4.5 Article

Feasibility of non-destructive evaluation for apple crispness based on portable acoustic signal

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 2375-2383

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijfs.14861

Keywords

Acoustic signal; apple; crispness; non‐ destructive measurement

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Innovation Development Plan of Jilin City in 2020 - the science and technology innovation projects of 'Rural Revitalization' [20200502071]
  2. Scientific Research Foundation for Advanced Talents, Changshu Institute of Technology [KYZ2018067Q]
  3. Major Special Foundation of Jilin Institute of Chemical Technology [2018002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated apple crispness using acoustic signals and predicted the crispness using multiple linear regression (MLR) and artificial neural network (ANN). Results showed that ANN predicted apple crispness more accurately than MLR.
In this paper, apple crispness was evaluated by sensory evaluation and compared with non-destructive measurements of portable acoustic signal to discuss the feasibility of non-destructive evaluation for apple crispness based on portable acoustic signal. Acoustic eigenvalues from the acoustic signal were processed by time domain and Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT), followed by analysing the correlations with apple crispness that had been evaluated via sensory evaluation. Multiple linear regression (MLR) and artificial neural network (ANN) were applied to predict apple crispness. The results proved that crispness correlates significantly (P < 0.01) with four acoustic eigenvalues, including waveform index, sound intensity, energy of low frequency and energy of high frequency. The average relative error of apple crispness predicted by ANN was 1.42 +/- 1.9%, remarkably lower (P < 0.01) that of MLR (6.79 +/- 5.64%), implying that the model predicted by ANN is more accurate than that of MLR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available