| Literature DB >> 26217723 |
Jordi Fonollosa1, Irene Rodríguez-Luján1, Ramón Huerta1.
Abstract
To address drift in chemical sensing, an extensive dataset was collected over a period of three years. An array of 16 metal-oxide gas sensors was exposed to six different volatile organic compounds at different concentration levels under tightly-controlled operating conditions. Moreover, the generated dataset is suitable to tackle a variety of challenges in chemical sensing such as sensor drift, sensor failure or system calibration. The data is related to "Chemical gas sensor drift compensation using classifier ensembles", by Vergara et al. [1], and "On the calibration of sensor arrays for pattern recognition using the minimal number of experiments", by Rodriguez-Lujan et al. [2] The dataset can be accessed publicly at the UCI repository upon citation of: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Gas+Sensor+Array+Drift+Dataset+at+Different+Concentrations.Entities:
Keywords: Chemical sensing; Chemometrics; Electronic nose; Machine learning; Machine olfaction
Year: 2015 PMID: 26217723 PMCID: PMC4510048 DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2015.01.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Data Brief ISSN: 2352-3409
Fig. 1Experimental setup used for data acquisition. The sensor responses are recorded in the presence of the analyte in gaseous form diluted at different concentrations in dry air. The measurement system operates under a fully computerized environment with minimal human intervention, which provides versatility in conveying the chemicals of interest to the sensing chamber with high accuracy, and simultaneously to keep the total flow constant. Therefore, no changes in the flow or flow dynamics are reflected in the sensor response, (i.e., only the presence of a gas sample will induce the sensor conductivity to change). Moreover, since the system is continuously supplying gas to the sensing chamber (either clean dry air or a chemical component), the amount of gas molecules in the sensing chamber is homogeneously distributed.
Tested volatiles and concentration levels.
| Volatile | Tested concentration levels |
|---|---|
| Ammonia | 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 125, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 175, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 225, 230, 240, 250, 260, 270, 275, 280, 290, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 600, 700, 750, 800, 900, 950, 1000 |
| Acetaldehyde | 5, 10, 13, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 90, 100, 120, 125, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 175, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 225, 230, 240, 250, 275, 300, 500 |
| Acetone | 12, 25, 38, 50, 60, 62, 70, 75, 80, 88, 90, 100, 110, 120, 125, 130, 140, 150, 170, 175, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 225, 230, 240, 250, 260, 270, 275, 280, 290, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 1000 |
| Ethylene | 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 90, 100, 110, 120, 125, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 175, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 225, 230, 240, 250, 275, 300 |
| Ethanol | 10, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 125, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 175, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 225, 230, 240, 250, 275, 500, 600 |
| Toluene | 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65,70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100 |
Data distribution over the 36 months.
| Batch | Months | Number of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | Ethylene | Ammonia | Acetaldehyde | Acetone | Toluene | ||
| 1 | 1,2 | 83 | 30 | 70 | 98 | 90 | 74 |
| 2 | 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 | 100 | 109 | 532 | 334 | 164 | 5 |
| 3 | 11, 12, 13 | 216 | 240 | 275 | 490 | 365 | 0 |
| 4 | 14, 15 | 12 | 30 | 12 | 43 | 64 | 0 |
| 5 | 16 | 20 | 46 | 63 | 40 | 28 | 0 |
| 6 | 17, 18, 19, 20 | 110 | 29 | 606 | 574 | 514 | 467 |
| 7 | 21 | 360 | 744 | 630 | 662 | 649 | 568 |
| 8 | 22, 23 | 40 | 33 | 143 | 30 | 30 | 18 |
| 9 | 24, 30 | 100 | 75 | 78 | 55 | 61 | 101 |
| 10 | 36 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 |
| Subject area | |
| More specific subject area | |
| Type of data | |
| How data was acquired | |
| Data format | |
| Experimental factors | |
| Experimental features | |
| Data source location | |
| Data accessibility | |