| Literature DB >> 25546335 |
Chuanqi Xie1, Xiaoli Li2, Yongni Shao2, Yong He3.
Abstract
This study investigated the feasibility of using hyperspectral imaging technique for nondestructive measurement of color components (ΔL*, Δa* and Δb*) and classify tea leaves during different drying periods. Hyperspectral images of tea leaves at five drying periods were acquired in the spectral region of 380-1030 nm. The three color features were measured by the colorimeter. Different preprocessing algorithms were applied to select the best one in accordance with the prediction results of partial least squares regression (PLSR) models. Competitive adaptive reweighted sampling (CARS) and successive projections algorithm (SPA) were used to identify the effective wavelengths, respectively. Different models (least squares-support vector machine [LS-SVM], PLSR, principal components regression [PCR] and multiple linear regression [MLR]) were established to predict the three color components, respectively. SPA-LS-SVM model performed excellently with the correlation coefficient (rp) of 0.929 for ΔL*, 0.849 for Δa*and 0.917 for Δb*, respectively. LS-SVM model was built for the classification of different tea leaves. The correct classification rates (CCRs) ranged from 89.29% to 100% in the calibration set and from 71.43% to 100% in the prediction set, respectively. The total classification results were 96.43% in the calibration set and 85.71% in the prediction set. The result showed that hyperspectral imaging technique could be used as an objective and nondestructive method to determine color features and classify tea leaves at different drying periods.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25546335 PMCID: PMC4278674 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113422
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Hyperspectral imaging.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the hyperspectral imaging system.
Figure 3Main steps of this study.
Reference values of color (ΔL*, Δa* and Δb*) of tea leaves in calibration and prediction sets.
| Statistics | Calibration | Prediction | ||||
| ΔL* | Δa* | Δb* | ΔL* | Δa* | Δb* | |
| Minimum | −69.78 | −9.66 | 7.56 | −69.96 | −9.27 | 8.87 |
| Maximum | −55.59 | 1.81 | 30.43 | −56.35 | 2.11 | 31.84 |
| Mean | −62.77 | −5.85 | 16.85 | −62.78 | −5.74 | 17.05 |
| Standard Deviation | 3.13 | 1.95 | 5.33 | 3.20 | 2.14 | 5.40 |
Performance of models in calibration and prediction for predicting color (ΔL*, Δa* and Δb*) using different preprocessing methods.
| Preprocessing | Calibration | Prediction | No. | ||||||||||
| ΔL* | Δa* | Δb* | ΔL* | Δa* | Δb* | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Raw | 0.911 | 1.286 | 0.837 | 1.064 | 0.917 | 2.118 | 0.925 | 1.205 | 0.793 | 1.295 | 0.930 | 1.979 | 5/9/8 |
| MAS | 0.910 | 1.288 | 0.898 | 0.855 | 0.918 | 2.107 | 0.925 | 1.204 | 0.781 | 1.327 | 0.928 | 1.991 | 5/13/9 |
| SGS | 0.909 | 1.296 | 0.910 | 0.805 | 0.914 | 2.156 | 0.925 | 1.204 | 0.782 | 1.324 | 0.923 | 2.061 | 5/14/8 |
| MFS | 0.910 | 1.289 | 0.896 | 0.863 | 0.913 | 2.166 | 0.925 | 1.207 | 0.780 | 1.328 | 0.925 | 2.045 | 5/13/8 |
| GFS | 0.910 | 1.290 | 0.834 | 1.071 | 0.917 | 2.126 | 0.925 | 1.209 | 0.785 | 1.317 | 0.928 | 1.991 | 5/9/8 |
| Normalize | 0.912 | 1.276 | 0.820 | 1.113 | 0.917 | 2.117 | 0.925 | 1.209 | 0.793 | 1.294 | 0.927 | 2.011 | 4/7/7 |
| MSC | 0.898 | 1.368 | 0.949 | 0.611 | 0.924 | 2.038 | 0.906 | 1.342 | 0.799 | 1.276 | 0.908 | 2.253 | 5/15/8 |
| SGD | 0.947 | 1.004 | 0.775 | 1.229 | 0.961 | 1.472 | 0.914 | 1.289 | 0.618 | 1.670 | 0.904 | 2.293 | 7/4/8 |
| Baseline | 0.892 | 1.410 | 0.863 | 0.981 | 0.922 | 2.058 | 0.902 | 1.369 | 0.791 | 1.301 | 0.925 | 2.045 | 4/10/9 |
| SNV | 0.898 | 1.367 | 0.942 | 0.652 | 0.924 | 2.037 | 0.906 | 1.342 | 0.804 | 1.263 | 0.909 | 2.236 | 5/14/8 |
Moving average smoothing;
Savitzky-Golay smoothing;
Median filter smoothing;
Gaussian filter smoothing;
Multiplicative scatter correction;
Savitzky-Golay derivatives;
Standard normal variate;
Number of latent variables of ΔL*/Number of latent variables of Δa*/Number of latent variables of Δb*.
Effective wavelengths recommended by CARS and SPA, respectively.
| Methods | Type | Number | Effected wavelengths/nm |
| CARS | ΔL* | 48 | 410, 413, 416, 420, 425, 429, 444, 448, 531, 539, 543, 544, 545, 638, 639, 677, 767, 869, 874, 884, 892, 922, 925, 929, 934, 937, 945, 958, 965, 969, 971, 973, 975, 977, 978, 981, 982, 985, 987, 998, 999, 1001, 1006, 1007, 1013, 1015, 1018, 1027 |
| CARS | Δa* | 34 | 407, 428, 429, 515, 517, 518, 519, 540, 543, 544, 548, 586, 588, 590, 610, 611, 613, 614, 615, 616, 676, 693, 724, 741, 922, 924, 950, 965, 971, 985, 986, 1014, 1017, 1021 |
| CARS | Δb* | 26 | 461, 462, 543, 545, 584, 585, 608, 609, 610, 700, 711, 729, 753, 846, 848, 965, 969, 974, 975, 977, 987, 989, 990, 1009, 1015, 1018 |
| SPA | ΔL* | 7 | 457, 540, 649, 735, 761, 874, 1017 |
| SPA | Δa* | 6 | 540, 608, 676, 690, 985, 1017 |
| SPA | Δb* | 11 | 404, 408, 414, 416, 418, 444, 540, 648, 770, 866, 971 |
Performance of different models in calibration and prediction for predicting color (ΔL*, Δa* and Δb*).
| Model | Calibration | Prediction | Bands | ||||||||||
| ΔL* | Δa* | Δb* | ΔL* | Δa* | Δb* | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| LS-SVM | 0.972 | 0.741 | 0.973 | 0.463 | 0.967 | 1.354 | 0.931 | 1.164 | 0.973 | 1.051 | 0.933 | 1.936 | 496/496/496 |
| PCR | 0.908 | 1.302 | 0.799 | 1.169 | 0.915 | 2.134 | 0.927 | 1.188 | 0.762 | 1.375 | 0.921 | 2.083 | 496/496/496 |
| CARS-LS-SVM | 0.980 | 0.616 | 0.968 | 0.492 | 0.965 | 1.381 | 0.920 | 1.251 | 0.842 | 1.164 | 0.944 | 1.762 | 48/34/26 |
| CARS-PLS | 0.955 | 0.930 | 0.874 | 0.944 | 0.944 | 1.752 | 0.924 | 1.219 | 0.806 | 1.257 | 0.925 | 2.036 | 48/34/26 |
| CARS-PCR | 0.904 | 1.333 | 0.873 | 0.948 | 0.934 | 1.901 | 0.922 | 1.223 | 0.812 | 1.241 | 0.915 | 2.159 | 48/34/26 |
| CARS-MLR | 0.963 | 0.838 | 0.907 | 0.820 | 0.951 | 1.648 | 0.931 | 1.160 | 0.807 | 1.256 | 0.931 | 1.958 | 48/34/26 |
| SPA-LS-SVM | 0.933 | 1.116 | 0.893 | 0.877 | 0.916 | 2.133 | 0.929 | 1.178 | 0.849 | 1.146 | 0.917 | 2.142 | 7/6/11 |
| SPA-PLS | 0.914 | 1.263 | 0.809 | 1.143 | 0.904 | 2.265 | 0.925 | 1.205 | 0.746 | 1.415 | 0.907 | 2.258 | 7/6/11 |
| SPA-PCR | 0.911 | 1.285 | 0.669 | 1.446 | 0.891 | 2.417 | 0.924 | 1.219 | 0.754 | 1.397 | 0.904 | 2.287 | 7/6/11 |
| SPA-MLR | 0.917 | 1.247 | 0.810 | 1.140 | 0.906 | 2.244 | 0.926 | 1.201 | 0.754 | 1.397 | 0.908 | 2.254 | 7/6/11 |
Number of input bands of ΔL*/Number of input bands of Δa*/Number of input bands of Δb*.
Figure 4Measured vs. predicted values of calibration and prediction by CARS-LS-SVM and SPA-LS-SVM models, respectively.
(a): CARS-LS-SVM-ΔL*; (b): CARS-LS-SVM-Δa*; (c): CARS-LS-SVM-Δb*; (d): SPA-LS-SVM-ΔL*; e): SPA-LS-SVM-Δa*; (f): SPA-LS-SVM-Δb*.
Correct classification rates based on LS-SVM.
| Calibration set | Prediction set | |||||
| Types | No. | Missed | CCR | No. | Missed | CCR |
| 0 min | 28 | 0 | 100 | 14 | 1 | 92.86 |
| 4 min | 28 | 0 | 100 | 14 | 0 | 100 |
| 6 min | 28 | 2 | 92.86 | 14 | 4 | 71.43 |
| 8 min | 28 | 3 | 89.29 | 14 | 4 | 71.43 |
| 10 min | 28 | 0 | 100 | 14 | 1 | 92.86 |
| Total | 140 | 5 | 96.43 | 70 | 10 | 85.71 |
Correct classification rates.