| Literature DB >> 23012574 |
Xiaoli Li1, Chuanqi Xie, Yong He, Zhengjun Qiu, Yanchao Zhang.
Abstract
Effects of the moisture content (MC) of tea on diffuse reflectance spectroscopy were investigated by integrated wavelet transform and multivariate analysis. A total of 738 representative samples, including fresh tea leaves, manufactured tea and partially processed tea were collected for spectral measurement in the 325-1,075 nm range with a field portable spectroradiometer. Then wavelet transform (WT) and multivariate analysis were adopted for quantitative determination of the relationship between MC and spectral data. Three feature extraction methods including WT, principal component analysis (PCA) and kernel principal component analysis (KPCA) were used to explore the internal structure of spectral data. Comparison of those three methods indicated that the variables generated by WT could efficiently discover structural information of spectral data. Calibration involving seeking the relationship between MC and spectral data was executed by using regression analysis, including partial least squares regression, multiple linear regression and least square support vector machine. Results showed that there was a significant correlation between MC and spectral data (r = 0.991, RMSEP = 0.034). Moreover, the effective wavelengths for MC measurement were detected at range of 888-1,007 nm by wavelet transform. The results indicated that the diffuse reflectance spectroscopy of tea is highly correlated with MC.Entities:
Keywords: diffuse reflectance spectroscopy; moisture content; tea; wavelength selection; wavelet transform
Year: 2012 PMID: 23012574 PMCID: PMC3444132 DOI: 10.3390/s120709847
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
General information of the three types of samples.
| I | 2006.12.04 | 100 | Fresh tea leaves |
| II | 2007.09.12 | 70 | Manufactured green tea |
| III | 2008.10.12 | 568 | Partially processed green tea |
Statistical information of moisture content (w.b., %) of samples in type I.
| Longjing changye | 54.662–68.421 | 62.906 | 0.038 | 20 |
| Guangdong shuixian | 66.029–69.792 | 67.715 | 0.011 | 20 |
| Zisun cha | 54.397–67.841 | 63.843 | 0.031 | 20 |
| Maoxie | 51.773–71.388 | 62.930 | 0.037 | 20 |
| Longjing 43 | 56.410–68.889 | 63.958 | 0.040 | 20 |
SD: standard deviation.
Statistical information of moisture content (w.b., %) of samples in type II.
| Excellent grade | 4.237–6.901 | 6.138 | 0.008 | 10 |
| 1 grade | 5.075–6.644 | 5.558 | 0.005 | 10 |
| 2 grade | 5.014–5.991 | 5.455 | 0.003 | 10 |
| 3 grade | 5.312–6.050 | 5.737 | 0.002 | 10 |
| 4 grade | 5.277–6.429 | 6.003 | 0.003 | 10 |
| 5 grade | 5.521–6.286 | 5.896 | 0.003 | 10 |
| 6 grade | 4.237–6.901 | 6.138 | 0.008 | 10 |
SD: standard deviation.
Statistical information of moisture content (w.b., %) of samples in type III.
| Fresh leaves | 61.347–71.723 | 67.021 | 0.023 | 74 |
| Fixation | 53.412–61.854 | 58.723 | 0.009 | 74 |
| Rolling and cutting | 39.567–60.506 | 51.327 | 0.049 | 72 |
| Drying 1 | 33.780–44.404 | 38.766 | 0.018 | 74 |
| Drying 2 | 12.082–16.838 | 14.191 | 0.008 | 70 |
| Drying 3 | 9.459–11.556 | 10.916 | 0.005 | 76 |
| Manufactured tea | 3.148–4.638 | 3.728 | 0.002 | 58 |
| Tea dust | 4.171–5.214 | 4.613 | 0.002 | 70 |
SD: standard deviation.
Statistical information of moisture content (w.b., %) of samples in three data sets.
| Calibration set | 3.148–71.388 | 33.768 | 0.255 | 492 |
| Prediction set | 3.485–71.722 | 34.182 | 0.257 | 246 |
| Total | 3.148–71.388 | 33.906 | 0.256 | 738 |
SD: standard deviation.
Figure 1.Vis/NIR diffuse reflectance spectroscopy of the samples.
Figure 2.Structure of discrete wavelet decomposition at level 3.
Figure 3.Wavelet decomposition coefficients by db5 at level 3.
Figure 4.Energy distribution of wavelet coefficients.
Figure 5.Description of tea samples in these new synthetic variable spaces, (A) in PCs space, (B) in KPCs space, and (C) in wavelet approximation coefficients (cA) space.
Results of four PLS models corresponding to PCA, KPCA, WT and original spectral data.
| Model 1 | PCA | 89 | 10 | Calibration | 492 | 0.972 | 0.060 | −1.802e−09 |
| Validation | 492 | 0.969 | 0.063 | −8.050e−05 | ||||
| Prediction | 246 | 0.961 | 0.072 | −1.14e−02 | ||||
| Model 2 | KPCA | 89 | 11 | Calibration | 492 | 0.979 | 0.051 | −4.649e−09 |
| Validation | 492 | 0.976 | 0.046 | −9.659e−05 | ||||
| Prediction | 246 | 0.966 | 0.060 | −1.200e−02 | ||||
| Model 3 | WT | 89 | 13 | Calibration | 492 | 0.988 | 0.040 | −2.770e−07 |
| Validation | 492 | 0.985 | 0.044 | 1.634e−05 | ||||
| Prediction | 246 | 0.986 | 0.044 | −4.800e−03 | ||||
| Model 4 | non | 651 | 13 | Calibration | 492 | 0.987 | 0.041 | −1.637e−08 |
| Validation | 492 | 0.985 | 0.044 | −2.030e−07 | ||||
| Prediction | 246 | 0.980 | 0.052 | −8.600e−03 |
SN: Sequence number.
FEA: Feature extraction algorithm.
IV: Number of input variables.
LV: Number of latent variables.
Cor.: Correlation.
RMSE: Root mean squared error.
Results of three models corresponding to the three types of regression algorithms based on the wavelet approximation coefficients as predictors.
| Model 5 | PLS | 89 | Calibration | 492 | 0.987 | 0.041 | −1.637e−08 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.980 | 0.052 | −8.600e−03 | |||
| Model 6 | MLR | 89 | Calibration | 492 | 0.996 | 0.024 | −1.462e−05 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.991 | 0.034 | −6.800e−03 | |||
| Model 7 | LSSVM | 89 | Calibration | 492 | 0.999 | 0.013 | −4.514e−05 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.986 | 0.044 | −6.730e−03 |
SN: sequence number.
Alg.: regression algorithm.
Cor.: correlation coefficient.
RMSE: root mean squared error.
Figure 6.Scatter plot of reference vs. predicted of the optimal MLR Model 6 (a) calibration result and (b) prediction result.
Figure 7.B-coefficients of the optimal determination Model 6.
Results of MLR regression models with different sets of wavelet approximate coefficients as independent variables.
| Model 8 | 2-7,51-57,59-60, 62-63,67,72 | Calibration | 492 | 0.951 | 0.079 | −2.326e−05 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.909 | 0.107 | −7.500e−03 | ||
| Model 9 | 2-7,46-74 | Calibration | 492 | 0.982 | 0.048 | −7.546e−06 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.978 | 0.054 | −2.73e−03 | ||
| Model 10 | 2-6,58-74 | Calibration | 492 | 0.969 | 0.063 | −2.160e−06 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.965 | 0.067 | 1.220e−04 | ||
| Model 11 | 58-74 | Calibration | 492 | 0.966 | 0.065 | 3.633e−06 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.968 | 0.065 | −8.680e−04 | ||
| Model 12 | 69-89 | Calibration | 492 | 0.986 | 0.043 | −8.997e−08 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.983 | 0.051 | −1.290e−02 | ||
| Model 13 | 65-83 | Calibration | 492 | 0.992 | 0.032 | 1.103e−06 |
| Prediction | 246 | 0.991 | 0.034 | 6.282e−06 |
SN: Sequence number.
Cor.: Correlation coefficient.
RMSE: Root mean squared error.
Figure 8.Reconstruction of approximation at level 3 (A) Wavelet approximation coefficients at level 3 and (B) Reconstructed signals.