Journal of Food Engineering 68 (2005) 527–533

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Prediction of the viscosity of clarified fruit juice using artificial

neural network: a combined effect of concentration and temperature
P. Rai a, G.C. Majumdar a, S. DasGupta b, S. De b,*

a
Department of Agriculture and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721 302, India
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721 302, India

Abstract

An artificial neural network (ANN) model is presented for the prediction of viscosity of fruit juice as a function of concentration
and temperature. The fruit juices considered in the present study were orange, peach, pear, malus floribunda and black current. The
viscosity data of juices (1.53–3300 mPa s) were obtained from the literature for a wide range of concentration (5–70 °Brix) and tem-
perature (30.7–71.7 °C). Several configurations were evaluated while developing the optimal ANN model. The optimal ANN model
consisted of two hidden layers with two neurons in each hidden layer. This model was able to predict viscosity with a mean absolute
error of 3.78 mPa s. The performance of the ANN was checked using experimental data. Predicted viscosity using the ANN was
proved to be a simple, convenient and accurate method. The model can be incorporated in the heat transfer calculations during fruit
processing where concentration and temperature dependent viscosity values are required. This may also be useful in mass transfer
calculations during filtration of the juice using membranes for clarification.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction rectly from the data being modeled. Traditional linear

Artificial neural network is a system loosely modeled
on the human brain. The field goes by many names, such
as connectionism; parallel distributed processing, neuro-
computing, natural intelligent systems, machine learning
algorithms, and artificial neural networks. A neural net-
work is a powerful data modeling tool that is able to
capture and represent complex input/output relation-
ships. The motivation for the development of neural net-
work technology stemmed from the desire to develop an
artificial system that could perform ‘‘intelligent’’ tasks
similar to those performed by the human brain. The true
power and advantage of neural networks lies in their
ability to represent both linear and nonlinear relation-
ships and in their ability to learn these relationships di-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 3222 283926; fax: +91 3222
2755303.
E-mail address: sde@che.iitkgp.ernet.in (S. De).
models are simply inadequate when it comes to mode-
ling data that contains nonlinear characteristics.
An ANN is composed of many single elements called
neurons. These neurons are connected to each other in
different ways therefore forming different types of
ANN. The most popular ANN is the multi-layer feed-
forward neural network where the neurons are arranged
into layers: input layer, hidden layer, and output layer
(Bardot, Bouchereau, Martin, & Alagos, 1994), as
shown in Fig. 1. Feed-forward neural network usually
has one or more hidden layers, which enable the net-
work to deal with nonlinear and complex correlation
(Masters, 1993). The general applications of ANN in-
clude classification, noise reduction, and prediction. In
fact, ANN is most likely to be superior to other tech-
niques under certain conditions, such as fuzzy inputs,
subtle patterns, unpredictable nonlinear data, and
chaotic data (in the mathematical sense) (Zbicinski,
Kaminski, Ciesielski, & Strumillo, 1997).

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.07.003
528 P. Rai et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 68 (2005) 527–533
Inputs outputs
INPUT LAYER HIDDEN LAYER OUTPUT LAYER
Fig. 1. Basic structure of feed-forward neural networks.
Neural network modeling has generated increasing
acceptance and is an interesting method in the estima-
tion and prediction of food properties and process re-
lated parameters. ANN modeling has been used in the
prediction of dough rheological properties (Ruan,
Almaer, & Zhang, 1995), physical properties of ground
wheat (Fang, Bilby, Haque, Hanna, & Spillman,
1998), thermal conductivity of fruits and vegetables
(Hussain & Rahman, 1999), fruit ripening (Morimoto,
Purwanto, Suzuki, Aono, & Hashimoto, 1997), inactiva-
tion kinetics (Geeraerd, Herremans, Cenens, & Van
Impe, 1998), viscosity of sucrose (Bouchard & Grand-
jean, 1995), smell by electronic nose (Payne, 1998), food
quality (Ni & Gunasekaran, 1998), loaf volume during
baking (Horimoto, Durance, Nakai, & Lukow, 1995),
sensory perception (Bomio, 1998), classification of nut
(Casasent, Sipe, Schatzki, Keagy, & Lee, 1998) and
more recently prediction of thermal conductivity of bak-
ery products (Sablani, Baik, & Marcotte, 2002).
Knowledge of the physical properties of food is fun-
damental in analyzing the unit operations present in the
food industry. The study of these food properties and
their responses to process conditions are necessary be-
cause they influence the treatment received during the
processing and also because they are good indicators
of other properties and qualities of food. Viscosity and
its variation with concentration and temperature are
very important for the food industry in general and
for fruit derivatives in particular, since it is necessary
for the design and the optimization of several processing
operations (e.g., pumping, evaporation, membrane fil-
tration etc.).
It may be noted here that viscosity is also a strong
function of pectin content in the juice. But, in most of
the food processing units, depectinized juice is used to
avoid high viscosity. Therefore, in the present study,
the viscosity variations are considered as a function of
concentration and temperature only. It may also be
pointed out here that correlations are available based
on the regression analysis for the prediction of juice vis-
cosity with concentration and temperature for orange
juice (Ibarz, Gonzalez, & Esplugas, 1994), peach juice
(Ibarz, Gonzalez, Esplugas, & Vicente, 1992b), Pear
juice (Ibarz, Pagan, Gutierrez, & Vicente, 1989), Malus
floribunda juice (Cepeda & Villaran, 1999) and Black
currant juice (Ibarz, Pagan, & Miguelsanz, 1992a). The
above data are also for the depectinized juice. But, the
available correlations are juice specific. In this work,
an attempt has been made to predict the viscosity of
depectinized juice with a wide range of concentration
and temperature for various fruit juice species (five) un-
der a single model developed by ANN. Interestingly, it
may be envisaged that such generalized model will be
of much help to the engineers for viscosity calculation
for any depectinized juice with the similar range of con-
centration and temperature considered herein.
2. Materials and methods
In this section, details of the available viscosity data,
normalization of viscosity data, ANN architecture
development, training of neural network and selection
of optimal ANN configuration have been discussed.
The flow chart of methodology for developing ANN
architecture is described in Fig. 2.
2.1. Viscosity data in literature
Several researchers have measured viscosity for differ-
ent fruit juices. Viscosity data were collected from liter-
ature that included viscosity for a given temperature and
concentration. The data set included the viscosity values
for orange juice (Ibraz et al., 1994), peach juice (Ibraz
et al., 1992a), Pear juice (Ibarz et al., 1989), Malus
floribunda juice (Cepeda & Villaran, 1999) and Black
currant juice (Ibraz et al., 1992b). The viscosity data
Viscosity data
Normalization
Learning/Training Validation/Testing
Developed network
ANN estimated viscosity
Scaling up
Performance evaluation Experimental estimated
Viscosity
Selection of best ANN architecture
Fig. 2. Methodology for developing ANN architecture.
 P. Rai et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 68 (2005) 527–533
Table 1
Viscosity values of fruit juice
Fruit Temperature (°C) Total soluble solid ((°)Brix)
Orange juice 5–70 30.7–63.5
Peach juice 5–60 40–69
Pear juice 5–60 40–71
Malus floribunda juice 5–60 45.1–71.7
Black current juice 5–60 35–64.5
of various fruit juices for the range of processing condi-
tions are listed in Table 1.
2.2. Normalization of viscosity data
Normalization is a transformation performed on a
single data input to distribute the data evenly and scale
it into an acceptable range for the network. In normal-
izing data, the goal is to ensure that the statistical distri-
bution of values for each net input and output is roughly
uniform. In addition, the values should be scaled to
match the range of the input neurons. This means that
along with any other transformations performed on net-
work inputs, each input should be normalized as well.
The most commonly chosen ranges are 0 to 1 or
1 to
+1. Here the data set is normalized between limits of

1 and +1, having the average value set at 0. This tech-
nique is known as the zero-mean normalization method.
The normalization variable, xi,norm is represented by
xi
xi;avg
xi;norm ¼
Ri;max
where xi is an input or output variable, xi, avg is the aver-
age value of the variable over the data set.
Ri;max¼maximum½xi;max
xi;avg ; xi;avg
xi;min 
xi,min is the minimum value of the variable, xi,max is the
maximum value of the variable, and Ri,max is the maxi-
mum range between the average value and either the
minimum or the maximum value.
2.3. ANN architecture development
Designing a neural network consists of arranging
neurons in various layers, deciding the type of connec-
tions among neurons for different layers, as well as
among the neurons within a layer, deciding the way a
neuron receives input and produces output and finally
determining the strength of connection within the net-
work by allowing the network learn the appropriate val-
ues of connection weights by using a training data set.
Neurons are connected via a network of paths carrying
the output of one neuron as input to another neuron.
These paths are normally unidirectional, there might
however be a two-way connection between two neurons,
because there may be another path in the reverse direc-
tion. A neuron receives input from many neurons, but
529
Viscosity (mPa s) References
1.53–300.9 Ibraz et al. (1998)
3.9–2086.9 Ibraz et al. (1992b); Ibraz et al. (1992a)
2–1816 Ibarz et al. (1989)
3–3300 Cepeda and Villaran (1999)
2.4–499.9 Ibraz et al. (1992a)
produce a single output, which is communicated to
other neurons.
There are different types of connections like fully con-
nected, partially connected, feed forward and bi-direc-
tional used between layers, these connections between
layers are called inter-layer connections. Feedforward
neural networks (FF networks) are the most popular
and most widely used models in many practical applica-
tions. They are known by many different names, such as
‘‘multi-layer perceptrons.’’ In the feed forward network
neurons on the first layer send their output to the
neurons on the second layer, but they do not receive
any input back form the neurons on the second layer.
The most widely used neural classifier today is multi-
layer perceptron (MLP) network which has also been
extensively analyzed and for which many learning algo-
rithms have been developed. The MLP belongs to the
class of supervised neural networks. MLP networks
are general-purpose, flexible, nonlinear models consist-
ing of a number of units organized into multiple layers.
The complexity of the MLP network can be changed by
varying the number of layers and the number of units in
each layer. Given enough hidden units and enough data,
it has been shown that MLPs can approximate virtually
any function to any desired accuracy. In other words,
MLPs are universal approximators. MLPs are valuable
tools in problems when one has little or no knowledge
about the form of the relationship between input vectors
and their corresponding outputs.
Different types of activation functions can be utilized
for the network, however the common ones, which are
sufficient for most applications, are the sigmoidal and
hyperbolic tangent functions. In most of the application,
hyperbolic tangent transfer fuction is a better represen-
tation compared to sigmoid transfer function. As the
biological and chemical processing systems become
more complex and nonlinear, the advantages of hyper-
bolic tangent transfer function become more apparent
(Baughman & Liu, 1995). The slope of the hyperbolic
tangent function is steeper than the slope of the sigmoid
function, therefore it can better distinguish between
small variations in input variable and can generate a
much more nonlinear response.
The decision of the use of a number of hidden layer
nodes is complex as it depends on the specific problem
being solved using ANN. With too few nodes, the net-
work may not be powerful enough for a given learning
530 P. Rai et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 68 (2005) 527–533
task. With a large number of nodes (and connections),
computation is too lengthy. Sometimes an ANN may
‘‘memorize’’ the input training samples; such a network
tends to perform poorly on new test samples, and is not
considered to have accomplished learning successfully.
Neural learning is considered successful only if the sys-
tem can perform well on test data on which the system
has not been trained. An ANN should have capabilities
to generalize from input training sets, and not to mem-
orize them (Mehrotra, Mohan, & Ranka, 1996). In our
study, different hidden layer nodes and hidden layer
arrangements were chosen to select the best production
results (Table 2). It has been shown that one hidden
layer is sufficient to approximate any continuous nonlin-
ear function (Hornik, 1993; Hornik, Stinchcombe,
& White, 1989; Ripley, 1996), although more complex
networks may be employed in special applications (Xie
& Xiong, 1999). But there is no theory yet to tell how
many hidden units are needed to approximate any given
function.
For more complicated target functions, especially
those with several hills or valleys, it is useful to have sev-
eral units in the second hidden layer. Each unit in the
second hidden layer enables the net to fit a separate hill
or valley. So an MLP with two hidden layers can often
yield an accurate approximation with fewer weights
than an MLP with one hidden layer (Chester, 1990).
Unfortunately, using two hidden layers exacerbates the
problem of local minima, and it is important to use lots
of random initializations or other methods for global
optimization. Local minima with two hidden layers
can have extreme spikes or blades even when the num-
ber of weights is much smaller than the number of train-
ing cases. One of the few advantages of standard
backprop is that it is so slow that spikes and blades will
not become very sharp for practical training times. More
than two hidden layers can be useful in certain architec-
tures such as cascade correlation (Fahlman & Lebiere,
1990) and in special applications, such as the two-spiral
problem (Lang & Witbrock, 1988) and ZIP code recog-
nition (Le Cun et al., 1989).
Learning rate indicates the rate of change of connec-
tion weights during training. The selection of a learning
Table 2
Error and iteration values in the topology optimization
Hidden layer neurons MAE error
(mPa s)
2 4.29
3 4.45
4 4.43
5 4.32
6 4.33
1,1(1 in 1st layer, 1 in 2nd layer) 4.32
2,2 (2 in 1st layer, 2 in 2nd layer) 4.20
3,3 (3 in 1st layer, 3 in 2nd layer) 4.48
rate is of critical importance in finding the true global
minimum of the error. Backpropagation training with
too small a learning rate will make agonizingly slow pro-
gress. Too large a learning rate will proceed much faster,
but may simply produce oscillations between relatively
poor solutions. Both of these conditions are generally
detectable through experimentation and sampling of re-
sults after a fixed number of training epochs. Typical
values for the learning rate parameter are numbers be-
tween 0 and 1
0:05 < g < 0:75
where, g is the learning rate parameter.
One would like to use the largest learning rate that
still converges to the minimum solution. The right value
of learning rate will depend again on the application. In
this study, the learning rate was fixed at 0.2. This low va-
lue of learning rate was chosen because high fluctuations
in error were observed at higher learning rates.
2.4. Training of neural network
Once a network has been structured for a particular
application, that network is ready to be trained. There
are two approaches to training––supervised and unsu-
pervised. Supervised training involves a mechanism of
providing the network with the desired output either
by manually ‘‘grading’’ the networkÕs performance or
by providing the desired outputs with the inputs. Unsu-
pervised training is where the network has to make sense
of the inputs without outside help.
A multi-layer feed forward network structure with in-
put, output and hidden layer(s) was used in this study.
Several ANN models were trained using the viscosity
data. The back-propagation algorithm was utilized in
training of ANN models (Hornik et al., 1989). The
back-propagation algorithm uses the supervised training
technique where the network weights and biases are ini-
tialized randomly at the beginning of the training phase.
For a given set of inputs to the network, the response to
each neuron in the output layer is calculated and com-
pared with the corresponding desired output response.
The errors associated with the desired output response
are adjusted in the way that reduces these errors in each
neuron from the output to the input layer. The error
minimization process is achieved using gradient descent
rule (Bishop, 1994; Hornik et al., 1989). Fig. 3 summa-
Number of rizes the training procedure of the multi-layer feed-for-
iteration
ward neural network. The input layer consisted of two
820 (2) neurons, which corresponded to juice concentration
910
and temperature. The output layer had one neuron rep-
1480
1660 resenting viscosity. The number of hidden layers and
1510 neurons within each hidden layer can be varied on the
550 complexity of the problem and data set. In this study
450 a feed-forward neural network model with single and
330
double hidden layer were used. The number of neurons
 P. Rai et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 68 (2005) 527–533 531

Start with random weights

The criterion used to select the adequate ANN topol-
ogy consisted of selecting the number of nodes, which
gave a minimum final error in a minimal number of iter-
ations during the training of the ANN. Moreover, the
Apply training pattern
final use of the ANN must also be considered to select
the adequate ANN topology. It is necessary to take into
account that light topologies (less number of neurons)
Compute error involve smaller learning data sets than heavy topologies
(more number of neurons). The learning step is there-
fore, easier and faster and the final ANN calculation
Compute adjustments to time is also shorter. Eight configurations of ANN topol-
weights
ogy have been tried out to establish the above criterion
and are presented in Table 2. It may be observed from
Table 2 that the seventh configuration (i.e., 2-2-2-1) re-
Training sults in the minimum MAE error and at a lower number
dataset of iterations. It may also be observed from Table 2 that
exhausted
configuration 8 yields minimum iteration number but at
Yes
the cost of accuracy. Hence, 7th configuration is selected
as the optimal ANN topology.
Evaluate average system
error As discussed earlier the network model with two hid-
den layers and two neurons in each hidden layer resulted
in the best prediction. The performance of the ANN
No Yes
Error End
model for the training and validation data set is pre-
Acceptable sented in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The comparison
of the model prediction with the experimental values
Fig. 3. Training procedure for multi-layer perceptron network.
2 hidden layers
2 neurons per hidden layers
within single and double hidden layers varied respec- Training dataset 270 cases MAE = 4.20
Predicted viscosity

tively from two to six and one to three with increments 2500
2
of one. This resulted in a total of 8 networks. 2000 R = 0.949
(mPas)

1500
2.5. Selection of optimal ANN configuration 1000
500
0
The prediction performances of the various ANN 0 1000 2000 3000
models were compared using mean absolute error Experimental viscosity (mPas)
(MAE).
The error function was defined as Fig. 4. Correlation of experimental versus neural network values of
viscosity with training data set using the optimal network.
1 X
MAE ¼ ðY i
Di Þ
N
where Yi is the ANN output for a given input and Di is
the desired output for the same input. 2 hidden layers
2 neurons per hidden layers
Validation dataset 52 cases MAE = 3.78
3. Results and discussion 3000
Predicted viscosity

2500 2
R = 0.9648
3.1. Performance of the developed ANN model 2000
(mPas)

1500
The development of ANN model involves two basic 1000
steps, a training/learning phase and a testing/validation 500
phase. The viscosity data set of the 322 cases in our 0
0 2000 4000
study was divided into two groups. In the first group,
Experimental viscosity (mPas)
270 cases were taken for training/testing and in the sec-
ond group 52 cases for validation, chosen randomly Fig. 5. Correlation of experimental versus neural network values of
from the set of 322 cases. viscosity with validation data set using the optimal network.
532 P. Rai et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 68 (2005) 527–533

of viscosity is shown in these figures. The correlation cant or not. In this case, the null hypothesis i.e., the
coefficient associated with Fig. 4 is 0.97 and that is for means of the two groups, the desired and predicted are
Fig. 5 is 0.98. It may be noted that the correlation coef- equal has been tested with the alternative hypothesis
ficient for the validation set (in Fig. 5) is more than that i.e., the means are significantly different. The associated
for the training set. This shows a better performance of probability has been found out to be 0.38, which is much
the present ANN model for the validation data set. higher than the threshold probability i.e. 0.05 at the level
The simplified algebraic equations derived from the of 95%. Hence, the difference in the mean of the desired
ANN model for the prediction of viscosity with concen- and predicted values is statistically insignificant. Simi-
tration and temperature are presented in Appendix A. larly, an F test has been carried out to check the signifi-
With a priori knowledge of juice concentration and tem- cance of the difference of standard deviation of two
perature, its viscosity can be computed using these equa- groups. The relevant probability is found out to be
tions compiled in a simple sub-routine. Such sub-routine 0.98, which is not less than 0.05. Hence the standard devi-
for the calculation of viscosity may be incorporated in the ation of the two groups also does not differ significantly.
heat and or mass transfer calculations in various process-
ing units, as discussed in the introduction. The developed
4. Conclusions
simplified model equations of viscosity prediction are
scant in the literature and they are extremely user friendly.
A neural network based model was developed for the
prediction of viscosity of fruit juice under a wide range
3.2. Statistical analysis of the developed ANN model
of conditions of temperature and concentration. The
optimal model, which consisted of two hidden layer
An extensive statistical analysis of the results in terms
and two neurons in each hidden layer, was able to pre-
of various statistical parameters has been carried out.
dict viscosity values with an MAE 3.78 mPa s. Selection
The results of the statistical analysis is presented in Ta-
of hidden nodes was important to ANN predictions. In
ble 3 for the training set and those for the validation
addition, the difficulties of trial and error from various
data set are shown in Table 4. It may be observed from
types of nonlinear function in regression modeling were
Tables 3 and 4 that the statistical parameters of the
eliminated because of the black box nature of ANN.
model predictions are closer to those of the desired val-
ues for the validation set.
In order to check the difference in the statistical
Appendix A
parameters of the validation data set (as presented in Ta-
ble 4), two statistical significance tests are carried. These
Neural network based equations for estimation of
are on the difference between the mean and standard
viscosity, V (mPa s) for known concentration (°Brix)(C)
deviation of the desired and the predicted values. A stu-
and temperature (°C)(T)
dentsÕ t test has been carried out to asses whether the
difference of the mean between the two groups is signifi-
x2 ¼ Cð0:046Þ
ð2:043Þ
Table 3
Statistical variables of desired and predicted values (training set) x3 ¼ T ð0:026Þ
ð0:797Þ
Statistical values Desired values Predicted values
x4 ¼ tanh½ð
1:669Þ þ ð1:025Þ x2 þ ð
1:404Þ x3 
Median 13.99 14.54
Mean 80.75 95.22
Standard error 14.46 16.69
x5 ¼ tanh½ð
1:297Þ þ ð1:596Þ x2 þ ð
0:745Þ x3 
Standard deviation 237.55 274.26  
Coefficient variation 2.94 2.88 x6 ¼ tanh½ð0:715Þ þ ð
0:239Þ x4 þ ð
0:779Þ x5 
Skewness 5.95 5.17
 
Kurtosis 40.2 29.98 x7 ¼ tanh½ð
0:702Þ þ ð1:694Þ x4 þ ð1:65Þ x5 
 
Table 4
x8 ¼ tanh½ð0:656Þ þ ð
0:141Þ x6 þ ð0:549Þ x7 
Statistical variables of desired and predicted values (validation set)
V ¼ x8 ð3216:03Þ þ ð83:97Þ
Statistical values Desired values Predicted values
Median 11.49 12.35
Mean 30.16 36.82
Standard error 11.51 15.86 References
Standard deviation 79.74 109.88
Coefficient variation 2.64 2.98 Bardot, I., Bouchereau, L., Martin, N., & Alagos, B. (1994). Sensory-
Skewness 6.25 6.49 instrumental correlation by combining data analysis and neural
Kurtosis 41.19 43.68 network techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 5(1/2), 159–166.
 P. Rai et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 68 (2005) 527–533
Baughman, D. R, & Liu, Y. A. (1995). Neural networks in bioproc-
essing & chemical engineering. San Diego: Academic press.
Bishop, M. C. (1994). Neural network and their applications. Review in
Scientific Instruments, 64, 1803–1831.
Bomio, M. (1998). Neural networks and the future of sensory
evaluation. Food Technology, 52(8), 62–63.
Bouchard, C. Bouchard, & Grandjean, P. A. (1995). A neural network
correlation for the variation of viscosity of sucrose agents solutions
with temperature and concentration. Food Science and Technology,
28, 157–159.
Casasent, D. A., Sipe, M. A., Schatzki, T. F., Keagy, P. M. Keagy, &
Lee, L. C. (1998). Neural net classification of X-ray pistachio nut
data. Food Science and Technology, 31, 122–128.
Cepeda, E., & Villaran, M. C. (1999). Density and viscosity of Malus
floribunda juice as a function of concentration and temperature.
Journal of Food Engineering, 41, 103–107.
Chester, D. L. (1990). Why two hidden layers are better than one, IJCNN-
90-WASH-DC (Vol. 1). Erlbaum (Lawrence), pp. 265–268.
Fahlman, S.E., & Lebiere, C. (1990). The cascade correlation learning
architecture,’’ NIPS2, 524-532, ftp://archive.cis.ohio-state.edu/pub/
neuroprose/fahlman.cascor-tr.ps.Z.
Fang, Q., Bilby, G., Haque, E., Hanna, M. A., & Spillman, C. K.
(1998). Neural network modeling of physical properties of ground
wheat. Cereal Chemistry, 75, 251–253.
Geeraerd, A. H., Herremans, C. H., Cenens, C., & Van Impe, J. G.
(1998). Application of artificial neural networks as a non-linear
modular modeling technique to describe bacterial growth in chilled
food products. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 44,
49–68.
Horimoto, Y., Durance, T., Nakai, S., & Lukow, O. M. (1995). Neural
networks vs principal component regression for prediction of
wheat flour loaf volume in baking tests. Journal of Food Science,
60(3), 429–433.
Hornik, K. (1993). Some new results on neural network approxima-
tion. Neural Networks, 6, 1069–1072.
Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1989). Multilayer
feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Net-
works, 2, 359–366.
Hussain, M. A., & Rahman, M. S. (1999). Thermal conductivity
prediction of fruits and vegetables using neural networks. Interna-
tional Journal of Food Properties, 2, 121–138.
Ibarz, A., Gonzalez, C., & Esplugas, S. (1994). Rheology of clarified fruit
juices. III: orange juices. Journal of Food Engineering, 21, 485–494.
533
Ibarz, A., Pagan, J., & Miguelsanz, R. (1992a). Rheology of clarified
fruit juices. II: black currant juices. Journal of Food Engineering, 15,
63–73.
Ibarz, A., Gonzalez, C., Esplugas, S., & Vicente, M. (1992b). Rheology
of clarified fruit juices. I: peach juices. Journal of Food Engineering,
15, 49–61.
Ibarz, A., Pagan, J., Gutierrez, J., & Vicente, M. (1989). Rheological
properties of clarified pear juice concentrates. Journal of Food
Engineering, 10, 57–63.
Lang, K. J., & Witbrock, M. J. (1988). Learning to tell two spirals
apart. In D. Ouretzky, G. Hinton, & T. Sejnowski (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 1988 connectionist models summer school. San
Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Le Cun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., Henderson, D., Howard, R. E.,
Hubbard, W., et al. (1989). Backpropagation applied to hand-
written ZIP code recognition. Neural Computation, 1, 541–551.
Masters, T. (1993). Practical neural network recipes in C++. London:
Academic Press.
Mehrotra, K., Mohan, C. K., & Ranka, S. (1996). Elements of artificial
neural networks. London: MIT Press.
Morimoto, T., Purwanto, W., Suzuki, J., Aono, T., & Hashimoto, Y.
(1997). Identification of heat treatment effect on fruit ripening and
its optimization. In A. Munack & H. J. Tantau (Eds.), Mathemat-
ical and control applications in agriculture and horticulture
(pp. 267–272). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ni, H., & Gunasekaran, S. (1998). Food quality prediction with neural
networks. Food Technology, 52(10), 60–65.
Payne, J. S. (1998). Electronic nose technology: an overview of current
technology and commercial availability. Food Science and Tech-
nology Today, 12(4), 196–200.
Ripley, B. D. (1996). Pattern recognition and neural networks.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruan, R., Almaer, S., & Zhang, J. (1995). Prediction of dough rheological
properties using neural networks. Cereal Chemistry, 72, 308–311.
Sablani, S. S., Baik, O. D., & Marcotte, M. (2002). Neural networks
for predicting thermal conductivity of bakery products. Journal of
Food Engineering, 52, 299–304.
Xie, G., & Xiong, R. (1999). Use of hyperbolic and neural network
models in modelling quality changes of dry peas in long time
cooking. Journal of Food Engineering, 41, 151–162.
Zbicinski, I., Kaminski, W., Ciesielski, K., & Strumillo, P. (1997).
Dynamic and hybrid neural model of thermal drying in a fluidized
bed. Drying Technology, 15(6–8), 1743–1752.