Applications of Computational and Statistical Models for Optimizing the Electrochemical Removal of Cephalexin Antibiotic from Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most serious effects of micropollutants in the environment is biological magnification, which causes adverse effects on humans and the ecosystem. Among all of the micro-pollutants, antibiotics are commonly present in the aquatic environment due to their wide use in treating or preventing various diseases and infections for humans, plants, and animals. Therefore, an aluminum-based electrocoagulation unit has been used in this study to remove cephalexin antibiotics, as a model of the antibiotics, from water. Computational and statistical models were used to optimize the effects of key parameters on the electrochemical removal of cephalexin, including the initial cephalexin concentration (15–55 mg/L), initial pH (3–11), electrolysis time (20–40 min), and electrode type (insulated and non-insulated). The response surface methodology-central composite design (RSM-CCD) was used to investigate the dependency of the studied variables, while the artificial neural network (ANN) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) methods were applied for predicting the experimental training data. The results showed that the best experimental and predicted removals of cephalexin (CEX) were 88.21% and 93.87%, respectively, which were obtained at a pH of 6.14 and electrolysis time of 34.26 min. The results also showed that the ANFIS model predicts and interprets the experimental results better than the ANN and RSM-CCD models. Sensitivity analysis using the Garson method showed the comparative significance of the variables as follows: pH (30%) > electrode type (27%) > initial CEX concentration (24%) > electrolysis time (19%).
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 | 0.000 | 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".