Project 2023

CH2010 Engineering Statistics AY2023 - 2024
Project – Data Analysis and Curve Fitting
Problem statement
A chemical engineer wanted to investigate the potential use of a newly developed (by genetic
modification) microalgae strain A for biological CO2 capture. The chemical engineer grew
microalgae A in a bioreactor in which nutrient S was a limiting nutrient. Three batches of
microalgae A were grown with three different initial nutrient concentrations. The
concentration of the microalgae cells and the concentration of the limiting nutrient are
recorded over time, as shown in Figure 1 below. The full measurement results are show in the
Excel document attached.
Figure 1. Microalgae growth measurements showing cell concentration and nutrient concentration as
functions of time.
Under nutrient-limiting conditions, microalgae growth can be described by the Monod

equation:
[S] (1)
μ=μ max
K S +[S]
where μ is the specific growth rate; [S] is the concentration of the nutrients. μmax and K S are
constant coefficients that are only functions of the microalgae strain.
1
Tasks
(a) For each bioreactor batch, compute the specific growth rate at time ti by:
{
0 , for t=0 (2)
μi= ln ( [C ]i )−ln ( [C] i−1 )
, for t >0
t i−t i−1
where ti, [C]i and μi are the time, cell concentration and specific growth rate of the ith
discrete measurement.
ln ([C ]i )−ln ( [C] i−1 )

For t=0, μi=0. In any t used to calculate values in the table. #NUM!
t i−t i−1
corresponds points where ln ( [C ]i ) =0.
Run 1
t S C µi
0 0.9995 4 0.00
1 0.8187 2 -0.69315
2 0.6709 0 #NUM!
3 0.5481 0 #NUM!
4 0.4493 7 #NUM!
5 0.3686 15 0.76214
6 0.3014 64 1.45083
7 0.2464 196 1.11923
8 0.2016 526 0.98719
9 0.1656 1275 0.88540
1
0.1347 2787 0.78202
0
1
0.1114 5522 0.68377
1
1
0.0902 9982 0.59204
2
1
0.0746 16643 0.51121
3
1
0.0603 25759 0.43679
4
1
0.0488 37318 0.37069
5
1
0.0413 51043 0.31319
6
1
0.0338 66407 0.26313
7
1 0.0268 82765 0.22020
2
8
1
0.0227 99445 0.18360
9
2
0.0188 115849 0.15268
0
2
0.0147 131480 0.12657
1
2
0.0117 146001 0.10476
2
2
0.0106 159188 0.08647
3
2
0.0084 170962 0.07136
4
2
0.0076 181306 0.05874
5
2
0.006 190279 0.04831
6
2
0.0051 197994 0.03975
7
2
0.0039 204558 0.03261
8
2
0.0028 210110 0.02678
9
3
0.0033 214778 0.02197
0
Table 1. Specific growth rate (µi) for Run 1
Run 2
t S C µi
0 0.75 3 0
1 0.6137 0 #NUM!
2 0.5028 3 #NUM!
3 0.4113 1 -1.09861
4 0.3365 13 2.56495
5 0.2755 35 0.99040
6 0.2251 111 1.15418
7 0.1843 314 1.03986
8 0.151 809 0.94641
9 0.1241 1872 0.83896
10 0.1011 3917 0.73832
11 0.0836 7420 0.63885
12 0.0684 12851 0.54924
13 0.0554 20545 0.46920
14 0.0454 30598 0.39832
15 0.038 42814 0.33593
16 0.0307 56795 0.28258
17 0.0251 71925 0.23618
3
18 0.0197 87582 0.19695

19 0.0177 103151 0.16362
20 0.0129 118147 0.13574
21 0.011 132174 0.11219
22 0.0097 145009 0.09268
23 0.0069 156531 0.07646
24 0.0058 166697 0.06292
25 0.005 175548 0.05173
26 0.0042 183180 0.04256
27 0.0025 189695 0.03495
28 0.0034 195215 0.02868
29 0.0028 199866 0.02355
30 0.0017 203763 0.01931
Run 3
t S C µi
0 1.5004 0 0
1 1.6374 3 #NUM!
2 1.3405 4 0.28768
3 1.0984 0 #NUM!
4 0.8987 4 #NUM!
5 0.7361 10 0.91629
6 0.6017 40 1.38629
7 0.494 101 0.92624
8 0.403 263 0.95703
9 0.331 649 0.90328
1
0 0.2704 1467 0.81554
1
1 0.2222 3051 0.73225
1
2 0.1816 5884 0.65677
1
3 0.1489 10493 0.57847
1
4 0.1221 17419 0.50685
1
5 0.1005 27071 0.44090
1
6 0.0808 39572 0.37966
1
7 0.067 54761 0.32486
1
8 0.054 72179 0.27617
1
9 0.0452 91147 0.23332
4
2
0 0.0363 110910 0.19625
2
1 0.0295 130729 0.16441
2
2 0.0248 149938 0.13710
2
3 0.0201 168039 0.11397
2
4 0.0164 184712 0.09460
2
5 0.0142 199756 0.07830
2
6 0.0119 213098 0.06466
2
7 0.0088 224766 0.05331
2
8 0.008 234861 0.04393
2
9 0.0051 243506 0.03615
3
0 0.0051 250841 0.02968
(b) Plot the computed values of μ against [S] for all three batches grown.
5
µi vs S for Run 1
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
µi
-0.5
-1.0
[S]
Figure 1. Specific growth rate (µi ) against concentration of nutrients [S] for Run 1
µi vs S for Run 2
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
µi
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
-0.5
-1
-1.5
[S]
µi vs S for Run 3
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
µi
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
[S]
(c) Looking at your plots of μ against [S], decide which portion of data should be included in
further curve fitting analysis. Justify your decision.
6
µi vs S for Run 1
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
µi
-0.5
-1.0
[S]
Figure 4. Useful portion in graph of rate (µi ) against [S] for Run 1.
3
µi vs S for Run 2
2.5
2
1.5
1
µi
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
-0.5
-1
-1.5
[S]
µi vs S for Run 3
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
µi
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
[S]
7
Figure 6-1. Graphical representation of Monod equation
As seen from the graph, growth rate increases and reaches its maximum in certain
concentration of nutrients. To fit our data to this graph, points beyond 0.2464, 0.2251 and
0.403 removed from Run 1,2,3 respectively.
This random data points seems to occur in same area of graph in all three trials. When cell
concentration is below than 120, dataset starts to show random pattern. It could be due to lack
of equipment to measure precisely in low concentration.
In conclusion, these datapoints has no point to include data fitting to evaluate corresponding
constants.
(d) For the portion of data to be included in curve fitting analysis, use MATLAB Curve
Fitting Toolbox to fit the measured μ versus [S] to the Monod equation, as shown in Eq (1).
Determine the values of the constant coefficients μmax and K S for each batch.
8
Run 1
μmax = a = 2.2527
K S = b = 0.2539
Figure 7. Curve Fitting for Run 1
Run 2
μmax = a = 2.2330
K S = b = 0.2086
9
Run 3
μmax = a = 1.5934
K S = b = 0.2603
(e) Report the 95% confidence interval of the fitted coefficients of μmax and K S .
Run 1
μlower =2.1973 μupper =2.3082
K S (lower )=0. 2442 K S (upper) =0.26 35
Run 2
K S (lower )=0.2 000 K S (upper)=0.2172
Run 3
K S (lower )=0.2524 K S (upper)=0.2683
10
(f) Plot the 95% prediction bands of the fitted curve for μ versus [S].
Figure 10. 95% prediction bands of the fitted curve for μ versus [S] for Run 1
11
(g) The chemical engineer’s supervisor suspected that the bioreactors were contaminated and
therefore not showing consistent microalgae growth behaviours. This implies that the
disagreement between the values of μmax and K S determined for the three batches could not be
entirely explained by statistical uncertainties. Please propose a suitable hypothesis test to
examine this potential contamination. There may be more than one suitable test. By
performing your proposed hypothesis test, determine whether the supervisor’s suspicion
should be supported or refuted.
We need to check whether coefficients μmax and K S depends Run of Experiment or not. We
can use Chi-Square method.
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Total

2.2527 2.233 1.5934 6.0791
0.2539 0.2086 0.2603 0.7228
Total 2.5066 2.4416 1.8537 6.8019
Table 4. Observed Results for Chi-Square Distribution
n ( r ) x c (r )
E=
n
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

2.240238 2.182145 1.656718
0.26636 0.259455 0.196982
Table 5. Expected Results for Chi-Square Distribution
2
(Observed−Expected)
χ 2= ∑
Expected
12
2 ( 2.2527−2.240238 )2 ( 2.233−2.182145 )2 ( 1.5934−1.656718 )2 ( 0.26636−0.2539 )2 ( 0.2086−0.2594

χ= + + + +
2.240238 2.182145 1.656718 0.26636 0 .259455
By using table given in Appendix, we assume degrees of freedom(df) equals to 2 and

significance level to be 0.05, critical value:
2
χ 0.05 =5.991
2
χ 0.05 ¿ χ 2
As calculated χ 2 below that critical value, coefficients μmax and K S is independent of number
of trials with 95% level confidence. In conclusion, Chi-Square distribution supports that there
is no contamination in experiment.
13
References:
[1] Konak, A. (2007). Derivation of a generalised monod equation and its

application. Journal of Applied Chemistry and Biotechnology, 24(8), 453–455.
[2] Chi-Square (Χ²) Tests | Types, Formula & Examples (scribbr.com)
14
Appendix 1:
15
16

Project 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH2010 Engineering Statistics AY2023 - 2024

Project – Data Analysis and Curve Fitting

Under nutrient-limiting conditions, microalgae growth can be described by the Monod

ln ([C ]i )−ln ( [C] i−1 )

18 0.0197 87582 0.19695

Figure 6-1. Graphical representation of Monod equation

Figure 7. Curve Fitting for Run 1

Figure 8. Curve Fitting for Run 2

Figure 9. Curve Fitting for Run 3

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Total

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

2 ( 2.2527−2.240238 )2 ( 2.233−2.182145 )2 ( 1.5934−1.656718 )2 ( 0.26636−0.2539 )2 ( 0.2086−0.2594

By using table given in Appendix, we assume degrees of freedom(df) equals to 2 and

[1] Konak, A. (2007). Derivation of a generalised monod equation and its

[2] Chi-Square (Χ²) Tests | Types, Formula & Examples (scribbr.com)

You might also like