IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7245-d837921.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Support Vector Machine Regression and Gaussian Process Regression in Modeling Hydrogen Production from Waste Effluent

Author

Listed:
  • SK Safdar Hossain

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 380, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia)

  • Bamidele Victor Ayodele

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia)

  • Syed Sadiq Ali

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 380, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia)

  • Chin Kui Cheng

    (Centre for Catalysis and Separation (CeCaS), Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi P.O. Box 127788, United Arab Emirates)

  • Siti Indati Mustapa

    (Institute of Energy Policy and Research, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia)

Abstract

Organic-rich substrates from organic waste effluents are ideal sources for hydrogen production based on the circular economy concept. In this study, a data-driven approach was employed in modeling hydrogen production from palm oil mill effluents and activated sludge waste. Seven models built on support vector machine (SVM) and Gaussian process regression (GPR) were employed for the modeling of the hydrogen production from the waste sources. The SVM was incorporated with linear kernel function (LSVM), quadratic kernel function (QSVM), cubic kernel function (CSVM), and Gaussian fine kernel function (GFSVM). While the GPR was incorporated with the rotational quadratic kernel function (RQGPR), squared exponential kernel function (SEGPR), and exponential kernel function (EGPR). The model performance revealed that the SVM-based models did not show impressive performance in modeling the hydrogen production from the palm oil mill effluent, as indicated by the R 2 of −0.01, 0.150, and 0.143 for LSVM, QSVM, and CSVM, respectively. Similarly, the SVM-based models did not perform well in modeling the hydrogen production from activated sludge, as evidenced by R 2 values of 0.040, 0.190, and 0.340 for LSVM, QSVM, and CSVM, respectively. On the contrary, the SEGPR, RQGPR, SEGPR, and EGPR models displayed outstanding performance in modeling the prediction of hydrogen production from both oil palm mill effluent and activated sludge, with over 90% of the datasets explaining the variation in the model output. With the R 2 > 0.9, the predicted hydrogen production was consistent with the SEGPR, RQGPR, SEGPR, and EGPR with minimized prediction errors. The level of importance analysis revealed that all the input parameters are relevant in the production of hydrogen. However, the influent chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration and the medium temperature significantly influenced the hydrogen production from palm oil mill effluent, whereas the pH of the medium and the temperature significantly influenced the hydrogen production from the activated sludge.

Suggested Citation

  • SK Safdar Hossain & Bamidele Victor Ayodele & Syed Sadiq Ali & Chin Kui Cheng & Siti Indati Mustapa, 2022. "Comparative Analysis of Support Vector Machine Regression and Gaussian Process Regression in Modeling Hydrogen Production from Waste Effluent," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7245-:d:837921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7245/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7245/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ally, Jamie & Pryor, Trevor, 2016. "Life cycle costing of diesel, natural gas, hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell bus systems: An Australian case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 285-294.
    2. Deng, Huiwen & Hu, Weihao & Cao, Di & Chen, Weirong & Huang, Qi & Chen, Zhe & Blaabjerg, Frede, 2022. "Degradation trajectories prognosis for PEM fuel cell systems based on Gaussian process regression," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PA).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Naveed, Muhammad Hamza & Khan, Muhammad Nouman Aslam & Mukarram, Muhammad & Naqvi, Salman Raza & Abdullah, Abdullah & Haq, Zeeshan Ul & Ullah, Hafeez & Mohamadi, Hamad Al, 2024. "Cellulosic biomass fermentation for biofuel production: Review of artificial intelligence approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jiaming Zhou & Chunxiao Feng & Qingqing Su & Shangfeng Jiang & Zhixian Fan & Jiageng Ruan & Shikai Sun & Leli Hu, 2022. "The Multi-Objective Optimization of Powertrain Design and Energy Management Strategy for Fuel Cell–Battery Electric Vehicle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Pei, Pucheng & Meng, Yining & Chen, Dongfang & Ren, Peng & Wang, Mingkai & Wang, Xizhong, 2023. "Lifetime prediction method of proton exchange membrane fuel cells based on current degradation law," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    3. Rupp, Matthias & Handschuh, Nils & Rieke, Christian & Kuperjans, Isabel, 2019. "Contribution of country-specific electricity mix and charging time to environmental impact of battery electric vehicles: A case study of electric buses in Germany," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 618-634.
    4. Hensher, David A., 2021. "The case for negotiated contracts under the transition to a green bus fleet," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 255-269.
    5. Zhang, Gang & Zhou, Su & Gao, Jianhua & Fan, Lei & Lu, Yanda, 2023. "Stacks multi-objective allocation optimization for multi-stack fuel cell systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    6. Harris, Andrew & Soban, Danielle & Smyth, Beatrice M. & Best, Robert, 2018. "Assessing life cycle impacts and the risk and uncertainty of alternative bus technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 569-579.
    7. Harris, Andrew & Soban, Danielle & Smyth, Beatrice M. & Best, Robert, 2020. "A probabilistic fleet analysis for energy consumption, life cycle cost and greenhouse gas emissions modelling of bus technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    8. Li, Yanfei & Kimura, Shigeru, 2021. "Economic competitiveness and environmental implications of hydrogen energy and fuel cell electric vehicles in ASEAN countries: The current and future scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    9. Hasanien, Hany M. & Shaheen, Mohamed A.M. & Turky, Rania A. & Qais, Mohammed H. & Alghuwainem, Saad & Kamel, Salah & Tostado-Véliz, Marcos & Jurado, Francisco, 2022. "Precise modeling of PEM fuel cell using a novel Enhanced Transient Search Optimization algorithm," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    10. Lee, Dong-Yeon & Elgowainy, Amgad & Vijayagopal, Ram, 2019. "Well-to-wheel environmental implications of fuel economy targets for hydrogen fuel cell electric buses in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 565-583.
    11. Rillo, E. & Gandiglio, M. & Lanzini, A. & Bobba, S. & Santarelli, M. & Blengini, G., 2017. "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of biogas-fed Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 585-602.
    12. Say, Kelvin & Csereklyei, Zsuzsanna & Brown, Felix Gabriel & Wang, Changlong, 2023. "The economics of public transport electrification: A case study from Victoria, Australia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Yaping Wu & Xiaolong Wu & Yuanwu Xu & Yongjun Cheng & Xi Li, 2023. "A Novel Adaptive Neural Network-Based Thermoelectric Parameter Prediction Method for Enhancing Solid Oxide Fuel Cell System Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Penny Atkins & Gareth Milton & Andrew Atkins & Robert Morgan, 2021. "A Local Ecosystem Assessment of the Potential for Net Negative Heavy-Duty Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Biomethane Upcycling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-22, February.
    15. Yeongmin Kwon & Suji Kim & Hyungjoo Kim & Jihye Byun, 2020. "What Attributes Do Passengers Value in Electrified Buses?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    16. Li, Changzhi & Lin, Wei & Wu, Hangyu & Li, Yang & Zhu, Wenchao & Xie, Changjun & Gooi, Hoay Beng & Zhao, Bo & Zhang, Leiqi, 2023. "Performance degradation decomposition-ensemble prediction of PEMFC using CEEMDAN and dual data-driven model," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    17. Karaca, Ali Erdogan & Dincer, Ibrahim, 2021. "A hybrid compressed natural gas-pneumatic system as a powering option for buses: A comparative assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    18. Bitzan, John D. & Ripplinger, David G., 2016. "Public transit and alternative fuels – The costs associated with using biodiesel and CNG in comparison to diesel for U.S. public transit systems," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 17-30.
    19. Aihua Tang & Yuanhang Yang & Quanqing Yu & Zhigang Zhang & Lin Yang, 2022. "A Review of Life Prediction Methods for PEMFCs in Electric Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-18, August.
    20. Sanjay Kumar Kar & Akhoury Sudhir Kumar Sinha & Rohit Bansal & Bahman Shabani & Sidhartha Harichandan, 2023. "Overview of hydrogen economy in Australia," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7245-:d:837921. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.