| Literature DB >> 32316086 |
Huihui Wang1,2,3,4, Kunlun Wang1,2,3,4, Xinyu Zhu1,2,3,4, Peng Zhang1,2,3,4, Jixin Yang1,2,3,4, Mingqian Tan2,3,4.
Abstract
The scaling rate of carp is one of the most important factors restricting the automation and intelligence level of carp processing. In order to solve the shortcomings of the commonly-used manual detection, this paper aimed to study the potential of hyperspectral technology (400-1024.7 nm) in detecting the scaling rate of carp. The whole fish body was divided into three regions (belly, back, and tail) for analysis because spectral responses are different for different regions. Different preprocessing methods, including Savitzky-Golay (SG), first derivative (FD), multivariate scattering correction (MSC), and standard normal variate (SNV) were applied for spectrum pretreatment. Then, the successive projections algorithm (SPA), regression coefficient (RC), and two-dimensional correlation spectroscopy (2D-COS) were applied for selecting characteristic wavelengths (CWs), respectively. The partial least square regression (PLSR) models for scaling rate detection using full wavelengths (FWs) and CWs were established. According to the modeling results, FD-RC-PLSR, SNV-SPA-PLSR, and SNV-RC-PLSR were determined to be the optimal models for predicting the scaling rate in the back (the coefficient of determination in calibration set (RC2) = 96.23%, the coefficient of determination in prediction set (RP2) = 95.55%, root mean square error by calibration (RMSEC) = 6.20%, the root mean square error by prediction (RMSEP)= 7.54%, and the relative percent deviation (RPD) = 3.98), belly (RC2 = 93.44%, RP2 = 90.81%, RMSEC = 8.05%, RMSEP = 9.13%, and RPD = 3.07) and tail (RC2 = 95.34%, RP2 = 93.71%, RMSEC = 6.66%, RMSEP = 8.37%, and RPD = 3.42) regions, respectively. It can be seen that PLSR integrated with specific pretreatment and dimension reduction methods had great potential for scaling rate detection in different carp regions. These results confirmed the possibility of using hyperspectral technology in nondestructive and convenient detection of the scaling rate of carp.Entities:
Keywords: carp; hyperspectral; partial least square regression; preprocessing; scaling rate
Year: 2020 PMID: 32316086 PMCID: PMC7230713 DOI: 10.3390/foods9040500
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Experimental procedure. (ROI: region of interest, SG: Savitzky–Golay, FD: first derivative, MSC: multiple scattering correction, SNV: standard normal variate, SPA: successive projection algorithm, RC: regression coefficient, 2D-COS: two-dimensional correlation spectroscopy, PLSR: partial least square regression.)
The statistical data of the scaling rate in different regions of the samples. SD: standard deviation.
| Different Regions | Number of Samples | Max (%) | Min (%) | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Back | 100 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.23 |
| Belly | 100 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.22 |
| Tail | 100 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.24 |
Figure 2Original mean spectra with SD: (a) mean spectra of the back, belly, and tail regions without scaling; (b) mean spectra of the back region with different scaling rate; (c) mean spectra of the belly region with different scaling rate; (d) mean spectra of the tail region with different scaling rate.
Figure 3Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of (a) carp scale and (b) carp skin.
Figure 4Mean spectra of carp with different preprocessing methods: (a) original mean spectra; (b) mean spectra preprocessed by SG; (c) mean spectra preprocessed by FD; (d) mean spectra preprocessed by MSC; and (e) mean spectra preprocessed by SNV.
Characteristic wavelengths (CWs) selected by SPA.
| Different Regions | Preprocessing | Number of CWs | CWs (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Back | SG | 5 | 400.6, 497.7, 568.6, 663.2, and 716.4 |
| DF | 5 | 572.0, 635.0, 693.3, 771.9, and 983.8 | |
| MSC | 6 | 400.6, 419.2, 497.7, 528.7, 645.6, and 700.4 | |
| SNV | 5 | 400.6, 460, 520.1, 579, and 764.7 | |
| Belly | SG | 7 | 400.6, 437.9, 473.7, 613.9, 759.3, 875.1, and 993.0 |
| DF | 7 | 489.1, 551.2, 540.8, 605.2, 636.8, 766.5, and 902.6 | |
| MSC | 6 | 400.6, 521.8, 556.4, 577.3, 608.7, 961.5 | |
| SNV | 8 | 402.3, 437.9, 478.8, 544.3, 608.7, 746.8, 875.1, and 989.3 | |
| Tail | SG | 5 | 415.8, 437.9, 499.4, 521.8, and 573.8 |
| DF | 7 | 412.4, 478.8, 511.5, 566.8, 768.3, 970.8, and 1015.4 | |
| MSC | 5 | 415.8, 436.2, 497.7, 520.1, and 682.7 | |
| SNV | 5 | 407.4, 431.1, 497.7, 656.1, and 847.8 |
Figure 5CWs of the belly region selected by the method of RC based on different preprocessed methods (a) SG-FD, (b) FD, (c) MSC, and (d) SNV.
CWs selected by RC.
| Different Regions | Preprocessing | Number of CWs | CWs (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Back | SG | 4 | 470.2, 575.5, 645.5, and 761.0 |
| DF | 8 | 422.6, 525.3, 568.6, 691.5, 736.0, 882.4, 983.8, and 996.8 | |
| MSC | 7 | 414.1, 502.8, 573.7, 645.5, 759.2, 875.0, and 970.7 | |
| SNV | 4 | 446.3, 575.5, 718.2, and 762.9 | |
| Belly | SG | 7 | 412.3, 439.6, 558.0, 577.2, 757.5, 875.0, and 972.5 |
| DF | 7 | 426.0, 449.8, 547.7, 570.3, 599.9, 730.7, and 1013.5 | |
| MSC | 8 | 412.3, 439.6, 558.0, 575.5, 633.2, 757.5, 875.0, and 972.5 | |
| SNV | 7 | 410.7, 437.8, 558.0, 575.5, 757.5, 877.0, and 968.9 | |
| Tail | SG | 8 | 412.3, 437.8, 497.7, 556.4, 577.2, 594.7, 762.9, and 959.7 |
| DF | 9 | 407.4, 424.3, 449.8, 568.6, 582.5, 596.4, 750.3, 983.8, and 1011.7 | |
| MSC | 7 | 412.3, 437.8, 499.3, 559.9, 577.2, 594.7, and 764.77 | |
| SNV | 8 | 412.3, 437.8, 497.7, 559.9, 575.5, 594.7, 764.7, and 952.2 |
Figure 6The 2D-COS spectrum maps of the belly region, which were preprocessed by (a) SG, (b) FD, (c) MSC, and (d) SNV, respectively.
CWs by 2D-COS.
| Different Regions | Preprocessing | Numbers of CWs | CWs (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Back | SG | 3 | 400.6, 656.1 and 855.1 |
| DF | 3 | 405.7, 422.6, and 624.5 | |
| MSC | 3 | 400.6, 661.4, and 887.9 | |
| SNV | 3 | 400.6, 645.6, and 893.4 | |
| Belly | SG | 4 | 400.6, 487.4, 640.3, and 853.3 |
| DF | 8 | 405.7, 424.3, 525.3, 586.0, 624.5, 642.0, 668.5, and 688.0 | |
| MSC | 5 | 400.6, 492.6, 575.5, 645.6, and 961.5 | |
| SNV | 5 | 400.6, 497.7, 579.0, 645.6, and 963.4 | |
| Tail | SG | 3 | 551.5, 552.9, and 612.2 |
| DF | 5 | 400.6, 427.7, 525.3, 568.6, and 584.2 | |
| MSC | 4 | 415.8, 508.0, 617,4, and 961.5 | |
| SNV | 4 | 417.5, 473.7, 605.2, and 965.2 |
Evaluating parameters of the PLSR model of the back region.
| Model | No. | Calibration Set | Prediction Set | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDC | SEC |
| SDP | SEP | ||||||
| SG-PLSR | 352 | 98.92 | 1.96 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 96.85 | 3.33 | 5.41 | 0.18 | 0.03 |
| FD-PLSR | 352 | 99.06 | 1.82 | 0.18 | 0.03 | 99.72 | 1.43 | 12.59 | 0.18 | 0.03 |
| MSC-PLSR | 352 | 99.64 | 1.63 | 0.18 | 0.02 | 98.73 | 2.42 | 7.44 | 0.18 | 0.03 |
| SNV-PLSR | 352 | 99.43 | 1.74 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 98.16 | 2.66 | 7.14 | 0.19 | 0.03 |
| SG- SPA | 5 | 90.63 | 6.36 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 88.23 | 7.19 | 2.64 | 0.19 | 0.03 |
| DF-SPA | 5 | 88.92 | 9.87 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 86.93 | 10.59 | 2.46 | 0.26 | 0.03 |
| MSC-SPA | 6 | 87.21 | 6.87 | 0.18 | 0.02 | 83.13 | 7.62 | 1.84 | 0.14 | 0.02 |
| SNV-SPA | 5 | 95.07 | 6.72 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 93.23 | 8.13 | 3.44 | 0.28 | 0.04 |
| SG-RC-PLSR | 4 | 93.04 | 8.02 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 91.19 | 10.24 | 2.79 | 0.29 | 0.05 |
| FD-RC-PLSR | 8 | 96.23 | 6.20 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 95.55 | 7.54 | 3.98 | 0.30 | 0.05 |
| MSC-RC | 7 | 89.01 | 9.81 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 88.76 | 11.79 | 2.40 | 0.28 | 0.04 |
| SNV-RC | 4 | 92.82 | 8.34 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 91.17 | 10.07 | 3.01 | 0.30 | 0.05 |
| SG-2D-COS | 3 | 44.42 | 24.60 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 42.57 | 26.71 | 1.09 | 0.29 | 0.05 |
| FD-2D-COS | 3 | 43.60 | 24.71 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 44.24 | 26.35 | 1.02 | 0.27 | 0.03 |
| MSC-2D-COS -PLSR | 3 | 44.66 | 21.96 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 41.72 | 26.90 | 1.13 | 0.30 | 0.05 |
| SNV-2D-COS -PLSR | 3 | 45.31 | 21.83 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 40.46 | 25.81 | 0.85 | 0.22 | 0.03 |
No.: the variable number of models. SDC and SDP: Standard deviation of the predicted scaling rate of calibration set and prediction set. SEC and SEP: Standard error of the predicted scaling rate of calibration set and prediction set.
Evaluating parameters of PLSR model of the belly region.
| Model | No. | Calibration Set | Prediction Set | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDC | SEC |
| SDP | SEP | |||||||
|
| 352 | 94.01 | 4.82 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 91.06 | 5.83 | 2.92 | 0.17 | 0.03 | |
| DF-PLSR | 352 | 97.32 | 3.32 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 96.67 | 6.54 | 2.56 | 0.17 | 0.03 | |
| MSC-PLSR | 352 | 93.42 | 4.94 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 91.20 | 5.77 | 2.77 | 0.16 | 0.03 | |
| SNV-PLSR | 352 | 99.33 | 1.63 | 0.27 | 0.04 | 98.34 | 2.54 | 10.24 | 0.26 | 0.04 | |
| SG-SPA | 7 | 92.43 | 5.46 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 89.33 | 6.44 | 2.80 | 0.18 | 0.03 | |
| DF-SPA | 7 | 92.13 | 8.98 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 91.19 | 8.95 | 2.79 | 0.25 | 0.04 | |
| MSC-SPA | 6 | 91.23 | 6.26 | 0.16 | 0.02 | 90.21 | 7.02 | 2.27 | 0.16 | 0.03 | |
| SNV-SPA | 8 | 93.44 | 8.05 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 90.81 | 9.13 | 3.07 | 0.28 | 0.04 | |
| SG-RC | 7 | 90.18 | 9.76 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 86.07 | 12.19 | 2.05 | 0.25 | 0.04 | |
| DF-RC | 7 | 90.62 | 9.61 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 87.66 | 10.58 | 2.36 | 0.25 | 0.04 | |
| MSC-RC | 8 | 91.56 | 8.75 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 88.51 | 10.68 | 2.43 | 0.26 | 0.04 | |
| SNV-RC | 7 | 89.06 | 9.92 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 85.72 | 11.56 | 1.73 | 0.20 | 0.03 | |
| SG-2D-COS | 4 | 50.50 | 20.83 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 47.28 | 24.28 | 0.91 | 0.22 | 0.03 | |
| DF-2D-COS | 8 | 91.24 | 9.29 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 87.72 | 10.57 | 2.37 | 0.25 | 0.04 | |
| MSC-2D-COS -PLSR | 5 | 62.96 | 18.68 | 0.20 | 0.03 | 60.64 | 19.17 | 1.10 | 0.21 | 0.03 | |
| SNV-2D-COS -PLSR | 5 | 58.99 | 19.71 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 55.61 | 20.33 | 1.18 | 0.24 | 0.04 | |
No.: the variable number of models. SDC and SDP: Standard deviation of the predicted scaling rate of calibration set and prediction set. SEC and SEP: Standard error of the predicted scaling rate of calibration set and prediction set.
Evaluating parameters of PLSR model of the tail region.
| Model | No. | Calibration Set | Prediction Set | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDC | SEC |
| SDP | SEP | ||||||
| SG-PLSR | 352 | 97.92 | 2.82 | 0.20 | 0.03 | 96.21 | 4.32 | 4.86 | 0.21 | 0.03 |
| DF-PLSR | 352 | 98.34 | 1.58 | 0.20 | 0.03 | 98.11 | 2.34 | 8.55 | 0.20 | 0.03 |
| MSC-PLSR | 352 | 98.31 | 1.53 | 0.20 | 0.03 | 97.52 | 4.07 | 4.91 | 0.20 | 0.03 |
| SNV-PLSR | 352 | 97.82 | 1.76 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 96.15 | 3.22 | 7.45 | 0.24 | 0.04 |
| SG-SPA | 5 | 92.16 | 6.38 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 89.27 | 9.45 | 2.54 | 0.24 | 0.04 |
| DF-SPA | 7 | 94.78 | 7.09 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 93.30 | 8.40 | 2.86 | 0.24 | 0.04 |
| MSC-SPA | 5 | 94.56 | 7.76 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 91.38 | 9.95 | 2.41 | 0.24 | 0.04 |
| SNV-SPA | 5 | 89.69 | 8.96 | 0.27 | 0.04 | 87.22 | 12.22 | 2.29 | 0.28 | 0.04 |
| SG-RC | 8 | 93.72 | 7.75 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 92.89 | 9.76 | 2.67 | 0.26 | 0.04 |
| DF-RC | 9 | 91.43 | 9.83 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 89.52 | 10.86 | 2.30 | 0.25 | 0.04 |
| MSC-RC | 7 | 90.90 | 8.80 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 89.86 | 11.02 | 2.40 | 0.26 | 0.04 |
| SNV-RC | 8 | 95.34 | 6.66 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 93.71 | 8.37 | 3.42 | 0.29 | 0.05 |
| SG-2D-COS | 3 | 54.64 | 19.84 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 53.05 | 21.65 | 1.12 | 0.24 | 0.04 |
| DF-2D-COS | 5 | 52.62 | 20.65 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 50.71 | 22.49 | 1.02 | 0.23 | 0.04 |
| MSC-2D-COS-PLSR | 4 | 63.81 | 18.55 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 59.71 | 20.12 | 1.25 | 0.25 | 0.04 |
| SNV-2D-COS -PLSR | 4 | 63.53 | 17.48 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 59.88 | 20.02 | 1.16 | 0.23 | 0.04 |
No.: the variable number of models. SDC and SDP: Standard deviation of the predicted scaling rate of calibration set and prediction set. SEC and SEP: Standard error of the predicted scaling rate of calibration set and prediction set.
Figure 7Measured scaling rate vs. predicted scaling rate by the optimal model in (a) back, (b) belly, and (c) tail regions of carp in the prediction set.