Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3484-8

RESEARCH ARTICLE - CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

A Model Based on Bootstrapped Neural Networks for Modeling the

Removal of Organic Compounds by Nanofiltration and Reverse
Osmosis Membranes
Yamina Ammi1,2 · Latifa Khaouane1 · Salah Hanini1

Received: 19 October 2017 / Accepted: 25 July 2018

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Abstract
The present paper illustrates the use of single neural networks (SNN) and bootstrap aggregated neural networks (BANN)
for modeling the removal of organic compounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. A set of 278 data points was used to
build the SNN and BANN. Bootstrap aggregated neural networks are used to enhance the accuracy and robustness of neural
network models built from a limited amount of training data. The training dataset is re-sampled using bootstrap re-sampling
with replacement to form several sets of training data. For each set of training data, a neural network model is developed.
The individual neural networks are then combined together to form a bootstrap aggregated neural network. Experimental
removals were compared against calculated removals and excellent R correlation coefficients were found (0.9890, 0.9836,
and 0.9841) for the training, test, and total dataset, respectively. The performance of the models (INN, BANN, and SNN) is
shown that models built from BANN are more accurate and robust than those built from individual neural networks (INN)
single neural networks (SNN).

Keywords Bootstrap · Neural networks · Modeling · Removal · Organic compounds · Membranes

1 Introduction actions [4]. An important aspect to deal with the problem

Augmentation of water sources using reclaimed water is a
developing trend in the world due to the shortage of clean
water sources worldwide. On the other hand, the application
of this water supply has a major concern, which is the occur-
rence of trace emerging contaminants. To date, many studies
have focused on the application of nanofiltration (NF) and
reverse osmosis (RO) membranes to remove trace emerg-
ing contaminants, and the reported results vary greatly in a
different water matrix [1].
Fewer studies have examined micropollutant removal as a
function of the interactions between organic compounds and
membrane surfaces [2,3]. In general, three major interactions
primarily affecting solute–membrane removal can be pointed
out as follows: steric hindrance (sieving effect), electrostatic
repulsion (charge effect), and hydrophobic/adsorptive inter-
B Yamina Ammi
ammi.yamina@yahoo.fr
1 Laboratory of Biomaterials and Transport Phenomena
(LBMPT), University of Médéa, Médéa, Algeria
2 University Center Ahmed Zabana Relizane, Relizane, Algeria
has been the identification of compound physicochemical
properties and membrane characteristics to explain transport
and removal of micropollutants by different mechanisms,
explicitly size/steric exclusion, hydrophobic adsorption and
partitioning, and electrostatic repulsion [5,6].
The literature contains a number of articles that have pro-
posed a mechanistic understanding of the interaction between
membranes and organic compounds; others have tried to
apply fitting parameter models to model removal. However,
there have been few models to “predict” the removal of com-
pounds. In recent years, there have been various attempts
to advance the use of multiple linear regressions “MLR”
as a viable approach to developing data-driven models to
describe the retention of organic compounds by nanofiltration
and reverse osmosis membranes [7–12]. Several authors have
investigated the use of single neural network models (SNN)
for modeling the retention of organic compounds by NF/RO
[5,7,9,13]. Flyborg et al. [14] was used a partial least squares
model (PLS) for predicting rejection of trace organic com-
pounds by nanofiltration using treated wastewater as feed.
Artificial neural networks have been widely used as a
statistical modeling tool to approximate complex functions,

123

particularly nonlinear ones between system inputs and out-
puts. A typical neural network comprises of an input layer
with multiple inputs, an output layer with at least one output,
and at least one hidden layer with multiply hidden neurons,
which are all associated by weights and biases [15]. The
application of ANNs in pollutant removal has been gaining
increasing attention. Nevertheless, ANN has also been crit-
icized for its “black box” nature such that the linearity or
quadratic dependence of the transfer equations may not be
well understood. In addition, the computational burden and
the overfitting issue have also been identified [16].
The accuracy and robustness of neural network models are
largely affected by the available training data and the train-
ing process. When the total of training data is limited, the
neural network would tend to over-fit noise in the training
data and exhibit significant generalization errors. An attrac-
tive approach to improving neural network model robustness
is to develop a set of neural network models and then com-
bine them. Combining multiple neural network models have
been investigated by several researchers [17].
To date, there is a shortage of studies that present a
model to predict the removal performance of trace organic
compounds by NF/RO membranes using various poros-
ity indicators, two types of membranes (nanofiltration and
reverse osmosis), and nature of organic compounds (neutral
and ionic organics). Both [5–14] have presented models that
give good predictions for the removal organic compounds
by NF/RO membranes. However, most of these models have
been limited.
A limitation of single neural network models (SNN),
multiple linear regressions (MLR), and partial least squares
model (PLS) for modeling the retention of organic com-
pounds by NF/RO membranes is that they can lack gener-
alization when applied to unseen data, the trained neural
network gives good performance on the training data but
gives an unsatisfactory performance on unseen data which are
not used in the training process. Over the past years, many
techniques have been developed to improve generalization
capability, such as bootstrap aggregated neural networks.
A number of scientific researchers have attempted to
use the bootstrap aggregated neural networks (BANN) in
different procedures: for optimization of electrical power
in energy-deficient scenarios [18], for modeling the poly-
merization process and fermentation process [19–23], for
optimization of a fed-batch bioreactor [24], for optimization
of atmospheric crude distillation system operations [25], for
hierarchical prediction of monthly runoff in upper Damodar
valley catchment [26], for melt index prediction [27], for
modeling of a post-combustion CO2 capture process [28],
and for modeling the retention of organic compounds by
nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes [6].
To the best of our knowledge, no studies have been
reported in the literature that has used the bootstrap aggre-
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
gated neural networks (BANN) for modeling the removal
of organic compounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmo-
sis membranes, taking into account three porosity indicators
(molecular weight cutoff “MWCO,” salt rejection “MgSO4 ,”
and salt rejection “NaCl”). The bootstrap aggregated neu-
ral network “BANN” was compared with individual neural
networks and single neural network “SNN.” This paper
is organized as follows: Sect. 2 introduces materials and
methods. Section 3 presents modeling procedure with sig-
nal neural networks and modeling procedure with bootstrap
aggregated neural networks. Results and discussion are pre-
sented in Sect. 4. Section 5 concludes the work.
2 Materials and Methods
The database (DB) included 278 removals of 23 organic com-
pounds used in this study available in the literature [8,9,29–
33]. The selection of the input and output variables was based
on interactions between organic compound properties, mem-
brane characteristics, and filtration operating conditions for
the removal of organic compounds by NF/RO membranes.
These solute–membrane interactions are determined by
organic compound solute properties, membrane properties,
and operating conditions [4–6]. The inputs considered in this
work are: compound properties describing hydrophobicity
(log Kow , logD), polarity (dipole moment), and size (molec-
ular weight “Mw,” effective diameter of organic compound
in water “dc ,” molecular length, molecular depth, molecular
width, molecular equivalent width “eqwidth”); membrane
characteristics (molecular weight cutoff “MWCO,” magne-
sium sulfate salt rejection “SR (MgSO4 ),” sodium chloride
salt rejection “SR (NaCl),” surface membrane charge “zeta
potential”; membrane hydrophobicity “contact angle”); and
operating conditions (pH, pressure, temperature and recov-
ery).
The molecular weight (MW ) and logD values were ob-
tained through the online program (http://www.chemspider.
com). Kowwin, epa (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/
pubs/epissuite.htm) was used for computing logKow . Dipole
moment was calculated by Chem3D Ultra. The ChemAxon
software (http://www.chemicalize.org) was used to generate
length, width, and depth.
The values of equivalent molecular width “eqwidth” were
calculated by the following equation [34].

eqwidth = molecular width × molecular depth. (1)
The effective diameter “dc ” of organic compound in water
is defined as follows [31]:
dc = 0.065Mw 0.438 . (2)
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Fig. 1 Procedure of the design and optimization of the architecture neural network
3 Modeling Procedure
3.1 Modeling with Single Neural Networks
The neural network is a mathematical model composed of
computing units (neural units) and linkage (dendrite), which
has a similar construction with the human brain. In numerous
neural networks, back-propagation (BP) neural network has
been used throughout this paper with forecasting horizon
and supervised learning for several significant advantages:
nonlinear mapping capability; self-learning and adaptive
capabilities; generalization ability; fault tolerance [35].
Characteristically, it has three layers including the input
layer, hiding layer, and output layer. The layers are made
up with compute units and linked by transfer functions. The
NN model functions as follows: Each neuron receives sig-
nals from the neurons in the previous layer, and every one
of those signals is multiplied by a separate weight value.
The weighted signals are summed and passed to next layer
through a transfer function. Therefore, the knowledge of the
NN model is stored in the transfer function, weight matrix,
and threshold of NN model [36].
The procedure based on the design and optimization of the
architecture of single neural network “SNN” and individual
neural networks (INN) is described in Fig 1.
The statistical analysis of inputs and output (minimum
“min,” mean, maximum “max,” and standard deviations
“STD”) data is given in Table 1.
We studied the effect of the division of the database on
the optimization of the neural model; for this, the database
was divided into two subbases: a training base that allows
optimization of the NN architecture and a test base used to
determine its predictive performance. Table 2 shows the error
values obtained for the removal under the influence of the
division of the database. It has been observed that the third
division represents the best result.
3.2 Modeling with Bootstrap Aggregated Neural
Networks (BANN)
An attractive approach to improving neural network model
robustness is to develop a set of neural network models
and then combine them. Combining multiple neural network
models have been investigated by several researchers [6,17].
To build bootstrap aggregated neural network models, the
training data were re-sampled using bootstrap re-sampling
with replacement [37] to form 30 sets of training.
A diagram of the bootstrap aggregated neural networks
is shown in Fig. 2, where several individual neural network
models are developed to model the same relationship and are
combined together using the following equation:
n
i=1 yi
y= , (3)
n
where yi is the output of the individual neural networks
“INN,” y represents the output of the BANN, and n is the
number of INN models.
For each model (SNN and BANN), a neural network was
developed. Each NN contains three layers of neurons or
nodes: one input layer with 15 neurons for NNs in the input
layer, one hidden layer with a number of active neurons opti-
mized during training, and one output layer with one unit
that generated the estimated value of removal. The number
of hidden neurons was varied from 3 to 25 neurons. The tan-
123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 1 Statistical analysis of

Min. Mean Max. SD
inputs and output
Inputs
dc (g/mol) 0.5280 0.7819 0.9409 0.1060
LogD − 2.8600 1.0846 3.3900 1.5039
Dipole moment (Debye) 0.0000 4.5636 10.9100 3.7806
Length (nm) 0.6310 1.3247 1.7030 0.3013
Eqwidth (nm) 0.2397 0.3791 0.4753 0.0600
MWCO (Dalton) 100.0000 147.5719 225.0000 52.3883
SR (MgSO4 ) 0.1000 0.8756 0.9970 0.2772
SR (NaCl) 0.1210 0.7443 0.9960 0.3115
Zeta potential (mv) − 41.3000 − 26.6204 3.1000 11.2961
Contact angle (◦ ) 20.1000 41.4421 65.0000 13.4837
pH 4.0000 6.6650 8.0100 1.0040
Pressure (KPa) 240.0000 1138.3827 4100.0000 615.5188
Recovery (%) 0.0400 25.0292 92.2600 28.9102
Temperature (◦ C) 20.0000 22.5000 25.0000 2.2481
Output
Removal (%) 1.0000 87.1323 100.0000 23.5705

Table 2 Division of the

Database Percentage Errors
database
EAM R

Division 1
Training phase: 111 data points 60 0.0003 0.9910
Test phase: 167 data points 40 0.0030 0.9609
Division 2
Training phase: 83 data points 70 0.0014 0.9703
Test phase:195 data points 30 0.0023 0.9714
Division 3
Training phase: 55 data points 80 0.0006 0.9869
Test phase: 223 data points 20 0.0018 0.9839

layer. The pure-linear (purelin) transfer function was used in

the output layer. Each neural network was trained using the
BFGS quasi-Newton (trainbfg).
The bootstrap aggregated neural networks output is taken
as the average of the individual neural network outputs.
The application of NNs modeling of the removal of organic
compounds by NF/RO membranes was performed using
STATISTICA.

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Performance Models

Fig. 2 Bootstrap aggregated neural networks

Table 3 shows the structures of the optimized individual

gent hyperbolic (tanh), the log sigmoid (logsig), the sin, and neural networks “INNs” models and single neural network
the exponential transfer functions were used in the hidden “SNN” model. It can be seen that these networks are not

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 3 Structures of the optimized INNs and SNN models linear regression are, straightforwardly, obtained using the
INNs Hidden layer MATLAB function “postreg”. Figure 3 shows comparison
between experimental and calculated removals with agree-
Neurons number Activation function
ment vectors approaching the ideal [i.e., α = 1 (slope), β = 0
INN1 12 Tanh (intercept), R = 1 (correlation coefficient)] in the adjustment
INN2 22 Exponential of the profiles of the neural networks, for SNN ([α, β, R] =
INN3 16 Tanh [1.0052, − 0.3855, 0.9818] for training phase, [α, β, R] =
INN4 21 Exponential [1.0769, − 7.1965, 0.9804] for test phase, and [α, β, R] =
INN5 10 Exponential [1.0262, − 2.3813, 0.9810] for total) and for BANN ([α, β,
INN6 6 Tanh
R] = [1.0063, − 0.5524, 0.9890] for training phase, [α, β, R]
= [1.0752, − 7.2152, 0.9836] for test phase, and [α, β, R] =
INN7 25 Logistic
[1.0728, − 6.5418, 0.9841] for total).
INN8 18 Logistic
INN9 3 Tanh
INN10 6 Tanh
INN11 13 Exponential 4.2 Comparison Between Individual Neural
INN12 22 Logistic Networks
INN13 14 Tanh
INN14 13 Tanh Figure 4 shows the correlation coefficient “R,” mean abso-
INN15 12 Tanh
lute error (MAE), the root mean squared error (RMSE), the
standard error of prediction (SEP), and the model predictive
INN16 9 Tanh
error (MPE), of the individual neural networks on the total
INN17 14 Tanh
datasets. It can be seen that these networks are not consistent
INN18 9 Tanh
and give various performances. Equations of those parame-
INN19 18 Tanh
ters are given as follows:
INN20 25 Logistic
INN21 23 Exponential
INN22 10 Tanh
1  
n

INN23 18 Exponential MAE = yi,exp − yi,cal  , (4)
INN24 17 Exponential n
i=1

INN25 4 Tanh n  2
INN26 7 Tanh i=1 Yi,exp − Yi,cal
RMSE = , (5)
INN27 15 Tanh n
INN28 7 Tanh RMSE
SEP (%) = × 100, (6)
INN29 25 Exponential Ye
n  
INN30 10 Tanh 100   (yi,exp − yi,cal 
SNN 25 Tanh
MPE (%) =  , (7)
n y i,exp
i=1

consistent and give various structures. Nineteen neural net-
works were used the transfer function tangent hyperbolic
(tanh), eight neural networks were used the transfer function
exponential, and four neural networks were used the trans-
fer function log sigmoid (logistic) in the hidden layer, while
neural networks did not use the function sin in the hidden
layer. Eighteen individual neural networks INN (1, 5, 6, 9,
10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30) have
adequate cache numbers (fewer than or equal to 14 neurons)
to obtain a satisfactory approximation.
The single neural network “SNN” and bootstrap aggre-
gated neural networks “BANN” models were developed with
the aim of predicting of the removal of organic compounds
by NF/RO membranes. The plot and the parameters of the
where n is the total number of data, Yi,exp is the experimental
value, Yi,cal represents the calculated value from the neural
network model, and Ye is the mean value of experimental
data.
For comparison purpose, the bootstrap aggregated neural
network and ten “good” individual neural networks (neural
network Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14, 20, 25, and 27) are pro-
posed. Figure 4 shows that these ten individual networks give
the various and the best performances among the 30 individ-
ual networks. It is shown that the individual neural networks
give the best performances among the 30 individual networks
on the total. However, it gives the worst performance on the
unseen datasets. This indicates the non-robust nature of indi-
vidual neural network models.

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Fig. 3 Comparison between experimental and calculated removals: a SNN “training phase,” b SNN “test phase,” c SNN “total,” d BANN “training
phase,” e BANN “test phase,” f BANN “total phase”

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

(a)
0.995
0.99

R (total data base)

0.985
0.98
0.975
0.97
0.965
0.96
0.955
0.95
0.945

Individual neural networks (INNs)

(b)
MAE (total data base) (%)

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Individual neural networks (INNs)

(c)
RMSE (total data base) (%)

Individual neural networks (INNs)

(d)
SEP (total data base) (%)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Individual neural networks (INNs)

(e)
30
MPE (total data base) (%)

25

20

15

10

Individual neural networks (INNs)

Fig. 4 Correlation coefficient and errors obtained for each individual neural networks: a R, b MAE, c RMSE, d SEP, e MPE

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 4 Errors of INNs,

R MAE (%) RMSE (%) SEP (%) MPE (%)
BANN, and SNN models
INN1
Training phase 0.9902 1.6150 3.2905 3.7462 2.7515
Test phase 0.9830 3.4239 6.1772 7.4767 32.4247
Total 0.9871 1.9729 4.0292 4.6418 8.6223
INN2
Training phase 0.9912 1.3842 2.4305 2.6964 2.9008
Test phase 0.9827 3.7708 5.7644 6.9771 23.8671
Total 0.9876 1.8563 3.3634 3.7940 7.0488
INN3
Training phase 0.9894 1.4249 2.9478 2.9478 2.5180
Test phase 0.9724 3.3812 7.2258 8.7458 16.6716
Total 0.9824 1.8119 4.0003 4.5093 5.3182
INN4
Training phase 0.9887 1.5368 2.8361 3.1695 2.3851
Test phase 0.9559 4.7197 8.6053 10.4155 36.7488
Total 0.9769 2.1665 4.5938 5.2128 9.1837
INN5
Training phase 0.9947 0.9586 2.2410 2.5333 1.8997
Test phase 0.9757 3.8534 6.4385 7.7930 9.4242
Total 0.9889 1.5313 3.4971 4.0056 3.3883
INN6
Training phase 0.9907 1.2188 2.6505 2.9860 4.1785
Test phase 0.9246 6.4261 11.5663 13.9994 69.1321
Total 0.9664 2.2490 5.6659 6.4716 17.0290
INN7
Training phase 0.9828 2.6336 4.2497 4.8945 8.7053
Test phase 0.9625 5.2835 8.0031 9.6866 39.2476
Total 0.9770 3.1578 5.2114 6.0602 14.7478
INN8
Training phase 0.9918 1.4691 2.7757 3.1414 2.6565
Test phase 0.9726 4.5166 6.9602 8.4244 20.5937
Total 0.9858 2.0721 3.9705 4.5520 6.2052
INN9
Training phase 0.9741 2.5770 4.4503 4.9793 6.7392
Test phase 0.9632 4.9556 8.2894 10.0332 57.7921
Total 0.9696 3.0476 5.4297 6.1673 16.8396
INN10
Training phase 0.9933 1.2040 2.2302 2.4867 1.8011
Test phase 0.9532 4.9382 9.1166 11.0344 32.0988
Total 0.9787 1.9428 4.5203 5.1198 7.7952
INN11
Training phase 0.9814 2.6672 4.4112 5.0866 12.4721
Test phase 0.9666 4.8931 7.7814 9.4183 51.0547
Total 0.9768 3.1076 5.2525 6.1138 20.1054

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 4 continued
R MAE (%) RMSE (%) SEP (%) MPE (%)

INN12
Training phase 0.9853 1.9867 3.4646 3.8928 4.7845
Test phase 0.9708 3.9593 7.0679 8.5548 45.0234
Total 0.9806 2.3769 4.4172 5.0346 12.7455
INN13
Training phase 0.9923 1.2201 2.8313 3.2393 1.9856
Test phase 0.9849 3.0242 5.0731 6.1403 17.8128
Total 0.9902 1.5770 3.3944 3.9261 5.1168
INN14
Training phase 0.9968 0.9745 1.8754 2.1596 2.6465
Test phase 0.9771 3.8190 6.8093 8.2418 23.8640
Total 0.9905 1.5373 3.4633 4.0269 6.8442
INN15
Training phase 0.9810 2.4220 4.1846 4.7527 7.0948
Test phase 0.9544 5.1043 8.7760 10.6221 38.2285
Total 0.9729 2.9526 5.4114 6.2220 13.2543
INN16
Training phase 0.9949 1.0134 2.0548 2.2943 1.6643
Test phase 0.9616 4.3900 8.1002 9.8042 17.3213
Total 0.9839 4.4466 4.4478 4.4645 4.4633
INN17
Training phase 0.9911 1.8478 3.3562 3.8906 4.9282
Test phase 0.9752 3.8568 6.7235 8.1379 10.6698
Total 0.9869 2.2453 4.2402 4.9567 6.0641
INN18
Training phase 0.9906 1.9280 3.5846 4.2287 8.0919
Test phase 0.9726 3.8482 7.1170 8.6141 31.6707
Total 0.9859 2.3079 4.5087 5.3456 12.7567
INN19
Training phase 0.9914 1.1214 2.6359 2.9602 2.2119
Test phase 0.9694 4.1692 7.3046 8.8413 43.2602
Total 0.9838 1.7244 4.0162 4.5756 10.3329
INN20
Training phase 0.9956 1.0438 2.2444 2.5721 2.7518
Test phase 0.9859 3.5974 5.5803 6.7542 31.0320
Total 0.9922 1.5490 3.1940 3.6993 8.3468
INN21
Training phase 0.9842 1.5961 3.3874 3.7702 2.6636
Test phase 0.9649 4.8219 7.6595 9.2707 43.1403
Total 0.9776 2.2343 4.5619 5.1595 10.6716
INN22
Training phase 0.9934 1.5696 2.8184 3.2375 3.2635
Test phase 0.9835 3.9377 6.4042 7.7514 33.4930
Total 0.9894 2.0381 3.8060 4.4166 9.2442

123
 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Table 4 continued
R MAE (%) RMSE (%) SEP (%) MPE (%)

INN23
Training phase 0.9846 1.8932 3.7093 4.2540 3.4191
Test phase 0.9262 5.2326 11.5705 14.0045 30.3533
Total 0.9647 2.5539 6.1256 7.0989 8.7478
INN24
Training phase 0.9887 1.4679 3.3008 3.7225 6.1056
Test phase 0.9702 5.0123 7.5959 9.1938 27.5142
Total 0.9823 2.1691 4.4894 5.1323 10.3411
INN25
Training phase 0.9920 1.5261 2.5770 2.8832 3.3843
Test phase 0.9657 3.8383 7.6362 9.2425 22.6801
Total 0.9833 1.9835 4.1065 4.6643 7.2018
INN26
Training phase 0.9915 1.4374 2.8109 3.1544 3.1914
Test phase 0.9717 4.5813 7.8448 9.4950 25.1046
Total 0.9837 2.0594 4.3027 4.8991 7.5268
INN27
Training phase 0.9970 0.88744 1.5601 1.7488 3.3482
Test phase 0.9714 3.9926 7.3030 8.8393 23.8465
Total 0.9879 1.5017 3.5361 4.0226 7.4036
INN28
Training phase 0.9792 2.3207 4.4276 5.0155 7.5122
Test phase 0.9512 5.0610 9.2274 11.1685 23.0072
Total 0.9705 2.8629 5.7070 6.5479 10.5777
INN29
Training phase 0.9809 2.6320 4.4252 5.0610 8.8290
Test phase 0.9523 6.0490 9.5103 11.5109 54.5873
Total 0.9714 3.3680 5.9097 6.8533 18.2672
INN30
Training phase 0.9820 2.1329 3.9043 4.3721 9.0957
Test phase 0.9443 5.7174 11.7376 14.2067 101.3501
Total 0.9630 2.8421 6.2837 7.1423 27.3475
BANN (Staking 30 nets)
Training phase 0.9890 0.4475 0.5794 0.6560 0.5088
Test phase 0.9836 3.1789 5.7007 6.9000 11.6995
Total 0.9841 0.9878 2.5882 2.9684 2.7228
SNN
Training phase 0.9818 2.2573 4.1346 4.6854 7.7226
Test phase 0.9804 3.3441 6.1491 7.4426 20.2211
Total 0.9810 2.4723 4.6037 5.2835 10.1954

4.3 Comparison Between INNs, BANN, and SNN
Table 4 shows the errors of the 30 individual neural networks
“INNs” models, the bootstrap aggregated neural networks
“BANN,” and the signal neural networks “SNN” on training
data, test data, and total datasets. It can be observed that the
performances of these networks on the total sets are not con-
sistent. A network having small errors in the training dataset
may have quite large errors in the test dataset. The minimum
root mean squared error (RMSE) of the individual neural
network (INN20 ) on the training data, test data, and total
datasets is 2.2444, 5.5803, and 3.1940%, respectively. The
RMSE from the aggregated neural networks on the train-
ing data, test data, and total datasets is 0.5794, 5.7007, and

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

2.5882%, respectively. Thus, the model (BANN) accuracy (a) 7.7226

is significantly improved by combining multiple imperfect 8

models. 7
In order to establish the developed BANNs models as 6
4.6854
a plausible alternative to the SNN models, a comparison 5
4.1346
between the two approaches was made in terms of the mean 4
absolute error (MAE), the root mean squared error (RMSE), 3
the Standard error of prediction (SEP), and the model predic- 2
2.2573
tive error (MPE). Figure 5 shows the comparison between the 1
BANN and the signal neural networks models. Comparison 0.656 0.5088
0 0.5794
of training, test, and total results between the bootstrap aggre- 0.4475
gated neural networks models and the signal neural network MPE (%)
SEP (%)
models has shown the superiority of the bootstrap aggregated RMSE
MAE
neural network model. This indicates the non-robust nature BANN SNN
of the single neural network model. The BANN model has
a higher precision and can describe the removal of organic (b)
compounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis more accu- 25
20.2211
rately compared with the single neural networks model. It is
shown that such bootstrap aggregated neural networks model 20

can give more accurate and robust predictions than the single 15
neural networks model when applied to unseen data. 11.6995
10 7.4426
4.4 Comparison with Other Models 6.1491
6.9
5
3.3441 5.7007
For a significance of the problem encountered during the sep- 0 3.1789
aration of organic compounds by nanofiltration and reverse
osmosis membranes, models have been developed to study MPE (%)
SEP (%)
RMSE
the performance of these processes. Among these models, we MAE
meet single neural network models (SNN), multiple linear BANN SNN
regressions (MLR), and bootstrap aggregated neural net-
works (BANN). But there are a small number of works cited (c)
in the literature relating to work on modeling the retention of 12 10.1954
organic compounds by NF/RO membranes during the years
10
2008–2017. Table 5 lists the only notable examples of studies
predicting the removal of organic compounds during NF/RO 8
by the SNN, MLR, and BANN models published over the 5.2835
6
years. This table shows that our model is the only model 4.6037
that brings together the three porosity indicators (molecular 4
2.4723 2.9684 2.7228
weight cutoff “MWCO,” salt rejection “MgSO4 ,” and salt 2 2.5882
rejection “NaCl”); it is applicable for two types of mem-
0
branes nanofiltration and reverse osmosis and for neutral and 0.9878
ionic organics compounds. It shows that the errors of our MPE (%)
SEP (%)
model are lower than those obtained by other models. MAE
RMSE
In our current study, we used the bootstrap aggregated BANN SNN
neural networks (BANN) for modeling the removal of
organic compounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis Fig. 5 MAE, RMSE, PSE, and MPE of bootstrap aggregated neural
networks “BANN” and signal neural networks “SNN”: a training data,
membranes, taking into account three porosity indicators b test data, and c total data
(molecular weight cutoff “MWCO,” salt rejection “MgSO4 ,”
and salt rejection “NaCl”), but in our earlier study we were
using only one porosity indicators (salt rejection “NaCl”). than a BANN model with only porosity indicators. Our model
Our BANN model with tree porosity indicators gives more is more accurate and robust than those models cited in the
accurate and robust prediction of the removal of organic com- literature for modeling the removal of organic compounds by
pounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes.

123
123
Table 5 Overview of various works on models for predicting the retention of organic compounds by NF/RO
Name of model Modeling method Porosity indicators Membrane type Data base size Number and R MAE (%) RMSE (%) SEP (%)
nature of organic
compounds

Libotean et al. [7] SNN – RO 144 50 Neutral 0.9899 6.6000 – –

Yangali-Quintanilla et al. [8] MLR – NF–RO 64 14 Neutral and ionic 0.7924 – 5.5800 –
MLR – NF–RO 64 14 Neutral and ionic 0.6595 – 1.4500 –
MLR – NF–RO 64 14 Neutral and ionic 0.9757 – 10.1400 –
MLR – NF–RO 64 14 Neutral and ionic 0.9316 – 12.5600 –
Yangali-Quintanilla et al. [9] SNN SR(MgSO4 ) NF–RO 161 50 Neutral 0.9848 – 5.0000 –
Yangali-Quintanilla et al. [10] MLR MWCO NF 106 66 Neutral and ionic 0.8660 – – –
MLR MLR NF 106 66 Neutral and ionic 0.9195 – – –
Arash and Christopher [13] SNN – NF 255 67 Neutral 0.9273 – – –
Sadmani et al. [11] MLR – NF 51 17 Neutral and ionic 0.8916 – – 9.1740
Sadmani et al. [12] MLR – NF 51 17 Neutral and ionic 0.8814 – – 13.6060
Ammi et al. [5] SNN MWCO NF–RO 965 82 Neutral and ionic 0.9128 7.9138 11.2430 15.0730
SNN SR (MgSO4 ) NF–RO 701 81 Neutral and ionic 0.9419 6.6125 8.2047 12.1087
SNN MWCO and SR NF–RO 701 81 Neutral and ionic 0.9527 6.0995 9.0742 10.9485
(MgSO4 )
BANN SR (NaCl) NF–RO 436 42 Neutral and ionic 0.9704 1.5164 2.9757 3.5759
Khaouane et al. [6] BAMLR SR (NaCl) NF–RO 436 42 Neutral and ionic 0.8156 4.7350 7.7058 9.2601
Flyborg et al. [14] PLS – NF 156 32 0.9633 – – –
Our Work BANN MWCO, NF/RO 278 23 Neutral and ionic 0.9836 0.9878 2.5882 2.9684
SR (MgSO4 ),
and SR (NaCl)
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
5 Conclusion
The present study was aimed at modeling the removal of
organic compounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis by
bootstrap aggregated neural networks (BANN). Comparison
between BANN and single neural network (SNN) revealed
that BANN model gave the best performance: The root mean
squared errors for the total dataset were 2.5882 for BANN
and 4.6037 for SNN. The BANN model has a higher preci-
sion and can describe the removal of organic compounds by
nanofiltration and reverse osmosis more accurately compared
with the single neural network model. It shows that such a
bootstrap aggregated neural networks model can give more
accurate and robust predictions than a single neural networks
model when applied to unseen data.
Also, the BANN model with the effective diameter of
organic compound in water (dc) and with three porosity
indicators (MWCO, SR“MgSO4,” SR“NaCl”) gives more
accurate and robust prediction the removal of organic com-
pounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes
than a BANN model with molecular weight (Mw) and with
only porosity indicators (SR“NaCl”).
Our model BANN is more precise and correct than those
models cited in the literature for modeling the removal of
organic compounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis
membranes.
Acknowledgements Authors gratefully acknowledge the team of Lab-
oratory of Biomaterials and Transport Phenomena, the University of
Medea, and University Center of Relizane for their help throughout
this project. The authors also thank the anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments which helped to improve the quality and pre-
sentation of this paper.
References
1. Lin, Y.-L.: Effects of organic, biological and colloidal fouling on
the removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products by
nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 542,
342–351 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.08.023
2. Verliefde, A.R.; Heijman, S.G.; Cornelissen, E.R.; Amy, G.; Van
der Bruggen, B.; van Dijk, J.C.: Influence of electrostatic inter-
actions on the rejection with NF and assessment of the removal
efficiency during NF/GAC treatment of pharmaceutically active
compounds in surface water. Water Res. 41(15), 3227–3240 (2007).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.022
3. Verliefde, A.R.D.; Cornelissen, E.R.; Heijman, S.G.J.; Verberk,
J.Q.J.C.; Amy, G.L.; Van der Bruggen, B.; van Dijk, J.C.: The role
of electrostatic interactions on the rejection of organic solutes in
aqueous solutions with nanofiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 322(1), 52–66
(2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.05.022
4. Gur-Reznik, S.; Koren-Menashe, I.; Heller-Grossman, L.; Rufel,
O.; Dosoretz, C.G.: Influence of seasonal and operating conditions
on the rejection of pharmaceutical active compounds by RO and
NF membranes. Desalination 277(1–3), 250–256 (2011). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.04.029
5. Ammi, Y.; Khaouane, L.; Hanini, S.: Prediction of the rejection of
organic compounds (neutral and ionic) by nanofiltration and reverse
osmosis membranes using neural networks. Korean J. Chem. Eng.
32(11), 2300–2310 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-015-
0086-y
6. Khaouane, L.; Ammi, Y.; Hanini, S.: Modeling the retention of
organic compounds by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis mem-
branes using bootstrap aggregated neural networks. Arab. J. Sci.
Eng. 42(4), 1443–1453 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-
016-2320-2
7. Libotean, D.; Giralt, J.; Rallo, R.; Cohen, Y.; Giralt, F.; Ridg-
way, H.F.; Rodriguez, G.; Phipps, D.: Organic compounds passage
through RO membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 313(1–2), 23–43 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2007.11.052
8. Yangali-Quintanilla, V.; Kennedy, M.; Amy, G.; Kim, T.U.: Mod-
eling of RO/NF membrane rejections of PhACs and organic
compounds: a statistical analysis. Drink. Water Eng. Sci. 1(1), 7–15
(2008)
9. Yangali-Quintanilla, V.; Verliefde, A.; Kim, T.U.; Sadmani, A.;
Kennedy, M.; Amy, G.: Artificial neural network models based
on QSAR for predicting rejection of neutral organic compounds
by polyamide nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. J.
Membr. Sci. 342(1–2), 251–262 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2009.06.048
10. Yangali-Quintanilla, V.; Sadmani, A.; McConville, M.; Kennedy,
M.; Amy, G.: A QSAR model for predicting rejection of emerging
contaminants (pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors) by nanofil-
tration membranes. Water Res. 44(2), 373–384 (2010). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.06.054
11. Sadmani, A.H.M.A.; Andrews, R.C.; Bagley, D.M.: Impact of
natural water colloids and cations on the rejection of pharmaceuti-
cally active and endocrine disrupting compounds by nanofiltration.
J. Membr. Sci. 450, 272–281 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2013.09.017
12. Sadmani, A.H.M.A.; Andrews, R.C.; Bagley, D.M.: Nanofiltration
of pharmaceutically active and endocrine disrupting compounds
as a function of compound interactions with DOM fractions and
cations in natural water. Sep. Purif. Technol. 122, 462–471 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.12.003
13. Arash, S.; Christopher, B.: Application of quantitative structure-
property relationships (QSPRs) to predict the rejection of organic
solutes by nanofiltration. Sep. Purif. Technol. 118, 627–638 (2013)
14. Flyborg, L.; Björlenius, B.; Ullner, M.; Persson, K.M.: A PLS
model for predicting rejection of trace organic compounds by
nanofiltration using treated wastewater as feed. Sep. Purif. Tech-
nol. 174, 212–221 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.
10.029
15. Lin, W.; Jing, L.; Zhu, Z.; Cai, Q.; Zhang, B.: Removal of heavy
metals from mining wastewater by Micellar-Enhanced Ultrafiltra-
tion (MEUF): experimental investigation and Monte Carlo-based
artificial neural network modeling. Water Air Soil Pollut. 228(6),
206 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-3386-5
16. Elmolla, E.S.; Chaudhuri, M.; Eltoukhy, M.M.: The use of artificial
neural network (ANN) for modeling of COD removal from antibi-
otic aqueous solution by the Fenton process. J. Hazard. Mater.
179(1), 127–134 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.
02.068
17. Zhang, J.: Inferential estimation of polymer quality using bootstrap
aggregated neural networks. Neural Netw. 12, 927–938 (1999)
18. Tahir, M.F.; Tehzeeb ul, H.; Saqib, M.A.: Optimal scheduling of
electrical power in energy-deficient scenarios using artificial neural
network and Bootstrap aggregating. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 83, 49–57 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2016.03.
046
19. Zhang, J.: Developing robust non-linear models through bootstrap
aggregated neural networks. Neurocomputing 25, 93–113 (1999)
123

20. Zhang, J.: Batch-to-batch optimal control of a batch polymerisation
process based on stacked neural network models. Chem. Eng. Sci.
63, 1273–1281 (2008)
21. Zhang, J.; Feng, Y.; Al-Mahrouqi, M.H.: Reliable optimal control
of a fed-batch fermentation process using ant colony optimization
and bootstrap aggregated neural network models. In: Valadi, J.,
Siarry, P. (eds.) Applications of Metaheuristics in Process Engineer-
ing, pp. 183–200. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2014)
22. Zhang, J.; Xu, Q.J.Y.: Inferential estimation of polymer melt index
using sequentially trained bootstrap aggregated. Neural Netw.
29(4), 442–448 (2006)
23. Mohammed, K.-J.R.; Zhang, J.: Reliable optimisation control of a
reactive polymer composite moulding process using ant colony
optimisation and bootstrap aggregated neural networks. Neural
Comput. Appl. 23(7), 1891–1898 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00521-012-1273-y
24. Al-Mahrouqi, M.H.; Zhang, J.: Reliable optimal control of a fed-
batch bio-reactor using ant colony optimization and bootstrap
aggregated neural networks. IFAC Proc. Vol. 41(2), 8407–8412
(2008). https://doi.org/10.3182/20080706-5-KR-1001.01421
25. Osuolale, F.N.; Zhang, J.: Multi-objective optimisation of atmo-
spheric crude distillation system operations based on bootstrap
aggregated neural network models. In: Gernaey, K.V., Huusom,
J.K., Gani, R. (eds.) Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, vol.
37, pp. 671–676. Elsevier, New York (2015)
26. Sharma, S.K.; Tiwari, K.N.: Bootstrap based artificial neural net-
work (BANN) analysis for hierarchical prediction of monthly
runoff in Upper Damodar Valley Catchment. J. Hydrol. 374(3),
209–222 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.003
27. Zhang, Z.; Wang, T.; Liu, X.: Melt index prediction by aggregated
RBF neural networks trained with chaotic theory. Neurocomputing
131, 368–376 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2013.10.
006
28. Bai, Z.; Li, F.; Zhang, J.; Oko, E.; Wang, M.; Xiong, Z.; Huang,
D.: Modelling of a post-combustion CO2 capture process using
bootstrap aggregated extreme learning machines. In: Kravanja, Z.,
Bogataj, M. (eds.) Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, vol. 38,
pp. 2007–2012. Elsevier, New York (2016)
29. Tang, C.Y.; Kwon, Y.-N.; Leckie, J.O.: Effect of membrane chem-
istry and coating layer on physiochemical properties of thin film
composite polyamide RO and NF membranes: II. Membrane phys-
iochemical properties and their dependence on polyamide and
coating layers. Desalination 242(1–3), 168–182 (2009). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.04.004
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering
30. Dolar, D.; Vuković, A.; Ašperger, D.; Košutić, K.: Effect of water
matrices on removal of veterinary pharmaceuticals by nanofiltra-
tion and reverse osmosis membranes. J. Env. Sci. 23(8), 1299–1307
(2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60545-1
31. Dolar, D.; Ignjatic Zokic, T.; Kosutic, K.; Asperger, D.; Mutavdzic
Pavlovic, D.: RO/NF membrane treatment of veterinary pharma-
ceutical wastewater: comparison of results obtained on a laboratory
and a pilot scale. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 19(4), 1033–1042
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-0782-7
32. Dolar, D.; Kosutic, K.; Asperger, D.: Influence of adsorption of
pharmaceuticals onto RO/NF membranes on their removal from
water. Water Air Soil Pollut Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 224(1), 1–13
(2013)
33. Dolar, D.; Košutić, K.; Periša, M.; Babić, S.: Photolysis of
enrofloxacin and removal of its photodegradation products from
water by reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. Sep. Purif.
Technol. 115(13), 1–8 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.
2013.04.042
34. Santos, J.L.C.; de Beukelaar, P.; Vankelecom, I.F.J.; Velizarov, S.;
Crespo, J.G.: Effect of solute geometry and orientation on the
rejection of uncharged compounds by nanofiltration. Sep. Purif.
Technol. 50(1), 122–131 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.
2005.11.015
35. Mandal, S.; Sivaprasad, P.V.; Venugopal, S.; Murthy, K.P.N.; Raj,
B.: Artificial neural network modeling of composition-process-
property correlations in austenitic stainless steels. Mater. Sci. Eng.
A 485(1), 571–580 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2007.
08.019
36. Liu, G.; Jia, L.; Kong, B.; Guan, K.; Zhang, H.: Artificial neu-
ral network application to study quantitative relationship between
silicide and fracture toughness of Nb-Si alloys. Mater. Des. 129,
210–218 (2017)
37. Efron, B.; Tibshirani, R.: An Introduction to Bootstrap. Chapman
and Hall, London (1993)