LWT - Food Science and Technology 63 (2015) 1309e1316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

LWT - Food Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lwt

Influence of temperature, frequency and moisture content on honey

viscoelastic parameters e Neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system prediction
Mircea Oroian
Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Suceava, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of temperature, moisture and frequency on nine honeys
Received 16 August 2014 from viscoelastic (complex viscosity, h*, loss modulus, G00 , and storage modulus, G0 ) point of view using
Received in revised form artificial neural networks (ANN) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). The temperature
9 April 2015
has ranged between 5 and 40  C, the moisture content 16.04 and 17.82% and the frequency 0.1 and 10 Hz.
Accepted 18 April 2015
Artificial neural networks (Multilayer perceptron e MLP, Probabilistic neural network e PNN, Radial
Available online 27 April 2015
basis function network e RBF and Recurrent network e RN) have been used to evaluate their model of
prediction usefulness. Keeping into account the statistical parameters values, it seems that the ANNs
Keywords:
Honey
methodology predicts better the evolution of viscoelastic parameters of honey in function of tempera-
Viscoelasticity ture, frequency and moisture content than ANFIS.
ANN © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
ANFIS

1. Introduction frequency, temperature and moisture content on the honey visco-

Honey is a natural sweetener, being a supersaturated sugar so-
lution which is composed, in its majority, by a carbohydrate
mixture (Kabbani, Sepulcre, & Wedekind, 2011). Honey is a hy-
groscopic material; that is, it has excellent water absorbing prop-
erties. Thus, honey changes its moisture content according to the
surrounding atmosphere. This characteristic is important for honey
storing because it absorbs water when exposed to high relative
humidity (RH) (Camara & Laux, 2010).
The rheological parameters of honey are influence by temper-
ature, moisture content and presence of crystals and colloids in the
product (Yanniotis, Skaltsi, & Karaburnioti, 2006). Many papers
have been published regarding the influence of temperature at
specific moisture content (Yanniotis et al., 2006),  Brix concentra-
tion (Oroian, Amariei, Escriche, & Gutt, 2013; Oroian et al., 2014),
chemical composition (Oroian et al., 2014). Al-Manasneh, Rababah,
and Ma'Abreh (2013) applied the neural network approach to
evaluate the effect of temperature, shear rate and water content of
the viscosity of honey. However, no other study on the influence of
E-mail address: m.oroian@fia.usv.ro.
elastic parameters has been reported.
Artificial neural network (ANN) is a system of information
processing, which is inspired by the biological nervous system
(brain). The objective of a neural network is to compute output
values from input values by some internal calculation (Khajeh &
Barkhordar, 2013; Sadrzadeh, Mohammadi, Ivakpour, & Kasiri,
2008). Unlike other analytical methods, where prior knowledge
of relationships among process parameters is required, ANN draws
on previously gathered information and utilizes this when
analyzing new data input (Jain, 2010). It is particularly useful in
managing uncertainties and non-linear data relationships. In the
area of food quality control, ANN has been successfully applied to
predict food parameters (Fan et al., 2013; Khajeh & Barkhordar,
2013; Singh, Ruhil, Jain, Patel, & Patil, 2009; Tulbek et al., 2003).
Over the last years, the fuzzy logic and fuzzy inference system
have been applied to identify and model complex non-linear sys-
tems (Karaman & Kayacier, 2011). To correctly describe the complex
and non-linear systems, fuzzy inference systems can be efficiently
used with the precise rules for the prediction of certain parameters
(Ga€nzle, Kilimann, Hartmann, Vogel, & Delgado, 2007). The fuzzy
inference system can be applied to predict non-linear evolution of
food parameters such as physico-chemical or rheological properties
(Abu Ghoush, Samhouri, Al Holy, & Herald, 2008). The fuzzy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.04.051
0023-6438/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1310 M. Oroian / LWT - Food Science and Technology 63 (2015) 1309e1316
inference system has been applied to predict physico-chemical and
rheological characteristics of molasses (Karaman & Kayacier, 2011)
and mechanical properties of tapioca starch-poly (lactic acid)
nanocomposite foams (Lee, Hana, & Jones, 2008).
The aim of this study is to predict the influence of temperature,
moisture content and frequency on the viscoelastic parameters of
honey (complex viscosity (h*), loss modulus (G00 ) and storage
modulus (G0 )), using the artificial neural network and adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Nine different types of honey samples purchased from the local
market of Valencia, Spain, have been used for the analysis. The
rheological parameters of honeys can be influenced by the presence
of crystals and air bubbles (Bhandari, Arcy, & Chow, 1999; Mossel,
Bhandari, D'Arcy, & Caffin, 2000). Before being used they were
warmed up to 55  C to dissolve any crystals, and kept in flasks at
30  C to remove air bubbles that could interfere with rheological
studies (Oroian, 2012).
2.2. Moisture content determination
The moisture contents of honey samples were obtained by
measuring the refractive index at 20  C using a digital refractom-
eter (Leica Mark II Plus). The water content and  Brix concentration
were determined based on a Chataway Table (Bogdanov, 2002).
2.3. Viscoelastic measurement
The dynamic rheological properties of honey samples were
obtained with a RheoStress 1 rheometer (Thermo Haake, Germany)
at different temperatures (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 40  C), using a
parallel plate system (Ø 60 mm) at a gap of 500 mm. A batch of each
composition was prepared and at least two measurements were
performed on each batch, using a fresh sample for each measure-
ment. After loading the sample, a waiting period of 5 min was used
to allow the sample to recover itself and to reach the desired
temperature. In order to determine the linear viscoelastic region,
stress sweeps were run at 1 Hz first. Then, the frequency sweeps
were performed over the range f ¼ 0.1e10 Hz at 1 Pa stress. The 1 Pa
stress was in the linear viscoelastic region. Rheowin Job software (v.
2.93, Haake) was used to obtain the experimental data and to
calculate storage (or elastic) modulus (G0 ), loss (viscous) modulus
(G00 ), and complex viscosity (h*).
2.4. Statistical analysis
The ANNs and ANFIS were developed using the Neurosolutions
6 trial version (NeuroDimension, Inc., USA). The system is
composed of three inputs (temperature e T, frequency e f, and
moisture content e M) and three outputs (complex viscosity e h*,
loss modulus e G00 , and storage modulus e G0 ). Each model applied
for predicting viscoelastic parameters of honeys has been checked
to achieve its suitability using the mean squared error (MSE) and
mean absolute error (MAE). The viscoelastic data (complex vis-
cosity, loss modulus and storage modulus) were divided into three
groups: one group for training (60% of the data), one group for
cross-validation (15% of the data) and the last one for testing (25%
of the data).
During training, the input and desired data will be repeatedly
presented to the network. As the network learns, the error will drop
towards zero. Lower error, however, does not always mean a better
network. It is possible to overtrain a network.
Cross validationxe “Cross Validation” is a highly recommended
criterion to stop the training of a network. Although highly rec-
ommended, it is not required. One will often want to try several
networks by using only training data in order to see which one
works best, and then use cross validationxe “Cross Validation” for
the final training. When using cross validationxe “Cross Validation”,
the next step is to decide how to divide your data into a training set
and a validation set, also called the test set. The network is trained
with the training set, and the performance checked with the test
set. The neural network will find the inputeoutput map by
repeatedly analyzing the training set (NeuroDimension 6.0 Trial
version).
The cross validation idea is to split the training set into two: a set
of examples to train with, and a validation set. The agent trains
using the new training set. Prediction on the validation set is used
to determine which model to use. The error of the training set gets
smaller as the size of the tree grows. The idea of cross validation is
to choose the representation in which the error of the validation set
is a minimum. In these cases, learning can continue until the error
of the validation set starts to increase. The validation set that is used
as part of training is not the same as the test set. The test set is used
to evaluate how well the learning algorithm works as a whole
(Poole & Mackworth, 2010).
2.4.1. Artificial neural networks
The viscoelastic parameters of honeys were modeled using four
artificial neural networks such as: Multilayer perceptron e MLP,
Probabilistic neural network e PNN, Radial basis function network
e RBF and Recurrent network e RN, respectively.
2.4.1.1. Multilayer perceptron e MLP. The MLP can be considered a
good method for distinguishing better data that are not linearly
separable (Sarle, 1994). As seen in Fig. 1, the input data are trans-
mitted from the input (independent) layers, through the hidden
layers, to the output (dependent) layer in a feedforward approach.
Different scaling functions could be used to transform the variables
at input nodes (Chatterjee & Hadi, 2006). Each neuron of the hid-
den layer receives input data a computes output data using a
transfer (or kernel) function (Leung, Chen, & Daouk, 2000). The
transfer function is typically a Gaussian function, defined by
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a multilayer perceptron neural network model: T e
temperature, f e frequency, M e moisture content, h* e complex viscosity, G00 e loss
modulus, G0 e storage modulus.
 M. Oroian / LWT - Food Science and Technology 63 (2015) 1309e1316
standard deviation which is known as a smoothing factor. As re-
ported by Jeyamkondan et al. (2001), lower smoothing factor
closely matches (over-fit) the network predictions to the target
outputs in the training data sets, but it will not interpolate well.
However, a more relaxed fit can be expected from a higher
smoothing factor, but the network may lose finer details (under-fit)
(Gosukonda, Mahapatra, Liu, & Kannan, 2015).
2.4.1.2. Probabilistic neural network e PNN. A probabilistic neural
network has similarity to back propagation model in the way they
forward. But PNN has dissimilarity in learning procedure. The ar-
chitecture of PNN consists of an input layer, pattern layer, sum-
mation layer and the output layer. The pattern layer has similarity
to radial basis network; however, summation layer has similarity of
competitive network. The pattern layer has the same number of
neurons as the input sample numbers and summation layer has the
same number of neurons as the target class. The architecture of
PNN used is presented in Fig. 2.
2.4.1.3. Radial basis function network e RBF. The RBF neural net-
works are an important and popular model of feedforward neural
networks, for which fast, linear learning algorithms exist. The RBF
neural networks have a single hidden layer, where the nodes are
Gaussian kernels, and a linear output layer, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
In contrast to the MLP structure, the Radial Basis Function (RBF)
provides a flatter architecture due to the difference by which its'
incorporate the nonlinear information. The use of radial activa-
tion functions provides a nonlinear method of interpolating be-
tween numbers of different regions in the information space. RBF
networks are trained rapidly, usually orders of magnitude faster
than MLP, while exhibiting none of its training pathologies such
as paralysis or local minima problems. An RBF is a function which
has in-built distance criterion with respect to a center. One major
difference from MLP is that RBFs utilize a local learning strategy
vs. MLP's global learning, resulting thus in a higher rate of ac-
curacy and faster training times (Panagou, Kodogiannis, & Nychas,
2007).
2.4.1.4. Recurrent neural network e RNN. A recurrent neural
network is a straightforward adaptation of the standard feed-
forward neural network to allow it to model sequential data. At
each timestep, the RNN receives an input, updates its hidden
state, and makes a prediction (Fig. 4). The RNN's high dimen-
sional hidden state and nonlinear evolution endow it with great
expressive power, enabling the hidden state of the RNN to inte-
grate information over many timesteps and use it to make
Fig. 2. Architecture of PNN: T e temperature, f e frequency, M e moisture content, h*
e complex viscosity, G00 e loss modulus, G0 e storage modulus.
1311
Fig. 3. Topology of radial basis function neural network: Rbf e radial basis function, Lf
e linear function, T e temperature, f e frequency, M e moisture content, h* e complex
viscosity, G00 e loss modulus, G0 e storage modulus.
accurate predictions. Even if the non-linearity used by each unit
is quite simple, iterating it over time leads to very rich dynamics.
The standard RNN is formalized as follows: given a sequence of
input vectors (x1 … XT), the RNN computes a sequence of hidden
states (h1 .. hT) and a sequence of outputs (o1 … oT) by iterating
some equations (Sutskever, Martens, & Hinton, 2011).
2.4.1.5. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). The concept
of fuzzy logic has two different meanings. In a narrow sense it is an
extension of multivalued logic and relates to classes of objects with
unsharp boundaries in which membership is a matter of degree.
The second meaning is that of an if-then rule of fuzzy rule, which
has a long history of use in artificial intelligence (Khoshnevisan,
Rafiee, Omid, & Mousazadeh, 2014).
The ANFIS architecture of the 1st order TakagieSugeno infer-
ence system is presented in Fig. 5, where, the ANFIS structure
consists of five layers: the fuzzification layer I, the rule layer II, the
normalization layer III, the defuzzification layer IV and the output
layer V. In order to convert crisp data into fuzzy data, they are
passed through the first layer which contains membership func-
tions (MFs). The output of layer 2 is referred to as the firing strength
of the rule and is calculated by mathematical multiplication. In
layer 3 the normalization of the firing strengths is performed and
the output of this layer is called the normalized firing strengths. The
output of layer 4 is comprised of a linear combination of the inputs
multiplied by the normalized firing strength and layer 5 is the
simple summation of the outputs of layer 4 (Bektas Ekici & Aksoy,
2011).
The mean squared error (MSE) of an estimator measures the
average of the squares of the “errors”, that is, the difference be-
tween the estimator and what is estimated. The MSE was calculated
using the equation (1):
n  2
1X
MSE ¼ Yi;real  Yi;pred (1)
n i¼1
The MAE was computed using the equation (2):
n  
1X  
MAE ¼ Yi;real  Yi;pred  (2)
n i¼1
where Yi,exp and Yi,cal are the experimental and calculated re-
sponses, and n is the number of the experimental run.
1312 M. Oroian / LWT - Food Science and Technology 63 (2015) 1309e1316

Fig. 4. Recurrent neural network architecture.

Fig. 5. ANFIS architecture.

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Water content of honey samples
The moisture content of the honey samples studied ranged
between 16.04 and 17.82%. The moisture content of honeys met the
threshold requirement of moisture content required by the Codex
Alimentarius (max. 20%) (Codex Alimentarius, 1993).
3.2. Rheological measurements
The tests to achieve the viscoelastic parameters have been car-
ried out in the limit of linear viscoelastic region to determine the
frequency dependence on the complex viscosity (h*), loss modulus
(G00 ) and storage modulus (G0 ). The rheological behavior of honey
was investigated by plotting the complex viscosity, loss modulus
and elastic modulus against frequency at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and
40  C. The figures are presented in Fig. 6. The complex viscosity
showed a constant evolution with the frequency, exhibiting a
Newtonian behavior. The Newtonian behavior of honeys has been
observed by other scientists as well (Ahmed, Prabhtu, Raghavan, &
Ngadi, 2007; Kabbani et al., 2011; Oroian, 2012, 2013; Oroian et al.,
2014; Schellart, 2011). The loss modulus and the elastic modulus
have increased their magnitude with frequency. The honey loss
modulus had a greater magnitude than the elastic modulus,
exhibiting a solid-like behavior. All the three rheological parame-
ters have been influenced negatively by temperature increase. The
loss modulus was observed to be significantly higher (P < 0.05) as
compared to the storage modulus; the frequency range employed
confirming the viscous nature of honey. The viscous modulus of
honey samples systematically increased depending on angular
frequency while inconsistent elastic modulus data were registered

Fig. 6. Storage modulus (G0 ), loss modulus (G00 ) and complex viscosity (h*) of honey as temperature function.
 M. Oroian / LWT - Food Science and Technology 63 (2015) 1309e1316 1313

by the rheogram. Smaller magnitude of elastic modulus indicates
weak particleeparticle interactions and there was no network
formation in honey samples (Ahmed et al., 2007).
3.3. Viscoelastic parameters modeling using the artificial neural
network methodology
The artificial neural network methodologies have been used to
estimate honey complex viscosity, loss modulus and storage
modulus in function of temperature, frequency and moisture con-
tent. To achieve the suitable ANN, the next types of methodologies
were investigated: multilayer perceptron (MLP), probabilistic
neural network (PNN), radial basis function network (RBF) and
recurrent neural network (RNN). The optimum method to predict
viscoelastic parameter evolution has been chosen using some sta-
tistical parameters such as: MSE, MAE and R2. A suitable model
should have minimum MSE and MAE and maximum coefficient of
regression. For each model the data were analyzed as follows:
training (60% of the experimental data), cross validation (15% of the
experimental data) and testing (25% of the experimental data). The
statistical coefficients (MSE, MAE and R2) are presented for training,
cross validation and testing data of each model. The results ob-
tained for each model studied are presented in Tables 1e3. MLPs are
a suitable model for predicting honey complex viscosity, loss
modulus and storage modulus. The regressions coefficients of the
ANNs studied decreased as follows: MLP > PNN > RBF > RNN. The
smallest MSE and MAE have been observed in the case of MLP
networks. Fig. 7 shows the evolution of experimental data vs.
predicted data using the most suitable model for predicting
viscoelastic parameters with ANN (MLP-2-B-L for complex viscosity
and loss modulus and MLP-1-B-L for storage modulus). As regards
the MSE and MAE values for training, cross validation and testing
for a model, the great differences between their values are made up
by the amount of data used for each one, so the greater the amount
of the data is, the smaller the MSE and MAE values are; the obtained
model is significantly suitable to the experimental data. In the case
of loss modulus (G0 ) the MSE and MAE values are so high due to the
parameter evolution; in the case of this parameter it can be
observed that temperature or moisture content do not have a great
influence on the magnitude of the parameter (Oroian, Amariei,
Escriche, & Gutt, 2013).
The importance analysis was performed for all three inputs to
investigate the weight of each input parameters when the visco-
elastic parameter model was designed (the analysis was performed
only for the suitable model to make parameter prediction). This
step can be a useful one before designing the model and will serve
as a screening tool for omitting unimportant inputs in order to
reduce model complexity. This can be of special importance with
the presence of highly colinear inputs. The presence of high colin-
earity means that some model inputs are not really helping in
improving model performance. Importance analysis showed that
all three inputs (frequency, temperature and moisture content)
were important at different levels. Of the three inputs used in
viscoelastic parameter prediction, temperature had the highest
importance with a relative weight ranging between 53.21 and 87.02
%, which essentially means that 53.21e87.02% of variation in pre-
dicting the viscoelastic parameters was accounted for temperature.
In the case of the other two inputs, they had different magnitudes.
Frequency ranged between 1.08% in the case of complex viscosity,
12.93% in the case of storage modulus and 20.87% in the case of loss
modulus. Low relative weight of frequency in the complex viscosity
evolution is normal due to the Newtonian behavior of honey (the
complex viscosity does not change its magnitude with frequency).
In the case of moisture content, relative weight ranged between
0.05% in the case of storage modulus, 15.91% in the case of loss
modulus and 16.16% in the case of complex viscosity.
3.4. Performance of ANFIS
Viscoelastic parameters of honey have been very well predicted
using the artificial neural network methodology. However, the
main drawback of ANNs is the black-box nature of those networks.
The ANFIS (Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System) model in-
tegrates adaptable fuzzy inputs with a modular neural network to
rapidly and accurately approximate complex functions. Fuzzy
inference systems are also valuable as they combine the explan-
atory nature of rules (membership functions) with the power of
“black box” neural networks. The results of ANFIS are summarized
in Table 4. Two membership functions (MF): Gaussian and Bell
have been studied in this article. The number of membership
functions applied has ranged up to five. A number of MF between
3 and 5 was applied for each method (Gaussian or Bell). The
suitable method was chosen using the MSE, MAE and R2. It is
observed that five is the best number of membership functions to
get the highest predictability of viscoelastic parameters; MSE, MAE
and R2 had better values as compared to others, the same obser-
vation was made by Al-Manasneh et al. (2013). It is well known
that the increase of MF number will increase the performance of
the fuzzy model. In the case of the two membership functions,
Gaussian is a better model than Bell because the statistical pa-
rameters computed are better. The statistical model parameters of
the ANFIS model are presented in Table 4. The highest regression
coefficients (R2) are noticed in the case of complex viscosity, fol-
lowed by loss modulus and storage modulus, for each viscoelastic

Table 1
ANN statistical parameters for complex viscosity.

Model name Training Cross validation Testing

2 2
MSE R MAE MSE R MAE MSE R2 MAE

1 MLP-1-B-L 10.1 0.997 1.4 37.2 0.991 3.5 1.7 0.999 0.9
2 MLP-1-B-M 25.9 0.993 2.9 13.5 0.997 2.3 7.1 0.996 2.1
3 MLP-1-O-M 14.4 0.996 2.1 49.1 0.991 4.6 2.6 0.999 1.2
4 MLP-2-B-L 6.2 0.998 1.2 160.8 0.997 6.1 1.4 0.999 0.8
5 MLP-2-B-M 89.1 0.976 4.9 39.3 0.996 4.9 11.2 0.998 3.1
6 MLP-2-O-M 23.3 0.994 2.1 52.2 0.989 4.7 2.1 0.999 0.9
7 PNN-0-N-N 5.6 0.998 0.9 315.6 0.994 9.9 2.4 0.998 0.8
8 RBF-1-B-L 111.3 0.968 7.3 167.1 0.971 9.7 67.1 0.955 5.6
9 RBF-1-B-M 1232.6 0.669 23.7 1387.1 0.732 26.1 424.2 0.860 18.7
10 RBF-1-O-M 96.4 0.973 5.3 110.9 0.974 6.1 20.3 0.986 2.8
11 RNN-1-B-L 3439.1 0.302 41.6 3397.8 0.551 41.1 1710.6 0.546 31.6
12 RNN-1-B-M 171.6 0.950 7.9 187.1 0.976 8.7 52.1 0.974 6.1
13 RNN-1-O-M 109.3 0.970 6.8 164.3 0.962 9.2 54.6 0.970 5.2

The shaded entries in table presents the suitable ANN methodology for predicting the viscoelastical parameters.
1314 M. Oroian / LWT - Food Science and Technology 63 (2015) 1309e1316

Table 2
ANN statistical parameters for loss modulus (G00 ).

Model name Training Cross validation Testing

MSE R2 MAE MSE R2 MAE MSE R2 MAE

1 MLP-1-B-L 18,710.8 0.994 61.1 43,273 0.990 104 3809 0.997 34.6
2 MLP-1-B-M 149,045.4 0.952 232.8 144,242 0.964 247 62,928 0.960 207.1
3 MLP-1-O-M 17,130.5 0.995 59.2 34,802 0.997 86 4147 0.997 40.9
4 MLP-2-B-L 4054.3 0.999 29.1 25,858 0.993 58 1620 0.999 19.4
5 MLP-2-B-M 306,428.9 0.900 279.6 336,918 0.893 297 109,198 0.906 216.8
6 MLP-2-O-M 54,680.5 0.983 110.2 73,031 0.987 144 10,643 0.992 63.1
7 PNN-0-N-N 4578.3 0.999 27.8 242,890 0.994 177 2723 0.998 24.4
8 RBF-1-B-L 283,694.5 0.915 324.5 378,957 0.891 448 108,261 0.950 230.8
9 RBF-1-B-M 1,529,348.0 0.193 608.1 1,514,344 0.267 610 587,794 0.253 482.7
10 RBF-1-O-M 584,595.2 0.797 337.4 872,469 0.716 625 161,437 0.856 241.6
11 RNN-1-B-L 2,848,377.0 0.440 1262.1 3,303,008 0.040 1316 1,657,050 0.443 1110.4
12 RNN-1-B-M 350,250.5 0.887 387.1 477,083 0.891 507 186,725 0.878 340.9
13 RNN-1-O-M 326,072.9 0.912 436.4 288,174 0.922 451 201,726 0.917 399.6

The shaded entries in table presents the suitable ANN methodology for predicting the viscoelastical parameters.

Table 3
ANN statistical parameters for storage modulus (G0 ).

Model name Training Cross validation Testing

MSE R2 MAE MSE R2 MAE MSE R2 MAE

1 MLP-1-B-L 879 0.994 8.2 75,278.0 0.188 37.0 560.7 0.914 6.4
2 MLP-1-B-M 23,645 0.824 50.9 25,697.4 0.901 52.7 2731.1 0.780 38.2
3 MLP-1-O-M 6798 0.960 24.5 20,253.9 0.990 36.7 1343.1 0.787 16.2
4 MLP-2-B-L 872 0.994 7.3 28,925.5 0.968 26.1 588.1 0.913 6.3
5 MLP-2-B-M 64,223 0.481 99.5 65,365.3 0.519 106.3 7360.1 0.465 77.8
6 MLP-2-O-M 13,892 0.942 21.2 23,677.8 0.993 31.1 975.1 0.849 11.1
7 PNN-0-N-N 56,731 0.698 30.7 63,719.9 0.687 42.6 2243.3 0.711 12.3
8 RBF-1-B-L 38,586 0.745 115.5 82,540.5 0.609 203.3 14,153.7 0.467 84.2
9 RBF-1-B-M 75,406 0.146 102.6 72,216.3 0.112 85.6 9074.5 0.097 61.7
10 RBF-1-O-M 61,351 0.393 54.2 57,710.8 0.516 76.5 2468.7 0.617 32.6
11 RNN-1-B-L 195,459 0.107 272.2 242,254.8 0.080 306.8 121,527.3 0.282 253.8
12 RNN-1-B-M 94,959 0.113 121.9 84,427.5 0.138 91.9 15,159.6 0.054 84.4
13 RNN-1-O-M 47,768 0.613 110.8 48,046.1 0.588 116.1 12,132.0 0.582 95.4

The shaded entries in table presents the suitable ANN methodology for predicting the viscoelastical parameters.

Fig. 7. Experimental vs. predicted data using MLP e ANN (a) and ANFIS (b) for: honey complex viscosity (h*), loss modulus (G0 ) and storage modulus (G00 ) e rhombus e training,
triangle e cross validation, square e testing.
 M. Oroian / LWT - Food Science and Technology 63 (2015) 1309e1316 1315

Table 4
ANFIS statistical parameters.

Model name Training Cross validation Testing

MSE R2 MAE MSE R2 MAE MSE R2 MAE

Complex viscosity (h )
*

Bell membership function 299.5 0.913 10.82 658.04 0.838 20.76 79.62 0.948 7.51
Gaussian membership function 31.02 0.991 4.13 115.3 0.982 8.09 22.99 0.984 3.33

Loss modulus (G00 )

Bell membership function 4,777,480 0.838 349 580,353 0.816 465.06 158,709 0.871 276.2
Gaussian membership function 248,712.2 0.921 286.7 663,756 0.857 586.9 88,376 0.938 201.7

Storage modulus (G0 )

Bell membership function 52,704.3 0.517 74.04 111,803 0.435 245.2 17,973 0.327 79.66
31,598.1 0.750 68.97 66,938 0.505 134.72 6261 0.518 54.85

parameter whereas the best coefficients are noticed in the case of
Gaussian membership function. MSE and MAE low values are
noticed in the case of complex viscosity followed by loss modulus
and storage modulus. Fig. 7 shows the experimental data vs.
predicted ones using the ANFIS architecture e Gaussian mem-
bership function.
The importance analysis was performed for all three inputs to
investigate the weight of each input parameter when the visco-
elastic parameters model was designed (the analysis was per-
formed only for the suitable model for parameters prediction) for
ANFIS too. Of the three inputs used in viscoelastic parameters
prediction, moisture content displayed the highest importance
having a relative weight ranging between 46.25 and 64.89%, which
essentially means that 46.25e64.89% of variation in the prediction
of viscoelastic parameters was accounted for temperature. In the
case of the other two inputs, they had different magnitudes. The
frequency ranged between 19.41% in the case of storage modulus,
27.04% in the case of loss modulus and complex viscosity respec-
tively. In the case of temperature, the relative weight ranged be-
tween 15.89% in the case of storage modulus and 26.7% in the case
of loss modulus and complex viscosity.
4. Conclusions
The honeys studied exhibited a Newtonian behavior. The
viscoelastic parameters studied are strongly influenced by the in-
crease of moisture content and temperature. The loss and storage
modulus magnitude were strongly influenced by the magnitude of
frequency, while the complex viscosity was not because of the
Newtonian behavior of the material. The ANNs and ANFIS were
found to predict well the complex viscosity, loss modulus and
storage modulus in function of temperature, moisture content and
frequency. However, the most suitable model to predict viscoelastic
parameters is the MLP-ANN one.
References
Abu Ghoush, M., Samhouri, M., Al Holy, M., & Herald, T. (2008). Formulation and
fuzzy modeling of emulsion stability and viscosity of a gumeprotein emulsifier
in a model mayonnaise system. Journal of Food Engineering, 84, 348e357.
Ahmed, J., Prabhtu, S. T., Raghavan, G. S. V., & Ngadi, M. (2007). Physico-chemical,
rheological, calorimetric and dielectric behavior of selected Indian honey.
Journal of Food Engineering, 79(4), 1207e1213.
Al-Manasneh, M. A., Rababah, T. M., & Ma'Abreh, A. S. (2013). Evaluating the
combined effect of temperature content on wild-flower honey viscosity using
adaptive neural fuzzy inference system and artificial neural networks. Journal of
Food Process Engineering, 36, 510e520.
Bektas Ekici, B., & Aksoy, U. T. (2011). Prediction of building energy needs in early
stage of design by using ANFIS. Expert Systems and Applications, 38, 5352e5358.
Bhandari, B., Arcy, B. D., & Chow, S. (1999). Rheology of selected Australian honeys.
Journal of Food Engineering, 41(1), 65e68.
Bogdanov, S. (2002). Harmonised methods of the international honey commission.
Liebefeld, CH-3003 Bern, Switzerland: Swiss Bee Research Centre, FAM.
Camara, V. C., & Laux, D. (2010). Moisture content in honey determination with a
shear ultrasonic reflectometer. Journal of Food Engineering, 96(1), 93e96.
Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. (2006). Regression analysis by example (4th ed.). Hobo-
ken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Codex Alimentarius. (1993). Standard for honey. Ref. no. CL 1993/14, SH. Rome:
Codex Alimentarius Commission FAO/WHO.
Fan, F. H., Ma, Q., Ge, J., Peng, Q. Y., Riley, W. W., & Tang, S. Z. (2013). Prediction of
texture characteristics from extrusion food surface images using a computer
vision system and artificial neural networks. Journal of Food Engineering, 118,
426e433.
Ga€nzle, M. G., Kilimann, K. V., Hartmann, C., Vogel, R., & Delgado, A. (2007). Data
mining and fuzzy modelling of high pressure inactivation pathway of Lacto-
coccus lactis. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technology, 8, 461e468.
Gosukonda, R., Mahapatra, A. L., Liu, X., & Kannan, G. (2015). Application of artificial
neural network to predict Escherichia coli O157:H7 inactivation on beef surfaces.
Food Control, 47, 606e614.
Jain, A. K. (2010). Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-means. Pattern Recognition
Letters, 31, 651e666.
Jeyamkondan, S., Jayas, D. S., & Holley, R. A. (2001). Microbial growth modelling
with artificial neural networks. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 64(3),
343e354.
Kabbani, D., Sepulcre, F., & Wedekind, J. (2011). Ultrasound-assisted liquefaction of
rosemary honey: influence on rheology and crystal content. Journal of Food
Engineering, 107, 173e178.
Karaman, S., & Kayacier, A. (2011). Effect of temperature on rheological charac-
teristics of molasses: modeling of apparent viscosity using adaptive neuro-
fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). LWT e Food Science and Technology, 44,
1717e1725.
Khajeh, M., & Barkhordar, A. (2013). Modelling of solid-phase tea waste extraction
for the removal of manganese from food samples by using artificial neural
network approach. Food Chemistry, 141, 712e717.
Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., & Mousazadeh, H. (2014). Environmental
impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses using
life cycle assessment and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 73, 183e192.
Lee, S. Y., Hana, M. A., & Jones, D. D. (2008). An adaptive neuro fuzzy inference
system for modeling mechanical properties of tapioca starchepoly(lactic acid)
nanocomposite foams. Starch, 60, 159e164.
Leung, M. T., Chen, A., & Daouk, H. (2000). Forecasting exchange rates using general
regression neural networks. Journal of Computers & Operations Research, 27,
1093e1110.
Mossel, B., Bhandari, B., D'Arcy, B., & Caffin, N. (2000). Use of Arrhenius model to
predict rheological behaviour in some Australian honeys. LWT e Food Science &
Technology, 33, 545e552.
Oroian, M. (2012). Physicochemical and rheological properties of Romanian honeys.
Food Biophysics, 7(4), 296e307.
Oroian, M. (2013). Measurement, prediction and correlation of density, viscosity,
surface tension and ultrasonic velocity of different honey types at different
temperatures. Journal of Food Engineering, 119(1), 167e172.
Oroian, M., Amariei, S., Escriche, I., & Gutt, G. (2013). A viscoelastical model for
honeys using the timeetemperature superposition principle (TTSP). Food and
Bioprocess Technology, 6(9), 2251e2260.
Oroian, M., Amariei, S., Escriche, I., & Gutt, G. (2013). Rheological aspects of Spanish
honeys. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(1), 228e241.
Oroian, M., Amariei, S., Escriche, I., Leahu, A., Damian, C., & Gutt, G. (2014). Chemical
composition and temperature influence on the rheological behaviour of honeys.
International Journal of Food Properties, 17(10), 2228e2240.
Panagou, E. Z., Kodogiannis, V., & Nychas, G. J. E. (2007). Modelling fungal growth
using radial basis function neural networks: the case of the ascomycetous
fungus Monascus ruber van Tieghem. International Journal of Food Microbiology,
117, 276e286.
1316 M. Oroian / LWT - Food Science and Technology 63 (2015) 1309e1316
Poole, D., & Mackworth, A. (2010). Artificial intelligence: Foundations of computa-
tional agents. Cambridge University Press.
Sadrzadeh, M., Mohammadi, T., Ivakpour, J., & Kasiri, N. (2008). Separation of lead
ions from wastewater using electrodialysis: comparing mathematical and
neural network modeling. Chemical Engineering Journal, 144, 431e441.
Sarle, W. S. (1994). Neural networks and statistical models. In Proceedings of the
nineteenth annual SAS Users Group international conference (pp. 1538e1550). SAS
Institute.
Schellart. (2011). Rheology and density of glucose syrup and honey: determining
their suitability for usage in analogue and fluid dynamic models of geological
processes. Journal of Structural Geology, 33(6), 1079e1088.
Singh, R. R. B., Ruhil, A. P., Jain, D. K., Patel, A. A., & Patil, G. R. (2009). Prediction of
sensory quality of UHT milk e a comparison of kinetic and neural network
approaches. Journal of Food Engineering, 92, 146e151.
Sutskever, I., Martens, J., & Hinton, G. (2011). Generating text with recurrent neural
networks. In The 28th international conference on machine learning, Washington, USA.
Tulbek, M. C., Panigrahi, S., Borhan, S., Boyacioglu, M. H., Boyacioglu, D., & Clifford, H.
(2003). Prediction of alkaline noodle, sensory attributes by multiple regression and
neural network models. In Proceedings of the IFT annual meetings, Chicago, USA.
Yanniotis, S., Skaltsi, S., & Karaburnioti, S. (2006). Effect of moisture content on the
viscosity of honey at different temperatures. Journal of Food Engineering, 72(4),
372e377.