| Literature DB >> 27618901 |
Gifty E Acquah1, Brian K Via2, Nedret Billor3, Oladiran O Fasina4, Lori G Eckhardt5.
Abstract
As new markets, technologies and economies evolve in the low carbon bioeconomy, forest logging residue, a largely untapped renewable resource will play a vital role. The feedstock can however be variable depending on plant species and plant part component. This heterogeneity can influence the physical, chemical and thermochemical properties of the material, and thus the final yield and quality of products. Although it is challenging to control compositional variability of a batch of feedstock, it is feasible to monitor this heterogeneity and make the necessary changes in process parameters. Such a system will be a first step towards optimization, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness of processes in the emerging biofuel/chemical industry. The objective of this study was therefore to qualitatively classify forest logging residue made up of different plant parts using both near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIRS) together with linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Forest logging residue harvested from several Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) plantations in Alabama, USA, were classified into three plant part components: clean wood, wood and bark and slash (i.e., limbs and foliage). Five-fold cross-validated linear discriminant functions had classification accuracies of over 96% for both NIRS and FTIRS based models. An extra factor/principal component (PC) was however needed to achieve this in FTIRS modeling. Analysis of factor loadings of both NIR and FTIR spectra showed that, the statistically different amount of cellulose in the three plant part components of logging residue contributed to their initial separation. This study demonstrated that NIR or FTIR spectroscopy coupled with PCA and LDA has the potential to be used as a high throughput tool in classifying the plant part makeup of a batch of forest logging residue feedstock. Thus, NIR/FTIR could be employed as a tool to rapidly probe/monitor the variability of forest biomass so that the appropriate online adjustments to parameters can be made in time to ensure process optimization and product quality.Entities:
Keywords: bioeconomy; forest biomass; fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; linear discriminant analysis; near infrared spectroscopy; principal component analysis; process optimization
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27618901 PMCID: PMC5038653 DOI: 10.3390/s16091375
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Chemical composition and ash content of forest logging residue.
Figure 2Raw NIR (A) and FTIR (B) spectra of the different types of forest logging residue.
Eigenvalues of the correlation matrix 1.
| NIRS | FTIRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC | Eigenvalue | Proportion of Variance Explained (%) | Cumulative Variance (%) | Eigenvalue | Proportion of Variance Explained (%) | Cumulative Variance (%) |
| 1 | 456.4 (4.8) | 76.1 | 76.1 | 271.0 (5.2) | 80.9 | 80.9 |
| 2 | 95.4 (3.7) | 15.9 | 92.0 | 49.9 (4.0) | 14.9 | 95.8 |
| 3 | 41.8 (6.5) | 7.0 | 98.9 | 9.6 (3.6) | 2.9 | 98.7 |
| 4 | 3.6 (1.3) | 0.6 | 99.5 | 1.8 (0.3) | 0.6 | 99.2 |
| 5 | 1.3 (0.1) | 0.6 | 99.7 | 1.3 (0.2) | 0.4 | 99.6 |
| 6 | 0.85 (0.08) | 0.14 | 99.88 | 0.29 (0.04) | 0.09 | 99.68 |
| 7 | 0.36 (0.03) | 0.06 | 99.94 | 0.16 (0.03) | 0.05 | 99.73 |
| 8 | 0.13 (0.01) | 0.02 | 99.96 | 0.09 (0.01) | 0.03 | 99.76 |
| 9 | 0.06 (0.01) | 0.01 | 99.97 | 0.07 (0.01) | 0.02 | 99.78 |
| 10 | 0.04 (0.01) | 0.01 | 99.98 | 0.06 (0.01) | 0.02 | 99.80 |
1 Values are the means of the five folds used as training data sets. SD values in brackets.
Figure 3NIR scores plot of PC 1 versus PC 2.
Figure 4NIR loadings plot of PC 1 showing significant peaks.
Figure 5FTIR scores plot of PC 1 versus PC 5.
Figure 6FTIR loadings plot of PC 1 showing significant peaks.
Figure 7Effect of changing number of PCs on classification error.
Linear discriminant functions used for classifying plant part components.
| NIRS | FTIRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Clean Wood | Slash | Wood and Bark | Clean Wood | Slash | Wood and Bark |
| Constant | −6.13 (0.71) | −9.29 (3.51) | −2.14 (0.36) | −6.89 (1.73) | −10.34 (3.96) | −2.02 (0.51) |
| PC1 | −0.39 (0.08) | 0.51 (0.17) | −0.11 (0.04) | −0.4 (0.08) | 0.56 (0.16) | −0.14 (0.03) |
| PC2 | 0.42 (0.03) | −0.43 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.06) | −0.16 (0.06) | 0.2 (0.07) | −0.05 (0.04) |
| PC3 | −0.04 (0.06) | 0.07 (0.05) | −0.03 (0.01) | 0.21 (0.23) | −0.41 (0.35) | 0.22 (0.13) |
| PC4 | 1.23 (0.35) | −2.35 (0.66) | 1.07 (0.19) | −3.06 (1.74) | 3.94 (1.52) | −1.12 (0.39) |
| PC5 | - | - | - | 6.56 (1.66) | −7.59 (2.84) | 0.78 (0.41) |
Generalized squared distances of the three plant part components of forest logging residue.
| NIRS | FTIRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From/Into | Clean Wood | Slash | Wood and Bark | Clean Wood | Slash | Wood and Bark |
| Clean wood | 2.2 (0.3) | 52.5 (12.9) | 10.6 (1.6) | 2.2 (0.3) | 59.9 (17.8) | 11.1 (1.7) |
| Slash | 52.5 (12.9) | 2.2 (0.3) | 28.2 (8.2) | 59.9 (17.8) | 2.2 (0.3) | 30.2 (7.3) |
| Wood & bark | 10.6 (1.6) | 28.2 (8.2) | 2.2 (0.3) | 11.1 (1.7) | 30.3 (7.3) | 2.2 (0.3) |
Five-fold cross-validation summary of error count estimates (%) for plant part component 1.
| NIRS | FTIRS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clean Wood | Slash | Wood and Bark | Total | Clean Wood | Slash | Wood and Bark | Total | |
| Rate | 0% | 3.3% | 6.7% | 3.2% | 0% | 3.3% | 8.3% | 3.4% |
1 Values are averages of the five groups of test samples used in validation.
Classification rates for forest logging residue 1.
| NIRS | FTIRS | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant Part Component | ||||||||||
| Test Sample | Clean Wood | Slash | Wood & Bark | Total | % Correct Classification | Clean Wood | Slash | Wood & Bark | Total | % Correct Classification |
| Clean Wood | 17 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 100 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 100 |
| Slash | 0 | 16 | 1 | 17 | 96.7 | 0 | 16 | 1 | 17 | 96.7 |
| Wood and bark | 1 | 0 | 16 | 17 | 93.3 | 2 | 0 | 15 | 17 | 91.7 |
| % Total Accuracy | 96.7 (3.3) | 96.1 (4.2) | ||||||||
1 Calculated based on error count estimates (in Table 4). SD values in brackets.