Optimization of Methane Gas Production From Co-digestion of Food waste and Poultry Manure Using Artificial Neural Network and Response Surface Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food waste with high carbohydrate content is considered as a suitable substrate for fermentation of methane gas. In this study, co-digestion of poultry manure (PM) and food waste (FW) was used. Response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) were applied to optimize parameters of co-digestion of PM and FW at different ratios, initial pH values and temperatures. A comparative analysis was done using RSM and ANN in a predictive model of the experimental data obtained in accordance with the central composite design. The combined effects of the independent variables (ratio, pH and temperature) as the most significant parameters of methane fermentation of PM and FW were investigated. Optimization using RSM and ANN showed a good fit between the experimental and the predicted data as elucidated by the coefficient of determination with R2 values of 0.991 and 0.998, respectively. Quadratic RSM predicted the maximum methane yield to be 537 mL CH4/g VS at the optimal conditions; ratio 80:20 (PM : FW); temperature 35 °C; and initial pH 7.11. The maximum predicted methane yield by the ANN model was 535.82 mL CH4/g VS at the following conditions; ratio of poultry manure to food waste 80:20; temperature 35 °C; and pH 7.00. The verification experiments successfully produced 538 mL CH4/g VS within 14 days of incubation. These experiments indicated that the developed model was successfully used to predict the fermentable methane production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".