| Literature DB >> 30441764 |
Duohua Xu1, Huaiwen Wang2,3, Hongwei Ji4, Xiaochuan Zhang5, Yanan Wang6, Zhe Zhang7, Hongfei Zheng8.
Abstract
Evaluation of impact damage to mango (Mangifera indica Linn) as a result of dropping from three different heights, namely, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 m, was conducted by hyperspectral imaging (HSI). Reflectance spectra in the 900⁻1700 nm region were used to develop prediction models for pulp firmness (PF), total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA) and chroma (∆b*) by a partial least squares (PLS) regression algorithm. The results showed that the changes in the mangoes' quality attributes, which were also reflected in the spectra, had a strong relationship with dropping height. The best predictive performance measured by coefficient of determination (R²) and root mean square errors of prediction (RMSEP) values were: 0.84 and 31.6 g for PF, 0.9 and 0.49 oBrix for TSS, 0.65 and 0.1% for TA, 0.94 and 0.96 for chroma, respectively. Classification of the degree of impact damage to mango achieved an accuracy of more than 77.8% according to ripening index (RPI). The results show the potential of HSI to evaluate impact damage to mango by combining with changes in quality attributes.Entities:
Keywords: hyperspectral imaging; impact damage; mango; partial least squares regression; quality attributes
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30441764 PMCID: PMC6275074 DOI: 10.3390/s18113920
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flow chart of the process of evaluating mechanical damage to mango by HSI.
Figure 2Changes in quality attributes of mango samples both in normal and damaged stages (a) pulp firmness, (b) total soluble solids (TSS), (c) titratable acidity (TA) and (d) chroma (∆b*).
The statistical parameters of measured quality attribute data of all mango samples.
| Parameter | Drop Height | Day1 | Day3 | Day5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (m) | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| 0.5 | 48.79 | 7.09 | 40.85 | 6.42 | 35.31 | 5.94 | |
| Firmness (N) | 1.0 | 44.16 | 7.11 | 37.4 | 7.31 | 30.32 | 5.28 |
| 1.5 | 40.51 | 6.19 | 35.66 | 6.24 | 27.72 | 4.08 | |
| 0.5 | 10.05 | 1.01 | 11.27 | 1.16 | 11.31 | 1.33 | |
| TSS (oBrix) | 1.0 | 10.54 | 0.51 | 11.76 | 1.12 | 12.46 | 0.85 |
| 1.5 | 11.19 | 0.6 | 11.87 | 0.91 | 13.2 | 2.11 | |
| 0.5 | 1.99 | 0.16 | 1.59 | 0.42 | 1.26 | 0.15 | |
| TA (%) | 1.0 | 1.89 | 0.17 | 1.40 | 0.11 | 0.94 | 0.19 |
| 1.5 | 1.71 | 0.14 | 1.12 | 0.18 | 0.35 | 0.13 | |
| 0.5 | 38.03 | 9.86 | 47.66 | 5.86 | 51.71 | 4.0 | |
| Chroma(b*) | 1.0 | 46.25 | 8.38 | 49.22 | 4.95 | 54.52 | 5.01 |
| 1.5 | 50.92 | 5.83 | 52.24 | 4.45 | 56.51 | 2.79 | |
| 0.5 | 6.88 | 0.24 | 6.4 | 0.38 | 6.13 | 0.17 | |
| RPI | 1.0 | 6.76 | 0.23 | 6.08 | 0.2 | 5.3 | 0.58 |
| 1.5 | 6.29 | 0.02 | 5.73 | 0.55 | 3.78 | 0.69 | |
Figure 3Spectra of all mango samples in full spectral range. (a) Raw spectra; (b) Spectra preprocessed by SNV; (c) Spectra preprocessed by S-G; (d) Spectra preprocessed by MSC.
Figure 4Mean spectra of mango samples (damaged and undamaged) for three days at three different dropping heights. (a) overall mean spectra; (b) enlarged picture near the wavelength 980 nm; (c) enlarged picture near the wavelength 1500 nm.
Figure 5Changes of the number of sampled variables, RMSECV and regression coefficients path with the increase in the number of sampling.
Figure 6Scatter plots of predicted and reference quality attributes from both modeling sets and prediction sets for (a) pulp firmness (PF); (b) total soluble solids (TSS); (c) titratable acidity (TA) and (d) chroma (∆b*).
Modeling results by PLS regression to predict PF, TSS, TA and flesh color from impact tests.
| Parameter | Drop Height | Day1 | Day3 | Day5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (m) |
| RMSEP |
| RMSEP |
| RMSEP | |
| 0.5 | 0.45 | 4.29 | 0.79 | 3.57 | 0.84 | 3.16 | |
| Firmness (N) | 1 | 0.79 | 1.86 | 0.67 | 3.52 | 0.74 | 2.17 |
| 1.5 | 0.8 | 2.46 | 0.57 | 3.53 | 0.43 | 4.57 | |
| 0.5 | 0.71 | 0.45 | 0.72 | 0.54 | 0.73 | 0.77 | |
| TSS (oBrix) | 1 | 0.66 | 0.21 | 0.89 | 0.36 | 0.9 | 0.49 |
| 1.5 | 0.88 | 0.16 | 0.87 | 0.38 | 0.64 | 1.28 | |
| 0.5 | -0.07 | 0.13 | 0.65 | 0.1 | -6.92 | 0.28 | |
| TA (%) | 1 | 0.58 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.16 | 0.46 | 0.11 |
| 1.5 | 0.48 | 0.12 | 0.58 | 0.14 | 0.62 | 0.07 | |
| 0.5 | 0.57 | 3.63 | 0.76 | 1.69 | 0.88 | 1.6 | |
| Chroma (∆b*) | 1 | 0.63 | 4.46 | 0.91 | 1.89 | 0.94 | 0.96 |
| 1.5 | 0.88 | 1.72 | 0.8 | 2.91 | 0.82 | 1.15 | |
Classification results for damage degree of mango performing discriminate analysis (DA) on spectral data according to RPI.
| Actual Group (%) | Classified Group (%) | Total (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slight | Moderate | Serious | |||
| Training set | Slight | 83.3 | 16.7 | 0 | 100 |
| Moderate | 27.6 | 65.3 | 7.1 | 100 | |
| Serious | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | |
| Testing set | Slight | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Moderate | 20.7 | 77.8 | 1.5 | 100 | |
| Serious | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | |