It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The performance of factorial designs is still limited due to some uncertainties that usually intensify process complexities, hence, the need for inter-platform auto-correlation analyses. In this study, the auto-correlation capabilities of factorial designs and General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) on the effects of some pertinent operating variables in wastewater treatment were compared. Individual and combined models were implemented in GAMS and solved with the trio of BARON, CPLEX and IPOPT solvers. It is revealed that adsorbent dosage had the highest effect on the process. It contributed the most effect toward obtaining the minimum silica and TDS contents of 13 mg/L and 814 mg/L, and 13.6 mg/L and 815 mg/L from factorial design and GAMS platforms, respectively. This indicates a concurrence between the results from the two platforms with percentage errors of 4.4% and 0.2% for silica and TDS, respectively. The effects of the mixing speed and contact time are negligible.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Department of Petroleum Resources, Health, Safety and Environment Division, Abuja, Nigeria; Department of Petroleum Resources, IOR Centre of Excellence, Abuja, Nigeria
2 University of Ilorin, Department of Chemical Engineering, Ilorin, Nigeria (GRID:grid.412974.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 0625 9425)
3 University of Ilorin, Department of Chemical Engineering, Ilorin, Nigeria (GRID:grid.412974.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 0625 9425); Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Department of Chemical Engineering, Awka, Nigeria (GRID:grid.412207.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 0117 5863)
4 Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bioenvironmental Engineering Research Centre (BERC), Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (GRID:grid.440422.4) (ISNI:0000 0001 0807 5654)
5 University of the Witwatersrand, NRF-DST Chair in Sustainable Process Engineering, School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa (GRID:grid.11951.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 1135)