The feed forward neural network model for liquid-liquid extraction and separation of

cobalt (II) from sodium acetate media using cyanex 272

Sudibyo, B. B. Aji, and S. Priyanto

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1823, 020014 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4978087

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4978087
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1823/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 The Feed Forward Neural Network Model for Liquid-
Liquid Extraction and Separation of Cobalt (II) from
Sodium Acetate media using Cyanex 272
Sudibyo1,a), B. B. Aji1,b) and S. Priyanto2,c)
1
Research Unit for Minerals Technology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Lampung, Indonesia
2
Mechanical Engineering department, Jakarta State University, Jakarta, Indonesia
a)
Corresponding author: sudibyo@lipi.go.id
b)
bram004@lipi.go.id
c)
sugeng.priyanto@unj.ac.id

Abstract. Cobalt is one of the precious ferromagnetic metals, which widely used in the preparation of magnetic, wear-
resistant and high-strength alloys. This metal was not found naturally in single metal form but is found as impurities in
nickel or copper ore. The extraction process is one of the methods to separate cobalt from its impurities. However, this
process needs an expensive organic solution. In practice, changing the composition of chemicals composition in
extraction process always affect at a high cost. Therefore, the development of the artificial neural network (ANN) model
to model the cobalt extraction process can serve as an important tool for predicting and investigating the optimum
production for the cobalt extraction without the need to run the actual experiment. Hence, the development of the ANN
model of cobalt extraction model is essential to simulate the process, which can lead to high yields of cobalt production.
In this work a selected optimum multiple-input-single-output (MISO) model of feed forward neural network (FFNN) was
used to predict the percentage of cobalt extraction. MISO FFNN with 20, 30 and 50 hidden nodes were used to simulate
cobalt extraction process. The simulation results achieved was compared with data available in the literature. The results
show that MISO FFNN with 50 hidden nodes has the best performance. The optimum result of MISO FFNN then
exported to Simulink model in Matlab environment, hence make it easy to use in predicting and investigating for the
optimum production of the cobalt extraction.

INTRODUCTION
Cobalt is one of the ferromagnetic metals, which widely used in industry to make an electronic device, magnet,
pigment, coenzymes, isotope etc [1]. However, cobalt is not natural metal but it found as impurities in nickel or
copper ore [2-5]. The separations of cobalt become a crucial task since the increasing demand for this metal and its
compounds. One of minerals processing methods which potential to separate cobalt from nickel ore is solvent
extraction [2-5]. The selection of solvent extraction, which has better selectivity and economics requirements have
still become an interesting task in separation methods.
In previous work, cobalt was separated from nickel ore using extraction using cyanex 272. This chemical
successfully applied to separate of cobalt from nickel ore in sulfate solution [2, 5]. However, sulfate solution is
dangerous for the environment. Therefore, in this work the metal was leached using sodium acetate. The advantages
of this extraction system are the sodium acetate is friendly for the environment [2].
The nickel ore, which used in this research assumed only contain Ni, Co, V, and Fe. The publish literature show
that cobalt can be separated from Ni/Fe/V using cyanex 272 [2]. In this work, the metals are leached using sodium
acetate media, meanwhile, cyanex 272 was diluted in toluene. This method has many advantages because the
sodium acetate is not hazardous, use low quantitative of the cyanex 272 concentration for extraction and Co(II) able
to completely separate from other associated metal ions.

International Conference on Chemistry, Chemical Process and Engineering (IC3PE) 2017

AIP Conf. Proc. 1823, 020014-1–020014-6; doi: 10.1063/1.4978087
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1491-4/$30.00

020014-1
 Extraction cell for industrial scale is a dynamic process that complicated in chemical and physical phenomena.
The fundamental model also used to model this process but need a large number of equations. One of the alternative
methods for representing this process is Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). As one type of available empirical
models, ANNs is expediting model convergence and more simple. ANNs also can be used to solve various types of
mathematical problems in the extraction process, such as modeling, control systems, sensors, estimator, and
optimization [6, 7]. Bhasah et. al. (2013) has successfully modeled a multiple-input-multiple-output model (MIMO)
and a multiple-input-single-output (MISO) model distillation process using ANN model. They reported that their
hidden nodes of ANN were varied to get the optimum performance of ANN [6]. The feed forward neural network
(FFNN) is one of ANNs with having good performance to model MIMO or MISO system. The FFNN have many
advantages such as:
- It can be applied to many problems, as long as there is some input and output data.
- It can be applied to linear or nonlinear problems, for which analytical methods do not yet exist.
- It works quickly if there is a pattern in the input –output data, even if the data is ‘noisy’.
- It has small calculation time due to consist of three layers of input, hidden and output layers.
- It always gives some answer even when the input information is not complete
- It Networks are easy to maintain [8].
In this study, input-output data for identification of the FFNN model were taken from experiment data from
previous works by Nikam and Mohite [2]. MISO FFNN was developed and used to predict extraction percentage. In
order to get the optimum ANN configuration, the numbers of hidden nodes in the ANN were varied. Thus, the
ANNs model was evaluated its performance using means square error (MSE) value. The optimum ANN model was
the model which has the smallest value of MSE.

EXPERIMENTAL
Cobalt Extraction Process
In this work use commercial Cyanex 272, bis (2,4,4-trimethyl phenyl) phosphonic acid which supplied by Cytec
Canada Inc as a reagent. Cobalt or Co(II) concentration was varied by dissolving Cobaltous chloride hexahydrate
(Analytical grade, Merck) in 100 mL of distilled water.
Experimental work was conducted in separating funnel which uses 10 mL of cyanex 272 in toluene (Analytical
grade, Merck) and 10 ml of An aliquot of cobalt(II) in sodium acetate (Analytical grade, Merck). Then, it was
equilibrated on a wrist action flask shaker for 10 minutes. Two phase of a solution were created on separating
funnel then were settled and separated. The organic phase of a solution was back extracted using 10 ml of 0.3 M
nitric acid. Then cobalt it analyzed using AAS. All experimental works were conducted at room temperature. AAS
result then used as output in NN modeling. The experimental scheme of this research is shown in Figure 1.

Co(II) + Ni(II)/V(IV)/Fe(III) In 0.5 M sodium acetate

Extraction with 0.05 M Cyanex 272 in toluene

Aqueous Phase : Ni(II)/V(IV)/Fe(III) Organic Phase: Co(II)

FIGURE 1. Cobalt extraction scheme using Cyanex 272

Neural Network Model Development

The feed forward neural network (FFNN) model develops from the relationships between the input and output
data. A few sets of input-output data for developing the FFNN model were generated from experimental data.

020014-2
 Data Generation
The FFNN to model cobalt extraction consists of three inputs and one output, which called multi-input-single-
output (MISO). Three input- output data were collected from three set of experiments. First experiment was a
variation of cyanex concentration while the other parameters concentrations were kept constant. Second and third
experiments were a variation of cobalt and sodium acetate concentration, respectively. In this work, three inputs
consist of variation concentration of cyanex, cobalt and sodium acetate. The single output from this model is
extraction percentage of cobalt. Input data was developed in matrix 3 x 1, while output data was developed in matrix
1 x1 in Matlab. All of the set data are divided into training, validation testing and extrapolation data.

MISO FFNN model development

In this work, MISO FFNN consist three inputs and single output as described previously. The architecture of the
neural network model consists a network between the input layer, hidden layer and output layer as shown in Fig.2.
The weight of the network is important to control complex estimations were performed with the help of a nonlinear
transfer function for the hidden layer. The identification activity was ended until the prediction error falls below the
specified error. In this work, identification commands were typed in m-file of Matlab environment. MISO FFNN
which uses single layer which consists 20, 30 and 50 hidden nodes were used in this work. The performance of
FFNN models was analyzed using mean square error (MSE). The best model then imported to simulink in Matlab
environment.

INPUT HIDDEN OUTPUT

LAYER LAYER LAYER

Input 1

Input 2
Output
FFNN
Input 3

FIGURE 2. Structure of MISO Feed Forward Neural Network (FFNN)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Performance test of MISO FFNN

Using the experimental data of cobalt extraction, three inputs – single output of FFNN were developed using
Matlab command in m-file. MISO FFNN using 20, 30 and 50 hidden nodes and single layer were compared with the
initial data. For experiment data of variation of cyanex concentration, the result of modeling using MISO FFNN
using 20, 30 and 50 hidden nodes versus percentage of cobalt are showed in Fig. 3. This experiment using 100 μg of
cobalt (II) and 0.5 M sodium acetate, meanwhile cyanex 272 were varied from 0.001 to 0.1M. The figure shows that
0.04 M cyanex 272 was sufficient for quantitative extraction of 100 μg of Co(II) from 0.5 M sodium acetate. The
figure shows that the mean square errors (MSE) for FFNN using 20, 30 and 50 hidden nodes are 5.5481, 7.4908 and
0, respectively. The results show that the MISO FFNN model using 50 hidden nodes is more accurate in modeling
the cobalt extraction towards a variation of cyanex concentrations.

020014-3
 110

100

90 ext data
FFNN 50 HN MSE = 0
80 FFNN 30 HN MSE = 7.4908
FFNN 20 HN MSE = 5.5481

% Extraction
70

60

50

40

30

20
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Cyanex (M)

FIGURE 3. Comparison plot of yHN20, yHN30, yHN50 and ydata of FFNN Model for variation concentration of Cyanex.

The second experiment is to study the effect of sodium acetate concentration. In this study, sodium acetate
concentration was varied from 0.01 to 1.0 M. Meanwhile, cobalt and cynex 272 (in toluene as the diluents) were
keep constant at the concentration 100 μg and 0.05 M, respectively. The experiment result was compared with the
simulation data using MISO FFNN using 20, 30 and 50 hidden nodes are showed in Fig. 4. The figure shows that
the concentration of 0.4 sodium acetate is enough to extract 100 μg cobalt. The simulation result shows that the
MISO FFNN with 50 hidden nodes able to simulated cobalt extraction with the mean square error 0%. Meanwhile,
MISO FFNN using 20 and 30 hidden nodes able to simulate the cobalt extraction with mean square errors of 8.4154
and 5.2453, respectively as shown in Fig. 4.
110

100

90 ext data
FFNN 50 HN MSE = 0
80
FFNN 30 HN MSE = 5.2453
70 FFNN 20 HN MSE = 8.4154
% Extraction

60

50

40

30

20

10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sodium Acetate (M)

FIGURE 4. Comparison plot of yHN20, yHN30, yHN50 and ydata of FFNN Model for variation concentration of Sodium
Acetate.

The third experiment is to study the effect variation of cobalt in cyanex 272 and sodium acetate. This experiment
was conducted using of 0.05 M cyanex 272 from 0.5 M sodium acetate using toluene as a diluents, meanwhile,
cobalt (II) concentrations were varied from 100 to 1600 μg/10 mL. The MISO FFNN models, which have 20, 30 and
50 hidden nodes were used to model this experiment. Figure 5 shows the performance of MISO FFNN to model the
Cobalt (II) with the variation of cobalt concentration. The figure shows that MISO FFNN able the model the cobalt
extraction with the mean square errors 0.149, 0.0912 and 0 for 20, 30 and 50 hidden nodes, respectively. The results
show that the MISO FFNN model using 50 hidden is more accurate in modeling the Cobalt extraction towards all
variation of cyanex 272, sodium acetate and cobalt concentrations as shown in Fig. 3, 4 and 5.

020014-4
 105

100

95

ext data

% Extraction
90
FFNN 50 HN MSE = 0
FFNN 30 HN MSE = 0.091197
85 FFNN 20 HN MSE = 0.14984

80

75

70
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Cobalt (II( (ug/10 ml)

FIGURE 5. Comparison plot of yHN20, yHN30, yHN50 and ydata of FFNN Model for variation concentration of cobalt.

Development Simulink Model using MISO FFNN

The performance test shows that the MISO FFNN using 50 hidden nodes give the best performance to model
Cobalt extraction using cyanex 272. This model then exported to simulink in Matlab environment. Simulink model
was developed in order to simplify the use of MISO FFNN to model the cobalt extraction using cyanex 272 as
shown in Fig. 6. This simulink model has three inputs consist of cyanex 272, sodium acetate and cobalt
concentration.

FIGURE 6. MISO FFNN of cobalt extraction in the Simulink of Matlab

CONCLUSION
The MISO FFNN model was successfully developed using Simulink in Matlab environment to simulate the
cobalt extraction using cyanex 272. Three input (cyanex 272, sodium acetate and cobalt concentration) and one
output (percentage of cobalt extraction) were chosen to represent the MISO model. The results show that the FFNN
with 50 hidden nodes was able to model the cobalt extraction using cyanex 272 with the lower value FFNN with 20
and 30 hidden nodes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Financial support from Indonesian institute of sciences and Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher
Education - Republic of Indonesia through INSINAS research grant no. RT-2016-0227 is greatly acknowledged.
Experimental datas support from G.H. Nikam (Department of Chemistry - Shivaji University) and B.S.Mohite (PG
Department of Chemistry, -Jaysingpur College) are greatly acknowledged.

020014-5
 REFERENCES
1. A. Krause, M. Uhlemann and A. Gebert, Electrochim Acta 49, 4127 (2004).
2. G. H. Nikam and B. S. Mohite, Res. J. Chem. Sci. 2, 75-82 (2012).
3. T. Amir, T. T. Tjoon, F. M. Abbas, I. Alkarkhi, Norli and W. L. Ling, Desalination and Water Treatment 47,
334–340 (2012).
4. D. R. Renninger and K. Osseo-Asare, Metallurgical Transactions B 14B, 41-47 (1983).
5. S. G. Alexandre, S. S. Priscila and B. M. Marcelo, Hydrometallurgy 150, 173–177 (2014).
6. N. A. A. Bashah, M. R. Othman and N. Aziz, Journal of Engineering Science 11, 59–65 (2015).
7. Sudibyo, M. N. Murat and N. Aziz, “Development of Multi-Variable Neural Hammerstein Model for MTBE
Catalytic Distillation,” in 2013 International Conference on Robotics, Biomimetics, Intelligent Computational
Systems (ROBIONETICS), IEEE Conference Publications (IEEE, Canada, 2013), pp. 99–103.
8. D. Svozil, V. Kvasnicka and J. Pospichal, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 39, 1, 43-62
(1997).

020014-6