4.4 Article

Evaluation Performance of Ultrasonic Testing on Fruit Quality Determination

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD QUALITY
Volume 2019, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1155/2019/6810865

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Scientific Research Projects (BAP) unit of Hakkari University [FM2017BAP11]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are several destructive and nondestructive methods for quality evaluation of agricultural products. Most of the employed traditional techniques are time-consuming and involve considerable degree of manual works. Destructive methods provide reasonable success rate of quality determination of fruits; however, they practically have many concerns about effectiveness, time, and cost. Therefore, developing portable, fast, and cost-effective techniques without harming fruits are desired for fruit quality evaluation. This work aims to develop a complete nondestructive quality evaluation system with (a) ultrasonic testing and (b) volume estimation by automatic machine vision techniques. The ultrasonic system consisted of a programmable bipolar remote pulser unit, a couple of piezoelectric probes for ultrasonic signal acquisitions as a transmitter and a receiver, an oscilloscope, and a computer. Visual appearance (size/volume) was determined using a machine vision system based on image processing techniques. Five different images of a fruit from different angles were captured by high-resolution digital cameras. Volume of the fruit was computed after horizontal and vertical distance of the fruit's images captured. The calculated volume values by the computer vision system are validated with the theoretical values. Although nondestructive ultrasonic estimation and volume estimation by image processing methods are cheap, fast, and practical, the results obtained in our experiments concluded that these methods are not as reliable as claimed in the literature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available