Table 9.
Results of the simulation for selected models of pomegranate juice clarification in terms of RMSE, MAPE, R2, and residual analysis tests Shapiro–Wilk (S-W) and Kruskal–Wallis (K-W). Statistically validated models are in bold.
| Models | RMSE | MAPE | R2 | S-W | K-W | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration polarization models | Davis (1992)/Shear-Induced Diffusion | 1.64 | 27.56 | 85.58 | 2. 22 × 10−9 | 0.8234 |
| Osmotic pressure models | Keden and Katchalsky (1958) | 4.89 | 67.03 | 98.92 | 0.0001 | 3.581 × 10−9 |
| Wijmans et al. (1984) | 0.49 | 7.85 | 98.91 | 0.00 | 0.964 | |
| Resistance in series models | Hagen-Poiseuille (1839) | 0.81 | 21.00 | 98.28 | 0.00 | 0.1974 |
| De et al. (1997) | 0.72 | 16.64 | 96.73 | 2.33 × 10 −13 | 0.37255 | |
| Fouling and adsorption models | Ho & Zydney (2000) | 2.01 | 51.69 | 75.91 | 2.93 × 10 −12 | 0.088 |
| Song (1998)/Dynamic model | 3.41 | 50.78 | 80.64 | 1.154 × 10−14 | 0.00 | |
| Mondal et al (2009) | 1.60 | 17.45 | 92.40 | 0.0 | 0.3804 | |
| Non-Phenomenological models | Yee et al. (2009) | 0.46 | 11.09 | 99.20 | 2.991 × 10 −12 | 0.2262 |
| Ruby-Figueroa et al. (2017)/ARIMA models | 0.25 | 4.08 | 99.70 | 0.00 | 0.6320 | |