| Literature DB >> 30934812 |
Wenshen Jia1,2,3,4, Gang Liang5,6,7, Hui Tian8,9,10,11, Jing Sun12,13, Cihui Wan14.
Abstract
In this study, the PEN3 electronic nose was used to detect and recognize fresh and moldy apples inoculated with Penicillium expansum and Aspergillus niger, taking Golden Delicious apples as the model subject. Firstly, the apples were divided into two groups: individual apple inoculated only with/without different molds (Group A) and mixed apples of inoculated apples with fresh apples (Group B). Then, the characteristic gas sensors of the PEN3 electronic nose that were most closely correlated with the flavor information of the moldy apples were optimized and determined to simplify the analysis process and improve the accuracy of the results. Four pattern recognition methods, including linear discriminant analysis (LDA), backpropagation neural network (BPNN), support vector machines (SVM), and radial basis function neural network (RBFNN), were applied to analyze the data obtained from the characteristic sensors, aiming at establishing the prediction model of the flavor information and fresh/moldy apples. The results showed that only the gas sensors of W1S, W2S, W5S, W1W, and W2W in the PEN3 electronic nose exhibited a strong signal response to the flavor information, indicating most were closely correlated with the characteristic flavor of apples and thus the data obtained from these characteristic sensors were used for modeling. The results of the four pattern recognition methods showed that BPNN had the best prediction performance for the training and testing sets for both Groups A and B, with prediction accuracies of 96.3% and 90.0% (Group A), 77.7% and 72.0% (Group B), respectively. Therefore, we demonstrate that the PEN3 electronic nose not only effectively detects and recognizes fresh and moldy apples, but also can distinguish apples inoculated with different molds.Entities:
Keywords: apple; artificial neural network; electronic nose; mildew; nondestructive examination; pattern recognition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30934812 PMCID: PMC6479952 DOI: 10.3390/s19071526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Performance of the sensor arrays of the PEN3 electronic nose.
| No. in Array | Sensor Name | Reaction Compound | Typical Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | W1C | Aromatic compounds | C6H5CH3 |
| R2 | W5S | Oxynitride | NO2 |
| R3 | W3C | Aromatic constituents, mainly ammonia | C6H6 |
| R4 | W6S | Hydrogen | H2 |
| R5 | W5C | Alkanes, aromatic compounds | C3H8 |
| R6 | W1S | Broad Methane | CH4 |
| R7 | W1W | Sulfides and organic sulfides | H2S |
| R8 | W2S | Broad alcohols | C2H5OH |
| R9 | W2W | Aromatics, organic sulfides | H2S |
| R10 | W3S | Alkanes, especially methane | CH4 |
Experimental apple information of different sample groups.
| Sample Group | Training Set | Testing Set | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Samples | Number of Apples | Training Samples | Number of Apples | ||
| Group A | Fresh | 54 | 54 | 10 | 10 |
|
| 54 | 54 | 10 | 10 | |
|
| 54 | 54 | 10 | 10 | |
| Group B | Fresh | 49 | 490 | 9 | 90 |
|
| 45 | 450 | 8 | 72 a | |
|
| 45 | 450 | 8 | 72 a | |
a fresh apples; b moldy apples.
Figure 1Time-dependent data response of the PEN3 electronic nose.
Figure 2Cultured molds: (a) culture medium without mold; (b) Penicilliumex pansum; and (c) Aspergillus niger. Conditions: culture at 25 °C for 5 days; dish: 90 mm.
Figure 3Single apple samples inoculated with different molds: (a) no mold (fresh apple); (b) Penicillium expansum; and (c) Aspergillus niger; (d) Canned apple samples inoculated with single mold (fresh apples: moldy apple = 9:1). Conditions: maintained at 4 °C for 5 days.
Figure 4The gas sensors responses of the PEN3 electronic nose to apples inoculated with different molds.
Recognition accuracies of the four algorithms for the two groups of apples.
| Sample Group | Algorithm | Recognition Rate of Training Set | Recognition Rate of Testing Set |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | LDA | 79.6% | 66.7% |
| SVM | 94.4% | 80.0% | |
| RBFNN | 88.9% | 83.3% | |
| BPNN | 96.3% | 90.0% | |
| Group B | LDA | 68.4% | 64.0% |
| SVM | 70.5% | 64.0% | |
| RBFNN | 71.9% | 68.0% | |
| BPNN | 77.7% | 72.0% |
LDA-linear discriminant analysis; SVMs-support vector machines; RBFNN-radial basis function neural network; BPNN-backpropagation neural network.
Figure 5Diagram of the RBFNN iteration process result.