IJNSNS 2021; 22(1): 111–118

Oluwaseun Adeyeye, Ali Aldalbahi, Jawad Raza, Zurni Omar, Mostafizur Rahaman,
Mohammad Rahimi-Gorji and Nguyen Minh Hoang*

Nonlinear solution of the reaction–diffusion

equation using a two-step third–fourth-derivative
block method
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnsns-2019-0309 1 Problem statement
Received December 28, 2019; accepted August 8, 2020;
published online September 16, 2020
Nonisothermal processes usually occur in biological
systems, as well as in the chemical process industry,
Abstract: The processes of diffusion and reaction play
diffusion, and even reactions [1–4]. These systems often
essential roles in numerous system dynamics. Conse-
have a chemical reaction as the core, since the rate of
quently, the solutions of reaction–diffusion equations have
reaction can decide how fast chemicals can be produced.
gained much attention because of not only their occur-
The reaction is away from equilibrium if realized at a high
rence in many fields of science but also the existence of
rate. Moreover, an operation which has the huge energy
important properties and information in the solutions.
dissipation is also an operation away from equilibrium.
However, despite the wide range of numerical methods
With the current interest, valuable resources can be
explored for approximating solutions, the adoption of
secure, and chemical reactors must be studied also from
block methods is yet to be investigated. Hence, this article
the aspect of gaining further energy efficient operation, in
introduces a new two-step third–fourth-derivative block
addition to sustain the composition of chemicals. In bio-
method as a numerical approach to solve the reaction–
logical systems, energy efficiency is a problem of exis-
diffusion equation. In order to ensure improved accuracy,
tence which one can expect, under difficult conditions [5].
the method introduces the concept of nonlinearity in the
In these cases and apparently many others, a thermody-
solution of the linear model through the presence of higher
namic representation will be necessary for learning the
derivatives. The method obtained accurate solutions for
transport phenomena [4, 6].
the model at varying values of the dimensionless diffusion
A dimensionless mathematical equation which de-
parameter and saturation parameter. Furthermore, the
scribes the concentration of the substrate can be written as
solutions are also in good agreement with previous solu-
follows [7]:
tions by existing authors.
∂u ∂2 u γu
Keywords: block method; reaction–diffusion equation;
2− (1)
∂t ∂x 1 + αu
two-step third–fourth-derivative.
subject to the following initial and boundary conditions:
t
0 ;  0 ≤ x ≤ 1 ;  u
0 (2)
*Corresponding author: Nguyen Minh Hoang, Institute of Research
∂u
and Development, Duy Tan University, Danang 550000, Viet Nam, t > 0 ;  x
0 ;  
0 (3)
E-mail: nguyenminhhoang16@duytan.edu.vn ∂x
Oluwaseun Adeyeye and Zurni Omar, School of Quantitative Sciences,
t < 0 ;  x
1 ;  u
1 (4)
Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok 06010, Kedah, Malaysia,
E-mail: adeyeye_oluwaseun@ahsgs.uum.edu.my (O. Adeyeye),
In Eqs. (1)–(4), τ represents the dimensionless time, χ is
zurni@uum.edu.my (Z. Omar)
Ali Aldalbahi and Mostafizur Rahaman, Department of Chemistry,
dimensionless distance, u is taken as a function of τ and χ
College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia, (i.e. u(τ, χ)) and α, γ are taken as dimensionless diffusion
E-mail: aaldalbahi@ksu.edu.sa (A. Aldalbahi), parameter and saturation parameter, respectively.
mrahaman1997@gmail.com (M. Rahaman) For steady one-dimensional case, Eqs. (1)–(4) can be
Jawad Raza, Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Institute of expressed as below:
Southern Punjab (ISP), Punjab, Pakistan,
E-mail: jawad_6890@yahoo.com d2 u γu
Mohammad Rahimi-Gorji, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, −
0 (5)
dx2 1 + αu
Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium,
E-mail: mohammad.rahimigorji@ugent.be subject to the boundary conditions:
112 O. Adeyeye et al.: Nonlinear solution of the reaction–diffusion equation

∂u The unknown coefficients in the block expression

x
0; 
0 (6)
∂x defined in Eq. (9) are obtained from the solutions of the
x
1 ;  u
1 (7) matrix equations Ψx = Φ and Ψc = Θ, where
T
x
ϕξ 0 , ϕξ 1 , ϕξ 2 , τξ 0 , τξ 1 , τξ 2 , σξ 0 , σξ 1 , σ ξ 2   ,
For the last 10 years, many researchers considered
T
problems related to heat and mass transfer on various c
ωξ 01 , ωξ 11 , ωξ 21 , φξ 01 , φξ 11 , φξ 21 , νξ 01 , νξ 11 , νξ 21 
kind of geometry and examined the phenomenon via 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 T

ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
different analytical and approximation techniques Φ
 , , , , , , , ,   ,
2 6 24 120 720 5040 40320 362880 3628800
[8, 9, 11–25]. Keeping in mind, the conventional approxi- T
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
mate techniques are usually based on the method of
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
ξ h
Θ
ξ h, , , , , , , ,  ,  and
2 6 24 120 720 5040 40320 362880
reduction of differential equations into the system of first-
order differential equations. On the other hand, the block ⎜
⎛1 ⎟
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎜
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ⎟
⎟
⎟
0
method has capability to solve the governing equation ⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜ 0 h 2h 1 1 1 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎟
⎟
⎟
without converting into first-order differential equations. ⎜
⎜
⎜
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜ h 2
⎟
⎟
Recently, Alkasassbeh et al. [26] succeeded to investigate ⎜
⎜
⎜ 0 2h2 0 h 2h 1 1 1 ⎟ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ 2 ⎟
⎟
the problem of heat transfer of convective fin with ⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜ h3 4h3 h2
temperature-dependent internal heat generation via the ⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜ 0 0 2h2 0 h 2h ⎟⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ 6 3 2 ⎟
⎟
implicit hybrid block method. In the same manner, Seikh ⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎜ h4 2h4 h3 4h3 2 ⎟
2
⎜ 2h ⎟
et al. [27] derived implicit two-step Obrechkoff-type block h ⎟
⎜0
⎜
⎜ 0 0 ⎟
⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎟
Ψ
⎜
⎜ ⎟
24 3 6 3 2 ⎟
method to solve the governing equation of unsteady ⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜ 3⎟
⎟
sedimentation analysis of spherical particles in Newto- ⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜ h5 4h5 h4 2h4 h 3
4h ⎟⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ 0 0 0 ⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ 120 15 24 3 6 3 ⎟⎟
⎟
⎟
nian fluid media. In a same vein, in this work, we will ⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
develop a block method via a linear block approach [28] to ⎜
⎜
⎜ h6 4h6 h2 4h5 h 4
2h ⎟
4 ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
3 ⎟
0 0 0
⎜
⎜
⎜ 720 45 120 15 24 ⎟
⎟
⎟
solve the governing Eq. (5) subject to the boundary con- ⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ 5⎟
⎟
ditions, Eqs. (6) and (7). ⎜
⎜
⎜ h7 8h7 h6 4h6 h 5
4h ⎟⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
120 15 ⎟
0 0 0
⎜
⎜
⎜ 5040 315 720 45 ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ 6⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎝0 h8 2h8 h7 8h7 h 6
4h ⎟⎟
⎟
⎟
⎠
0 0
40320 315 5040 315 720 45
2 Derivation of the proposed
method Using the matrix inverse approach, the values of the
coefficients are obtained as follows:
To derive the block method for solving second-order T

ϕ10 , ϕ11 , ϕ12 , τ10 , τ11 , τ12 , σ10 , σ11 , σ 12 
boundary value problems, the linear block approach
T
introduced by Adeyeye and Omar [28] is adopted. Consider 19h2 h2 h2 911h2 16h2 113h3 53h4 h4 11h4

 , ,− , ,− , , , ,− 
60 5 60 20160 315 20160 20160 80 20160
γu
ü
f
χ, u, u̇
, (8)
ϕ20 , ϕ21 , ϕ22 , τ20 , τ21 , τ22 , σ20 , σ 21 , σ 22 
T
1 + αu
T
the block method form required to solve (8) is expressed as 76h2 128h2 2h2 34h3 32h3 2h3 2h4 16h4

 , , , ,− ,− , , , 0
105 105 35 315 315 315 315 315
follows:
T
2
ω101 , ω111 , ω121 , φ101 , φ111 , φ121 , ν101 , ν111 , ν121 
un+ξ
un + u̇n + ∑ ϕξ i f n+i + τξ i g n+i + σξ i ln+i ,  ξ
1, 2 T
i
0
(9) 5669h 64h 421h 303h2 h2 47h2 169h3 8h3 41h3
2
 , ,− , ,− , , , ,− 
u̇n+ξ
u̇n + ∑ ωξ i1 f n+i + φξ i1 g n+i + υξ i1 g n+i ,  ξ
1, 2 13440 105 13440 4480 8 4480 40320 315 40320
i
0
T

ω201 , ω211 , ω221 , φ201 , φ211 , φ221 , ν201 , ν211 , ν221 
where T
41h 128h 41h 2h2 2h2 h3 16h3 h3
df
χn+i , un+i , u̇n+i 
 , , , , 0, − , , ,   .
f n+1
f
χn+i , un+i , u̇n+i  ; g n+i
g
χ n+i , un+i , u̇n+i 
 ; 105 105 105 35 35 315 315 315
dχ
d2 f
χn+i , un+i , u̇n+i  Substituting these coefficient values in Eq. (9) gives the
ln+i
l
χn+i , un+i , u̇n+i 
 .
dχ two-step third–fourth-derivative block method:
 O. Adeyeye et al.: Nonlinear solution of the reaction–diffusion equation 113

h2 derivative block method is p = (9, 9)T with error constant

un+1
un + hu̇n +
19f n + 12f n+1 − f n+2 
60 C11 = (3.817464135 × 10−8, 7.634928270 × 10−8)T, implying
h3 that the block method is consistent.
+
911g n − 1024g n+1 + 113g n+2 
20160 Considering the second condition for convergence,
4
h which is the zero stability criterion, a zerostable block
+ (53ln + 252ln+1 − 11ln+2 )
20160
method could also be referred to as being simply stable.
h2
un+2
un + 2hu̇n +
76f n + 128f n+1 + 6f n+2  The keyword ‘zero’ is based on the stability phenomenon in
105
3 terms of convergence in the limit as step size h tends to zero.
h h4
+
34g n − 32g n+1 − 2g n+2  + (2ln + 16ln+1 ) To analyse the block method for zero stability, the in-
315 315 (10)
h tegrators in Eq. (10) are normalized to give the first char-
u̇n+1
u̇n +
5669f n + 8192f n+1 − 421f n+2  acteristic polynomial ρ(R) as ρ(R) = det(RijA0 − A1)where
13440
h 2 A0 is the identity matrix of dimension 2 and
+
303g n − 560g n+1 + 47g n+2 
4480 0 1
3 A1
 .
h 0 1
+ (169ln + 1024ln+1 − 41ln+2 )
40320 R 0 1 0
Hence, ρ(R)
det(Rij A0 − A1 )
det  −
h h2 0 R2 0 1
u̇n+2
u̇n +
41f n + 128f n+1 + 41f n+2  +
2g n − 2g n+2 
105 35 0 1
h3   .
+ (ln + 16ln+1 + ln+2 ) 0 1
315
The root of ρ(R) = 0 satisfies |Rj| ≤ 1, j = 1,2. Thus, the
two-step third–fourth-derivative block method is
2.1 Convergence property zerostable.
Bearing in mind that the properties investigated are
In this section, the conditions to ensure convergence of the only those required to ensure convergence of the block
block method will be investigated. It is known that for a method, it is observed that the two-step third–fourth-de-
linear multistep to be convergent, it must be consistent and rivative block method has satisfied both conditions of
zerostable [29]. consistency and zero stability. This implies that the block
Firstly, the consistency of the method is checked, method is convergent.
where a linear multistep method is consistent if it has an
order p ≥ 1. Hence, we consider the linear operator asso-
ciated with higher-order ordinary differential equations 2.2 Stability analysis
defined with respect to the considered model in this
article. The following expression is introduced to find the It is useful for a practical numerical method to have a re-
order of the two-step third–fourth-derivative block gion of absolute stability as defined below.
method:
Definition 1. A linear multistep method is said to be abso-
2
Lu
χ ; h
un+ξ − un − u̇n − ∑ ϕξ i f n+i + τξ i g n+i + σ ξ i ln+i . lutely stable in a region R for a given H if and only if for that
i
0 H, all the roots, rs = rs(H ) of the stability polynomial of the
(11) linear k-step method, π(r,H) = ρ(r) − Hϕ(r), satisfy |rs| < 1,
s = 1,2,…,k, where H = hλ and ρ(r) and ϕ(r) are the first and
Using Taylor series expansions about χ = χn to expand
second characteristic polynomials, respectively. Otherwise
un+ξ, fn+i, gn+i and ln+i in terms of u(χn) and its derivatives, an
the method is said to be absolutely unstable.
expression of the following form is obtained:

Lu
χ ;  h
C0 u
χ n  + C 1 hu̇
χ n  + C2 hü
χ n  + ⋯
+ C q hq u(q)
χ n  + ⋯
The method is said to be of order p if C0 = C1 = C2 = …
= Cp = Cp+1 = 0 and Cp+2 ≠ 0, where Cp+2 is the error constant.
Following this approach, the individual terms of the
integrators for the block method in Eq. (10) are expanded
using Taylor series expansions to obtain an expression as
Eq. (12). The resultant order of the two-step third–fourth-
In order to analyse the stability properties of the two-
step third–fourth-derivative block method, a stability
(12)
graph of the method is constructed. The characteristic
polynomial required to plot the region of absolute stability
of the method is defined as follows.
Definition 2. The characteristic polynomial of the linear
multistep method assumes π(r, hλ) = ρ(r) − hλϕ(r) = 0, where
H = hλ and λ = ∂f/∂y is complex.
114 O. Adeyeye et al.: Nonlinear solution of the reaction–diffusion equation

Applying the Dahlquist test equation y′ = f(x, y) = λy to

the block method in Eq. (10) gives the following equation:
1 16 3 1 4 1 2 113 3 11
⎜
⎛ 1 − H2 + H − H H − H + H4 ⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜ 5 315 80 60 20160 20160 ⎞ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟ y
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟⎝ n+1 ⎞
⎛ ⎠
⎜
⎜
⎝ 128 ⎟
⎟
⎠
32 3 16 4 2 2 2 3 y n+2
− H +2
H − H 1− H + H
105 315 315 35 315
19 911 3 53
⎜
⎛ 0 1 + H + H2 + H + H4 ⎞⎟
⎜
⎜ 60 20160 20160 ⎟
⎟
⎟ y
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟ ⎛ ⎠,
⎝ n−1 ⎞

⎜⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎝ 76 2 34 3 2 4 ⎟
⎠ yn
0 1 + 2H + H + H + H
105 315 315
(13)
which is equivalent to AYm = BYm−1. We consider
ρ(t) = det(At − B)as the first characteristic polynomial [30]
and then solve for ρ(t) = 0 to obtain the stability polynomial
R(H )as given below:
11 43 37 53
R(H)
H 8 t2 − H8t − H 7 t2 − H7t
396900 793800 88200 52920
11 6 2 29 6 4 5 2 23 5
+ H t − H t− H t − H t
3528 2940 315 360
Figure 1: Stability graph of the two-step third–fourth-derivative
97 4 2 1441 4 2 92 3 block method.
+ H t − H t + H 3 t2 − H t
5040 5040 35 105
9 2 2 61 2
− H t − H t − 2Ht + t 2 − t.
35 35 concept of nonlinearity to improve performance. The
(14) model to be solved numerically in this article is clearly
The boundary of the stability region for the block linear; however, in adopting the higher derivative block
method is the set of all H such that R(H ) is on the unit circle method which introduces both third and fourth deriva-
of R(H ) = eiθ, for some θ ∈ [0,2π]. R(H ) is expanded for tive, the system of solution becomes nonlinear. In addi-
various values of θ in steps of 2π/n from 0 to 2π. Figure 1 tion, Ha [32] has stated that the method of solution for
shows the stability graph of the two-step third–fourth-de- nonlinear boundary value problems (BVPs) differs from
rivative block method. the direct shooting method for linear BVPs.
From Figure 1, the block method is unstable inside the Hence, the shooting method for the BVP:
closed region area, while the stable part lies outside the re-
gion. Its interval of stability is determined from the following ü
f
χ, u, u̇, χ ∈ [0, 1], u̇(0)
0, u(1)
1 , (15)
definition.
using the two-step third–fourth-derivative block method
Definition 3. A linear multistep method is said to have region of requires adopting the nonlinear solution approach [32].
absolute stability, RA, where RA is a region of the complex Two initial value problems (IVPs) will be solved for

h-plane, if it is absolutely stable for all h ∈ RA . The intersection each iteration, where the first IVP approximates the BVP in
with real axis is called the interval of absolute stability. Eq. (15) and is of the following form:
For the two-step third–fourth-derivative method, its ÿ
f
χ, y, ẏ, y(a)
v0 , ẏ(a)
0 (16)
interval of absolute stability is 0 < H < 0.027. This implies
together with a second IVP defined as follows:
that the block method has a small unstable region and thus
a wider stability area. ∂f ∂f
z̈

χ, y, ẏz +
χ, y, ẏż, z(a)
0, ż(a)
1 (17)
∂y ∂ẏ

3 Implementation Adopting the block method in Eq. (10) to approximate

the IVPs in Eqs. (16) and (17) results in a nonlinear system of
In differential equation models, Hale and LaSalle [31] equations. Therefore, Newton’s method is employed to
highlighted that nonlinear systems have the ability to obtain successive values of vk after the initial choice of v0
approximate nature more closely. Hence, one can use the such that
 O. Adeyeye et al.: Nonlinear solution of the reaction–diffusion equation
Figure 2: Effect of diffusion parameter γ on concentration.
Figure 3: Effect of saturation parameter α on concentration.
y(b, vk−1 ) − β
vk
vk−1 −
z(b, vk−1 )
The simultaneous solutions of these coupled IVPs us-
ing the two-step third–fourth-derivative block method
gives the various required solutions for the BVP model as
seen in the results obtained. Recently, some new numerical
methods were developed which can be helpful for re-
searchers in this field [33–37].
4 Numerical results and discussion
In this section, we have presented our numerical results in
the form of tables and graphs. For this, we have solved Eq.
(5) subject to the boundary conditions, Eqs. (6) and (7), by
the two-step third–fourth-derivative block method. Nu-
merical results are presented for the various values of the
dimensionless diffusion parameter and saturation param-
eter. Under the consideration of steady state condition, we
have plotted dimensionless concentration u versus
115
Figure 4: Effect of diffusion parameter γ on concentration.
Figure 5: Effect of saturation parameter α on concentration.
dimensionless distance χ with the variation of diffusion
(18) parameter γ by setting saturation parameter α = 15, 10 (see
Figures 2 and 4, respectively). It is evident from these
profiles that the concentration profile monotonically de-
creases by the enhancement in the strength of diffusion
parameter γ.
From Figures 3 and 5, it is observed that concentration
profile u increases gradually by increasing the values of
saturation parameter α. In order to investigate the effects of
the dimensionless diffusion parameter and saturation
parameter on normalized current y in dimensionless form
can be taken as follows [7]:
du
y
α 
dχ χ
1
Combined effect of saturation parameter α and diffu-
sion parameter γ on concentration profile u is displayed by
Figure 6. From Figures 7 and 8, it is noticed that current
produces faster for all values of saturation parameter α and
diffusion parameter γ. The error plot of numerical values of
the present work with that of Dharmalingam and
116 O. Adeyeye et al.: Nonlinear solution of the reaction–diffusion equation

Figure 9: Error plotting of present values and that of the study by

Figure 6: Combined effect of saturation parameter α and diffusion Hayat et al [33].
parameter γ on concentration.

Table : Comparison of dimensionless concentration of substrate.

u(α=, γ=) u(α=, γ=.)

χ
Present results Ref [] Present results Ref []

 . . . .

. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. .  . 

Figure 7: Effect of diffusion parameter γ on normalize steady-state Table : Numerical values of dimensionless concentration of
current. substrate.

χ u(α=, γ=.) u(α=, γ=.)

 . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .

Figure 8: Effect of saturation parameter α on normalize steady-state

current.
Veeramuni [38] is described in Figure 9. A good agreement
between the numerical values from the proposed method
and that of Dharmalingam and Veeramuni [38] is found.
Tables 1 and 2 represent the dimensionless concentration
along the dimensionless distance with the certain values of
diffusion parameter γ and saturation parameter α. It is
revealed that numerical values increase in all the cases of
concentration for u(α=100,γ=5), u(α=10,γ=0.01),u(α=15,γ=0.01) and
u(α=15,γ=0.25).
 O. Adeyeye et al.: Nonlinear solution of the reaction–diffusion equation
5 Conclusion
It has been affirmed that the concept of nonlinearity in the
solution of differential equation models gives room to
approximate the models more accurately. This is evident in
the impressive results obtained using the new two-step
third–fourth-derivative block method in solving the reac-
tion–diffusion equation. The convergent block method
with the property of a wide stability area gave the results of
the reaction–diffusion equation at different values of the
dimensionless diffusion parameter and saturation param-
eter. In addition, the results from the new method was
compared to existing methods, and the solutions were seen
to be in good agreement. In general, the nonlinear solu-
tions of the reaction–diffusion equation as evident in the
graphs and tables show the usability of the two-step third–
fourth-derivative block method in obtaining accurate so-
lutions for differential equations models. The newly
developed method is therefore recommended to be adop-
ted as a suitable approach to obtain nonlinear approximate
solutions to equations of the form of the reaction–diffusion
equation used to model various real-life scenarios.
Acknowledgement: The authors acknowledge King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work
through Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-
2020/30).
Author contribution: All the authors have accepted
responsibility for the entire content of this submitted
manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: The authors acknowledge King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work
through Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-
2020/30).
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no
conflicts of interest regarding this article.
References
[1] L. T. Villa, N. A. Acosta, and C. M. Albarracin, “A note on non-
isothermal diffusion-reaction processes,” Int. J. Pure Appl. Math.,
vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 525–538, 2011. Corpus ID: 124040441.
[2] D. Bedeaux, I. Pagonabarraga, J. O. De Zárate, J. V. Sengers, and
S. Kjelstrup, “Mesoscopic non-equilibrium thermodynamics of
non-isothermal reaction–diffusion,” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.,
vol. 12, no. 39, pp. 12780–12793, 2010.
[3] G. F. Froment, K. B. Bischoff, and J. De Wilde, Chemical Reactor
Analysis and Design, vol. 2, New York, Wiley, 1990.
[4] S. Kjelstrup, J. M. Rubi, and D. Bedeaux, “Energy dissipation in
slipping biological pumps,” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., vol. 7, no.
23, pp. 4009–4018, 2005.
117
[5] A. S. Blix, Arctic Animals and their Adaptations to Life on the
Edge, Bergen, Norway, Tapir Academic Press, 2005.
[6] D. Bedeaux and S. Kjelstrup, “The measurable heat flux that
accompanies active transport by Ca2+-ATPase,” Phys. Chem.
Chem. Phys., vol. 10, no. 48, pp. 7304–7317, 2008.
[7] E. G. Michael, “Reaction/diffusion with Michaelis–Menten
kinetics in electroactive polymer films. Part 1. The steady-state
amperometric response,” Analyst, vol. 121, no. 6, pp. 715–731,
1996.
[8] A. Jafarimoghaddam, “On the homotopy analysis method (HAM)
and homotopy perturbation method (HPM) for a nonlinearly
stretching sheet flow of Eyring–Powell fluids,” Eng. Sci. Technol.
Int. J., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 439–451, 2019.
[9] M. Shqair, “Solution of different geometries reflected reactors
neutron diffusion equation using the homotopy perturbation
method,” Results Phys., vol. 12, pp. 61–66, 2019.
[10] S. Hoseinzadeh, P. S. Heyns, A. J. Chamkha, and A. Shirkhani,
“Thermal analysis of porous fins enclosure with the comparison
of analytical and numerical methods,” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim.,
vol. 138, pp. 727–735, 2019.
[11] A. S. Al-Saif and A. Harfash, “Perturbation–iteration algorithm
for solving heat and mass transfer in the unsteady squeezing
flow between parallel plates,” J. Appl. Comput. Mech., vol. 5, no.
4, pp. 804–815, 2019.
[12] P. Agarwal, S. Deniz, S. Jain, A. A. Alderremy, and S. Aly, “A new
analysis of a partial differential equation arising in biology and
population genetics via semi analytical techniques,” Phys. Stat.
Mech. Appl., vol. 542, p. 122769, 2019.
[13] N. Bildik and S. Deniz, “Comparative study between optimal
homotopy asymptotic method and perturbation-iteration
technique for different types of nonlinear equations,” Iran. J. Sci.
Technol. Trans. A Sci., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 647–654, 2018.
[14] J. Raza, F. Mebarek-Oudina, and B. Mahanthesh,
“Magnetohydrodynamic flow of nano Williamson fluid generated
by stretching plate with multiple slips,” Multidiscip. Model.
Mater. Struct., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 871–894, 2019.
[15] M. F. M. Basir, R. Kumar, A. I. M. Ismail, G. Sarojamma, P. S.
Narayana, J. Raza, and A. Mahmood, “Exploration of thermal-
diffusion and diffusion-thermal effects on the motion of
temperature-dependent viscous fluid conveying
microorganism,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 44, no. 9,
pp. 8023–8033, 2019.
[16] J. Raza, M. Farooq, F. Mebarek-Oudina, and B. Mahanthesh,
“Multiple slip effects on MHD non-Newtonian nanofluid flow over
a nonlinear permeable elongated sheet,” Multidiscip. Model.
Mater. Struct., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 913–931, 2019.
[17] J. Raza, “Thermal radiation and slip effects on
magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) stagnation point flow of Casson
fluid over a convective stretching sheet,” Propul. Power Res.,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 138–146, 2019.
[18] L. Ali Lund, Z. Omar, I. Khan, J. Raza, M. Bakouri, and I. Tlili,
“Stability analysis of Darcy–Forchheimer flow of casson type
nanofluid over an exponential sheet: investigation of critical
Points,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 412, 2019.
[19] J. Raza, F. Mebarek-Oudina, and A. J. Chamkha,
“Magnetohydrodynamic flow of molybdenum disulfide nanofluid
in a channel with shape effects,” Multidiscip. Model. Mater.
Struct., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 737–757, 2019.
[20] J. Reza, F. Mebarek-Oudina, and O. D. Makinde, “MHD slip flow of
Cu-kerosene nanofluid in a channel with stretching walls using
118 O. Adeyeye et al.: Nonlinear solution of the reaction–diffusion equation
3-stage Lobatto IIIA formula,” Defect Diffusi Forum, vol. 387,
pp. 51–62, 2018.
[21] S. S. Ardahaie, A. J. Amiri, A. Amouei, K. Hosseinzadeh, and
D. D. Ganji, “Investigating the effect of adding nanoparticles to
the blood flow in presence of magnetic field in a porous blood
arterial,” Inform. Med. Unlocked, vol. 10, pp. 71–81, 2018.
[22] H. Asadian, M. Zaretabar, D. D. Ganji, M. Gorji-Bandpy, and
S. Sohrabi, “Investigation of heat transfer in rectangular porous
fins (Si3N4) with temperature-dependent internal heat
generation by Galerkin’s method (GM) and Akbari-Ganji’s
method (AGM),” Int. J. Appl. Comput. Math., vol. 3, no. 4,
pp. 2987–3000, 2017.
[23] S. Berkan, S. R. Hoseini, and D. D. Ganji, “Analytical
investigation of steady three-dimensional problem of
condensation film on inclined rotating disk by Akbari-Ganji’s
method,” Propul. Power Res., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 277–284, 2017.
[24] H. Mirgolbabaee, S. Tahernejad Ledari, N. Mohammad Zadeh,
and D. Domiri Ganji, “Investigation of the nonlinear equation of
the circular sector oscillator by Akbari-Ganji’s method,” J. Taibah
Univ. Sci., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1110–1121, 2017.
[25] M. Usman, F. A. Soomro, R. U. Haq, W. Wang, and O. Defterli,
“Thermal and velocity slip effects on Casson nanofluid flow over
an inclined permeable stretching cylinder via collocation
method,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 122, pp. 1255–1263,
2018.
[26] M. Alkasassbeh, Z. Omar, F. Mebarek‐Oudina, J. Raza, and
A. Chamkha, “Heat transfer study of convective fin with
temperature‐dependent internal heat generation by hybrid block
method,” Heat Transfer Asian Res., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1225–1244,
2019.
[27] A. H. Seikh, O. Adeyeye, Z. Omar, J. Raza, M. Rahimi-Gorji,
N. Alharthi, and I. Khan, “Enactment of implicit two-step
Obrechkoff-type block method on unsteady sedimentation
analysis of spherical particles in Newtonian fluid media,” J. Mol.
Liq., vol. 293, p. 111416, 2019.
[28] O. Adeyeye and Z. Omar, “New generalized algorithm for
developing k-step higher derivative block methods for solving
higher order ordinary differential equations,” J. Math. Fund. Sci.,
vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 40–58, 2018.
[29] S. O. Fatunla, Numerical Methods for Initial Value Problems in
Ordinary Differential Equation, New York, Academic Press, 1988.
[30] S. Jana Aksah, Z. B. Ibrahim, M. Zawawi, and I. Shah, “Stability
analysis of singly diagonally implicit block backward
differentiation formulas for stiff ordinary differential equations,”
Mathematics, vol. 7, p. 211, 16 pages, 2019.
[31] J. K. Hale and J. P. LaSalle, “Differential equations: linearity vs.
nonlinearity,” SIAM Rev., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 249–272, 1963.
[32] S. N. Ha, “A nonlinear shooting method for two-point boundary
value problems,” Comput. Math. Appl., vol. 42, nos 10–11,
pp. 1411–1420, 2001.
[33] T. Hayat, M. Waqas, S. A. Shehzad, and A. Alsaedi, “On 2D
stratified flow of an Oldroyd-B fluid with chemical reaction: an
application of non-Fourier heat flux theory,” J. Mol. Liq., vol. 223,
pp. 566–571, 2016.
[34] M. Waqas, “A mathematical and computational framework for
heat transfer analysis of ferromagnetic non-Newtonian liquid
subjected to heterogeneous and homogeneous reactions,” J.
Magn. Magn Mater., vol. 493, p. 165646, 2020.
[35] M. Waqas, “Simulation of revised nanofluid model in the
stagnation region of cross fluid by expanding-contracting
cylinder,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow, vol. 30, no. 4,
pp. 2193–2205, https://doi.org/10.1108/hff-12-2018-0797.
[36] S. Salam and T. N. Verma, “Appending empirical modelling to
numerical solution for behaviour characterisation of microalgae
biodiesel,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 180, pp. 496–510,
2019.
[37] K. Natarajan, S. S. Thokchom, T. N. Verma, and P. Nashine,
“Convective solar drying of Vitis vinifera & Momordica charantia
using thermal storage materials,” Renew. Energy, vol. 113,
pp. 1193–1200, 2017.
[38] K. M. Dharmalingam and M. Veeramuni, “Akbari-Ganji’s Method
(AGM) for solving non-linear reaction–diffusion equation in the
electroactive polymer film,” J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 844,
pp. 1–5, 2019.