Low-temperature desulfurization forecasting using soft computing models

Authors

  • Robert Makomere Clean Technology and Applied Materials Research Group, Department of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Vaal University of Technology, Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0434-1633
  • Hilary Rutto Clean Technology and Applied Materials Research Group, Department of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Vaal University of Technology, Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng
  • Alfayo Alugongo Department of Industrial Engineering, Operations Management, and Mechanical Engineering, Vaal University of Technology, Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng
  • Lawrence Koech Clean Technology and Applied Materials Research Group, Department of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Vaal University of Technology, Vanderbijlpark, Gauteng

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2281-4485/19040

Keywords:

Deep learning, desulfurization, neural networks, fuzzy logic systems, emission control

Abstract

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) is pivotal in reducing Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) concentrations through neutralization. This study explored dry FGD modeling using Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference Systems (ANFIS). The independent parameters used were diatomite to Ca(OH)2 ratio, hydration time, hydration temperature, SO2 concentration, and sulfation temperature, while the output responses incorporated were sulfation efficiency () and sorbent conversion (). ANN simulations employed the Levenberg-Marquardt (LM), Bayesian Regularization (BR), and Scaled Conjugate Gradient (SCG) algorithms with 7 to 10 hidden cells. The sigmoid and linear functions served as trigger mechanisms. ANFIS models, utilizing grid partitioning and subtractive clustering, were trained with hybrid and backpropagation methods. Seven ANFIS membership functions were compared for the best-fit model. The computing models were critiqued using RMSE, MSE, and R2 statistical metrics. Numerical error analysis favored the ANN program, with BR exhibiting the highest R2 values (0.9987 for , 0.9986 for ). However, the SCG algorithm emerged as the most dependable model due to its lowest RMSE and MSE values. In contrast, the ANFIS model demonstrated inferior R2 values and forecasting capabilities. This investigation provided nuanced insights into dry FGD modeling, elucidating the interplay between computational methodologies and process parameters.

References

BADILLO S., BANFAI B., BIRZELE F., DAVYDOV I.I., HUTCHINSON L., KAM‐THONG T., SIEBOURG‐POLSTER J., STEIERT B., ZHANG J.D. (2020) An Introduction to Machine Learning. Clinical pharmacology & therapeutics 107:871–885. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1796

BAGHIRLI O. (2015) Comparison of Lavenberg-Marquardt, Scaled Conjugate Gradient and Bayesian Regularization Backpropagation Algorithms for Multistep Ahead Wind Speed Forecasting Using Multilayer Perceptron Feedforward Neural Network https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Auu%3Adiva-257086

BHATTI M.M., MARIN M., ZEESHAN A., ABDELSALAM S.I. (2020) Editorial: Recent Trends in Computational Fluid Dynamics. Frontiers in Physics 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.593111

CARPENTER A.M. (2012) Low water FGD technologies. IEA Clean Coal Centre 73. ISBN 978-92-9029-530-3

CHAI T., DRAXLER R.R. (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? – Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geoscientific model development 7:1247–1250. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014

CHICCO D., WARRENS M.J., JURMAN G. (2021) The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. Peerj Computer Science 7:e623. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.623

CHOPRA S., DHIMAN G., SHARMA A. (2021) Taxonomy of Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System in Modern Engineering Sciences. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2021:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6455592

EESA A.S., ARABO W.K. (2017) A Normalization Methods for Backpropagation: A Comparative Study. Science Journal of University of Zakho 5:319–323. https://doi.org/10.25271/2017.5.4.381

FATIMA F., FATIMA N., AMJAD T. (2020) 5. A review on acid rain: An environmental threat. Pure and Applied Biology (PAB) 10:301–310. ISSN 2304-2478

FU J., XIAO H., WANG T. (2019) Prediction Model of Desulfurization Efficiency of Coal-Fired Power Plants Based on Long Short-Term Memory Neural Network. In: 2019 International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData). IEEE, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/iThings/GreenCom/CPSCom/SmartData.2019.00030

GUO Y., XU Z., ZHENG C. (2019) Modeling and optimization of wet flue gas desulfurization system based on a hybrid modeling method. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 69:565–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2018.1551252

HEAVISIDE C., WITHAM C., VARDOULAKIS S. (2021) Potential health impacts from sulphur dioxide and sulphate exposure in the UK resulting from an Icelandic effusive volcanic eruption. Science of the Total Environment 774:145549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145549

JAKŠIĆ O., JAKŠIĆ Z., GUHA K. (2023) Comparing artificial neural network algorithms for prediction of higher heating value for different types of biomass. Soft Computing 27:5933–5950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07641-4

JAZAYERI K., JAZAYERI M., UYSAL S. (2016) Comparative Analysis of Levenberg-Marquardt and Bayesian Regularization Backpropagation Algorithms in Photovoltaic Power Estimation Using Artificial Neural Network. In: Perner P (ed) Advances in Data Mining. Applications and Theoretical Aspects. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41561-1_7

KESKIN M.E., TAYLAN D., TERZI Ö. (2006) Adaptive neural-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) approach for modelling hydrological time series. Hydrological Sciences Journal 51:588–598. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.51.4.588

KONG Z., ZHANG Y., WANG X. (2020) Prediction and optimization of a desulphurization system using CMAC neural network and genetic algorithm. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management 28:74–87. https://doi.org/10.3846/jeelm.2020.12098

LEROTHOLI L., EVERSON R.C., KOECH L. (2022) Semi-dry flue gas desulphurization in spray towers: a critical review of applicable models for computational fluid dynamics analysis. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 24:2011–2060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02308-y

LI X., HAN J., LIU Y. (2022) Summary of research progress on industrial flue gas desulfurization technology. Separation and Purification Technology 281:119849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2021.119849

LUNGU I., ADELA B., CARUTASU G. (2016) Prediction intelligent system in the field of renewable energies through neural networks. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research 50:85–102. ISSN: 0424-267X

MAKOMERE R., RUTTO H., KOECH L. (2023) The assessment of response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) modeling in dry flue gas desulfurization at low temperatures. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 58:191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2023.2174334

MAKOMERE R., RUTTO H., KOECH L., BANZA M. (2023) The use of artificial neural network (ANN) in dry flue gas desulphurization modelling: Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) and Bayesian regularization (BR) algorithm comparison. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 101:3273–3286. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.24715

MAKOMERE R.S., RUTTO H.L., KOECH L. (2023) The Use of Cellulose Nanocrystals to Support Ca(OH)2 Nanoparticles with Diatomite Incorporation in Sulphur Capture at Low Temperatures: Optimisation and Modelling. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 48:8871–8885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-022-07491-0

MANISALIDIS I., STAVROPOULOU E., STAVROPOULOS A., BEZIRTZOGLOU E. (2020) Environmental and Health Impacts of Air Pollution: A Review. Frontiers in Public Health 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014

ROY R.B., ROKONUZZAMAN M.d., AMIN N., MISHU M.K., ALAHAKOON S., RAHMAN S., MITHULANANTHAN N., RAHMAN K.S., SHAKERI M., PASUPULETI J. (2021) A Comparative Performance Analysis of ANN Algorithms for MPPT Energy Harvesting in Solar PV System. IEEE Access 9:102137–102152. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3096864

SADA S.O., IKPESENI S.C. (2021) Evaluation of ANN and ANFIS modeling ability in the prediction of AISI 1050 steel machining performance. Heliyon 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06136

SEPTIARINI T.W., MUSIKASUWAN S. (2018) Investigating the performance of ANFIS model to predict the hourly temperature in Pattani, Thailand. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1097:012085. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012085

TRYGGVASON G. (2016) Chapter 6 - Computational Fluid Dynamics. In: KUNDU P.K., COHEN I.M., DOWLING D.R. (eds) Fluid Mechanics (Sixth Edition). Academic Press, Boston, pp 227–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405935-1.00006-X

Downloads

Published

2024-07-22

How to Cite

Makomere, R., Rutto, H., Alugongo, A., & Koech, L. (2024). Low-temperature desulfurization forecasting using soft computing models. EQA - International Journal of Environmental Quality, 62, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2281-4485/19040

Issue

Vol. 62 (2024)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Robert Makomere, Hilary Rutto, Alfayo Alugongo, Lawrence Koech

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.