| Literature DB >> 22346587 |
Kai Song1, Qi Wang, Qi Liu, Hongquan Zhang, Yingguo Cheng.
Abstract
This paper describes the design and implementation of a wireless electronic nose (WEN) system which can online detect the combustible gases methane and hydrogen (CH(4)/H(2)) and estimate their concentrations, either singly or in mixtures. The system is composed of two wireless sensor nodes--a slave node and a master node. The former comprises a Fe(2)O(3) gas sensing array for the combustible gas detection, a digital signal processor (DSP) system for real-time sampling and processing the sensor array data and a wireless transceiver unit (WTU) by which the detection results can be transmitted to the master node connected with a computer. A type of Fe(2)O(3) gas sensor insensitive to humidity is developed for resistance to environmental influences. A threshold-based least square support vector regression (LS-SVR)estimator is implemented on a DSP for classification and concentration measurements. Experimental results confirm that LS-SVR produces higher accuracy compared with artificial neural networks (ANNs) and a faster convergence rate than the standard support vector regression (SVR). The designed WEN system effectively achieves gas mixture analysis in a real-time process.Entities:
Keywords: DSP; Fe2O3 gas sensor; combustible gas detection; humidity insensitivity; least square support vector regression; wireless electronic nose
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22346587 PMCID: PMC3274112 DOI: 10.3390/s110100485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Block diagram of the WEN system.
Figure 2.Fabrication diagram of the sintered Fe2O3 gas sensing device.
Figure 3.Sensitivity characteristics of the Fe2O3 gas sensor.
Response and recovery time of Fe2O3 gas sensor at 2,000 ppm CH4 and H2.
| 5 | 9 | |
| 15 | 29 |
Figure 4.Humidity characteristic of Fe2O3 gas sensor.
Figure 5.Temperature characteristics of the Fe2O3 gas sensor.
Figure 6.Photographs of the WEN system including slave node, master node and PC.
Figure 7.Flow diagram of the DSP program.
Figure 8.Wireless communication protocol.
Figure 9.Flow diagram of the WTU program.
Concentration ranges of target odors for training. The symbol (√)in the table denotes the selected training samples.
| √ | √ | √ | √ | ||
| √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Figure 10.The average steady-state response distribution of the sensor array for the three target odors (CH4, H2 and their mixtures) in the training experiments.
Experimental results for validation using LS-SVR.
| 1 | 2,000 | 0 | 2,176 | 0 | 8.8 | 0.0 |
| 2 | 4,000 | 0 | 3,928 | 0 | 1.8 | 0.0 |
| 3 | 6,000 | 0 | 5,736 | 0 | 4.4 | 0.0 |
| 4 | 0 | 2,000 | 0 | 2,091 | 0.0 | 4.6 |
| 5 | 0 | 4,000 | 0 | 3,991 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| 6 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,089 | 2,255 | 4.5 | 12.8 |
| 7 | 2,000 | 4,000 | 1,979 | 4,308 | 1.1 | 7.7 |
| 8 | 4,000 | 2,000 | 4,141 | 2,017 | 3.5 | 0.9 |
| 9 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,232 | 3,673 | 5.8 | 8.2 |
| 10 | 6,000 | 2,000 | 5,996 | 2,077 | 0.1 | 3.9 |
| 11 | 6,000 | 4,000 | 6,149 | 3,890 | 2.5 | 2.8 |
Figure 11.On-line measurement result of the WEN system for the arbitrarily selected analyte.
Experimental results of quantitative measurement using standard SVR.
| 1 | 2,000 | 0 | 2,150 | 0 | 7.5 | 0.0 |
| 2 | 4,000 | 0 | 3,921 | 0 | 2.0 | 0.0 |
| 3 | 6,000 | 0 | 5,846 | 0 | 2.6 | 0.0 |
| 4 | 0 | 2,000 | 0 | 1,888 | 0.0 | 5.6 |
| 5 | 0 | 4,000 | 0 | 3,927 | 0.0 | 1.8 |
| 6 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,037 | 2,361 | 1.9 | 18.1 |
| 7 | 2,000 | 4,000 | 1,865 | 4,426 | 6.8 | 10.7 |
| 8 | 4,000 | 2,000 | 4,046 | 2,026 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| 9 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,115 | 3,726 | 2.9 | 6.9 |
| 10 | 6,000 | 2,000 | 6,033 | 2,197 | 0.6 | 9.9 |
| 11 | 6,000 | 4,000 | 6,132 | 3,987 | 2.2 | 0.3 |
Experimental results of quantitative measurement using BP-ANNs.
| 1 | 2,000 | 0 | 2,310 | 0 | 15.5 | 0.0 |
| 2 | 4,000 | 0 | 3,831 | 0 | 4.2 | 0.0 |
| 3 | 6,000 | 0 | 5,814 | 0 | 3.1 | 0.0 |
| 4 | 0 | 2,000 | 0 | 2,059 | 0.0 | 3.0 |
| 5 | 0 | 4,000 | 0 | 4,111 | 0.0 | 2.8 |
| 6 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,105 | 2,396 | 5.3 | 19.8 |
| 7 | 2,000 | 4,000 | 1,933 | 4,352 | 3.4 | 8.8 |
| 8 | 4,000 | 2,000 | 4,036 | 2,192 | 0.9 | 9.6 |
| 9 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,224 | 3,787 | 5.6 | 5.3 |
| 10 | 6,000 | 2,000 | 6,053 | 2,116 | 0.9 | 5.8 |
| 11 | 6,000 | 4,000 | 6,303 | 3,931 | 5.1 | 1.7 |
Performance evaluation of the three methods.
| CH4 | 0.9981 | 0.9990 | 0.9972 |
| H2 | 0.9948 | 0.9925 | 0.9944 |
| 0.0238 | 12.8440 | 115.9940 | |