4.6 Article

I-optimal design of split-plot mixture-process variable experiments: A case study on potato crisps

期刊

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104620

关键词

Mixture-process variable experiment; I-optimal design; Potato crisps; Covariates; Pre-specified factor level combinations

资金

  1. Agentschap Innoveren & Ondernemen -Vlaanderen (VLAIO) (Brussels, Belgium)
  2. Wimble Services Belgium (Mechelen, Belgium)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Designed experiments are powerful tools in developing new products or processes, although they can be challenging in the complex food industry. This paper presents a case study on reducing the lipid content of potato crisps, demonstrating how to handle multiple constraints and covariates to optimize product quality efficiently.
Designed experiments are powerful tools when developing new products or processes. They allow changing the settings in a systematic way such that a minimal experimental effort results in maximal information. In the food industry, performing designed experiments can be challenging because products and processes are often complex and involve many factors of different kinds. Moreover, some of the factors (for instance, the ingredients of a new formulation) may have intrinsic properties that can be measured but cannot be changed. These are referred to as pre-specified factors or covariates. In this paper, we discuss a representative case study and show how these complications often encountered in the food industry are handled. The goal of the case study is to lower the lipid content of potato crisps by means of a split-plot type of designed experiment involving a complex mixture of ingredients, various constraints on the proportions of the mixture ingredients, and a limited number of batches that each come with a set of covariates. We show how our approach provides insight into the most important factors and allows the product quality to be optimized in an efficient way.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据