| Literature DB >> 32283830 |
Zhiming Guo1, Chuang Guo1, Quansheng Chen1, Qin Ouyang1, Jiyong Shi1, Hesham R El-Seedi1,2, Xiaobo Zou1.
Abstract
It is crucial for the efficacy of the apple storage to apply methods like electronic nose systems for detection and prediction of spoilage or infection by Penicillium expansum. Based on the acquisition of electronic nose signals, selected sensitive feature sensors of spoilage apple and all sensors were analyzed and compared by the recognition effect. Principal component analysis (PCA), principle component analysis-discriminant analysis (PCA-DA), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), partial least squares discriminate analysis (PLS-DA) and K-nearest neighbor (KNN) were used to establish the classification model of apple with different degrees of corruption. PCA-DA has the best prediction, the accuracy of training set and prediction set was 100% and 97.22%, respectively. synergy interval (SI), genetic algorithm (GA) and competitive adaptive reweighted sampling (CARS) are three selection methods used to accurately and quickly extract appropriate feature variables, while constructing a PLS model to predict plaque area. Among them, the PLS model with unique variables was optimized by CARS method, and the best prediction result of the area of the rotten apple was obtained. The best results are as follows: Rc = 0.953, root mean square error of calibration (RMSEC) = 1.28, Rp = 0.972, root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) = 1.01. The results demonstrated that the electronic nose has a potential application in the classification of rotten apples and the quantitative detection of spoilage area.Entities:
Keywords: apple; electronic nose; gas sensors; pattern recognition; variable selection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32283830 PMCID: PMC7180459 DOI: 10.3390/s20072130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic procedures of classification and prediction of defects of Penicillium expansum in apples by electronic nose combined with chemometrics.
Response features of the gas sensor array.
| Number in Array | Sensor | Main Attribute | Typical Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | W1C | Aromatic compounds | C6H5CH3 |
| R2 | W5S | Nitrogen oxides | NO2 |
| R3 | W3C | Ammonia and aromatic molecules | C6H6 |
| R4 | W6S | Hydrogen | H2 |
| R5 | W5C | Alkanes, aromatic compounds | C3H8 |
| R6 | W1S | Broad methane | CH4 |
| R7 | W1W | Sulfur-containing organics | H2S |
| R8 | W2S | Broad alcohols | C2H5OH |
| R9 | W2W | Aromatics, organic sulfides | H2S |
| R10 | W3S | Methane and aliphatics | CH4 |
Figure 2(a) Data of each sensor of a single corrupt apple; (b) response signals of various sensors to apple gases with different degrees of corruption.
Figure 3(a) Principle component analysis (PCA) results using data from all sensors; (b) feature sensors.
Figure 4(a) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) results using data from all sensors; (b) feature sensors.
Figure 5(a,b) K-nearest neighbor (KNN) results using data from all sensors; (c,d) feature sensors.
Classification results using data from all sensors and feature sensors.
| Algorithm | All Sensors (R1-R10) | Feature Sensors (R2 R6 R7 R9) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration Set | Prediction Set | Calibration Set | Prediction Set | |
| LDA | 98.61% | 95.83% | 95.83% | 95.83% |
| KNN | 98.61% | 95.83% | 95.83% | 100% |
| PCA-DA | 95.83% | 95.83% | 97.22% | 100% |
| PLS-DA | 100% | 93.75% | 95.83% | 100% |
Figure 6(a,b) Quantitative model results for all sensor versus characteristic sensor information using PLS; (c,d) Si-PLS; (e,f) GA-PLS; (g,h) CARS-PLS.
Results of an optimal PLS model using different data based on different variable selection methods.
| Model | All Sensors (R1-R10) | Feature Sensors (R2 R6 R7 R9) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration Set | Prediction Set | Calibration Set | Prediction Set | |||||
| Rc | RMSEC | RP | RMSEP | Rc | RMSEC | RP | RMSEP | |
| PLS | 0.844 | 2.26 | 0.893 | 1.90 | 0.919 | 1.66 | 0.945 | 1.40 |
| SI-PLS | 0.929 | 1.56 | 0.938 | 1.46 | 0.938 | 1.45 | 0.954 | 1.27 |
| GA-PLS | 0.917 | 1.65 | 0.925 | 1.61 | 0.939 | 1.44 | 0.942 | 1.42 |
| CARS-PLS LSPLS | 0.937 | 1.48 | 0.941 | 1.45 | 0.953 | 1.28 | 0.972 | 1.01 |