| Literature DB >> 24496313 |
Norhisam Misron1, Noor Hasmiza Harun2, Yeoh Kian Lee3, Roslina Mohd Sidek4, Ishak Aris5, Hiroyuki Wakiwaka6, Kunihisa Tashiro7.
Abstract
Among palm oil millers, the ripeness of oil palm Fresh Fruit Bunch (FFB) is determined through visual inspection. To increase the productivity of the millers, many researchers have proposed with a new detection method to replace the conventional one. The sensitivity of such a sensor plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of the method. In our preliminary study a novel oil palm fruit sensor to detect the maturity of oil palm fruit bunches is proposed. The design of the proposed air coil sensor based on an inductive sensor is further investigated to improve its sensitivity. This paper investigates the results pertaining to the effects of the air coil structure of an oil palm fruit sensor, taking consideration of the used copper wire diameter ranging from 0.10 mm to 0.18 mm with 60 turns. The flat-type shape of air coil was used on twenty samples of fruitlets from two categories, namely ripe and unripe. Samples are tested with frequencies ranging from 20 Hz to 120 MHz. The sensitivity of the sensor between air to fruitlet samples increases as the coil diameter increases. As for the sensitivity differences between ripe and unripe samples, the 5 mm air coil length with the 0.12 mm coil diameter provides the highest percentage difference between samples and it is amongst the highest deviation value between samples. The result from this study is important to improve the sensitivity of the inductive oil palm fruit sensor mainly with regards to the design of the air coil structure. The efficiency of the sensor to determine the maturity of the oil palm FFB and the ripening process of the fruitlet could further be enhanced.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24496313 PMCID: PMC3958233 DOI: 10.3390/s140202431
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Air coil flat-type shape structure (a) top view (b) 3D view.
Figure 2.Oil palm ripeness sensor holder.
Detailed dimensions for the air coil.
| Inner length, | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Outer length, | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Outer width, | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Inner width, | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Outer height, | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Inner height, | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Figure 3.Experimental setup for the flat-type air coil.
Specification for frequency characteristics experimental setup.
| Type of measurement setup | Series ( |
| Voltage (V) | 0.5 |
| Frequency (MHz) | 20–120 |
| Sweep (points) | 800 |
| No of turns | 60 |
| Coil diameter (mm) | 0.10–0.18 |
Figure 4.Fruitlet samples (a) unripe (b) ripe.
Figure 5.Measurement set-up of the resonant frequency of fruit samples (a) unripe (b) ripe.
Figure 6.Inductance characteristics of the oil palm fruit sensor.
Figure 7.The normalized resonant frequency for 5 mm air coil length.
The deviation between mean value of ripe samples and unripe samples for 5 mm air coil length.
| 0.10 | 0.994 | 0.989 | 4.73 |
| 0.12 | 0.978 | 0.967 | 11.2 |
| 0.14 | 0.986 | 0.973 | 12.9 |
| 0.16 | 0.981 | 0.974 | 6.47 |
| 0.18 | 0.988 | 0.981 | 6.84 |
Figure 8.Effects of coil diameter. (a) The Nfr for coil diameter versus air coil length, (b) The estimated marginal means versus air coil length.
The deviation between ripe to unripe samples for 5 mm air coil length.
| Coil diameter, | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.18 |
| The deviation between ripe to unripe samples | 0.405 | 1.094 | 1.053 | 0.624 | 0.724 |
The standard deviation value for all types of sensors calculated using ANOVA.
| 0.10 | 2 | 0.00202 |
| 3 | 0.00387 | |
| 4 | 0.00220 | |
| 5 | 0.00616 | |
|
| ||
| 0.12 | 2 | 0.00354 |
| 3 | 0.00283 | |
| 4 | 0.00566 | |
| 5 | 0.00495 | |
|
| ||
| 0.14 | 2 | 0.00091 |
| 3 | 0.00112 | |
| 4 | 0.00182 | |
| 5 | 0.00865 | |
|
| ||
| 0.16 | 2 | 0.00042 |
| 3 | 0.00346 | |
| 4 | 0.00331 | |
| 5 | 0.00281 | |
|
| ||
| 0.18 | 2 | 0.00395 |
| 3 | 0.00378 | |
| 4 | 0.00363 | |
| 5 | 0.00321 | |
Figure 9.Effects of air coil length. (a) The Nfr for air coil length versus coil diameter, (b) The estimated marginal means versus coil diameter.
The deviation between the mean values of ripe samples and unripe samples.
| Air coil's length, | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| The deviation between ripe to unripe samples (× 10−3) | 3.05 | 4.32 | 4.62 | 7.36 |
The standard deviation value for all types of sensors calculated using ANOVA.
| 2.00 | 0.10 | 0.00354 |
| 0.12 | 0.00141 | |
| 0.14 | 0.00071 | |
| 0.16 | 0.00000 | |
| 0.18 | 0.00354 | |
|
| ||
| 3.00 | 0.10 | 0.00354 |
| 0.12 | 0.00354 | |
| 0.14 | 0.00141 | |
| 0.16 | 0.00354 | |
| 0.18 | 0.00354 | |
|
| ||
| 4.00 | 0.10 | 0.00540 |
| 0.12 | 0.00220 | |
| 0.14 | 0.00182 | |
| 0.16 | 0.00331 | |
| 0.18 | 0.00363 | |
|
| ||
| 5.00 | 0.10 | 0.00517 |
| 0.12 | 0.00616 | |
| 0.14 | 0.00865 | |
| 0.16 | 0.00281 | |
| 0.18 | 0.00321 | |
Figure 10.Percentage difference of various coil diameter and air coil length.
The mean value of the percentage difference between ripe to unripe samples.
| Coil diameter, | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.18 |
| The deviation between ripe of unripe sample | 0.604 | 0.503 | 0.441 | 0.353 | 0.515 |