| Literature DB >> 31205337 |
Monzurul Islam1, Khan A Wahid1, Anh V Dinh1, Pankaj Bhowmik2.
Abstract
Onion is perishable and thereby subject to drying during unrefrigerated storage. Its moisture content is important to ensure optimum quality in storage. To track and analyze the dynamics of natural dehydration in onion and also to assess its moisture content, noninvasive and nondestructive methods are preferred. One of them is known as electrical impedance spectroscopy (or EIS in short). In the first phase of our experiment, we have used EIS, where we apply alternating current with multiple frequency to the object (onion in this case) and generate impedance spectrum which is used to characterize the object. We then develop an equivalent electrical circuit representing onion characteristics using a computer assisted optimization technique that allows us to monitor the response of onion undergoing natural drying for a duration of 3 weeks. The developed electrical model shows better congruence with the impedance data measured experimentally when compared to other conventional models for plant tissue with a mean absolute error of 0.42% and root mean squared error of 0.55%. In the second phase of our experiment, we attempted to find a correlation between the previous impedance data and the actual moisture content of the onions under test (measured by weighing) and developed a mathematical model. This model will provide an alternative tool for assessing the moisture content of onion nondestructively. Our model shows excellent correlation with the ground truth data with a deterministic coefficient of 0.9767, root mean square error of 0.02976 and sum of squared error of 0.01329. Therefore, our two models will offer plant scientists the ability to study the physiological status of onion both qualitatively and quantitatively.Entities:
Keywords: Bioimpedance; Dehydration; Electrical impedance spectroscopy; Moisture content; Onion
Year: 2019 PMID: 31205337 PMCID: PMC6542975 DOI: 10.1007/s13197-019-03590-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Food Sci Technol ISSN: 0022-1155 Impact factor: 2.701
Fig. 1Measurement of electrical impedance: impedance measurement using two-electrode technique (a); impedance measurement by four-electrode technique (b); schematic illustration for the EIS measurement system of onion (c); experimental device for electrical impedance spectroscopy measurement of onion (d); 4-wire Kelvin clips for impedance measurement (e)
Fig. 2Existing equivalent circuit models for general plant tissue: Hayden model (Hayden et al. 1969) (a); simplified Hayden model (Wu et al. 2008) (b); CPE-modified model (Itagaki et al. 2002) (c); double shell model (Harker and Maindonald 1994) (d); our proposed model for onion dehydration (e)
Fig. 3Impedance response of onion during dehydration: impedance versus frequency plot (a); phase angle versus frequency plot (b); real part of impedance versus frequency plot (c); imaginary part of impedance versus frequency plot (d); reactance versus resistance plot (Nyquist plot) (e); experimental fit and simulated fit of all models at day 18 (f)
Comparison of fitting performance of different models
| Model | Mean absolute error (%) | Root mean squared error (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real part of Z | Imaginary part of Z | Real part of Z | Imaginary part of Z | |
| Hayden (Hayden et al. | 4.52 | 14.23 | 5.14 | 21.77 |
| Simplified Hayden (Wu et al. | 5.81 | 14.46 | 6.57 | 18.89 |
| Double-shell (Harker and Maindonald | 1.16 | 2.55 | 1.63 | 3.17 |
| CPE-modified (Itagaki et al. | 1.13 | 1.34 | 1.30 | 2.85 |
| Proposed | 0.42 | 0.48 | 0.55 | 0.58 |
Fig. 4Moisture content variations: at different time of drying period (a); correlation with impedance at 0.5 kHz (b); correlation with impedance at 1.1 kHz (c); correlation with impedance at 5 kHz (d); correlation with impedance at 10 kHz (e); estimation of relative moisture content using impedance per unit weight (f)
Estimation of relative moisture content and corresponding performance indices
| Frequency (kHz) | Model | SSE | R-square | RMSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | M = p1 × Z(w) + p2 | 0.0104 | 0.9350 | 0.0510 |
| p1 = − 0.0001792 | ||||
| p2 = 7.352 | ||||
| 1.1 | M = p1 × Z(w) + p2 | 0.0066 | 0.9588 | 0.0406 |
| p1 = − 0.0002046 | ||||
| p2 = 7.355 | ||||
| 5 | M = p1 × Z(w) + p2 | 0.0015 | 0.9903 | 0.0196 |
| p1 = − 0.0002528 | ||||
| p2 = 7.187 | ||||
| 10 | M = p1 × Z(w) + p2 | 0.0009 | 0.9938 | 0.0157 |
| p1 = − 0.0003032 | ||||
| p2 = 7.119 |