JOURNAL OF LIGHT INDUSTRY

CN 41-1437/TS  ISSN 2096-1553

口腔恶臭的电子鼻测定评价方法研究

姜元欣 ,  刘伯科 ,  刘小玲

downloadPDF
姜元欣, 刘伯科, 刘小玲. 口腔恶臭的电子鼻测定评价方法研究[J]. 轻工学报, 2016, 31(6): 8-15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-1553.2016.6.002
引用本文: 姜元欣, 刘伯科, 刘小玲. 口腔恶臭的电子鼻测定评价方法研究[J]. 轻工学报, 2016, 31(6): 8-15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-1553.2016.6.002
shu
JIANG Yuan-xin, LIU Bo-ke and LIU Xiao-ling. Research on evaluation methods of oral odor by electronic nose[J]. Journal of Light Industry, 2016, 31(6): 8-15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-1553.2016.6.002
Citation: JIANG Yuan-xin, LIU Bo-ke and LIU Xiao-ling. Research on evaluation methods of oral odor by electronic nose[J]. Journal of Light Industry, 2016, 31(6): 8-15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-1553.2016.6.002
shu

口腔恶臭的电子鼻测定评价方法研究

  • 广西农业职业技术学院 食品工程系, 广西 南宁 530007;

  • 广西大学 轻工与食品工程学院, 广西 南宁 530004

  • 基金项目: 广西农业职业技术学院基金项目（YKJ1610）

  • 中图分类号: R331

Research on evaluation methods of oral odor by electronic nose

  • Department of Food Engineering, Guangxi Agricultural Vocational College, Nanning 530007, China;

  • College of Light Industry and Food Engineering, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China

  • Received Date: 2016-07-08
    Available Online: 2016-12-15

    CLC number: R331

  • 摘要: 采用电子鼻对不同孵化时间的口腔唾液恶臭味进行了测定，对测定数据进行SPSS，PCA，LDA，Loadings及雷达图特征性分析，获得了电子鼻应用于口腔恶臭味评价的最佳检测时间、特征参数和表征传感器.结果表明：各传感器在最大响应值点附近5 s区分度较好，可作为特征提取参数；唾液孵化12 h时，各传感器均显示有显著性差异，可作为唾液孵化检测时间；电子鼻传感器R6（W1S），R7（W1W）和R9（W2W）对口臭气体的响应与其他传感器有显著性差异（P<0.05），其响应值与感官评价值呈显著正相关，其相关系数均大于0.9，在臭味表达上起主要作用，口腔中恶臭味气体为挥发性硫化物、甲基类化合物.
    Abstract: Saliva stench in different incubation times was measured by electronic nose. The optimal detection time, characteristic parameter area and main sensors were obtained through the measurement data analyzed by SPSS, PCA, LDA and Loadings analysis combined with radar map characteristic analysis. The results showed that each sensor was sufficiently distinguished in vicinity 5 s of maximum, and thus used as feature extraction parameters. When the incubation time was 12 h, each sensor had a significant difference, so 12 h was used as detection time. There was a significant difference(P<0.05) between electronic nose sensors R6 (W1S), R7 (W1W) and R9 (W2W) response to oral odor gas and other sensor in incubating 12 h and correlation coefficients were greater than 0.9. The three sensors played a major role in the expression of halitosis. And it manifested that the saliva stench gases were volatile sulphur and methyl compounds.
    1. [1]

      LIU X N,K SHINADA,CHEN X C,et al.Oral malodor-related parameters in the Chinese general population[J].J Clin Periodontol,2006,33(1):31.

    2. [2]

      MIYAZAKI H,SAKAO S,KATOH Y,et al.Correlation between volatile sulphur compounds and certain oral health measurements in the general population[J].Journal of Periodontology,1995,66(8):679.

    3. [3]

      DELANGHE G,GHYSELEN J,BOLLEN C,et al.An inventory of patients' response to treatment at a multidisciplinary breath odor clinic[J].Quintessence Int,1999,30(5):307.

    4. [4]

      DELANGHE G,GHYSELEN J,FEENSTRA L,et al.Experiences of a Belgian multidisciplinary breath odour clinic[J].Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg,1997,51(1):43.

    5. [5]

      NAKANO Y,YOSHIMURA M,KOGA T.Correlation between oral malodor and periodontal bacteria[J].Microbes Infect,2002,4(6):679.

    6. [6]

      Den BROEK M W T Van A,FEENSTRA L,De BAAT C.A review of the current literature on aetiology and measurement methods of halitosis[J].J Dent,2007,35(8):627.

    7. [7]

      胡赟.口臭研究模型对致臭菌确定的探讨[D].成都:四川大学, 2004.

    8. [8]

      王琳.黄芩与茶多酚对口臭致臭菌及致臭底物作用的实验研究[D].成都:四川大学, 2005.

    9. [9]

      王丹,靳华.口源性口臭临床治疗效果的初步分析[J].牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2010(6):348.

    10. [10]

      TANAKA M,ANGURI H,NONAKA A,et al.Clinical assessment of oral malodor by the electronic nose system[J].J Dent Res,2004,83(4):317.

    11. [11]

      NONAKA A,TANAKA M,ANGURI H,et al.Clinical assessment of oral malodor intensity expressed as absolute value using an electronic nose[J].Oral Dis,2005,11(S1):35.

  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • PDF下载量:  44
  • 文章访问数:  814
  • 引证文献数: 0
文章相关
  • 收稿日期:  2016-07-08
  • 刊出日期:  2016-12-15
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
姜元欣, 刘伯科, 刘小玲. 口腔恶臭的电子鼻测定评价方法研究[J]. 轻工学报, 2016, 31(6): 8-15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-1553.2016.6.002
引用本文: 姜元欣, 刘伯科, 刘小玲. 口腔恶臭的电子鼻测定评价方法研究[J]. 轻工学报, 2016, 31(6): 8-15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-1553.2016.6.002
shu
JIANG Yuan-xin, LIU Bo-ke and LIU Xiao-ling. Research on evaluation methods of oral odor by electronic nose[J]. Journal of Light Industry, 2016, 31(6): 8-15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-1553.2016.6.002
Citation: JIANG Yuan-xin, LIU Bo-ke and LIU Xiao-ling. Research on evaluation methods of oral odor by electronic nose[J]. Journal of Light Industry, 2016, 31(6): 8-15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-1553.2016.6.002
shu

口腔恶臭的电子鼻测定评价方法研究

  • 广西农业职业技术学院 食品工程系, 广西 南宁 530007;
  • 广西大学 轻工与食品工程学院, 广西 南宁 530004
  • 收稿日期: 2016-07-08
  • 网络出版日期: 2016-12-15
基金项目:  广西农业职业技术学院基金项目（YKJ1610）

摘要: 采用电子鼻对不同孵化时间的口腔唾液恶臭味进行了测定，对测定数据进行SPSS，PCA，LDA，Loadings及雷达图特征性分析，获得了电子鼻应用于口腔恶臭味评价的最佳检测时间、特征参数和表征传感器.结果表明：各传感器在最大响应值点附近5 s区分度较好，可作为特征提取参数；唾液孵化12 h时，各传感器均显示有显著性差异，可作为唾液孵化检测时间；电子鼻传感器R6（W1S），R7（W1W）和R9（W2W）对口臭气体的响应与其他传感器有显著性差异（P<0.05），其响应值与感官评价值呈显著正相关，其相关系数均大于0.9，在臭味表达上起主要作用，口腔中恶臭味气体为挥发性硫化物、甲基类化合物.

English Abstract

参考文献 (11)

目录

/

返回文章

网站版权 © 轻工学报编辑部

地址：河南省郑州市科学大道136号邮编：450001

本系统由北京仁和汇智信息技术有限公司开发 技术支持： info@rhhz.net