| Literature DB >> 30002510 |
Chunwang Dong1, Gaozhen Liang2,3, Bin Hu3, Haibo Yuan2, Yongwen Jiang2, Hongkai Zhu4,5, Jiangtao Qi3.
Abstract
Fermentation is the key process to produce the special color of congou black tea. The machine vision technology is applied to detect the color space changes of black tea's color in RGB, Lab and HSV, and to find out its relevance to black tea's fermentation quality. And then the color feature parameter is used as input to establish physicochemical indexes (TFs, TRs, and TBs) and sensory features' linear and non-linear quantitative evaluation model. Results reveal that color features are significantly correlated to quality indices. Compared with the other two color models (RGB and HSV), CIE Lab model can better reflect the dynamic variation features of quality indices and foliage color information of black tea. The predictability of non-linear models (RF and SVM) is superior to PLS linear model, while RF model presents a slight advantage over the classic SVM model since RF model can better represent the quantitative analytical relationship between image information and quality indices. This research has proved that computer image color features and non-linear method can be used to quantitatively evaluate the changes of quality indices (e.g. sensory quality) and the pigment during black tea's fermentation. Besides, the test is simple, fast, and nondestructive.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30002510 PMCID: PMC6043511 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28767-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flowchart of the algorithm employed for color measurement of tea samples.
Camera characteristics.
| Characteristic | Parameter |
|---|---|
| Image size | 3456 × 2304 pixels |
| Zoom | No zoom |
| Flash mode | No flash |
| Sensitivity | ISO-100 |
| White balance | Fluorescence |
| Operation mode | Manual |
| Aperture av. | f/4.0 |
| Exposure time av | 1/30 s |
| Image type | RGB, JPEG |
| Macro | On |
| Focal length | 24 mm |
| Resolution | 72dpi |
Figure 2(A) Fermentation time images; (B) Average color; (C) Strengthened images; (D) Average color of the strengthened images.
Figure 3Change rules of RGB eigenvalue (A), HSV eigenvalue (B), Lab eigenvalue (C) and quality indices (D) in the fermentation.
One-way ANOVA on each parameter.
| Variable | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between Groups | Within Groups | |||
| R | 2832.183 | 12.77 | 221.791 | |
| G | 3563.196 | 11.106 | 320.83 | |
| B | 474.516 | 6.673 | 71.111 | |
| H | 339.354 | 0.479 | 708.159 | |
| S | 0.012 | 0.001 | 59.465 | |
| V | 0.031 | 0.001 | 204.957 | |
| a* | 59.186 | 0.066 | 891.014 | <0.001 |
| b* | 116.925 | 0.291 | 402.03 | |
| L* | 317.844 | 1.424 | 223.24 | |
| TFs | 0.289 | 0.001 | 256.267 | |
| TRs | 6.68 | 0.005 | 1380.379 | |
| TBs | 21.896 | 0.008 | 2617.585 | |
| Sensory Score | 573.721 | 0.255 | 2252.711 | |
Correlative analysis of color features and quality indices.
| Variable | R | G | B | H | S | V | a* | b* | L* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G | 0.995* | 1 | |||||||
| B | 0.948* | 0.946* | 1 | ||||||
| H | 0.930* | 0.958* | 0.841* | 1 | |||||
| S | 0.601* | 0.603* | 0.323* | 0.698* | 1 | ||||
| V | 0.997* | 0.997* | 0.965* | 0.934* | 0.558* | 1 | |||
| a* | −0.932* | −0.959* | −0.839* | −0.999* | −0.707* | −0.935* | 1 | ||
| b* | 0.870* | 0.876* | 0.676* | 0.918* | 0.906* | 0.846* | −0.925* | 1 | |
| L* | 0.998* | 0.997* | 0.953* | 0.941* | 0.587* | 0.998* | −0.942* | 0.865* | 1 |
| TFs | 0.546* | 0.513* | 0.409* | 0.512* | 0.566* | 0.512* | −0.501* | 0.618* | 0.543* |
| TRs | 0.383* | 0.348* | 0.287* | 0.340* | 0.403* | 0.354* | −0.327* | 0.426* | 0.385* |
| TBs | −0.871* | −0.880* | −0.737* | −0.920* | −0.758* | −0.859* | 0.921* | −0.920* | −0.879* |
| Sensory Score | −0.889* | −0.908* | −0.805* | −0.904* | −0.649* | −0.890* | 0.915* | −0.858* | −0.888* |
|
|
| 0.541* | 0.260* | ||||||
|
|
| 0.673* | −0.369* |
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; Partial correlative analysis.
Descriptive statistics of quality indicator for calibration and prediction set.
| Parameters | CV | Calibration set | Prediction set | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Range | Mean | sda | N | Range | Mean | sda | ||
| TFs | 0.251 | 150 | 0.279~0.723 | 0.466 | 0.117 | 70 | 0.289~0.719 | 0.496 | 0.122 |
| TRs | 0.121 | 150 | 3.570~5.500 | 4.527 | 0.542 | 70 | 3.580~5.520 | 4.665 | 0.579 |
| TBs | 0.144 | 150 | 4.939~8.292 | 6.999 | 0.992 | 70 | 4.949~8.282 | 6.819 | 1.026 |
| Sensory score | 0.063 | 150 | 67.10~88.120 | 81.604 | 5.098 | 70 | 67.230~88.110 | 80.821 | 5.233 |
aStandard deviation.
Figure 4RMSEC values of each quality indice for RF models from different PCs and N((A) represent TFs, (C) represent TRs, (E) represent TBs and (G) represent sensory score), reference values versus predicted values of RF models((B) represent TFs, (D) represent TRs, (F) represent TBs and (H) represent sensory score).
Performances comparison between 3 models of each quality indices.
| Parameters | Methods | PCs/c | N/g | Calibration set | Prediction set | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rc | RMSEC | Bias | Rp | RMSEP | Bias | SEP | CV | RPD | ||||
| TFs | PLS | 6 | — | 0.811 | 0.068 | −0.001 | 0.795 | 0.075 | −0.013 | 0.013 | 0.187 | 1.206 |
| SVM | 0.04 | 0.32 | 0.881 | 0.055 | 0.001 | 0.886 | 0.056 | −0.004 | 0.012 | 0.220 | 1.526 | |
| RF | 5 | 700 | 0.970 | 0.033 | −0.001 | 0.891 | 0.058 | −0.007 | 0.011 | 0.190 | 1.612 | |
| TRs | PLS | 7 | — | 0.733 | 0.368 | −0.006 | 0.752 | 0.388 | −0.041 | 0.053 | 0.079 | 0.936 |
| SVM | 5.38 | 0.066 | 0.853 | 0.282 | −0.008 | 0.838 | 0.326 | −0.015 | 0.046 | 0.085 | 1.212 | |
| RF | 7 | 100 | 0.969 | 0.163 | 0.000 | 0.890 | 0.297 | −0.027 | 0.044 | 0.081 | 1.267 | |
| TBs | PLS | 5 | — | 0.936 | 0.347 | 0.001 | 0.921 | 0.398 | −0.010 | 0.101 | 0.137 | 2.346 |
| SVM | 5.91 | 0.065 | 0.964 | 0.268 | −0.049 | 0.940 | 0.294 | −0.049 | 0.101 | 0.136 | 2.511 | |
| RF | 2 | 200 | 0.986 | 0.168 | 0.003 | 0.944 | 0.347 | −0.068 | 0.101 | 0.136 | 2.636 | |
| Sensory score | PLS | 5 | — | 0.929 | 1.887 | −0.006 | 0.936 | 1.843 | −0.179 | 0.535 | 0.059 | 2.564 |
| SVM | 26.37 | 3.39 | 0.959 | 1.428 | −0.094 | 0.941 | 1.670 | 0.347 | 0.600 | 0.065 | 2.897 | |
| RF | 2 | 700 | 0.987 | 0.867 | 0.032 | 0.948 | 1.733 | 0.482 | 0.571 | 0.062 | 2.931 | |
aRepresents penalty parameters (c) of SVM model; bis the kernel function parameters c of SVM model.
SD, standard deviation; PCs, used latent variables; RMSEC, root mean square error of calibration; RMSEP: root mean square error of prediction; SEP, standard error of prediction; RPD, residual predictive deviation value of prediction.