Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 18 references

Sustainable Water Treatment through Fractional-Order Chemostat Modeling with Sliding Memory and Periodic Boundary Conditions: A Mathematical Framework for Clean Water and Sanitation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read A fractional-order chemostat with sliding memory and periodic boundary conditions provably admits non-trivial periodic solutions, confined to biologically feasible ranges, with explicit uniqueness conditions.

desk verdict Main existence proof rests on a false compactness claim; the model package is new but the paper needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04420 v3 pith:EYPSKSPV submitted 2025-06-04 math.OC math.DS

classification math.OCmath.DS MSC 34A1234K1334K3747H1092D25
keywords fractional-orderchemostatsliding-memoryCaputoderivativeperiodicboundaryconditionsContoisgrowthkineticsCarathéodorysolutionsexistenceanduniquenessfixed-pointtheoremwastewatertreatmentmodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a chemostat model built on a Caputo fractional derivative with a sliding memory window is well-posed as a description of periodic bioreactor operation. The system tracks substrate and biomass concentrations under a periodic dilution rate, and the paper proves that it admits at least one non-trivial periodic solution, that all solutions remain positive and bounded inside biologically feasible ranges, and that the periodic solution is unique when the memory length, growth parameters, initial substrate level, and dilution rate satisfy explicit conditions. Because the sliding-memory derivative preserves periodicity, a property the classical Caputo derivative lacks, the model is tailored to cyclic operation, which earlier work shows can remove pollutants more efficiently than steady-state operation. The paper's contribution, on its own terms, is the first existence-and-uniqueness guarantee for a fractional-order chemostat with sliding memory, Contois growth kinetics, and periodic boundary conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the change of variables $z = Y(s_{\rm in} - s) - x$, inherited from the integer-order periodic chemostat literature, which converts the two-dimensional system into the single linear fractional equation ${}^C_L D^\alpha_t z = -\vartheta^{1-\alpha}D(t)z$. The paper asserts, through the fractional energy identity (12), that the only $T$-periodic solution of this equation is $z \equiv 0$; accepting that step yields the exact relation $x = Y(s_{\rm in} - s)$ and reduces everything to the one-dimensional substrate equation ${}^C_L D^\alpha_t s = \vartheta^{1-\alpha}[D(t) - \nu(s)](s_{\rm in} - s)$, where $\nu(s) = \mu_{\max}s/(KY(s_{\rm in}-s)+s)$ is the Contois growth rate evaluated on the reduced dynamics. Existence of a periodic Carathéodory solution then comes from Schauder's fixed-point theorem applied to the integral operator $\Phi_s$ acting on the compact, convex set $X = \{s \text{ absolutely continuous, } T\text{-periodic, } 0 \leq s \leq s_{\rm in}\}$; the operator is built from the equivalent Volterra integral form of the fractional equation. Uniqueness comes from strict monotonicity of the right-hand side in $s$ (Lemma 2.5, which needs $KY > 1$ and a dilution-rate bound), combined with a memory window covering a full period ($L \geq T$) so that equality on a whole window forces equality everywhere.

What would settle it

Check whether the linear equation ${}^C_L D^\alpha_t z = -\vartheta^{1-\alpha}D z$ with constant $D$ admits a non-zero $T$-periodic solution by substituting the Fourier mode $z(t) = e^{2\pi i t/T}$: the mode is a solution exactly when $\frac{i\omega}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}\int_0^L u^{-\alpha} e^{-i\omega u}\,du = -\vartheta^{1-\alpha}D$, an algebraic condition that a few lines of quadrature can test for any $\alpha$, $L$, $D$. If any admissible parameter set satisfies it, a non-trivial periodic $z$ exists, the $z \equiv 0$ claim fails, and the one-dimensional reduction collapses; the paper's own Fourier-Gegenbauer discretization could run this test directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the fractional-order chemostat system formed by equations (4)–(5), with the sliding-memory Caputo derivative, Contois growth kinetics, and $T$-periodic boundary conditions on substrate, biomass, and dilution rate, is well-posed. Under a dilution rate that stays below the maximum growth rate, the system admits at least one non-trivial $T$-periodic Carathéodory solution — a solution that is absolutely continuous and satisfies the equation almost everywhere (Theorem 2.2). Under the conditions of Theorem 2.3, that periodic solution is unique: trivially the washout state when $KY > 1$, $L \geq T$, and $D(t) > \mu_{\max}$; non-trivially when the initial substrate value satisfies $s(0) \leq s_{\rm in}\sqrt{KY}/(\sqrt{KY}+1)$ and the dilution rate (or its time average) does not exceed $\nu(s^*) = \mu_{\max}/(1+\sqrt{KY})$. Along the way the paper proves that solutions remain positive and confined to the rectangle $0 \leq s \leq s_{\rm in}$, $0 \leq x \leq Y s_{\rm in}$, and it identifies the unique non-trivial equilibrium $\bar{s} = \bar{D} K Y s_{\rm in} /(\bar{D}KY + \mu_{\max} - \bar{D})$ for constant dilution rates, which exists whenever $\bar{D} < \mu_{\max}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assertion in Section 2.1 that the linear sliding-memory fractional equation for $z = Y(s_{\rm in} - s) - x$ has $z \equiv 0$ as its only periodic solution; that conclusion is drawn from a heuristic 'energy cannot decrease forever' reading of identity (12), without a proof that the identity's left-hand side behaves like a one-cycle energy change, and the rest of the paper's reduction to a one-dimensional equation depends on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework holds, optimizing a periodic dilution strategy reduces to a scalar problem: substrate and biomass are locked together by $x = Y(s_{\rm in} - s)$, so every periodic regime is described by one fractional equation for the pollutant concentration.
  • Every periodic state the model admits is biologically feasible: substrate stays within $[0, s_{\rm in}]$, biomass within $[0, Y s_{\rm in}]$, and biomass is strictly positive whenever the substrate starts below the inlet level and $D(t) < \mu_{\max}$.
  • The model predicts a washout threshold: with $KY > 1$ and a memory window covering at least one period, any dilution rate that stays above the maximum growth rate forces the unique periodic state to be the trivial one, $s = s_{\rm in}$ with $x = 0$, so the reactor flushes.
  • Under $s(0) \leq s^*$ with $D(t) \leq \nu(s^*)$ (or a matching bound on the average dilution rate), the non-trivial periodic state is unique, so the periodic operating regime is determined by the dilution strategy rather than by initial conditions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My reading: the uniqueness conditions are stated through $s(0)$, the value of the periodic solution at one phase point, even though the problem is posed entirely through periodic boundary conditions; the invariants that really govern uniqueness are the dilution bound (or its average) and the memory length $L$, and the paper's Remark 2.3 concedes that multiple periodic branches can coexist when $L
  • The reduction's hard limit is the ratio $L/T$ rather than the fractional order $\alpha$: if the sliding-memory Caputo operator has periodic eigenfunctions when $L$ is a multiple of $T$, then $z \equiv 0$ can fail and the true dynamics would be genuinely two-dimensional; this is a small spectral computation that would settle the matter.
  • An extension the author does not pursue: because $\vartheta$ is described as a characteristic time scale such as the hydraulic retention time, one could couple $\vartheta$ to the dilution strategy so that the memory strength itself becomes a control variable; the fixed-point machinery would likely survive, but the positivity theorem would need re-verification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a fractional-order chemostat system (FOCS) with a Caputo fractional derivative with sliding memory (CFDS) and periodic boundary conditions, modeling pollutant degradation in wastewater treatment. The authors reduce the two-dimensional system (4)-(5) to a one-dimensional equation (16) via the transformation z = Y(s_in - s) - x, claiming that z = 0 is the unique periodic solution so that x = Y(s_in - s). They then analyze non-trivial equilibria under constant dilution rates and prove positivity and boundedness of solutions, existence of a non-trivial periodic Carathéodory solution (Theorem 2.2 via Schauder's fixed-point theorem), and uniqueness under various conditions (Theorem 2.3). Numerical simulations using a Fourier-Gegenbauer pseudospectral method are presented to support the theoretical results.

Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would provide a rigorous well-posedness framework for a class of fractional-order chemostat models with finite sliding memory and periodic operation, which is relevant to periodic bioprocess design and sustainable water treatment. The paper is among the few attempts to give formal existence and uniqueness guarantees for fractional chemostat models with sliding memory, and it does give a useful equilibrium computation and an explicit positivity/boundedness analysis. However, the central proofs contain substantial gaps: the uniqueness of the trivial solution is asserted rather than proven, the Schauder fixed-point argument is invalid because the set X is not compact in the ACT norm, and the uniqueness proof relies on an unproven maximum principle for the fractional derivative. These issues undermine the main claims, so the current contribution is not yet a reliable foundation for the advertised applications.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eqs. (11)-(13)] The conclusion that z = 0 is the unique T-periodic solution is not proved. Equation (12) is an energy identity, but the inference that 'the energy-like quantity cannot decrease indefinitely over successive cycles' is an assertion, not a derivation for the CFDS with a time-dependent lower limit. No argument is given to rule out a periodic solution with D(t)z^2 positive on part of the cycle and a compensating nonlocal energy transfer inside the sliding window. This matters because the reduction x = Y(s_in - s) in (13) rests entirely on this step. Moreover, the claimed unconditional uniqueness of the trivial solution directly contradicts Theorem 2.2's existence of a non-trivial T-periodic solution and Theorem 2.3(ii)'s uniqueness of a non-trivial solution under certain conditions; the contradiction is not addressed.
  2. [§2.4.2, Lemma 2.4 and Theorem 2.2] The Schauder fixed-point argument is invalid as written. The set X = {s in ACT : 0 <= s <= s_in} is not bounded in the ACT norm because the pointwise bound does not control ||s'||_{L1}; for example, a sequence of triangle waves s_n of frequency n and amplitude s_in satisfies 0 <= s_n <= s_in but ||s_n'||_{L1} grows linearly in n. Consequently, the proof's assertion in Lemma 2.4 that '|s'(t)| <= M'' a.e. for all s in X' is false, X is not compact, and the Arzelà-Ascoli compactness step for Phi_s(X) fails. The presence of the shifted derivative term s'(t - L + kT) in the operator means the image is not smoother than X, so no equicontinuity in the ACT topology is established. Theorem 2.2 therefore does not prove the existence of a non-trivial T-periodic solution. Additionally, the derivative formula (24) contains the term (t - tau)^{alpha - 2}, which is not integrable near tau = t for alpha in (0,1); the bounds derived from it in (27) are not valid.
  3. [§2.4, Lemma 2.2 and the definition of Phi_s] The claimed equivalence between the FDE (21) and the integral equation (22) relies on the inverse operator property of the Caputo derivative with a fixed lower limit, but in the CFDS (1) the lower limit t - L moves with t. Applying the derivative to (22) produces additional boundary terms from the moving lower limit, and the shift term s(t - L + kT) is not annihilated by the CFDS in general. The paper does not prove that applying M^C_L D^alpha_t to the right-hand side of (22) recovers f(t, s(t)); without such a proof, the periodic Carathéodory solution definition and the operator Phi_s are not justified. This is a load-bearing gap because the fixed-point argument in Section 2.4.2 is formulated entirely on the integral equation.
  4. [§2.4.3, Theorem 2.3] The uniqueness proof repeatedly uses a pointwise maximum principle for the CFDS: at a point t* where delta is maximal, the proof states that M^C_L D^alpha_t delta(t*) <= 0, and at a minimum it states the derivative is >= 0. For a Caputo-type derivative with sliding memory, the value at t* depends on the whole history over [t* - L, t*], so a local extremum of delta does not control the sign of the fractional derivative; this principle is not established and is generally false. Since the contradiction arguments in Cases 1 and 2 rely entirely on these sign inferences, Theorem 2.3 does not prove uniqueness. The proof of part (ii)(b) also appeals to an unspecified 'average constraint ensures the periodic solution aligns with an equilibrium,' which is not a mathematical argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title page] The title contains broken line-break artifacts: 'Che mostat' and 'Mat hematical' should be corrected.
  2. [§2.1] The statement 'no non-trivial periodic solutions exist' is in tension with Remark 2.3, which later acknowledges that uniqueness may fail when L < T under the given conditions; the manuscript should reconcile these claims.
  3. [§3, Figure 2] The text says 100 random initial guesses are used, then states that a 'small subset' of solutions converges to the trivial solution, while the figure caption says all curves are either identical to the non-trivial profile or horizontal lines; clarify what fraction of the 100 runs produced the washout solution and why.
  4. [§2.4.1, Theorem 2.1] The proof of positivity uses the boundary behavior of s at 0 and s_in with the statement that the fractional derivative being positive forces s to increase; this is another instance of the unproven pointwise sign-to-monotonicity inference and should be either proven or stated as an assumption.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 2D-to-1D reduction and the Schauder existence proof each rely on unproved assertions that effectively assume the desired conclusion: z≡0 is asserted, and compactness of X is built into the definition.

  1. other [Section 2.1 (Eqs. (12)-(13))]
    "Because D(t) is positive, the right-hand side is non-positive and strictly negative unless z(t) = 0 a.e. For periodic z(t), the energy-like quantity cannot decrease indefinitely over successive cycles; thus, the only consistent solution is the trivial solution z(t) = 0. This implies that x(t) = Y (sin − s(t))."

    The one-dimensional reduction (16) is built on x(t)=Y(sin−s(t)), which is forced by the claim that z≡0 is the unique periodic solution of (11). That uniqueness is not derived from the energy identity (12): the statement that an energy-like quantity 'cannot decrease indefinitely' is exactly the no-nontrivial-periodic-solution property that needs proof, and the sentence 'the only consistent solution is the trivial solution' restates the conclusion. Thus the invariant relation (13) is an assumed ansatz presented as a proved uniqueness result, making the 2D-to-1D reduction circular by construction.

  2. self definitional [Notation and Preliminaries (definition of X) and Lemma 2.4]
    "X = {s ∈ ACT | 0 ≤ s(t) ≤ sin} is a compact and convex subset of ACT ... Since s ∈ X, we have ‖s‖∞ ≤ sin and ‖s′‖L1 ≤ M′ for some constant M′ > 0, as X is a bounded subset of ACT."

    Theorem 2.2 applies Schauder's theorem, which requires relative compactness of Φs(X). Lemma 2.4 attempts to prove this but uses the premise that X is bounded in the ACT norm, and later assumes |s′(t)|≤M′′ a.e.; neither follows from the pointwise bound 0≤s≤sin. The compactness needed for the fixed-point argument is already asserted in the definition of X rather than established, so the existence conclusion is obtained by taking as an input the very compactness that the theorem is supposed to provide. This is a self-definitional use of the desired hypothesis.

full rationale

Two load-bearing steps in the derivation reduce to assumptions rather than to prior equations. First, the reduction x=Y(sin−s) rests on the asserted uniqueness of z≡0; the supporting argument only restates the conclusion, so the one-dimensional model is effectively an assumed invariant manifold. Second, the Schauder existence proof relies on compactness that is declared in the definition of X and then reused in Lemma 2.4 via an unjustified uniform derivative bound; without that assumed compactness, Theorem 2.2 does not follow. These are genuine circular moves in the presented proof chain, so the score reflects partial circularity rather than mere mathematical error. The author's self-citations [9]-[12] for the CFDS and the Fourier-Gegenbauer pseudospectral method are not themselves load-bearing: the main fixed-point arguments cite external results (Schauder, Caratheodory, Diethelm-Ford inverse-operator properties), and the numerical validation is not used as the proof of existence or uniqueness. Other serious gaps, such as the questionable equivalence in Lemma 2.2 when L is a multiple of T and the unproved sign properties of the fractional derivative, are correctness risks rather than circularity and are not counted here.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces several hand-chosen parameters (alpha, L, theta, K, mu_max) and relies on a chain of assumptions: the unproved uniqueness of the trivial periodic solution, the inverse operator property of the CFDS on periodic functions, and a pointwise fractional-derivative comparison principle in the positivity proof. No novel physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are not fitted to data, which keeps the circularity burden lower than a fitted model, but the axioms above are load-bearing for the central claim.

free parameters (5)
  • fractional order alpha = 0.8 in simulations; range [0.1,1] explored
    Free parameter in the model with no external data to determine it; the paper discusses its biological interpretation but does not fit it to data.
  • sliding memory length L = 1.5 in the base configuration; {0.1,0.3,0.5,1,3,5} explored
    Chosen by hand as a modeling parameter. The paper discusses its effect but no experimental or empirical basis is given.
  • characteristic time constant theta = 1 in the base configuration; {0.1,...,1.0} explored
    Introduced to ensure dimensional consistency of the fractional-order equations; its value is chosen by hand.
  • saturation constant K = 1 in the base configuration; 2 in the washout simulation
    Contois model parameter treated as an input; no fitting to data.
  • maximum growth rate mu_max = 3.1 in the base configuration; 0.25 in the washout simulation
    Contois model parameter treated as an input; no fitting to data. Note mu_max = 3.1 is needed to satisfy D(t) < mu_max.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The trivial solution z(t) = 0 is the unique periodic solution of equation (11), asserted in Section 2.1.
    This is used as the foundation of the reduction x = Y(s_in - s), which transforms the 2-D system into a 1-D equation. The proof sketches an energy argument but does not rigorously establish uniqueness of periodic solutions for the fractional equation, so it functions as an unproved assumption at the paper's core.
  • domain assumption The CFDS inverse/operator properties used in Lemma 2.2 (fractional integral inverts the fractional derivative over the sliding window with the stated periodicity adjustment) are assumed from the cited fractional calculus literature.
    The equivalence between FDE (21) and the integral equation (22) is central to the Caratheodory framework, and the paper relies on reference [7] for the inverse property without proving it.
  • ad hoc to paper The sign of the fractional derivative at a point controls whether an absolutely continuous function can increase or decrease through that point, used in Theorem 2.1.
    The positivity proof asserts 'if s(t) = 0 at any point, then MCD_t^alpha s(t) > 0, which means s would be increasing' and similar statements for s approaching s_in. This pointwise comparison principle is not established for the CFDS and is not a standard property of Caputo-type fractional derivatives.
  • domain assumption Existence and applicability of a T-periodic absolutely continuous solution space in which Schauder's fixed-point theorem applies with compactness in ACT as sketched in Lemma 2.4.
    The proof of relative compactness of Phi_s(X) and the boundedness of derivatives ('this is possible since X is bounded in ACT') are not fully justified and depend on regularity properties of the CFDS that are only referenced, not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sustainable Water Treatment through Fractional-Order Chemostat Modeling with Sliding Memory and Periodic Boundary Conditions: A Mathematical Framework for Clean Water and Sanitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYPSKSPV

@misc{pith2026250604420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sustainable Water Treatment through Fractional-Order Chemostat Modeling with Sliding Memory and Periodic Boundary Conditions: A Mathematical Framework for Clean Water and Sanitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYPSKSPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04420}
}
read the original abstract

This work develops and analyzes a novel fractional-order chemostat system (FOCS) with a Caputo fractional derivative (CFD) featuring a sliding memory window and periodic boundary conditions (PBCs), designed to model microbial pollutant degradation in sustainable water treatment. By incorporating the Caputo fractional derivative with sliding memory (CFDS), the model captures time-dependent behaviors and memory effects in biological systems more realistically than classical integer-order formulations. We reduce the two-dimensional fractional differential equations (FDEs) governing substrate and biomass concentrations to a one-dimensional FDE by utilizing the PBCs. The existence and uniqueness of non-trivial, periodic solutions are established using the Caratheodory framework and fixed-point theorems, ensuring the system's well-posedness. We prove the positivity and boundedness of solutions, demonstrating that substrate concentrations remain within physically meaningful bounds and biomass concentrations stay strictly positive, with solution trajectories confined to a biologically feasible invariant set. Additionally, we analyze non-trivial equilibria under constant dilution rates and derive their stability properties. The rigorous mathematical results confirm the viability of FOCS models for representing memory-driven, periodic bioprocesses, offering a foundation for advanced water treatment strategies that align with Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04420 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plots illustrating the results of numerically solving the chemostat FDE (16) with Contois growth function. The panels display: (a) the approximate interpolated substrate concentration profile, (b) the dilution rate, (c) the corresponding approximate biomass concentration, and (d) the absolute residual error at collocation points, over one period T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Approximate substrate concentration profiles s(t) over one period T obtained by numerically solving the FOCM with Contois growth function for 100 different random initial guesses. These initial guesses were generated by sampling each element independently and uniformly at random from the interval [0, sin]. Each curve corresponds to a distinct initial substrate vector. The magenta dashed line represents the steady-st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time evolution of substrate concentration s(t) for various fractional orders α in the interval [0.1, 1], using the steady-state value s¯ as the initial guess for all spatial nodes. Each colored solid curve represents a different fractional order α. The dashed black line corresponds to the classical integer-order case α = 1. The dashed magenta line indicates the steady-state substrate concentration s¯ [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of substrate concentration s(t) for various memory lengths L ∈ {0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1, 3, 5}, using the steady-state value s¯ as the initial guess for all spatial nodes. Each colored solid curve represents a different value of L. The dashed black line indicat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of substrate concentration s(t) for various values of the characteristic time constant ϑ ∈ {0.1, 0.2, . . . , 1.0}, using the steady-state value s¯ as the initial guess for all spatial nodes. Each colored solid curve represents a different value of ϑ. Th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: displays the substrate concentration profiles computed for 100 random initial guesses using the config￾uration dataset D, but with µmax = 0.25 and K = 2. Under this setting, Theorem 2.3, Condition (i) guarantees that the trivial solution s(t) = sin, which is the maximu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation results of the FOCM with Contois kinetics using the FG-PS method using the bang-bang dilution rate (30) and under the remaining original parameter dataset: (a) Substrate concentration s(t) vs. steady state s¯, (b) Bang-bang dilution rate D(t) vs. average D¯,…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uniqueness and nonuniqueness criteria for ordinary differential equations, volume 6

    Ratan Prakash Agarwal, Ravi P Agarwal, and V Lakshmikant ham. Uniqueness and nonuniqueness criteria for ordinary differential equations, volume 6. World Scientific, 1993

  2. [2]

    Gradient flows: in metric spaces and in the space of probability measures

    Luigi Ambrosio, Nicola Gigli, and Giuseppe Savaré. Gradient flows: in metric spaces and in the space of probability measures. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

  3. [3]

    Dynamical an alysis of fractional-order chemostat model

    Nor Afiqah Mohd Aris and Siti Suhana Jamaian. Dynamical an alysis of fractional-order chemostat model. AIMS Biophysics, 8(2):182–197, 2021. 25

  4. [4]

    Im provement of performances of the chemostat used for continuous biological water treatment with periodic co ntrols

    Térence Bayen, Alain Rapaport, and Fatima Zahra Tani. Im provement of performances of the chemostat used for continuous biological water treatment with periodic co ntrols. Automatica, 121:109199, 2020

  5. [5]

    On periodic solutions of fractional-order differ- ential systems with a fixed length of sliding memory

    Safa Bourafa, Mohammed Salah Abdelouahab, and René Lozi . On periodic solutions of fractional-order differ- ential systems with a fixed length of sliding memory. Journal of Innovative Applied Mathematics and Compu- tational Sciences, 1(1):64–78, 2021

  6. [6]

    Theory of ordinary differential equations

    Earl A Coddington and Norman Levinson. Theory of ordinary differential equations . McGraw-Hill New Y ork, 1955

  7. [7]

    The analysis of fractional diff erential equations

    Kai Diethelm and NJ Ford. The analysis of fractional diff erential equations. Lecture notes in mathematics, 2004, 2010

  8. [8]

    Unsteady state process operat ion

    JM Douglas and DWT Rippin. Unsteady state process operat ion. Chemical Engineering Science, 21(4):305–315, 1966

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    New optimal periodic control policy fo r the optimal periodic performance of a chemostat using a Fourier–Gegenbauer-based predictor-corrector me thod

    Kareem T Elgindy. New optimal periodic control policy fo r the optimal periodic performance of a chemostat using a Fourier–Gegenbauer-based predictor-corrector me thod. Journal of Process Control, 127:102995, 2023

  2. [10]

    Fourier–Gegenbauer pseudospectral method for solving periodic fractional optimal control problems

    Kareem T Elgindy. Fourier–Gegenbauer pseudospectral method for solving periodic fractional optimal control problems. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation , 225:148–164, 2024

  3. [11]

    Fourier–Gegenbauer pseudospectral method for solving periodic higher-order fractional optimal control problems

    Kareem T Elgindy. Fourier–Gegenbauer pseudospectral method for solving periodic higher-order fractional optimal control problems. International Journal of Computational Methods , 21(07):2450015, 2024

  4. [12]

    Fourier-Gegenbauer pseudospectral method for solving time-dependent one-dimensional fractional partial differential equations with variable c oefficients and periodic solutions

    Kareem T Elgindy. Fourier-Gegenbauer pseudospectral method for solving time-dependent one-dimensional fractional partial differential equations with variable c oefficients and periodic solutions. Mathematics and Com- puters in Simulation , 218:544–555, 2024

  5. [13]

    Stability a nalysis of fractional-order chemostat model with time delay

    Nor Afiqah Mohd Aris and Siti Suhana Jamaian. Stability a nalysis of fractional-order chemostat model with time delay. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Appl ications of Science and Mathematics 2021: Sciemathic 2021 , pages 213–228. Springer, 2022

  6. [14]

    Real and complex analysis

    Walter Rudin. Real and complex analysis . McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1987

  7. [15]

    Fractio nal Adams–Bashforth/Moulton methods: An application to the fractional Keller–Segel chemotaxis system

    Mohsen Zayernouri and Anastasios Matzavinos. Fractio nal Adams–Bashforth/Moulton methods: An application to the fractional Keller–Segel chemotaxis system. Journal of Computational Physics , 317:1–14, 2016

  8. [16]

    Approximation of fractional- order Chemostat model with nonstandard finite dif- ference scheme

    M Zeinadini and M Namjoo. Approximation of fractional- order Chemostat model with nonstandard finite dif- ference scheme. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics , 46(3):469–482, 2017

  9. [17]

    A numerical method for discret e fractional-order chemostat model derived from nonstandard numerical scheme

    M Zeinadini and M Namjoo. A numerical method for discret e fractional-order chemostat model derived from nonstandard numerical scheme. Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society , 43(5):1165–1182, 2017

  10. [18]

    Fo rward dynamics and memory effect in a fractional order chemostat minimal model with non-monotonic growth

    Huijian Zhu, Y uming Peng, Yiyang Li, and Caibin Zeng. Fo rward dynamics and memory effect in a fractional order chemostat minimal model with non-monotonic growth. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems-S , 16(10):2749–2764, 2023. 26

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.