, Zhu et al. employed four different ML (MLR, SVM, ANN, kNN) and ensemble algorithms for contaminant removal efficiency by NF/RO membrane with a prediction efficiency range of 92.4–99.5% . in comparison with the current study, our findings showed similar predictive skills agreement with 99% accuracy.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For instance, Zhu et al. employed four different ML (MLR, SVM, ANN, kNN) and ensemble algorithms for contaminant removal efficiency by NF/RO membrane with a prediction efficiency range of 92.4–99.5% . in comparison with the current study, our findings showed similar predictive skills agreement with 99% accuracy.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 79%
“…For instance, Zhu et al employed four different ML (MLR, SVM, ANN, kNN) and ensemble algorithms for contaminant removal efficiency by NF/RO membrane with a prediction efficiency range of 92.4−99.5%. 67 in comparison with the current study, our findings showed similar predictive skills agreement with 99% accuracy. Another scenario was developed by Ignacz, and Szekely, for modeling solute rejection in organic solvent nanofiltration using traditional ML and deep learning approaches.…”
Section: Machine Learning Modelsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…We employed the XGBoost algorithm to construct the model, primarily due to its superior interpretability and comparable predictive accuracy to other complex algorithms on small data sets. , Notably, data from the same study could involve the same or similar hidden information . To prevent potential data leakage, we adopted grouped random splitting and seed assessment during model development (Figure S3).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Machine learning (ML), a data-driven approach relying on mining patterns, correlations, and trends within data, has shown substantial potential in membrane separation, including removal prediction, process control, knowledge discovery, , membrane material design, , and other applications. Nevertheless, due to constraints in data quantity and quality, the direct application of ML algorithms is limited in identifying TrOC rejection mechanisms by PA membranes, especially concerning charge effects and hydrophobic interactions .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ML models have already been demonstrated for NF ( Fetanat et al, 2021 ;Hu et al, 2021 ;Jeong et al, 2021 ;Hosseinzadeh et al, 2022 ;Ignacz et al, 2023 ;Lee et al, 2023 ;Zhu et al, 2023 ), RO ( Santos et al, 2007 ;Yangali-Quintanilla et al, 2009 ;Jeong et al, 2021 ;Zhu et al, 2023 ), and gas separation ( Barnett et al, 2020 ;Yang et al, 2022 ) applications ( Galinha and Crespo 2021 ). Currently, downstream predictive models usually output the desired parameters such as incompatibilities, material permeability, or any other material or process parameter.…”
Section: Inverse Design To Transform Discovery Of Nanofiltration Memb...mentioning
confidence: 99%