2012
DOI: 10.1155/2012/187678
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimization Efficiency of Monte Carlo Simulation Tool for Evanescent Wave Spectroscopy Fiber-Optic Probe

Abstract: In a previous work, we described the simulation tool (FOPS 3D) (Khankin et al., 2001) which can simulate the full three-dimensional geometrical structure of a fiber and the propagation of a light beam sent through it. In this paper we are focusing on three major points: the first concerns the improvements made with respect to the simulation tool and the second, optimizations implemented with respect to the calculations' efficiency. Finally, the major research improvement from our previous works is the simulati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In practice, a wide range of sensor configurations is physically possible. So, it is preferred to test the potential of each sensor configuration through these simulations, rather than building each of them and evaluating their performance from measurements on an extensive set of raw milk samples (Luo et al, 2005;Liu and Ramanujam, 2006;Sharma et al, 2006;Palmer and Ramanujam, 2007;Cen et al, 2010;Gamm et al, 2011;Khankin et al, 2012;Zamora-Rojas et al, 2014). The sensor configuration, which allows for the most robust separation between the absorption and scattering properties, would obviously have the highest potential to retrieve accurate predictions for the milk composition (fat, protein, lactose, urea, and so on) and physical properties (fat globule and CN micelle size distribution) from, respectively, the obtained absorption and scattering properties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In practice, a wide range of sensor configurations is physically possible. So, it is preferred to test the potential of each sensor configuration through these simulations, rather than building each of them and evaluating their performance from measurements on an extensive set of raw milk samples (Luo et al, 2005;Liu and Ramanujam, 2006;Sharma et al, 2006;Palmer and Ramanujam, 2007;Cen et al, 2010;Gamm et al, 2011;Khankin et al, 2012;Zamora-Rojas et al, 2014). The sensor configuration, which allows for the most robust separation between the absorption and scattering properties, would obviously have the highest potential to retrieve accurate predictions for the milk composition (fat, protein, lactose, urea, and so on) and physical properties (fat globule and CN micelle size distribution) from, respectively, the obtained absorption and scattering properties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, the potential of each sensor configuration can be defined as the ability to extract the BOP from the collected signals, after adding noise typical for a Vis/NIR spectrometer. Such procedures of sensor design optimization have been widely studied and improved in the last decade and are still an important topic of research (Luo et al, 2005;Liu and Ramanujam, 2006;Sharma et al, 2006;Palmer and Ramanujam, 2007;Cen et al, 2010;Gamm et al, 2011;Khankin et al, 2012;Zamora-Rojas et al, 2014). However, to consult these algorithms to obtain an optimal sensor design for quality control of raw milk, knowledge on the Vis/NIR BOP of raw milk is crucial.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%