Abstract
Biogas production is a complicated process and mathematical modeling of the process is essential in order to plan the management of the plants. Gompertz models can predict the biogas production, but in co-digestion, where many feedstocks are used it can be hard to obtain a sufficient calibration, and often more research is required in order to find the exact calibration parameters. The scope of this article is to investigate if machine learning approaches can be used to optimize the predictions of Gompertz models. Increasing the precision of the models is important in order to get an optimal usage of the resources and thereby ensure a more sustainable energy production. Three models were tested: A Gompertz model (Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) = 9.61%), a machine learning model (MAPE = 4.84%), and a hybrid model (MAPE = 4.52%). The results showed that the hybrid model could decrease the error in the predictions with 53% when predicting the methane production one day ahead. When encountering an offset in the predictions the reduction of the error was increased to 66%.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Xue, S., et al.: A systematic comparison of biogas development and related policies between China and Europe and corresponding insights. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 117, 109474 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109474
Colla, L.M., et al.: Waste biomass and blended bioresources in biogas production. In: Treichel, H., Fongaro, G. (eds.) Improving Biogas Production. BBT, vol. 9, pp. 1–23. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10516-7_1
Hagos, K., Zong, J., Li, D., Liu, C., Lu, X.: Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76, 1485–1496 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184
Scapini, T., et al.: Enzyme-mediated enhanced biogas yield. In: Treichel, H., Fongaro, G. (eds.) Improving Biogas Production. BBT, vol. 9, pp. 45–68. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10516-7_3
Batstone, D.J., et al.: The IWA anaerobic digestion model no 1 (ADM1). Water Sci. Technol. 45, 65–73 (2002)
Derbal, K., Bencheikh-lehocine, M., Cecchi, F., Meniai, A.-H., Pavan, P.: Application of the IWA ADM1 model to simulate anaerobic co-digestion of organic waste with waste activated sludge in mesophilic condition. Biores. Technol. 100, 1539–1543 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.07.064
Batstone, D.J., Puyol, D., Flores-Alsina, X., Rodríguez, J.: Mathematical modelling of anaerobic digestion processes: applications and future needs. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 14, 595–613 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-015-9376-4
Arzate, J.A., et al.: Anaerobic digestion model (AM2) for the description of biogas processes at dynamic feedstock loading rates. Chem. Ing. Tec. 89, 686–695 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201600176
Ripoll, V., Agabo-García, C., Perez, M., Solera, R.: Improvement of biomethane potential of sewage sludge anaerobic co-digestion by addition of “sherry-wine” distillery wastewater. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119667 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119667
dos Santos, L.A., et al.: Methane generation potential through anaerobic digestion of fruit waste. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120389 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120389
Hernández-Fydrych, V.C., Benítez-Olivares, G., Meraz-Rodríguez, M.A., Salazar-Peláez, M.L., Fajardo-Ortiz, M.C.: Methane production kinetics of pretreated slaughterhouse wastewater. Biomass Bioenerg. 130, 105385 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105385
Akbaş, H., Bilgen, B., Turhan, A.M.: An integrated prediction and optimization model of biogas production system at a wastewater treatment facility. Biores. Technol. 196, 566–576 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.017
Beltramo, T., Klocke, M., Hitzmann, B.: Prediction of the biogas production using GA and ACO input features selection method for ANN model. Inf. Process. Agric. 6, 349–356 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2019.01.002
Tufaner, F., Demirci, Y.: Prediction of biogas production rate from anaerobic hybrid reactor by artificial neural network and nonlinear regressions models. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 22, 713–724 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01816-z
De Clercq, D., Wen, Z., Fei, F., Caicedo, L., Yuan, K., Shang, R.: Interpretable machine learning for predicting biomethane production in industrial-scale anaerobic co-digestion. Sci. Total Environ. 712, 134574 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134574
De Clercq, D., et al.: Machine learning powered software for accurate prediction of biogas production: a case study on industrial-scale Chinese production data. J. Clean. Prod. 218, 390–399 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.031
Gompertz, B.: XXIV. On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies. In a letter to Francis Baily, Esq. F. R. S. & c. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lon. 115, 513–583 (1825). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1825.0026
Zwietering, M.H., Jongenburger, I., Rombouts, F.M., van’t Riet, K.: Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 1875–1881 (1990)
Pedregosa, F., et al.: Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2011, 2825–2830 (2011)
Breiman, L.: Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn. 24, 123–140 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00058655
Freund, Y., Schapire, R.E.: A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 119–139 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.1997.1504
Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324
Friedman, J.H.: Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 38, 367–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-9473(01)00065-2
Zhang, H.: The optimality of Naive Bayes (2004). https://www.cs.unb.ca/~hzhang/publications/FLAIRS04ZhangH.pdf
Geurts, P., Ernst, D., Wehenkel, L.: Extremely randomized trees. Mach. Learn. 63, 3–42 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1
Chang, C.-C., Lin, C.-J.: LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2, 1–27 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1961189.1961199
Kloss, A., Schaal, S., Bohg, J.: Combining learned and analytical models for predicting action effects. arXiv:1710.04102[cs] (2018)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hansen, B.D., Tamouk, J., Tidmarsh, C.A., Johansen, R., Moeslund, T.B., Jensen, D.G. (2020). Prediction of the Methane Production in Biogas Plants Using a Combined Gompertz and Machine Learning Model. In: Gervasi, O., et al. Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2020. ICCSA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12249. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58799-4_53
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58799-4_53
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-58798-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-58799-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)