| Literature DB >> 35327259 |
Jinchao Xu1, Ruiqin Ma2, Stevan Stankovski3, Xue Liu4, Xiaoshuan Zhang1.
Abstract
With the enhancement of consumers' food safety awareness, consumers have become more stringent on meat quality. This study constructs an intelligent dynamic prediction model based on knowledge rules and integrates flexible humidity sensors into the non-destructive monitoring of the Internet of Things to provide real-time feedback and dynamic adjustments for the chilled chicken cold chain. The optimized sensing equipment can be attached to the inside of the packaging to deal with various abnormal situations during the cold chain, effectively improving the packaging effect. Through correlation analysis of collected data and knowledge rule extraction of critical factors in the cold chain, the established quality evaluation and prediction model achieved detailed chilled chicken quality level classification and intelligent quality prediction. The obtained results show that the accuracy of the prediction model is higher than 90.5%, and all the regression coefficients are close to 1.00. The relevant personnel (workers and cold chain managers) were invited to participate in the performance analysis and optimization suggestion to improve the applicability of the established prediction model. The optimized model can provide a more efficient theoretical reference for timely decision-making and further e-commerce management.Entities:
Keywords: chilled chicken; flexible sensing; intelligent dynamic prediction model; knowledge rules; quality evaluation standard
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327259 PMCID: PMC8949369 DOI: 10.3390/foods11060836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Intelligent dynamic quality prediction model based on knowledge rules and evaluation standard. (a) Model construction; (b) Prediction model design; (c) Prediction model parameter optimization.
Figure 2The monitoring equipment architecture. (a) The hardware architecture; (b) Multi-parameter information collection circuit diagram; (c) Flexible humidity sensor block diagram; (d) Flexible humidity sensing mechanism; (e) Flexible sensor fabrication process; (f) Comparison experiment between flexible humidity sensor and conventional sensor.
Parameter performance of various sensors in chilled chicken transportation.
| ID | Types | Measured Parameters | Measuring Range | Resolution | Accuracy | Power |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AJD-O2 | O2 | 0–25% | – | ±0.5% | 200 mW |
| 2 | AJD-CO2 | CO2 | 0–5000 ppm | – | ±50 ppm | 25 mW |
| 3 | AJD-H2S | H2S | 0–1000 ppm | ±10 ppm | 220 mW | |
| 4 | ST11 | Temperature | −40~80 °C | 0.1 °C | ±0.2 °C | 1–30 uW |
| 5 | TH-2303 | Humidity | 0–99% RH | 0.1% RH | ±0.5% RH | 1–30 uW |
The specific evaluation standard of chilled chicken.
| Evaluation Standard | Color | Smell | Tissue |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Bright red and shiny | Originally normal smell | Very tight and elastic |
| 4 | Light red and shiny | Normal smell | Tight and elastic |
| 3 | Light red and dull | Normal smell becomes lighter | Loose and inelastic |
| 2 | Dim color | Normal smell disappeared and slightly peculiar | More loose |
| 1 | Dark brown with some green | Smelly or ammonia smell | Very loose |
Figure 3Sensor performance evaluation: (a) Sensor microstructure characterization; (b) Sensor static characteristic test; (c) Sensor dynamic response characteristic test; (d) Sensor flexibility test; (e) Sensor stability test.
Figure 4Quality change affected by gas concentration at different temperatures: (a) 0 °C; (b) 4 °C; (c) 8 °C; (d) 20 °C.
Correlation matrix analysis of different indicators.
| RH | H2S | O2 | CO2 | TVB−N | Sensory | ΔE | Hardness | Chewiness | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 °C | RH | 1 | ||||||||
| H2S | 0.489 | 1 | ||||||||
| O2 | −0.588 | −0.942 * | 1 | |||||||
| CO2 | 0.639 | 0.971 * | −0.987 * | 1 | ||||||
| TVB−N | 0.779 | 0.994 ** | −0.941 * | 0.980 * | 1 | |||||
| Sensory | −0.812 * | −0.852 * | 0.948 * | −0.952 * | −0.886 * | 1 | ||||
| ΔE | 0.937 * | 0.771 | −0.799 | 0.890 | 0.918 | −0.969 | 1 | |||
| Hardness | −0.821 * | −0.905 * | 0.923 * | −0.975 * | −0.988 * | 1.000 ** | −0.969 * | 1 | ||
| Chewiness | −0.811 | −0.912 * | 0.930 * | −0.979 * | −0.990 * | 1.000 * | −0.964 | 1.000 * | 1 | |
| 8 °C | RH | 1 | ||||||||
| H2S | 0.153 | 1 | ||||||||
| O2 | −0.571 | −0.834 * | 1 | |||||||
| CO2 | 0.481 | 0.888 * | −0.956 ** | 1 | ||||||
| TVB−N | 0.843 * | 0.970 * | −0.933 ** | 0.978 ** | 1 | |||||
| Sensory | −0.868 * | −0.858 * | 0.921 ** | −0.929 ** | −0.949 ** | 1 | ||||
| ΔE | 0.548 | 0.654 | −0.662 | 0.525 | 0.529 | −0.733 * | 1 | |||
| Hardness | −0.565 | −0.532 | 0.949 ** | −0.981 ** | −0.981 ** | 0.952 ** | −0.743 * | 1 | ||
| Chewiness | −0.251 | −0.521 | 0.817 ** | −0.905 ** | −0.877 ** | 0.787 * | −0.486 | 0.857 ** | 1 | |
| 4 °C | RH | 1 | ||||||||
| H2S | 0.153 | 1 | ||||||||
| O2 | −0.571 | −0.786 * | 1 | |||||||
| CO2 | 0.481 | 0.824 | −0.940 ** | 1 | ||||||
| TVB−N | 0.723 | 0.911 * | −0.978 ** | 0.981 ** | 1 | |||||
| Sensory | −0.686 | −0.802 | 0.950 ** | −0.890 ** | −0.955 ** | 1 | ||||
| ΔE | 0.505 | 0.540 | −0.877 ** | 0.864 ** | 0.875 ** | −0.841 ** | 1 | |||
| Hardness | −0.532 | −0.325 | 0.749 * | −0.592 | −0.692 * | 0.790 ** | −0.572 | 1 | ||
| Chewiness | −0.268 | −0.367 | 0.652 * | −0.776 ** | −0.743 * | 0.676 * | −0.520 | 0.346 | 1 | |
| 0 °C | RH | 1 | ||||||||
| H2S | 0.226 | 1 | ||||||||
| O2 | −0.963 ** | −0.522 | 1 | |||||||
| CO2 | 0.320 | 0.763 * | −0.357 | 1 | ||||||
| TVB−N | 0.878 * | 0.782 | −0.723 * | 0.840 ** | 1 | |||||
| Sensory | 0.841 * | −0.685 | 0.615 * | −0.759 ** | −0.945 ** | 1 | ||||
| ΔE | 0.494 | 0.398 | −0.600 | 0.822 ** | 0.924 ** | −0.893 ** | 1 | |||
| Hardness | −0.505 | −0.288 | 0.553 | −0.859 ** | −0.897 ** | 0.834 ** | −0.936 ** | 1 | ||
| Chewiness | −0.366 | −0.285 | 0.511 | −0.175 | −0.532 | 0.657 * | −0.521 | 0.362 | 1 | |
* indicates that the linear correlation is significant, ** indicates that the linear correlation is more significant. p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 5Different quality characteristics of chilled chicken. (a) Color Change; (b) TPA (color, hardness, and chewiness) changes at different temperatures; (c) Sensory evaluation; (d) TVB-N.
Figure 6The quality evaluation standard based on knowledge rules under different conditions.
Figure 7The performance analysis of the improved prediction model. (a) The absolute error of TVB-N; (b) The relative error of the TVB-N; (c) The absolute error of sensory evaluation; (d) The relative error of sensory evaluation.
Figure 8The actual cold chain of chilled chicken and simulation verification. (a) Actual cold chain; (b) Critical parameters and indicators change; (c) TVB-N prediction verification; (d) Sensory evaluation prediction verification.
Comprehensive comparison of the traditional model and proposed model.
| Model Performance | Sensors Performance and Environmental Parameters Evaluation | Quality Analysis and Evaluation | Prediction Model Evaluation | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring | Temperature | Humidity | CO2 | O2 | H2S | (L1) First-Level Quality | (L2) Second-Level Quality | ||||||||
| 0 °C | 4 °C | 8 °C | 20 °C | 0 °C | 4 °C | 8 °C | 20 °C | ||||||||
| Previous monitoring method | Temperature and Humidity | Range: −40–120 °C Accuracy: ±0.4 °C | Range: 0-100% RH Accuracy: ±3% RH | None | None | None | None | None | None | ||||||
| Improved model | Temperature humidity CO2 O2 H2S | Range: −40–80 °C Accuracy: ±0.3 °C | Range: 0–100% RH Accuracy: ±1% RH | Range: 0–50% vol accuracy: ±2% vol Response time <25 s | Range: 0–30% vol accuracy: ±1% vol Response time <25 s | Range: 0–100 ppm accuracy: ±1 ppm Response time <25 s | TVB-N: ≤15 | TVB-N: ≤15 | TVB-N: ≤13 | TVB-N: ≤10 | TVB-N: ≤25 | TVB-N: ≤25 | TVB-N: ≤20 | TVB-N: ≤15 | Relative error < 8% R2 > 0.996 |
| S: ≥ 2.5 | S: ≥ 2.5 | S: ≥ 3 | S: ≥ 3 | S: ≥ 1.5 | S: ≥ 2 | S: ≥ 2 | S: ≥ 2.5 | ||||||||
| H ≥ 450 | H ≥ 600 | H ≥ 650 | H ≥ 1000 | H ≥ 250 | H ≥ 400 | H ≥ 500 | H ≥ 900 | ||||||||
| C ≥ 150 | C ≥ 180 | C ≥ 200 | C ≥ 300 | C ≥ 75 | C ≥ 100 | C ≥ 180 | C ≥ 280 | ||||||||
| ΔE ≤ 10 | ΔE ≤ 7 | ΔE ≤ 3.5 | ΔE ≤ 3 | ΔE ≤ 18 | ΔE ≤ 12 | ΔE ≤ 5 | ΔE ≤ 4 | ||||||||
| Advantages | Multiple critical parameters monitoring | Better accuracy and traceability | Different quality evaluation standard under different temperature Detailed and comprehensive quality evaluation | Predict effectively and accurately without contact and contamination | |||||||||||
| Suggestions | More critical parameters | Develop flexible, passive and small-size sensors for smaller packages | The scoring criteria of sensory evaluation still need to be refined and improved | Accuracy can still be improved | |||||||||||