Application of artificial neural networks and Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm models to the removal of textile dye using biosorbents: A comparative study among methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adsorption isotherms are valuable tools for describing the interaction between adsorbate and adsorbent since they demonstrate the equilibrium relationship. The Langmuir and Freundlich models are the most commonly used isotherm models to describe these relationships; still, they cannot consistently deliver efficient results due to the assumptions of the model not predicting more complex situations as occurs in biosorption. Artificial neural networks (ANN) are a set of algorithms modelled loosely after the human brain and are designed to recognize patterns. The ANN tool can overcome problems isotherm models have in describing the interactions mentioned and help define the best conditions for a given adsorption process. This paper reports the application of ANNs for predicting the removal efficiency of textile dye Neolan Black WA (Acid Black 52) using orange peel and sugarcane bagasse as biosorbents. The Freundlich, Langmuir, pseudo‐first‐order, and pseudo‐second‐order models were applied and compared to the ANN model. The parameters evaluated were initial dye concentration (10–600 mg/L), final dye concentration (0–83.44 mg/L), biosorbent mass (1.5 g), pH (2), and contact time of dye (0.167–24 h). Two classes of ANNs, Elman and feed‐forward networks, were tested with a mean square error of 0.0212 and 0.7274 for the isotherm and kinetics, respectively. Compared to the conventional isotherm and kinetic models, the Elman network predicted the amount adsorbed by the biosorbents with higher precision, acquiring a determination coefficient of 0.9998 and a mean square error of 8.75 × 10 −5 .
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".