Measurement of Odor Intensity by an Electronic Nose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibility of using electronic noses (ENs) to measure odor intensity was investigated in this study. Two commercially available ENs, an Aromascan A32S with conducting polymer sensors and an Alpha M.O.S. Fox 3000 with metal oxide sensors, as well as an experimental EN made of Taguchi-type tin oxide sensors, were used in the experiments. Odor intensity measurement by sensory analysis and EN sensor response were obtained for samples of odorous compounds (n-butanol, CH3COCH3, and C2H5SH) and for binary mixtures of odorous compounds (n-butanol and CH3COCH3). Linear regression analysis and artificial neural networks (ANN) were used to establish a relationship between odor intensity and EN sensor responses. The results, suggest that large differences in sensor response to samples of equivalent odor intensity exist and that sensitivity to odorous compounds varies according to the type of sensors. A linear relationship between odor intensity and averaged sensor response was found to be appropriate for the EN based on conducting polymer sensors with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.94 between calculated and measured odor intensity. However, the linear regression approach was shown to be inadequate for both ENs, which included metal oxide-type sensors. Very strong correlation (r = 0.99) between measured odor intensity and calculated odor intensity using the ANN developed were obtained for both commercial ENs. A weaker correlation (r = 0.84) was found for the experimental instrument, suggesting an insufficient number of sensors and/or not enough diversity in sensor responses. The results demonstrated the ability of ENs to measure odor intensity associated with simple mixtures of odorous compounds and suggest that ANN are appropriate to model the relationship between odor intensity measurement and EN sensor response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".