4.7 Article

Instrumental intelligent test of food sensory quality as mimic of human panel test combining multiple cross-perception sensors and data fusion

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 841, 期 -, 页码 68-76

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2014.06.001

关键词

Instrumental intelligent test; Multi-sensors; Data fusion; Human panel test; Rice wine

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31271875]
  2. Program Sponsored for Scientific Innovation Research of College Graduate in Jiangsu Province [CXZZ12_0702]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Instrumental test of food quality using perception sensors instead of human panel test is attracting massive attention recently. A novel cross-perception multi-sensors data fusion imitating multiple mammal perception was proposed for the instrumental test in this work. First, three mimic sensors of electronic eye, electronic nose and electronic tongue were used in sequence for data acquisition of rice wine samples. Then all data from the three different sensors were preprocessed and merged. Next, three cross-perception variables i.e., color, aroma and taste, were constructed using principal components analysis (PCA) and multiple linear regression (MLR) which were used as the input of models. MLR, back-propagation artificial neural network (BPANN) and support vector machine (SVM) were comparatively used for modeling, and the instrumental test was achieved for the comprehensive quality of samples. Results showed the proposed cross-perception multi-sensors data fusion presented obvious superiority to the traditional data fusion methodologies, also achieved a high correlation coefficient (> 90%) with the human panel test results. This work demonstrated that the instrumental test based on the cross-perception multi-sensors data fusion can actually mimic the human test behavior, therefore is of great significance to ensure the quality of products and decrease the loss of the manufacturers. (C) 2014 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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