Review Topical Sections

Microorganisms in heavy metal bioremediation: strategies for applying microbial-community engineering to remediate soils

  • The remediation of heavy-metal-contaminated soils is essential as heavy metals persist and do not degrade in the environment. Remediating heavy-metal-contaminated soils requires metals to be mobilized for extraction whilst, at the same time, employing strategies to avoid mobilized metals leaching into ground-water or aquatic systems. Phytoextraction is a bioremediation strategy that extracts heavy metals from soils by sequestration in plant tissues and is currently the predominant bioremediation strategy investigated for remediating heavy-metal-contaminated soils. Although the efficiency of phytoextraction remains a limiting feature of the technology, there are numerous reports that soil microorganisms can improve rates of heavy metal extraction.
    This review highlights the unique challenges faced when remediating heavy-metal-contaminated soils as compared to static aquatic systems and suggests new strategies for using microorganisms to improve phytoextraction. We compare how microorganisms are used in soil bioremediation (i.e. phytoextraction) and water bioremediation processes, discussing how the engineering of microbial communities, used in water remediation, could be applied to phytoextraction. We briefly outline possible approaches for the engineering of soil communities to improve phytoextraction either by mobilizing metals in the rhizosphere of the plant or by promoting plant growth to increase the root-surface area available for uptake of heavy metals. We highlight the technological advances that make this research direction possible and how these technologies could be employed in future research.

    Citation: Jennifer L. Wood, Wuxing Liu, Caixian Tang, Ashley E. Franks. Microorganisms in heavy metal bioremediation: strategies for applying microbial-community engineering to remediate soils[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(2): 211-229. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.2.211

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yujun Zhang, Yufei Wang, Shuijia Li, Fengjuan Yao, Liuwei Tao, Yuxin Yan, Juan Zhao, Zhengming Gao . An enhanced adaptive comprehensive learning hybrid algorithm of Rao-1 and JAYA algorithm for parameter extraction of photovoltaic models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 5610-5637. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022263
    [2] Juan Zhao, Yujun Zhang, Shuijia Li, Yufei Wang, Yuxin Yan, Zhengming Gao . A chaotic self-adaptive JAYA algorithm for parameter extraction of photovoltaic models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 5638-5670. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022264
    [3] Zhen Yan, Shuijia Li, Wenyin Gong . An adaptive differential evolution with decomposition for photovoltaic parameter extraction. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 7363-7388. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021364
    [4] Azmy S. Ackleh, Jeremy J. Thibodeaux . Parameter estimation in a structured erythropoiesis model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2008, 5(4): 601-616. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2008.5.601
    [5] Laura Martín-Fernández, Gianni Gilioli, Ettore Lanzarone, Joaquín Míguez, Sara Pasquali, Fabrizio Ruggeri, Diego P. Ruiz . A Rao-Blackwellized particle filter for joint parameter estimation and biomass tracking in a stochastic predator-prey system. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(3): 573-597. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.573
    [6] Scott R. Pope, Laura M. Ellwein, Cheryl L. Zapata, Vera Novak, C. T. Kelley, Mette S. Olufsen . Estimation and identification of parameters in a lumped cerebrovascular model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2009, 6(1): 93-115. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.93
    [7] Alex Capaldi, Samuel Behrend, Benjamin Berman, Jason Smith, Justin Wright, Alun L. Lloyd . Parameter estimation and uncertainty quantification for an epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2012, 9(3): 553-576. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.553
    [8] Aurelie Akossi, Gerardo Chowell-Puente, Alexandra Smirnova . Numerical study of discretization algorithms for stable estimation of disease parameters and epidemic forecasting. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3674-3693. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019182
    [9] Satoshi Kumabe, Tianyu Song, Tôn Việt Tạ . Stochastic forest transition model dynamics and parameter estimation via deep learning. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(5): 1243-1262. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025046
    [10] Alessandro Corbetta, Adrian Muntean, Kiamars Vafayi . Parameter estimation of social forces in pedestrian dynamics models via a probabilistic method. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2015, 12(2): 337-356. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.337
  • The remediation of heavy-metal-contaminated soils is essential as heavy metals persist and do not degrade in the environment. Remediating heavy-metal-contaminated soils requires metals to be mobilized for extraction whilst, at the same time, employing strategies to avoid mobilized metals leaching into ground-water or aquatic systems. Phytoextraction is a bioremediation strategy that extracts heavy metals from soils by sequestration in plant tissues and is currently the predominant bioremediation strategy investigated for remediating heavy-metal-contaminated soils. Although the efficiency of phytoextraction remains a limiting feature of the technology, there are numerous reports that soil microorganisms can improve rates of heavy metal extraction.
    This review highlights the unique challenges faced when remediating heavy-metal-contaminated soils as compared to static aquatic systems and suggests new strategies for using microorganisms to improve phytoextraction. We compare how microorganisms are used in soil bioremediation (i.e. phytoextraction) and water bioremediation processes, discussing how the engineering of microbial communities, used in water remediation, could be applied to phytoextraction. We briefly outline possible approaches for the engineering of soil communities to improve phytoextraction either by mobilizing metals in the rhizosphere of the plant or by promoting plant growth to increase the root-surface area available for uptake of heavy metals. We highlight the technological advances that make this research direction possible and how these technologies could be employed in future research.


    The conservation of energy and the environment from rapid impairment and the exhaustion of fossil fuels have become issues of concern in recent times. Hence, all are working to solve these problems, including developing clean and alternative energy devices and more developed energy storage/conversion systems. Researchers' efforts have typically centered on two kinds of electrochemical sources: batteries and supercapacitors [1]. High-performance supercapacitors (HPSCs) have attracted much attention in recent years due to their superior power density, long lifecycle, reversibility and few environmental influences [2,3]. Supercapacitors are extensively utilized in some consumer electronics, manufacturing power/energy management and hybrid vehicles.

    Nevertheless, the difficulties of low energy density and extraordinary manufacturing costs for electrochemical capacitors (ECs) have been specified as the main challenges in the field of capacitive storage. Supercapacitors should be improved with superior energy density without losing the power density and life cycle [1] to meet the energy requests for many applications. Supercapacitors can be classified into two basic kinds depending on their charge storage method. The electric double-layer capacitance (EDLC) kind produces capacitance from charge segregation at the electrolyte/electrode interface, while the pseudocapacitance kind produces capacitance from rapid faradic responses in the electrode [3,4,5]. The election of electrode materials and their production plays a critical role in improving the capacitive properties of supercapacitors. Supercapacitors' electrodes should afford thermal stability, corrosion opposition, high electrical conductivity, high SSA, suitable chemical stability and appropriate surface wettability [6]. They must also be relatively low cost and environmentally friendly. In reality, the specific capacitance feature is not only influenced by specific surface area (SSA) but also other essential factors that relate simply to morphology, including pore form, pore size, pore size dispension, and their availability for the electrolyte [7,8].

    Moreover, the appropriate size dispensation can enhance the retention capability, which is significant for high power density in supercapacitors' devices. The efficacious dispensation of micro/nanopores in electrode materials can afford rapid mass and ion transference over a continuous track, consequently improving the availability of the electrolyte and making the materials suitable selections for HPSC applications [9]. The quality of supercapacitors relies on the electrode materials as well as their chemical and physical characteristics. In turn, this leads to the diverse employment of supercapacitors and makes some supercapacitors better than others for some particular applications. Lately, many various supercapacitors have been manufactured in categories relying on electrode materials such as carbon-based materials, transition metal oxides/hydroxides-based materials, conducting polymer-based materials and composite-based materials, as well as the diversity of nanostructured electrode materials (NEMs) for supercapacitors in each category. The variance in the electrochemical characteristics of each electrode material leads to the variance in their utilizations. This variance makes some electrode materials better than others for use in supercapacitors.

    Evaluation of NEMs for HPSCs has become an urgent issue for stakeholders so that their goals can be optimally achieved. One of the most well-known tools for assessment and classifying alternatives is the MCDM approach. Integrating two MCDM methods has recently been the strong trend to get the best results in uncertain environments. The uncertainty comes from assumptions, subjective evaluation of the experts, vague data, approximation of the values of the properties, etc. Hence, rough set theory was used in this work to deal with the uncertainty and make the interval boundary flexible, giving the DM flexible judgment, minimizing the information lost and achieving accurate results.

    The motivation of this work is that there is no study in the literature addressing the MCDM approach in the assessment ranking of the NEMs for HPSCs based on the authors' knowledge. Additionally, is it possible to select the best NEMs that meet all the criteria and have good properties under an uncertain environment that allows experts to give flexible judgments?

    Moreover, all properties of the NEMs for HPSCs are within ranges, which was a motivation to use the rough set concept to deal with these ranges. Another reason for using the rough set concept came from the perspective of the practical application when we collected the data. We know that a property can be approximated by the lower and upper approximations, which motivated us to use the rough set concept for dealing with these ranges.

    So, we can briefly summarize the contributions of this work as follows:

    ❖ Describing the importance of criteria properties using the linguistic variables given by a group of experts.

    ❖ Improving AHP by rough set theory to determine the weights of the criteria.

    ❖ Evaluating and ranking the NEMs for HPSCs using the integrated R-AHP with R-EDAS and R-GRA methods.

    ❖ Analysis of the comparison results of both R-EDAS and R-GRA methods.

    The rest of this article is organized like this: Section 2 presents the criteria and the NEMs for HPSCs. Section 3 introduces the brief of the rough AHP, R-EDAS, R-GRA and the proposed methodology. Section 4 summarizes the results with analysis. Finally, Section 5 gives the conclusion and some points for future works.

    For this section, we identified six criteria and fourteen NEMs for HPSCs. These criteria include the most significant electrochemical characteristics of HPSCs.

    The following main criteria were utilized to compare the different NEMs for HPSCs.

    1) Specific capacitance (SC):

    A supercapacitor consists of two electrodes and an electrolyte between these two electrodes. Because the electrodes can be polarized via a voltage, the ions in the electrolyte make electric double layers of inverse polarity for the electrode's polarity. This means the negative polarized electrodes would have a positive layer of ions at the electrolyte/electrode limit joined by a layer of negative ions in the positive layer to the equilibrium of charges. The opposite is correct for the positively polarized electrodes. In addition, numerous ions can transfer into the double layer to be absorbing ions and collaborate with the pseudocapacitance of the supercapacitor, which relies on surface shape and electrode material. Thus, the specific capacitance (SC) is the amount of charge that can be stored in an energy storage system per unit mass from the electrode [10]. The SC is a very significant criterion to evaluate the performance of the electrode materials for energy storage applications (supercapacitor and battery devices). So, the electrochemical performance is superior when the SC is great.

    2) Potential window (PW):

    To improve asymmetric supercapacitors, one can take advantage of the difference between the voltages on the two electrodes (negative electrode and positive electrode) to enlarge the working voltage in the electrochemical system. If the electrodes are symmetrical, the electrochemical performance of the supercapacitor will be developed. Otherwise, the electrochemical performance of the energy storage system may be reduced, or the energy storage system may be disrupted [1]. Thus, the widening of the PW leads to improving the performance of the energy storage systems (supercapacitors and batteries).

    3) Energy density (ED):

    There are two types of energy density: mass-energy density, and volume-energy density. In this work, we will focus on mass-energy density. The mass-energy density of the energy storage systems (supercapacitors and batteries) denotes the capacity of the energy storage system to store the energy for a very long time for its unit mass [11]. So, the ED determines how long the energy storage system can be employed [6]. The ED is a very significant criterion for evaluating the performance of electrode materials for energy storage devices (supercapacitors and batteries). Consequently, the performance of the supercapacitor increases with increasing ED.

    4) Power density (PD):

    The PD refers to the discharge power volume per unit mass, and it denotes how speedily a device can transfer an amount of energy [6]. The PD is a very significant criterion for assessing the performance of energy storage devices (supercapacitors and batteries).

    5) Capacitance retention (CR):

    Selecting an exemplary lifetime as an essential parameter for the energy storage systems is extremely related to the kind of device. Choosing favorable materials for electrolytes and electrodes is important, as it affects the cycle stability. Cycle stability, including CR and cycle number (CN), can be estimated by galvanostatic charge/discharge procedures by reiterating the cycles constantly at a fixed current density [12]. The enhancing performance of energy storage devices is determined by their outstanding cycle stability, including superb CR and high CN. For example, the death factor of an energy storage system (battery and supercapacitor) for energy applications is known as 80% of its beginning capacity [13]. The CR for energy storage systems is calculated as the percentage between the initial SC to the SC that is saved after a certain number of cycles. Cyclic stability is an important criterion for estimating the electrochemical performance of energy storage devices. Thus, the cyclic stability is high when the CR is high.

    6) Cycles number (CN):

    The CN is defined as the number of full charge-discharge processes before the capacitance of the energy storage devices decreases to under 80% of the start-of-lifetime value [14,15]. So, when the cycle number value rises, the performance of the energy storage device is superior.

    The main kinds of NEMs for HPSCs are the following:

    Nanostructured carbon-based materials: activated carbon materials (ACs), carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and graphene.

    Transition metal oxides/hydroxides-based materials: ruthenium oxide (RuO2), manganese dioxide (MnO2), nickel oxide (NiO), nickel hydroxide (Ni(OH)2) and vanadium pentoxide (V2O5).

    Conducting polymer-based material: polyaniline (PANI) and polypyrrole (PPy).

    Nanocomposite-based materials: carbon-carbon composites (C-C), carbon- metal oxides composites (C-MOs), carbon- conducting polymers composites (C-CPs) and metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs).

    1) Activated carbon materials (ACs)

    ACs are the most generally utilized materials for EDLC electrodes with medium cost [10] that show a complicated porous structure involving micropores (lower than 2 nm), mesopores (between 2 and 50 nm) and macropores greater than 50 nm, leading to possessing a great SSA [11,12]. Moreover, although their electrical conductivity is less than (1250-2500 Sm-1), it is still appropriate for supercapacitors. These properties indicate that ACs are considered beneficial electrode materials for supercapacitors [6]. ACs show that many of the physical and chemical characteristics rely on the carbon precursors utilized and activation procedures that strongly affect the SSA, porous construction and pore size dispensation [13].

    2) Carbon nanotubes (CNTs)

    CNT electrode materials have been advanced owing to their individual characteristics, such as their attainable exterior construction with great SSA and specified interior network of mesopores, outstanding electrical conductivity, chemical and thermal stability and low mass density. Moreover, the mechanical flexibility of the CNTs and their open lattice afford their linking to active material, superior connection and creating a continued dispensation that produces a high SSA [14]. CNTs would be utilized as electrode materials for supercapacitors in the composite shape over other materials, such as metal oxides (MOs), graphene and polymer [6].

    3) Graphene

    Graphene consists of a one-atom-thick layered 2D construction with sp2-bonded carbon atoms coordinated in a crystalline honeycomb structure [15,16]. As a distinctive carbon material, graphene has outstanding properties, including excellent morphological and mechanical characteristics, good electrical conductivity, high carrier mobility, high chemical stability and high SSA [6]. Moreover, the 2D construction of graphene reduces the thickness of the electrode, which yields a higher voltage window, larger flexibility and thermal and chemical stability [16]. So, graphene is a strong candidate for energy storage systems owing to its features [15]. Consequently, graphene would be employed as electrodes in the system of HPSCs. Meanwhile, compared with other carbon-based materials that contain carbon (for instance, ACs and CNTs), graphene-based electrodes do not rely on the regularity of pores in solid materials [17].

    4) Ruthenium oxide (RuO2)

    RuO2 is one of the most studied transition metal oxides (TMOs) for supercapacitor electrodes owing to its outstanding electrical conductivity, outstanding thermal and chemical stability, wide PW, long life-cycle, extremely reversible redox reaction, great theoretical capacity and excellent rate ability [18]. RuO2 materials are costly, which reduces their wide-range applications. For developing cost-efficient materials, RuO2 hybrids were combined with other materials rich in carbon or pseudocapacitance to decrease the quantity of RuO2 without affecting the efficiency [19]. For example, a nanosized RuO2/polyaniline (PANI)/carbon dual-shelled blank spheres nanocomposite was patterned over electro-polymerization processes [20].

    5) Manganese dioxide (MnO2)

    MnO2 is utilized as electrodes for supercapacitors owing to its outstanding characteristics such as superior electrochemical performance, low cost and low environmental influence, which make it beneficial for a wide range of applications, such as in biosensors, molecular absorption, energy storage devices, ion interchange and catalysis [21]. MnO2 has a lower cost and greater obtainability compared with RuO2-based materials [22]. In addition, other outstanding characteristics, such as a wide-ranging PW, low toxicity and a great SC, make it a favorable electrode alternative [23].

    6) Nickel oxide (NiO)

    NiO nanomaterial has attracted the attention of researchers as electrodes for supercapacitors owing to the reduced diffusion tracks, rapid redox reactions and a great SSA in the solid phase [24,25]. NiO is a favorable pseudocapacitive electrode material for supercapacitors because of its characteristics, such as great electrochemical capacitance, thermal and chemical stability, simplistic synthesis, sensible cost, profusion and environmental friendliness [26].

    7) Nickel hydroxide (Ni(OH)2)

    Ni(OH)2 has recently drawn researchers' attention because of its outstanding characteristics, such as its extraordinary theoretical capacity, good rate ability, ready obtainability, lesser cost, environmental friendliness and outstanding chemical and thermal stability [27]. Consequently, α-Ni(OH)2 is the most potent energy storage-type material used in supercapacitor applications; it is utilized as an anode in nickel-based batteries and is also appropriate for HPSCs [28].

    8) Vanadium pentoxide (V2O5)

    V2O5 is an inorganic-intercalation compound, and it has drawn the attention of researchers as an appropriate electrode for pseudocapacitors owing to its natural profusion, extraordinary ED, low cost, low toxicity, varied oxidation states (+2 to +5), simplicity of preparation and great electrochemical capacity [29]. V2O5 offers a high electrochemical capacity and wide-range voltage window related to the greater oxidation state of V, which works on transporting a high number of electrons [30]. However, low SSA and the low solubility of V2O5 decrease the electrochemical capacitance development. Moreover, V2O5 is widely suggested as an electrode material for supercapacitors because of its controllable morphology [6].

    9) Polyaniline (PANI)

    PANI is a popular conducting polymers composites (CPs) electrode material because of its great electrical conductivity, low weight, greater electrochemical capacity, simplistic synthesis and low cost. Moreover, PANI is mechanically elastic and environmentally friendly [31]. Additionally, PANI offers a wide range of electrochromic characteristics, such as showing several colors, owing to its numerous oxidation states and protonation forms. These features make it a fit candidate for the manufacture of electrochromic HPSCs [32].

    10) Polypyrrole (PPy)

    The increasing demand for advanced energy storage systems for electrochemical electrode materials could be obtained from conductive polymer hydrogels with mechanical elasticity and adaptable capacitive characteristics. PPy is a conductive polymer that draws the attention of investigators. It has a greater density and superior elasticity compared with other CPs. It could bear a rapid redox reaction for the charge storage and shows a great conductivity value in the range of (10−500 S cm-1) [33].

    11) Carbon-carbon composites (C-C)

    The great SC of the carbon materials emerges from the efficient SSA, which can increase the connection between the electrode and electrolyte. Consequently, enhancing the high SSA of these composites produces increasingly higher energy and PD in supercapacitors. There are numerous kinds of carbon materials that could be utilized to construct carbon-based composites [6].

    12) Carbon-metal oxides composites (C-MOs)

    TMOs possess low SC, low electrical conductivity and poor chemical stability. The nanocomposites made from mixing TMOs and carbon compounds could enhance the electrochemical characteristics of supercapacitors. Consequently, in adding the MOs, there are diverse compositions of MOs and carbon-based composites, which have demonstrated greater SSA than those of pure MOs and carbon composites [34].

    13) Carbon-conducting polymers composites (C-CPs)

    There are various carbon composites that are mixed with CPs to create nanocomposites. For example, the nanocomposite utilizing the CPs as an anode and the carbon as a cathode could afford greater energy and PD than EDLCs and improved cycling characteristics compared with pseudocapacitors [35].

    14) Metal oxides-conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs)

    The MOs/CPs-based composites are other substitution compositions for electrode materials that afford improved electrochemical characteristics in supercapacitors resulting from combining the MOs and CPs [36]. The rate ability, SC and cycling stability could be improved compared with pure MOs and pure CPs composite for electrode materials by improving the compositions of MOs mixed with CPs yielding electrode with enhanced electrical conductivity [6].

    This section consists of three subsections, where the first subsection addresses the rough concept and the AHP method, the second subsection introduces the rough EDAS method, and the third subsection presents the rough GRA method. Also, the proposed methodology is summarized in the last section.

    The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [37] method is one of the MCDM methods widely used to solve many complicated decision-making problems. On the other hand, it has become necessary to deal with vague information. That is why many mathematical concepts were proposed to handle the imprecise data, like the integrated AHP method with the fuzzy set, gray, rough, Fermatean fuzzy, neutrosophic, etc. for determining the criteria weights based on the experts' opinions regarding handling the subjectivity and the vague information.

    In this work, the AHP method will be used to calculate the weights of the evaluation criteria with the help of rough numbers.

    A rough set (Pawlak [38]) is one of the mathematical tools that can eliminate the vagueness and find hidden data using the upper and lower approximation values.

    Let us suppose a set of n classes of ideas,

    R(x1,x2,,xn) where x1<x2<<xn.

    Let us take Y as an arbitrary object of U. Then, the lower and upper approximation of xi can be defined respectively as follows:

    Lower approximation Apr_(xi)=U{YU/R(Y)xi} and upper approximation ¯Apr(xi)=U{YU/R(Y)xi}. Also, we can define the boundary region as follows:

    Boundary region BR=U{YU/R(Y)xi}=U{YU/R(Y)<xi}U{YU/R(Y)>xi}.

    Hence, we can represent the xi by a rough number, where the boundary of the interval can be defined as follows:

    Rough number: RN=[(Lim_(xi)),(¯Lim(xi))],

    Interval of boundary region IBR=(¯Lim(xi))(Lim_(xi))

    We can normalize the rough number RN(ai) using Eq (1) as

    RN(xi)=[(Lim_(xi)),(¯Lim(xi))]={Lim_(xi)=Lim_(xi)mini{Lim_(xi)}maxi{¯Lim(xi)}mini{Lim_(xi)}¯Lim(xi)=¯Lim(xi)mini{Lim_(xi)}maxi{¯Lim(xi)}mini{Lim_(xi)} (1)

    Also, Eq (2) is used to calculate the crisp value.

    CNcrispi=mini{Lim_(xi)}+βi·[maxi{¯Lim(xi)}mini{Lim_(xi)}] (2)

    where

    βi=Lim_(xi)·(1Lim_(xi))+¯Lim(xi)·¯Lim(xi)1Lim_(xi)+¯Lim(xi) (3)

    Now, the rough set will be combined with the AHP method to be an effective assessment framework to deal with alternatives based on the related multiple criteria. The main procedures of the R-AHP are presented as follows:

    Step 1: Build the pairwise comparison matrix Ae for each eth expert and test the consistency.

    Ae=[1ae12ae1mae211ae2maem1aem21] (4)

    Step 2: Test the consistency ratio (CR) using Eq (5), where the acceptable value of CR must be less than 0.1. In case the CR>0.1, the experts are recommended to evaluate the decision matrix for superior consistency.

    CR=CIRI (5)

    where CI is given as

    CI=λmax nn1 (6)

    where n is the number of criteria, λmax is the mean of the weighted sum vector on the regarding criteria, and RI is a random index given in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Random index via Saaty [39].
    Matrix size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Step 3: Construct the group decision matrix.

    ˜A=[1˜a12˜a1m˜a211˜a2m˜am1˜am21] (7)

    where ˜aij={a1ij,a2ij,,asij}

    Step 4: Convert the element aij in group decision matrix ˜A into rough number as follows:

    RN(aeij)=[aelij  aeuij] (8)

    where aelij,aeuij are the lower and upper limits of RN(aij).

    We get a rough sequence RN(˜aij) as

    RN(˜aij)={[a1lij  a1uij],[a2lij  a2uij],,[aslij  asuij]}. (9)

    Calculate the average rough interval by

    RN(aik)=[alij  auij] (10)

    where

    alij=a1lij+a2lij++aslijs (11)
    auij=a1uij+a2uij++asuijs (12)

    Step 5: Form the rough group decision matrix M as

    M=[[1  1][al12  au12][al1m  au1m][al21  au21][1  1][al2m  au2m][alm1  aum1][alm2  aum2][1  1]] (13)

    Step 6: Calculate the rough weight wi and its normalization wi of each criterion by Eqs (14) and (15), respectively:

    wi=[mmk=1alik,mmk=1auik] (14)
    wi=wimaxwui (15)

    Step 7: Obtain the crisp weights using Eqs (1)−(3).

    The evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) (Ghorabaee et al. [40]) is updated to be able to deal with imprecise data based on the rough concept.

    In the previous section, the rough AHP is used to calculate the relative importance of each criterion. Herein, rough EDAS is introduced to aggregate individual priorities and evaluate design concept alternatives, and the main steps of the new modified method are as follows:

    Step 1: Build the rough group decision matrix M as

    M=[[xl11  xu11][xl12  xu12][xl1m  xu1m][xl21  xu21][xl22  xu22][xl2m  xu2m][xln1  xun1][xln2  xun2][xlnm  xunm]] (16)

    Step 2: Find the range of the average AV for all criteria using Eq (23).

    AV=[AVlj  AVuj]1×m,AVlj=ni=1xlijn,AVuj=ni=1xuijn (17)

    Step 3: Find the positive and negative distances from average (PDA and NDA) via Eqs (18) and (19), respectively:

    PDA=[PDAlij  PDAuij]={[max(0,(xlijAVlj))AVlj,max(0,(xuijAVuj))AVuj]if  the  jth  criterion  is  beneficial[max(0,(AVljxlij))AVlj,max(0,(AVujxuij))AVuj]if  the  jth  criterion  is  nonbeneficial (18)
    NDA=[NDAlij,NDAuij]={[max(0,(AVljxlij))AVlj,max(0,(AVujxuij))AVuj]if  the  jth  criterion  is  beneficial[max(0,(xlijAVlj))AVlj,max(0,(xuijAVuj))AVuj]if  the  jth  criterion  is  nonbeneficial (19)

    PDAij is the positive distance of ith alternative from average solution in terms of jth criterion.

    NDAij is the negative distance of ith alternative from average solution in terms of jth criterion.

    Step 4: Compute the weighted sums of the PDA and NDA by Eqs (20) and (21):

    [SPli  SPui]=[mj=1wli  PDAlij,mj=1wui  PDAuij] (20)
    [SNli  SNui]=[mj=1wli  NDAlij,mj=1wui  NDAuij] (21)

    where wj is the weight of jth criterion.

    Step 5: Normalize the weighted sums via Eqs (22) and (23):

    NEli=12×(SPlimaxiSPli+1SNlimaxiSNli) (22)
    NEui=12×(SPuimaxiSPui+1SNuimaxiSNui) (23)

    Step 6: Obtain the crisp scores using Eqs (1)−(3).

    In 1989, Deng [41] proposed a new MCDM method, grey relational analysis (GRA), where the relation degree measures the degree of similarity and difference between two sequences. This subsection combines the rough set with the GRA method to solve the given problem.

    Step 1: Build the rough group decision matrix M as in Eq (16).

    Step 2: Calculate the weighted normalized relationship matrix in rough number form as

    xlij=xlijmaxmj=1{max[xlij,xuij]} (24)
    x'uij=xuijmaxmj=1{max[xlij,xuij]} (25)

    Step 3: Calculate the weighted normalized rough relationship matrix as

    vlij=wli×xlij (26)
    vuij=w'ui×x'uij (27)

    Step 4: Obtain the weighted normalized rough relationship matrix M as

    M=[[vl11  vu11][vl12  vu12][vl1m  vu1m][vl21  vu21][vl22  vu22][vl2m  vu2m][vln1  vun1][vln2  vun2][vlnm  vunm]] (28)

    Step 5: Compute the ideal reference and the reference sequence using Eqs (29) and (30):

    v0(i)={maxmj=1(vuij)},i=1,2,,n (29)
    V0(i)={v0(1),v0(2),,v0(n)} (30)

    Step 6: Compute the deviation coefficient dij :

    dlij=v0(i)vlij,i=1,2,,n;j=1,2,,m (31)
    duij=v0(i)vuij,i=1,2,,n;j=1,2,,m (32)

    Step 7: Build the deviation coefficient matrix D :

    D=[[dl11  du11][dl12  du12][dl1m  du1m][dl21  du21][dl22  du22][dl2m  du2m][dln1  dun1][dln2  dun2][dlnm  dunm]] (33)

    Step 8: Compute the grey relational coefficient as

    glij=minmi=1  minnj=1  dlij+η×maxmi=1  maxnj=1  dlijdlij+η×maxmi=1  maxnj=1  dlij (34)
    guij=minmi=1  minnj=1  duij+η×maxmi=1  maxnj=1  duijduij+η×maxmi=1  maxnj=1  duij (35)

    where the distinguishing coefficient η is 0η1, and for good stability we set η=0.5 [42].

    Step 9: Compute the grey relational degree as

    Γlj=mi=1wliglijm,j=1,,n (36)
    Γuj=mi=1wuiguijm,j=1,,n (37)

    It is probable that when Γj is large, it is closer to the ideal reference value and has a higher priority.

    Step 10: Calculate the crisp scores using Eqs (1)−(3).

    We can summarize the proposed methodology in the following flowchart:

    Figure 1.  The flowchart of the proposed approach.

    In this section, the two parts will be presented. In the first part, the rough AHP will be used to determine the range of the criteria weights to use later. In the second part, R-EDAS and R-GRA methods will be used to evaluate fourteen NEMs based on the criteria with their weights obtained in the first part.

    First, the linguistic values with their scores were defined for the relative significance of the criteria as listed in Table 2.

    Table 2.  Linguistic variables in terms of rough set.
    Linguistic term Score
    Exactly equal 1
    Very low important 2
    Low important 3
    Middle important 4
    High important 5
    Very High important 6

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Table 3 collects the individual preferences of each expert for each criterion with the help of the linguistic terms and their scores in Table 2.

    Table 3.  Collecting the multi-experts' opinions.
    Three experts Specific capacitance Potential
    window
    Energy density Power density Stability
    Capacitance retention Cycles number
    Specific capacitance - 4, 5, 6 1, 1, 1 2, 2, 2 2, 2, 3 2, 3, 2
    Potential
    window
    1/4, 1/5, 1/6 - 1/3, 1/5, 1/6 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 1/2, 1/2, 1/2
    Energy density 1, 1, 1 3, 5, 6 - 2, 2, 2 2, 2, 3 2, 3, 2
    Power density 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 3, 4, 5 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 - 2, 2, 2 2, 2, 2
    Stability Capacitance retention 1/2, 1/2, 1/3 2, 2, 2 1/3, 1/2, 1/2 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 - 1, 1, 2
    Cycles number 1/2, 1/3, 1/2 2, 2, 2 1/2, 1/3, 1/2 1/2, 1/21/, 2 1/2, 1, 1 -

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The multi-experts' scores were transformed to the rough interval as presented in Table 4. Let us take {3, 4, 5} as an example for showing the converting process to interval number.

    Lim_(3)=3,and  ¯Lim(3)=3+4+53=4.
    Lim_(4)=3+42=3.5,and  ¯Lim(4)=4+52=4.5.
    Lim_(5)=3+4+53=4,and  ¯Lim(5)=5.

    This can be expressed in rough numbers:

    RN(3)=[(Lim_(3)),(¯Lim(3))]==[3,4]
    RN(4)=[(Lim_(4)),(¯Lim(4))]==[3.5,4.5]
    RN(5)=[(Lim_(5)),(¯Lim(5))]==[4,5]

    Applying Eqs (11) and (12):

    RN(x)=[xl  xu]
    xl=3+3.5+43=3.5
    xu=4+4.5+53=4.5

    Hence, the rough interval of {3, 4, 5} is RN(x)=[xl  xu]=[3.54.5].

    Similarly, the others can be calculated.

    Table 4.  Rough intervals of the experts' opinions.
    Three experts Specific capacitance Potential
    window
    Energy density Power density Stability
    Capacitance retention Cycles number
    Specific capacitance [1,1] [4.5, 5.5] [1,1] [2,2] [2.1665, 2.61] [2.1665, 2.61]
    Potential
    window
    [0.1852, 0.2268] [1,1] [0.194, 0.2777] [0.2283, 0.2949] [0.5, 0.5] [0.5, 0.5]
    Energy density [1,1] [3.8888, 5.3887] [1,1] [2,2] [2.1665, 2.61] [2.1665, 2.61]
    Power density [0.5, 0.5] [3.5, 4.5] [0.5, 0.5] [1,1] [2,2] [2,2]
    Stability Capacitance retention [0.39797, 0.45355] [2,2] [0.39797, 0.45355] [0.5, 0.5] [1,1] [1.1, 1.6]
    Cycles number [0.39797, 0.45355] [2,2] [0.39797, 0.45355] [0.5, 0.5] [0.69, 0.94] [1,1]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Finally, the steps of the rough-AHP are used to determine the interval weights of the criteria, as reported in Table 5. Moreover, we can get the crisp values using Eq (2). as also, Figure 2 illustrates the normalizing of the lower and upper interval weights of the criteria.

    The obtained results show that the specific capacitance (SC) is the most significant, with a relative closeness value of (0.265592). This criterion (SC) denotes the amount of charge that could be stored in the energy storage devices, where the performance of supercapacitors is superb, with high values of SC. Consequently, this criterion is the most significant one. It is followed by energy density (ED) with a value of (0.264448). The ED is another significant factor in the electrochemical characteristics of the electrode materials. This criterion (ED) also is important in any supercapacitor to decide how long the supercapacitor can be utilized. The power density (PD) comes in the third rank with a value of (0.229159). This criterion (PD) is significant in determining how speedily an energy storage device can transfer energy.

    In contrast, the capacitance retention (CR) was in the fourth rank with a value of (0.100845). The CR denotes cycling stability, which is considered an important factor for the evaluated performance of supercapacitors. It is followed by the cycle number (CN) with a value of (0.0.092616), which is strongly based on applying the appropriate energy storage device. Finally, the last significant criterion was the potential window (PW), with a value of (0.04734).

    Table 5.  Results of criteria weights using the Rough-AHP method.
    Criteria Rough weights CNcrispi Rank
    Specific capacitance (SC) [0.908896, 1] 0.265592 1
    Potential window (PW) [0.173596, 0.198927] 0.04734 6
    Energy density (ED) [0.88702, 0.996598] 0.264448 2
    Power density (PD) [0.7600112, 0.7625782] 0.229159 3
    Capacitance retention (CR) [0.363974, 0.404684] 0.100845 4
    Cycles number (CN) [0.336754, 0.370354] 0.092616 5

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 2.  Results of criteria weights using Rough-AHP method.

    Now, fourteen NEMs for HPSCs mentioned in the first column of Table 6 will be evaluated using rough EDAS and rough GRA methods, considering the rough weights of the criteria reported in Table 5.

    Table 6 lists fourteen NEMs for HPSCs with their properties in the first column.

    Table 6.  Key interval properties of NEMs for HPSCs.
    NEM Specific capacitance
    (F g-1)
    Potential window
    (V)
    Energy density
    (Wh kg-1)
    Power density
    (W kg-1)
    Stability Ref.
    Capacitance retention Cycles number
    Nanostructured carbon-based materials Activated carbon materials (ACs) 100−300 2−2.7 142.4−308.3 0.7−7.6 70−91.4% 3000−30, 000 [6, 43−47]
    Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) 104−292 1−3 62.8−155.6 58.5−263.2 71−91% 1000−5000 [2,6,48,49]
    Graphene 120−483 1−1.3 26−28.5 8.1−25.1 89−90% 1200−10, 000 [6−8]
    Transition metal oxides/hydroxides-based materials Ruthenium oxide (RuO2) 407−720 0.8−1.4 17.6−30.9 4−14 80−92.7% 1000−10, 000 [6,9,50,51]
    Manganese dioxide (MnO2) 220−241 1−1.1 21.1−84.4 0.4−13.3 86.2−98.3% 1000−3000 [6,52,53]
    Nickel oxide (NiO) 1161−2018 0.4−2 22−132.3 0.5−1.65 92.4−99.7% 1000−5000 [6, 54−59]
    Nickel hydroxide (Ni(OH)2) 502−1868 0.5−0.6 35.78−56.5 0.11−0.5 81−97% 1000−10, 000 [6, 60−62]
    Vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) 343−1280 0.4−2 60.2−355 0.2−0.35 86.2−91% 5000−10, 000 [6, 63−65]
    Conducting polymer-based material Polyaniline (PANI) 300 - 950 0.7−1 15−100 0.2−28 60−88% 500−1000 [6,66,67]
    Polypyrrole (PPy) 52.5−2223 0.6−1.8 11.8−3.5 0.088−5.5 90−93% 2000−20, 000 [33,68,69]
    Carbon-carbon composites
    (C-C)
    201−261 3−3.7 62.8−123 58.5−255 94−129% 1000−10, 000 [48,70]
    Nanocomposite-based materials Carbon- metal oxides composites (C-MOs) 313−1225 1.4−3 27.3−46.3 0.7−5.26 92.7−94% 2000−4000 [71−73]
    Carbon- conducting polymers composites (C-CPs) 432−1665 0.7−1 8.6−25 0.11−0.6 85−94% 1000−10, 000 [74−77]
    Metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs) 110−1625 0.7−1.5 12−20 0.075−3 83−94% 600−1000 [6,78,79]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In the first row, the key properties are mentioned, while in the second row, the type of the criterion is reported, where ∆ denotes that the higher score is the best, and the criteria are of the benefit type. The first column in Table 6 denotes the main sections of NEMs, while the second column lists the fourteen NEMs for supercapacitors. In the third column, the range of the SCs for each nanostructured electrode material, which is the most significant criterion, is given. As seen, the best-nanostructured electrode material was the nickel oxide (NiO), with a range of (1161-2018 Fg-1), while carbon nanotubes (CNTs) as electrode materials have the lowest SC, in the range of (104-292 Fg-1). Potential window (PW) is given in the fourth column, where carbon-carbon composites (C-C) as electrode materials have the best value. The fifth column contains the energy density (ED) of each electrode material. In this criterion, the activated carbon materials (ACs) as electrodes have the best values, with the range of (142.4-308.3 Wh kg-1), while metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs) have the lowest values, in the range of (12-20 Wh kg-1). The power density (PD) is given in the sixth column, and as seen, the best value was for carbon nanotubes (CNTs) as electrode materials. The seventh column was about capacitance retention (CR); in this criterion, the carbon-carbon composites (C-C) as electrode materials have the best value, while the Polyaniline (PANI) electrodes have the lowest values. The last column was for the cycle number (CN), and as seen, the activated carbon materials (ACs) have the best values, while metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs) have the lowest values.

    The rough EDAS method was used to evaluate the NEMs for HPSCs. Table 7 lists the values of NEli, NEui, their crisp values and their ranks. We can see clearly that the carbon-carbon composites (C-C), carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and activated carbon materials (ACs) have the highest averages of the NEli, NEui values. This outcome was logical from the point of view of experts because these NEMs have outstanding SC, ED and PD, which are considered significant criteria for the evaluation of electrochemical properties in electrode materials for HPSCs. It can be observed that these NEMs contain carbon composites. Mostly, carbon materials are employed as electrodes for EDLCs because of their enhanced characteristics, such as great SSA [6,80]. Moreover, their thermal and electrochemical stability, great electrical conductivity, symmetrical galvanostatic charge-discharge profile and excellent rectangular form of cyclic voltammetry (CV) patterns suggest that carbon-based composites are suitable electrode materials [6,13,14]. The SC of the electrodes considerably depends on the SSA. Thus, due to the large SSA and the great porosity of the carbon composites, they have shown improved SC [6].

    The four worst NEMs for HPSCs according to this method are metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs), manganese dioxide (MnO2), graphene and ruthenium oxide (RuO2), with values of 0.120051478, 0.126482134, 0.160093041 and 0.177150806, respectively.

    This result is due to these NEMs having low values of SC, ED and PD, which are considered significant criteria for evaluating the electrochemical properties of HPSCs. Although the metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs) have relatively high values of SC, they have the lowest ED, PD and CN.

    Table 7.  Results of the NEMs for HPSCs ranking using the rough EDAS method.
    NEM NEli NEui Crisp Rank
    (ACs) 0.624068175 2.086882518 0.407192078 3
    (CNTs) 0.796030073 3.042414414 0.573801877 2
    Graphene 0.249227536 0.831835637 0.160093041 12
    (RuO2) 0.314617758 0.865008805 0.177150806 11
    (MnO2) 0.178543041 0.687774252 0.126482134 13
    (NiO) 0.632393205 1.583489681 0.338186113 5
    (Ni(OH)2) 0.417485046 1.322311386 0.260790126 6
    (V2O5) 0.54000241 2.159702813 0.401453412 4
    (PANI) 0.157371176 1.144262742 0.186473818 10
    (PPy) 0.013676219 1.723085911 0.240373347 7
    (C-C) 0.894406211 2.961716413 0.58115099 1
    (C-MOs) 0.328984826 0.946056009 0.191241006 8
    (C-CPs) 0.216115891 1.085094924 0.189322757 9
    (MOs-CPs) 0.011612409 0.867781224 0.120051478 14

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In this subsection, the ranking of NEMs for HPSCs is reported using the rough GRA method. Table 8 presents the values of glij, guij and their crisp values that were obtained by Eq (2), with ranks. The obtained ranks indicate that the best four nanostructured electrodes are vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), nickel oxide (NiO), carbon-carbon composites (C-C) and activated carbon materials (ACs), with values of 0.899804683, 0.780106205, 0.747478217 and 0.738646302, respectively.

    Nanostructured TMOs, such as V2O5 and NiO, have been examined for use in energy storage systems (supercapacitors and lithium-ion batteries) owing to their high SC, ED and PD [81−83]. V2O5 has a specific interest owing to layered structures and well-known inserting ions between the layers. Thus, it can be employed as electrodes in electrochemical applications, such as batteries or supercapacitors [84]. NiO is particularly attractive due to its high theoretical capacitance of 2573 Fg−1, good thermal stability and chemical stability. Because of rapid redox reactions, reduced diffusion tracks and great SCA in the solid phase, nano/micro-materials have wide applications in supercapacitors [26]. In addition, the mesoporous NiO exhibited a better rate capability, which is because the well-ordered mesopores do not limit the movement of the ions within the pores [26].

    The four worst NEMs for HPSCs according to this method are polyaniline (PANI), metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs), manganese dioxide (MnO2) and ruthenium oxide (RuO2), with values of 0.002363447, 0.056136119, 0.107041622 and 0.126913722, respectively. This result is due to these NEMs having low SC, ED and PD values, as explained above.

    Table 8.  Results of the NEMs for HPSCs ranking using the rough GRA method.
    NEM glij guij Crisp Rank
    (ACs) 0.096066541 0.089486958 0.738646302 4
    (CNTs) 0.084254985 0.083437437 0.565028425 5
    Graphene 0.066221478 0.059496494 0.13427894 10
    (RuO2) 0.06537249 0.061402026 0.126913722 11
    (MnO2) 0.064541698 0.059802633 0.107041622 12
    (NiO) 0.101923334 0.089292469 0.780106205 2
    (Ni(OH)2) 0.06889424 0.080664301 0.309353299 7
    (V2O5) 0.079427377 0.10261155 0.899804683 1
    (PANI) 0.059347887 0.065366471 0.002363447 14
    (PPy) 0.064273424 0.096463052 0.470863831 6
    (C-C) 0.095099067 0.090490914 0.747478217 3
    (C-MOs) 0.071188845 0.067001979 0.249040575 8
    (C-CPs) 0.06609203 0.073975384 0.193785124 9
    (MOs-CPs) 0.060743217 0.071951396 0.056136119 13

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In this subsection, the obtained ranks using the R-EDAS and R-GRA are compared to investigate the relationship between the obtained ranks of the NEMs for HPSCs. Table 9 lists the obtained ranks by both methods.

    We can readily see from Table 9 that the best five NEMs using both methods are vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), nickel oxide (NiO), carbon-carbon composites (C-C) activated carbon materials (ACs) and carbon nanotubes (CNTs), with slight differences in ranks due to the different methodologies of each method.

    Similarly, it can be noted that the worst five substances are metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs), manganese dioxide (MnO2), graphene, ruthenium oxide (RuO2) and polyaniline (PANI).

    Table 9.  Results of the comparison between R-EDAS and R-GRA methods.
    NEM R-EDAS R-GRA
    (ACs) 3 4
    (CNTs) 2 5
    Graphene 12 10
    (RuO2) 11 11
    (MnO2) 13 12
    (NiO) 5 2
    (Ni(OH)2) 6 7
    (V2O5) 4 1
    (PANI) 10 14
    (PPy) 7 6
    (C-C) 1 3
    (C-MOs) 8 8
    (C-CPs) 9 9
    (MOs-CPs) 14 13

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In addition, Figure 3 illustrates the comparative rankings of the NEMs for HPSCs.

    Figure 3.  Graphical illustration of the comparison between R-EDAS and R-GRA methods.

    The Pearson correlation coefficient between the obtained ranks by both methods is equal to 0.877, emphasizing the positive relationship between the obtained ranks; and the p-value of 0.0000383, which was a minimal value, confirmed the stability of the positive relationship between the ranks. Figure 4 illustrates the preference ranking using both methods.

    Figure 4.  Comparison of preference rankings of the NEMs for HPSCs with R-EDAS and R-GRA methods.

    We can deduce the possibility of employing a rough-MCDM approach in evaluating the NEMs for HPSCs and get a logical evaluation that is useful to support DM in this kind of problem.

    This work develops an approach to evaluate and rank NEMs for HPSCs based on the vague values of the electrochemical properties. To flexibly facilitate the group decision-making, the proposed approach combines the AHP method and the rough numbers to determine the weight of the criteria. Similarly, to flexibly manipulate the vagueness values of the electrochemical properties without pre-assumptions or any extra auxiliary information, the proposed approach integrates the advantages of the R-AHP method and the advantages of the R-EDAS/R-GRA methods to rank the NEMs. The results indicate that the most important criteria and electrochemical properties were specific capacitance, energy density and power density. In addition, the compromise results indicated that vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), nickel oxide (NiO), carbon-carbon composites (C-C), activated carbon materials (ACs) and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are the five best NEMs for HPSCs. Meanwhile, the last five ranks of NEMs are metal oxides- conducting polymers composites (MOs-CPs), manganese dioxide (MnO2), graphene, ruthenium oxide (RuO2) and polyaniline (PANI). This work can be extended to include the different types of uncertainty for future works.

    Ibrahim M. Hezam: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review editing. Aref M Al-Syadi: Data collection and curation, Writing parts of the physics background, discussion of the related results, review editing. Abdelaziz Foul: Revision of draft preparation. Ahmad Alshamrani and Jeonghwan Gwak: Revision of draft preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project no. (IFKSURG-2-1752).

    We should like to thank the Editors of the journal as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions that make the paper stronger and more consistent.

    We have no conflicts with competing interests to disclose.

    Table A1.  Abbreviations and acronyms.
    RS Rough set
    RN Rough number
    DM(s) Decision maker(s)
    MCDM Multiple criteria decision making
    R-AHP Rough analytic hierarchy process
    R-EDAS Rough evaluation based on distance from average solution
    SC Specific capacitance
    PW Potential window
    ED Energy density
    PD Power density
    CR Capacitance retention
    CN Cycles number
    SSA Specific surface area
    NEMs Nanostructured electrode materials
    HPSCs High-performance supercapacitors

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    [1] Lum AF, Ngwa ESA, Chikoye D, et al. (2014) phytoremediation potential of weeds in heavy metal contaminated soils of the Bassa industrial zone of Douala, Cameroon. Int J Phytoremediation 16: 302–319.
    [2] Rajkumar M, Prasad MNV, Freitas H, et al. (2009) Biotechnological applications of serpentine soil bacteria for phytoremediation of trace metals. Crit Rev Biotechnol 29: 120–130.
    [3] Dalcorso G, Manara A, Furini A (2013) An overview of heavy metal challenge in plants: From roots to shoots. Metallomics 5: 1117–1132.
    [4] Liu H, Probst A, Liao B (2005) Metal contamination of soils and crops affected by the Chenzhou lead/zinc mine spill (Hunan, China). Sci Total Environ 339: 153–166.
    [5] Wasi S, Tabrez S, Ahmad M (2013) Toxicological effects of major environmental pollutants: An overview. Environ Monit Assess 185: 2585–2593.
    [6] Nagajyoti PC, Lee KD, Sreekanth TVM (2010) Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ Chem Lett 8: 199–216.
    [7] Lebeau T, Braud A, Jézéquel K (2008) Performance of bioaugmentation-assisted phytoextraction applied to metal contaminated soils: A review. Environ Pollut 153: 497–522.
    [8] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2015) Priority List of Hazardous Substances. Atlanta: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    [9] Clemens S (2006) Toxic metal accumulation, responses to exposure and mechanisms of tolerance in plants. Biochimie 88: 1707–1719.
    [10] Järup L (2003) Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Br Med Bull 68: 167–182.
    [11] Tongesayi T, Fedick P, Lechner L, et al. (2013) Daily bioaccessible levels of selected essential but toxic heavy metals from the consumption of non-dietary food sources. Food Chem Toxicol 62: 142–147.
    [12] Khan S, Shahnaz M, Jehan N, et al. (2013) Drinking water quality and human health risk in Charsadda district, Pakistan. J Clean Prod 60: 93–101.
    [13] Martin R, Dowling K (2013) Trace metal contamination of mineral spring water in an historical mining area in regional Victoria, Australia. J Asian Earth Sc 77: 262–267.
    [14] Salt D E, Smith RD, Raskin I (1998) Phytoremediation. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 49: 643–668.
    [15] Rascio N, Navari-Izzo F (2011) Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: How and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting? Plant Sci 180: 169–181.
    [16] Anderson CWN, Brooks RR, Chiarucci A, et al. (1999) Phytomining for nickel, thallium and gold. J Geochem Explor 67: 407–415.
    [17] Robinson BH, Brooks RR, Gregg PEH, et al. (1999) The nickel phytoextraction potential of some ultramafic soils as determined by sequential extraction. Geoderma 87: 293–304.
    [18] Sheoran V, Sheoran AS, Poonia P (2011) Role of hyperaccumulators in phytoextraction of metals from contaminated mining sites: A review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 41: 168–214.
    [19] Alford ÉR, Pilon-Smits EAH, Paschke MW (2010) Metallophytes-a view from the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 337: 33–50.
    [20] Finneran KT, Anderson RT, Nevin KP, et al. (2002) Potential for Bioremediation of Uranium-Contaminated Aquifers with Microbial U(VI) Reduction. Soil Sediment Contam 11: 339–357.
    [21] Gadd GM (2009) Biosorption: Critical review of scientific rationale, environmental importance and significance for pollution treatment. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 84: 13–28.
    [22] Aracic S, Manna S, Petrovski S, et al. (2015) Innovative biological approaches for monitoring and improving water quality. Front Microbiol 6: 826.
    [23] Das N, Vimala R, Karthika P (2008) Biosorption of heavy metals - An overview. Indian J Biotechnol 7: 159–169.
    [24] Vijayaraghavan K, Yun YS (2008) Bacterial biosorbents and biosorption. Biotechnol Adv 26: 266–291.
    [25] Ahluwalia SS, Goyal D (2007) Microbial and plant derived biomass for removal of heavy metals from wastewater. Bioresour Technol 98: 2243–2257.
    [26] Aryal M, Liakopoulou-Kyriakides M (2015) Bioremoval of heavy metals by bacterial biomass. Environ Monit Assess 187: 4173.
    [27] Gadd GM (2004) Microbial influence on metal mobility and application for bioremediation. Geoderma 122: 109–119.
    [28] Lovley DR, Holmes DE, Nevin KP (2004) Dissimilatory Fe(III) and Mn(IV) reduction. Adv Microb Physiol 49: 219–286.
    [29] Bolan N, Kunhikrishnan A, Gibbs J (2013) Rhizoreduction of arsenate and chromate in Australian native grass, shrub and tree vegetation. Plant Soil 367: 615–625.
    [30] Kashefi K, Lovley DR (2000) Reduction of Fe(III), Mn(IV), and toxic metals at 100°C by Pyrobaculum islandicum. Appl Environ Microbiol 66: 1050–1056.
    [31] Williams KH, N'Guessan A, Druhan J, et al. (2010) Electrodic voltages accompanying stimulated bioremediation of a uranium-contaminated aquifer. J Geophys Res (G Biogeosci) 115.
    [32] Zhuang K, Ma E, Lovley DR, et al. (2012) The design of long-term effective uranium bioremediation strategy using a community metabolic model. Biotechnol Bioeng 109: 2475–2483.
    [33] Anderson RT, Vrionis HA, Ortiz-Bernad I, et al. (2003) Stimulating the In Situ Activity of Geobacter Species to Remove Uranium from the Groundwater of a Uranium-Contaminated Aquifer. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 5884–5891.
    [34] Gadd GM (2010) Metals, minerals and microbes: Geomicrobiology and bioremediation. Microbiology 156: 609–643.
    [35] N'Guessan AL, Vrionis HA, Resch CT, et al. (2008) Sustained removal of uranium from contaminated groundwater following stimulation of dissimilatory metal reduction. Environ Sci Technol 42: 2999–3004.
    [36] Finneran KT, Housewright ME, Lovley DR (2002) Multiple influences of nitrate on uranium solubility during bioremediation of uranium-contaminated subsurface sediments. Environ Microbiol 4: 510–516.
    [37] Sheoran V, Sheoran AS, Poonia P (2016) Factors affecting phytoextraction: A review. Pedosphere 26: 148–166.
    [38] Ernst WHO (1996) Bioavailability of heavy metals and decontamination of soils by plants. Appl Geochem 11: 163–167.
    [39] Blaylock MJ, Salt DE, Dushenkov S, et al. (1997) Enhanced accumulation of Pb in Indian mustard by soil-applied chelating agents. Environ Sci Technol 31: 860–865.
    [40] Cooper EM, Sims JT, Cunningham SD, et al. (1999) Chelate-assisted phytoextraction of lead from contaminated soils. J Environ Qual 28: 1709–1719.
    [41] Tandy S, Bossart K, Mueller R, et al. (2004) Extraction of heavy metals from soils using biodegradable chelating agents. Environ Sci Technol 38: 937–944.
    [42] Mulligan CN (2005) Environmental applications for biosurfactants. Environ Pollut 133: 183–198.
    [43] Freitas EV, Nascimento C (2016) Degradability of natural and synthetic chelating agents applied to a lead-contaminated soil. J Soils Sed 1–7.
    [44] Liu D, Islam E, Li T, et al. (2008) Comparison of synthetic chelators and low molecular weight organic acids in enhancing phytoextraction of heavy metals by two ecotypes of Sedum alfredii Hance. J Hazard Mater 153: 114–122.
    [45] Karimzadeh L, Heilmeier H, Merkel BJ (2012) Effect of microbial siderophore DFO-B on Cd accumulation by Thlaspi caerulescens hyperaccumulator in the presence of zeolite. Chemosphere 88: 683–687.
    [46] Gunawardana B, Singhal N, Johnson A (2011) Effects of amendments on copper, cadmium, and lead phytoextraction by Lolium perenne from multiple-metal contaminated solution. Int J Phytoremediation 13: 215–232.
    [47] Angle JS, Linacre NA (2005) Metal phytoextraction - A survey of potential risks. Int J Phytoremediation 7: 241–254.
    [48] Bolan N, Kunhikrishnan A, Thangarajan R, et al. (2014) Remediation of heavy metal(loid)s contaminated soils - To mobilize or to immobilize? J Hazard Mater 266: 141–166.
    [49] Robinson BH, Chiarucci A, Brooks RR, et al. (1997) The nickel hyperaccumulator plant Alyssum bertolonii as a potential agent for phytoremediation and phytomining of nickel. J Geochem Explor 59: 75–86.
    [50] Dell'Amico E, Cavalca L, Andreoni V (2008) Improvement of Brassica napus growth under cadmium stress by cadmium-resistant rhizobacteria. Soil Biol Biochem 40: 74–84.
    [51] Hernlem BJ, Vane LM, Sayles GD (1996) Stability constants for complexes of the siderophore desferrioxamine b with selected heavy metal cations. Inorg Chim Acta 244: 179–184.
    [52] Neilands JB (1995) Siderophores: Structure and function of microbial iron transport compounds. J Biol Chem 270: 26723–26726.
    [53] Kim JO, Lee YW, Chung J (2013) The role of organic acids in the mobilization of heavy metals from soil. KSCE J Civ Eng 17: 1596–1602.
    [54] Li WC, Ye ZH, Wong MH (2010) Metal mobilization and production of short-chain organic acids by rhizosphere bacteria associated with a Cd/Zn hyperaccumulating plant, Sedum alfredii. Plant Soil 326: 453–467.
    [55] Abhilash PC, Powell JR, Singh HB, et al. (2012) Plant-microbe interactions: Novel applications for exploitation in multipurpose remediation technologies. Trends Biotechnol 30: 416–420.
    [56] Sessitsch A, Kuffner M, Kidd P, et al. (2013) The role of plant-associated bacteria in the mobilization and phytoextraction of trace elements in contaminated soils. Soil Biol Biochem 60: 182–194.
    [57] Glick BR (2010) Using soil bacteria to facilitate phytoremediation. Biotechnol Adv 28: 367–374.
    [58] Lugtenberg B, Kamilova F (2009) Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 63: 541–556.
    [59] Rajkumar M, Ae N, Prasad MNV, et al. (2010) Potential of siderophore-producing bacteria for improving heavy metal phytoextraction. Trends Biotechnol 28: 142–149.
    [60] Hayat R, Ali S, Amara U, et al. (2010) Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion: A review. Ann Microbiol 60: 579–598.
    [61] Badri DV, Weir TL, van der Lelie D, et al. (2009) Rhizosphere chemical dialogues: plant-microbe interactions. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20: 642–650.
    [62] Onofre-Lemus J, Hernández-Lucas I, Girard L, et al. (2009) ACC (1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate) deaminase activity, a widespread trait in Burkholderia species, and its growth-promoting effect on tomato plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 6581–6590.
    [63] De Souza MP, Huang CPA, Chee N, et al. (1999) Rhizosphere bacteria enhance the accumulation of selenium and mercury in wetland plants. Planta 209: 259–263.
    [64] Malekzadeh E, Alikhani HA, Savaghebi-Firoozabadi GR, et al. (2012) Bioremediation of cadmium-contaminated soil through cultivation of maize inoculated with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Bioremediation J 16: 204–211.
    [65] Abou-Shanab RA, Angle JS, Delorme TA, et al. (2003) Rhizobacterial effects on nickel extraction from soil and uptake by Alyssum murale. New Phytol 158: 219–224.
    [66] Abou-Shanab RI, Delorme TA, Angle JS, et al. (2003) Phenotypic Characterization of Microbes in the Rhizosphere of Alyssum murale. Int J Phytoremediation 5: 367–379.
    [67] Amprayn KO, Rose MT, Kecskés M, et al. (2012) Plant growth promoting characteristics of soil yeast (Candida tropicalis HY) and its effectiveness for promoting rice growth. Appl Soil Ecol 61: 295–299.
    [68] Whiting SN, De Souza MP, Terry N (2001) Rhizosphere bacteria mobilize Zn for hyperaccumulation by Thlaspi caerulescens. Environ Sci Technol 35: 3144–3150.
    [69] Lodewyckx C, Mergeay M, Vangronsveld J, et al. (2002) Isolation, characterization, and identification of bacteria associated with the zinc hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens subsp. calaminaria. Int J Phytoremediation 4: 101–115.
    [70] Park JH, Bolan N, Megharaj M, et al. (2011) Isolation of phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their potential for lead immobilization in soil. J Hazard Mater 185: 829–836.
    [71] Zhang YF, He LY, Chen ZJ, et al. (2011) Characterization of ACC deaminase-producing endophytic bacteria isolated from copper-tolerant plants and their potential in promoting the growth and copper accumulation of Brassica napus. Chemosphere 83: 57–62.
    [72] Zhang S, Reddy MS, Kloepper JW (2004) Tobacco growth enhancement and blue mold disease protection by rhizobacteria: relationship between plant growth promotion and systemic disease protection by PGPR strain 90–166. Plant Soil 262: 277–288.
    [73] Shahzad SM, Arif MS, Riaz M, et al. (2013) PGPR with varied ACC-deaminase activity induced different growth and yield response in maize (Zea mays L.) under fertilized conditions. Eur J Soil Biol 57: 27–34.
    [74] Wakelin SA, Warren RA, Ryder MH (2004) Effect of soil properties on growth promotion of wheat by Penicillium radicum. Aust J Soil Res 42: 897–904.
    [75] Kamnev AA, Tugarova AV, Antonyuk LP, et al. (2005) Effects of heavy metals on plant-associated rhizobacteria: Comparison of endophytic and non-endophytic strains of Azospirillum brasilense. J Trace Elem Med Bio 19: 91–95.
    [76] Latour X, Philippot L, Corberand T, et al. (1999) The establishment of an introduced community of fluorescent pseudomonads in the soil and in the rhizosphere is affected by the soil type. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 30: 163–170.
    [77] Melent'ev AI, Kuz'mina LY, Galimzyanova NF (2000) Effect of temperature and soil moisture content on the colonization of the wheat rhizosphere by antiphytopathogenic bacilli. Microbiology 69: 351–356.
    [78] Gerhardt KE, Huang XD, Glick BR, et al. (2009) Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation of organic soil contaminants: Potential and challenges. Plant Sci 176: 20–30.
    [79] Kang Y, Shen M, Wang H, et al. (2013) A possible mechanism of action of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) strain Bacillus pumilus WP8 via regulation of soil bacterial community structure. J Gen Appl Microbiol 59: 267–277.
    [80] Abou-Shanab RAI, Angle JS, Chaney RL (2006) Bacterial inoculants affecting nickel uptake by Alyssum murale from low, moderate and high Ni soils. Soil Biol Biochem 38: 2882–2889.
    [81] Abou-Shanab RA, Ghanem K, Ghanem N, et al. (2008) The role of bacteria on heavy-metal extraction and uptake by plants growing on multi-metal-contaminated soils. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24: 253–262.
    [82] Belimov AA, Kunakova AM, Safronova VI, et al. (2004) Employment of rhizobacteria for the inoculation of barley plants cultivated in soil contaminated with lead and cadmium. Microbiology 73: 99–106.
    [83] Gao Y, Miao C, Mao L, et al. (2010) Improvement of phytoextraction and antioxidative defense in Solanum nigrum L. under cadmium stress by application of cadmium-resistant strain and citric acid. J Hazard Mater 181: 771–777.
    [84] He LY, Chen ZJ, Ren GD, et al. (2009) Increased cadmium and lead uptake of a cadmium hyperaccumulator tomato by cadmium-resistant bacteria. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72: 1343–1348.
    [85] Lampis S, Santi C, Ciurli A, et al. (2015) Promotion of arsenic phytoextraction efficiency in the fern Pteris vittata by the inoculation of As-resistant bacteria: A soil bioremediation perspective. Front Plant Sci 6: 80.
    [86] Li WC, Ye ZH, Wong MH (2007) Effects of bacteria on enhanced metal uptake of the Cd/Zn-hyperaccumulating plant, Sedum alfredii. J Exp Bot 58: 4173–4182.
    [87] Liu W, Wang Q, Wang B, et al. (2015) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria enhance the growth and Cd uptake of Sedum plumbizincicola in a Cd-contaminated soil. J Soils Sed 1–9.
    [88] Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2009) Improvement of plant growth and nickel uptake by nickel resistant-plant-growth promoting bacteria. J Hazard Mater 166: 1154–1161.
    [89] Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2009) Inoculation of plant growth promoting bacterium Achromobacter xylosoxidans strain Ax10 for the improvement of copper phytoextraction by Brassica juncea. J Environ Manage 90: 831–837.
    [90] Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Luo Y, et al. (2011) Inoculation of endophytic bacteria on host and non-host plants-Effects on plant growth and Ni uptake. J Hazard Mater 195: 230–237.
    [91] Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Luo Y, et al. (2013) Phytoextraction of heavy metal polluted soils using Sedum plumbizincicola inoculated with metal mobilizing Phyllobacterium myrsinacearum RC6b. Chemosphere 93: 1386–1392.
    [92] Płociniczak T, Sinkkonen A, Romantschuk M, et al. (2013) Characterization of Enterobacter intermedius MH8b and its use for the enhancement of heavy metals uptake by Sinapis alba L. Appl Soil Ecol 63: 1–7.
    [93] Prapagdee B, Chanprasert M, Mongkolsuk S (2013) Bioaugmentation with cadmium-resistant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to assist cadmium phytoextraction by Helianthus annuus. Chemosphere 92: 659–666.
    [94] Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2008) Influence of metal resistant-plant growth-promoting bacteria on the growth of Ricinus communis in soil contaminated with heavy metals. Chemosphere 71: 834–842.
    [95] Rajkumar M, Ma Y, Freitas H (2013) Improvement of Ni phytostabilization by inoculation of Ni resistant Bacillus megaterium SR28C. J Environ Manage 128: 973–980.
    [96] Rani A, Souche Y, Goel R (2013) Comparative in situ remediation potential of Pseudomonas putida 710A and Commamonas aquatica 710B using plant (Vigna radiata (L.) wilczek) assay. Ann Microbiol 63: 923–928.
    [97] Sheng X, He L, Wang Q, et al. (2008) Effects of inoculation of biosurfactant-producing Bacillus sp. J119 on plant growth and cadmium uptake in a cadmium-amended soil. J Hazard Mater 155: 17–22.
    [98] Yang Q, Tu S, Wang G, et al. (2012) Effectiveness of applying arsenate reducing bacteria to enhance arsenic removal from polluted soils by Pteris vittata L. Int J Phytoremediation 14: 89–99.
    [99] Zaidi S, Usmani S, Singh BR, et al. (2006) Significance of Bacillus subtilis strain SJ-101 as a bioinoculant for concurrent plant growth promotion and nickel accumulation in Brassica juncea. Chemosphere 64: 991–997.
    [100] Zhang X, Lin L, Chen M, et al. (2012) A nonpathogenic Fusarium oxysporum strain enhances phytoextraction of heavy metals by the hyperaccumulator Sedum alfredii Hance. J Hazard Mater 229–230: 361–370.
    [101] Muehe EM, Weigold P, Adaktylou IJ, et al. (2015) Rhizosphere microbial community composition affects cadmium and zinc uptake by the metal-hyperaccumulating plant Arabidopsis halleri. Appl Environ Microbiol 81: 2173–2181.
    [102] Muehe EM, Obst M, Hitchcock A, et al. (2013) Fate of Cd during microbial Fe(III) mineral reduction by a novel and Cd-tolerant geobacter species. Environ Sci Technol 47: 14099–14109.
    [103] Rodríguez H, Fraga R (1999) Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion. Biotechnol Adv 17: 319–339.
    [104] Ma Y, Prasad MNV, Rajkumar M, et al. (2011) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and endophytes accelerate phytoremediation of metalliferous soils. Biotechnol Adv 29: 248–258.
    [105] Spaepen S, Vanderleyden J, Remans R (2007) Indole-3-acetic acid in microbial and microorganism-plant signaling. FEMS Microbiol Rev 31: 425–448.
    [106] Ryu RJ, Patten CL (2008) Aromatic amino acid-dependent expression of indole-3-pyruvate decarboxylase is regulated by tyrr in Enterobacter cloacae UW5. J Bacteriol 190: 7200–7208.
    [107] Sharma SB, Sayyed RZ, Trivedi MH, et al. (2013) Phosphate solubilizing microbes: Sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils. SpringerPlus 2:
    [108] Mattey M (1992) The production of organic acids. Crit Rev Biotechnol 12: 87–132.
    [109] Thijs S, Sillen W, Rineau F, et al. (2016) Towards an Enhanced Understanding of Plant–Microbiome Interactions to Improve Phytoremediation: Engineering the Metaorganism. Front Microbiol 7: 341.
    [110] Siciliano SD, Fortin N, Mihoc A, et al. (2001) Selection of Specific Endophytic Bacterial Genotypes by Plants in Response to Soil Contamination. Appl Environ Microbiol 67: 2469–2475.
    [111] Hamamura N, Olson SH, Ward DM, et al. (2006) Microbial population dynamics associated with crude-oil biodegradation in diverse soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 72: 6316–6324.
    [112] Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26: 2460–2461.
    [113] Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, et al. (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7: 335–336.
    [114] Cole JR, Wang Q, Fish JA, et al. (2014) Ribosomal Database Project: Data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 42: D633–D642.
    [115] Howe AC, Jansson JK, Malfatti SA, et al. (2014) Tackling soil diversity with the assembly of large, complex metagenomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 4904–4909.
    [116] Langille MGI, Zaneveld J, Caporaso JG, et al. (2013) Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nat Biotechnol 31: 814–821.
    [117] Aßhauer KP, Wemheuer B, Daniel R, et al. (2015) Tax4Fun: Predicting functional profiles from metagenomic 16S rRNA data. Bioinformatics 31: 2882–2884.
    [118] Tu Q, Yu H, He Z, et al. (2014) GeoChip 4: A functional gene-array-based high-throughput environmental technology for microbial community analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 14: 914–928.
    [119] Andrews SC, Robinson AK, Rodríguez-Quiñones F (2003) Bacterial iron homeostasis. FEMS Microbiol Rev 27: 215–237.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Esref Bogar, Chaos Game Optimization-Least Squares Algorithm for Photovoltaic Parameter Estimation, 2022, 2193-567X, 10.1007/s13369-022-07364-6
    2. Yujun Zhang, Yufei Wang, Shuijia Li, Fengjuan Yao, Liuwei Tao, Yuxin Yan, Juan Zhao, Zhengming Gao, An enhanced adaptive comprehensive learning hybrid algorithm of Rao-1 and JAYA algorithm for parameter extraction of photovoltaic models, 2022, 19, 1551-0018, 5610, 10.3934/mbe.2022263
    3. Chandrakant D Bhos, Javed Sayyad, Paresh Nasikkar, Power enhancement using improved maximum power point tracking for solar photovoltaic systems under partial shading, 2022, 6, 2515-4230, 810, 10.1093/ce/zkac062
    4. P. Ashwini Kumari, C. H. Hussaian Basha, Rajendhar Puppala, Fini Fathima, C. Dhanamjayulu, Ravikumar Chinthaginjala, Faruq Mohammad, Baseem Khan, Application of DSO algorithm for estimating the parameters of triple diode model-based solar PV system, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-53582-3
    5. Dwa Desa Warnana, S. Sungkono, Khalid S. Essa, Efficient and Robust Estimation of Various Ore and Mineral Model Parameters from Residual Gravity Anomalies Using the Dual Classification Learning Rao Algorithm, 2024, 2193-567X, 10.1007/s13369-024-09774-0
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(16253) PDF downloads(3212) Cited by(37)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(2)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog