首页> 外文期刊>Journal of food process engineering >Comparison of Gaussian process regression, artificial neural network, and response surface methodology modeling approaches for predicting drying time of mosambi (Citrus limetta) peel
【24h】

Comparison of Gaussian process regression, artificial neural network, and response surface methodology modeling approaches for predicting drying time of mosambi (Citrus limetta) peel

机译:高斯过程回归,人工神经网络和响应面方法建模方法预测Mosambi(柑橘Limetta)Peel的干燥时间

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

In this study, drying kinetics of mosambi peel was studied. The effect of three variables viz., temperature (50, 58, 70, 82, and 90 degrees C), salt concentration (2, 5, 8, and 10%), and thickness of drying bed (1, 2, 3, and 4 mm) on drying time was determined by the central composite design. Applicability of Gaussian process regression (GPR)-based approach for modeling drying kinetics was analyzed. GPR-based model was compared with the commonly used approaches like artificial neural network (ANN) and response surface methodology (RSM). The models were validated by comparing model simulations with observed values for unseen data. The models were compared based on performance indices like coefficient of determination, mean square error, root mean square error (RMSE), model predictive error, mean average deviation, goodness of fit, and chi-square analysis. All the three models fit both seen and unseen data excellently. RMSE, mean average deviation, and model predictive error for the unseen data of the GPR-based model were minimum (0.191, 0.285, 6.8%, respectively) followed by ANN (0.35, 0.298, 7.2%, respectively) and RSM (1.162, 0.905, 32.0%, respectively).
机译:在这项研究中,研究了Mosambi Peel的干燥动力学。三种变量致Ziz的效果,温度(50,58,70,82和90℃),盐浓度(2,5,8和10%),以及干燥床的厚度(1,2,3,干燥时间的4毫米由中央复合设计决定。分析了高斯进程回归(GPR)的用于模拟干燥动力学的方法的适用性。将基于GPR的模型与人工神经网络(ANN)等常用方法进行了比较和响应表面方法(RSM)。通过将模型模拟与观察到的未经看台数据的值进行比较来验证模型。基于确定系数的性能指数比较模型,平均方误差,均方误差(RMSE),模型预测误差,平均偏差,拟合良好度和Chi-Square分析。所有三种型号都适合看到和看不见的数据。 RMSE,平均偏差和基于GPR的模型的看不见的数据的模型预测误差是最小的(0.191,0.285,6.8%),然后是ANN(0.35,0.298,7.2%)和RSM(1.162,分别为0.905,32.0%)。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of food process engineering》 |2019年第2期|e12966.1-e12966.8|共8页
  • 作者单位

    Integral Univ Dept Bioengn Kursi Rd Lucknow 226026 Uttar Pradesh India;

    Integral Univ Dept Bioengn Kursi Rd Lucknow 226026 Uttar Pradesh India;

    Integral Univ Dept Bioengn Kursi Rd Lucknow 226026 Uttar Pradesh India;

    Bundelkhand Univ Inst Engn & Technol Dept Biotechnol Jhansi Uttar Pradesh India;

    Integral Univ Dept Bioengn Kursi Rd Lucknow 226026 Uttar Pradesh India;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 21:34:03

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号