comparison of mathematical models and artificial neural networks for prediction of drying kinetics of mushroom in microwave vacuum dryer
Clicks: 263
ID: 222416
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
263 views
25 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #14 of 38 articles by views in organon
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Drying characteristics of button mushroom slices were determined using microwave vacuum drier at various powers (130, 260, 380, 450 W) and absolute pressures (200, 400, 600, 800 mbar). To select a suitable mathematical model, 6 thin-layer drying models were fitted to the experimental data. The fitting rates of models were assessed based on three parameters; highest R2, lowest chi square () and root mean square error (RMSE). In addition, using the experimental data, an ANN trained by standard back-propagation algorithm, was developed in order to predict moisture ratio (MR) and drying rate (DR) values based on the three input variables (drying time, absolute pressure, microwave power). Different activation functions and several rules were used to assess percentage error between the desired and the predicted values. According to our findings, Midilli et al. model showed a reasonable fitting with experimental data. While, the ANN model showed its high capability to predict the MR and DR quite well with determination coefficients (R2) of 0.9991, 0.9995 and 0.9996 for training, validation and testing, respectively. Furthermore, their predictions Mean Square Error were 0.00086, 0.00042 and 0.00052, respectively.
| Reference Key |
a.2012chemicalcomparison
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Ghaderi A.;Abbasi S.;Motevali A.;Minaei S. |
| Journal | organon |
| Year | 2012 |
| DOI |
10.2298/CICEQ110823005G
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.