| Literature DB >> 22219666 |
Behzad Bahraminejad1, Shahnor Basri, Maryam Isa, Zarida Hambli.
Abstract
In this study, the ability of the Capillary-attached conductive gas sensor (CGS) in real-time gas identification was investigated. The structure of the prototype fabricated CGS is presented. Portions were selected from the beginning of the CGS transient response including the first 11 samples to the first 100 samples. Different feature extraction and classification methods were applied on the selected portions. Validation of methods was evaluated to study the ability of an early portion of the CGS transient response in target gas (TG) identification. Experimental results proved that applying extracted features from an early part of the CGS transient response along with a classifier can distinguish short-chain alcohols from each other perfectly. Decreasing time of exposition in the interaction between target gas and sensing element improved the reliability of the sensor. Classification rate was also improved and time of identification was decreased. Moreover, the results indicated the optimum interval of the early transient response of the CGS for selecting portions to achieve the best classification rates.Entities:
Keywords: electronic nose; feature extraction; gas sensor; transient response
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 22219666 PMCID: PMC3247711 DOI: 10.3390/s100605359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.(a) Schematic of the prototype CGS fabricated. (b) Schematic of sensing element of the CGS.
Figure 2.Schematic diagram of the measurement system designed.
Figure 3.Flow diagram of processing method applied.
Detail of the data sets and classes generated.
| Class label | Alcohol | No. of samples in each concentration | No. of total samples | No. of samplings per sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Methanol | 5 | 60 | 100 |
| 2 | Ethanol | 5 | 60 | 100 |
| 3 | 2-Propanol | 5 | 60 | 100 |
| 4 | 1-Butanol | 5 | 60 | 100 |
Figure 4.Structure of the SVM classifier applied.
Figure 5.(a) PCA Projection results of the first 25 samples selected portions of transient response. (b) The same for the first 50 samples. (c) The same for the first 75 samples. (d) The same for the first 100 samples.
Figure 6.(a) LDA Projection results of the first 25 samples selected portions of transient response. (b) The same for the first 50 samples. (c) The same for the first 75 samples. (d) The same for the first 100 samples.
Figure 7.(a) Averages of evaluated classification rates for extracted features by PCA classified by the quadrate classifier. (b) The same for k-NN classifier. (c) The same for MLP classifier. (d) The same for SVM classifier.
Figure 8.(a) Averages of evaluated classification rates for extracted features by LDA classified by the quadrate classifier and (b) The same for k-NN classifier. (c) The same for MLP classifier. (d) The same for SVM classifier.
Averages of evaluated classification rates for extracted features from baseline manipulated responses.
| Length of Sampled Feature | Feature Reduction Technique | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCA | LDA | |||||||
| Classifier | Classifier | |||||||
| Quadratic | KNN | ANN | SVM | Quadratic | KNN | ANN | SVM | |
| 11–15 | 57.55 | 75.00 | 65.40 | 70.26 | 68.88 | 70.50 | 75.59 | 81.20 |
| 16–20 | 55.61 | 72.00 | 63.96 | 71.80 | 71.43 | 72.30 | 76.62 | 81.83 |
| 21–25 | 56.30 | 66.49 | 66.43 | 71.30 | 77.55 | 74.90 | 82.99 | 79.10 |
| 26–30 | 58.88 | 74.20 | 68.84 | 69.64 | 82.14 | 83.88 | 82.95 | 79.93 |
| 31–35 | 57.04 | 69.43 | 69.31 | 65.92 | 92.86 | 85.31 | 91.75 | 79.76 |
| 36–40 | 57.35 | 72.24 | 71.33 | 66.53 | 95.41 | 93.67 | 94.27 | 81.27 |
| 41–45 | 58.78 | 70.53 | 70.83 | 70.03 | 99.49 | 98.27 | 98.36 | 85.80 |
| 46–50 | 61.12 | 71.88 | 71.71 | 69.13 | 99.49 | 98.27 | 98.47 | 88.87 |
| 51–55 | 62.65 | 76.04 | 71.87 | 70.35 | 100.00 | 99.49 | 98.00 | 98.50 |
| 56–60 | 63.06 | 82.90 | 72.17 | 72.06 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 98.83 |
| 61–65 | 62.40 | 79.96 | 70.39 | 70.45 | 100.00 | 99.59 | 99.90 | 97.30 |
| 66–70 | 62.65 | 80.50 | 72.56 | 71.31 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.08 | 97.06 |
| 71–75 | 62.45 | 79.59 | 71.51 | 70.75 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.90 | 100.00 |
| 76–80 | 62.65 | 79.47 | 73.32 | 72.70 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 98.60 |
| 81–85 | 63.98 | 81.67 | 73.36 | 72.08 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.80 | 100.00 |
| 86–90 | 64.20 | 79.84 | 73.80 | 73.16 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.90 | 99.09 |
| 91–95 | 63.90 | 78.73 | 73.97 | 73.56 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.50 |
| 96–100 | 64.40 | 79.96 | 74.00 | 73.70 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
Averages of evaluated classification rates for extracted features by gradient method.
| Length of Sampled Feature | Feature Reduction Technique | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCA | LDA | |||||||
| Classifier | Classifier | |||||||
| Quadratic | KNN | ANN | SVM | Quadratic | KNN | ANN | SVM | |
| 11–15 | 55.31 | 63.78 | 66.73 | 71.30 | 73.67 | 63.67 | 73.98 | 77.80 |
| 16–20 | 57.14 | 60.71 | 67.30 | 72.10 | 74.39 | 72.65 | 74.92 | 76.25 |
| 21–25 | 58.98 | 60.50 | 62.66 | 72.04 | 79.18 | 80.71 | 80.94 | 75.66 |
| 26–30 | 58.98 | 64.60 | 66.85 | 71.34 | 86.53 | 88.98 | 85.08 | 79.86 |
| 31–35 | 57.86 | 65.61 | 70.97 | 70.80 | 94.90 | 93.27 | 91.91 | 79.25 |
| 36–40 | 59.08 | 64.69 | 70.39 | 72.23 | 98.57 | 97.45 | 95.60 | 80.95 |
| 41–45 | 58.57 | 65.70 | 69.66 | 71.65 | 99.49 | 99.90 | 99.18 | 86.05 |
| 46–50 | 59.69 | 66.12 | 71.70 | 73.18 | 99.10 | 99.39 | 98.98 | 90.50 |
| 51–55 | 61.12 | 70.51 | 72.10 | 71.70 | 98.98 | 100.00 | 99.20 | 97.18 |
| 56–60 | 62.45 | 72.30 | 69.74 | 70.43 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.90 | 100.00 |
| 61–65 | 62.04 | 72.55 | 70.68 | 69.52 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 66–70 | 60.82 | 71.02 | 72.17 | 71.90 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 71–75 | 61.00 | 74.29 | 72.80 | 71.99 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.50 |
| 76–80 | 60.71 | 72.14 | 72.30 | 72.08 | 100.00 | 99.30 | 99.69 | 100.00 |
| 81–85 | 62.14 | 74.49 | 72.80 | 73.21 | 100.00 | 99.69 | 99.80 | 99.10 |
| 86–90 | 63.88 | 75.92 | 72.58 | 72.66 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.22 |
| 91–95 | 65.00 | 73.98 | 71.22 | 74.06 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.70 | 100.00 |
| 96–100 | 65.00 | 75.20 | 74.24 | 72.07 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.02 |
Averages of evaluated classification rates for extracted features by FFT method.
| Length of Sampled Feature | Feature Reduction Technique | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCA | LDA | |||||||
| Classifier | Classifier | |||||||
| Quadratic | KNN | ANN | SVM | Quadratic | KNN | ANN | SVM | |
| 11–15 | 35.41 | 24.80 | 34.47 | 72.30 | 34.39 | 50.92 | 57.17 | 65.17 |
| 16–20 | 35.82 | 20.00 | 33.40 | 73.40 | 35.51 | 53.47 | 62.40 | 68.30 |
| 21–25 | 36.12 | 19.10 | 32.50 | 73.10 | 36.73 | 63.47 | 61.35 | 63.35 |
| 26–30 | 34.30 | 20.30 | 36.00 | 68.50 | 41.40 | 67.96 | 73.69 | 64.71 |
| 31–35 | 34.39 | 21.40 | 35.86 | 71.20 | 40.61 | 71.53 | 73.29 | 64.29 |
| 36–40 | 35.71 | 18.78 | 36.79 | 70.30 | 35.71 | 87.04 | 90.05 | 68.84 |
| 41–45 | 34.49 | 18.27 | 35.98 | 69.93 | 34.80 | 94.69 | 89.69 | 63.27 |
| 46–50 | 35.92 | 20.92 | 35.10 | 71.77 | 34.20 | 89.59 | 93.57 | 65.90 |
| 51–55 | 36.43 | 22.45 | 33.97 | 72.61 | 24.90 | 71.22 | 58.78 | 67.61 |
| 56–60 | 36.53 | 22.96 | 32.61 | 71.83 | 25.71 | 66.12 | 58.50 | 64.19 |
| 61–65 | 34.18 | 25.41 | 34.29 | 73.79 | 23.98 | 65.10 | 56.70 | 70.00 |
| 66–70 | 32.45 | 25.00 | 37.56 | 72.35 | 23.16 | 67.04 | 56.11 | 74.90 |
| 71–75 | 30.31 | 24.29 | 38.50 | 71.59 | 27.04 | 66.84 | 48.88 | 74.60 |
| 76–80 | 29.39 | 23.16 | 39.03 | 72.34 | 21.12 | 58.98 | 47.26 | 78.21 |
| 81–85 | 28.98 | 21.73 | 42.09 | 71.33 | 26.02 | 61.94 | 46.94 | 87.12 |
| 86–90 | 27.96 | 17.65 | 42.59 | 72.53 | 26.12 | 57.24 | 52.48 | 85.21 |
| 91–95 | 28.37 | 16.33 | 42.75 | 71.19 | 22.96 | 57.86 | 54.14 | 84.89 |
| 96–100 | 28.37 | 13.57 | 42.80 | 72.33 | 22.24 | 55.31 | 54.90 | 87.30 |