## 3 Results and Discussions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & & \\ \hline \(N\) & \(Le\) & \(Nu_{x}Ra_{x}-1/2\) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(Sh_{x}Ra_{x}-1/2\)} \\ \hline  & & **[PERSON] and [PERSON] [12]** & Present Study & **[PERSON] and [PERSON] [12]** & **Present Study** \\ \hline
4 & 1 & 0.992 & 0.9922 & 0.992 & 0.9922 \\  & 10 & 0.681 & 0.6810 & 3.290 & 3.2892 \\  & 100 & 0.521 & 0.5208 & 10.521 & 10.5192 \\
3 & 1 & 0.888 & 0.8875 & 0.888 & 0.8875 \\  & 10 & 0.634 & 0.6345 & 2.973 & 2.9726 \\  & 100 & 0.506 & 0.5064 & 9.532 & 9.5299 \\
2 & 1 & 0.769 & 0.7686 & 0.769 & 0.7686 \\  & 10 & 0.582 & 0.5824 & 2.617 & 2.6169 \\  & 100 & 0.490 & 0.4899 & 8.424 & 8.4219 \\
1 & 1 & 0.628 & 0.6275 & 0.628 & 0.6275 \\  & 10 & 0.521 & 0.5214 & 2.202 & 2.2021 \\  & 100 & 0.470 & 0.4700 & 7.139 & 7.1391 \\ \hline  & & **(b)** & & & \\ \hline \(N\) & \(Le\) & \(Nu_{x}Ra_{x}-1/2\) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(Sh_{x}Ra_{x}-1/2\)} \\ \hline  & & **[PERSON] and Khair [12]** & **Present Study** & **[PERSON] and Khair [12]** & **Present Study** \\ \hline
0 & 1 & 0.444 & 0.4437 & 0.444 & 0.4437 \\  & 10 & 0.444 & 0.4438 & 1.680 & 1.6803 \\  & 100 & 0.444 & 0.4438 & 5.544 & 5.5448 \\ \(-1\) & & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ \(-2.0\) & 1 & 0.444 & 0.4437 & 0.444 & 0.4437 \\ \(-3.0\) & 1 & 0.628 & 0.6275 & 0.628 & 0.6275 \\ \(-4.0\) & 1 & 0.769 & 0.7686 & 0.769 & 0.7686 \\  & 2 & 0.627 & 0.6266 & 1.046 & 1.0455 \\ \(-5.0\) & 1 & 0.888 & 0.8875 & 0.888 & 0.8875 \\  & 2 & 0.739 & 0.7390 & 1.220 & 1.2202 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of the values of the local Nusselt and Sherwood numbers with Bejan and Khair [12] for various parameters of \(N\) and \(Le\). Figure 2a-c shows the effect of suction/blowing strength on the velocity, temperature, and concentration distributions. Because the suction effect will decrease the flow velocity and lead the maximum velocity to approach the wall surface, the suction/blowing parameter increases with decreasing maximum fluid velocity and temperature. It could also be seen that the zone in the concentration boundary layer becomes thinner for the larger suction/blowing parameter. Figure 3a-c shows the results of the inertia effect on the velocity, temperature, and concentration profiles for different values of \(\gamma\). The velocity increases, but the temperature and concentration profiles decrease with increasing \(\gamma\). As the \(\gamma\) value increases, i.e., the permeability increases, the flow velocity becomes faster, bringing the warm fluid and species away from the wall to get a lower temperature and concentration. Parameter \(N\) denotes the buoyancy ratio intensity produced from the concentration expansion to the thermal one. Figure 4a-c shows the effects of the buoyancy ratio \(N\) on velocity, temperature, and concentration. Positive \(N\) values indicate the buoyancy forces by concentration and thermal expansions are in the same direction and enhance the flow speed, whereas negative \(N\) values indicate the opposite flow conditions. Increasing the buoyancy ratio will increase the buoyancy-induced flow velocity and decrease the temperature and concentration. Figure 2: _Cont._  
Figure 2: **(a–c)** Velocity, temperature, and concentration profiles, respectively, with different suction/blowing parameters at \(\xi=1.0\), \(n=1.0\), \(Sc=1.0\), \(N=1.0\), \(\gamma=2.01\), \(\varepsilon=0.45\), \(\kappa=0.5\), and \(Nt=1.0\). Figure 3: _Cont._  
Figure 4: Cont. Figure 3: (**a–c**) Velocity, temperature, and concentration profiles, respectively, with different inertial parameters at \(\xi=1.0\), \(n=1.0\), \(Sc=1.0\), \(N=1.0\), \(f_{w}=0.0\), \(\kappa=0.5\), and \(Nt=1.0\). Figure 4: (**a–c**) Velocity, temperature, and concentration profiles, respectively, with different buoyancy ratio at \(\xi=1.0\), \(n=1.0\), \(Sc=1.0\), \(\gamma=2.01\), \(\varepsilon=0.45\), \(f_{w}=0.0\), \(\kappa=0.5\), and \(Nt=1.0\). correspond to a thinner concentration boundary layer.