| Literature DB >> 34291208 |
Yinyan Shi1,2, Xiaochan Wang2, Md Saidul Borhan1, Jennifer Young3, David Newman4, Eric Berg3, Xin Sun1.
Abstract
Increasing meat demand in terms of both quality and quantity in conjunction with feeding a growing population has resulted in regulatory agencies imposing stringent guidelines on meat quality and safety. Objective and accurate rapid non-destructive detection methods and evaluation techniques based on artificial intelligence have become the research hotspot in recent years and have been widely applied in the meat industry. Therefore, this review surveyed the key technologies of non-destructive detection for meat quality, mainly including ultrasonic technology, machine (computer) vision technology, near-infrared spectroscopy technology, hyperspectral technology, Raman spectra technology, and electronic nose/tongue. The technical characteristics and evaluation methods were compared and analyzed; the practical applications of non-destructive detection technologies in meat quality assessment were explored; and the current challenges and future research directions were discussed. The literature presented in this review clearly demonstrate that previous research on non-destructive technologies are of great significance to ensure consumers' urgent demand for high-quality meat by promoting automatic, real-time inspection and quality control in meat production. In the near future, with ever-growing application requirements and research developments, it is a trend to integrate such systems to provide effective solutions for various grain quality evaluation applications. © Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources.Entities:
Keywords: grading assessment; industrial application; key technology; meat quality; non-destructive detection
Year: 2021 PMID: 34291208 PMCID: PMC8277176 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2021.e25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 2636-0772
Fig. 1.A typical computer vision system for meat quality non-destructive evaluation applications.
Recent studies on meat quality detection using computer vision system
| Performance | References |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of 92.5%, 75.0% | ( |
| Correlation coefficient of 0.98734 | ( |
| Correlation coefficient of 0.926 | ( |
| Accuracy of 81.7% | ( |
| Error of 7.8% | ( |
Fig. 2.Components of a meat spectral detection system.
Recent studies on meat quality detection using near-infrared spectroscopy
| Category | Measured attribute | Analytical method | Performance | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicken | Identification and classification (moisture, lipid contents, protein contents, water holding capacity, and shear force) | SVM | Accuracy of 91.8% | ( |
| Pork | Freshness | BP-AdaBoost | Correlation coefficient of 0.8325 | ( |
| Chicken | Water-holding capacity | PCA and PLSR | Correlation coefficient of 0.91 | ( |
| Mutton | Discriminating the adulteration | SVM | Accuracy of 90.38%–99.07% | ( |
| Pork | Moisture | PLSR | Correlation coefficient of 0.906 | ( |
| Chicken breast | Protein | LDA and PLSR | Accuracy of 99.5%–100% | ( |
| Fish | Microbial spoilage | PLSR and LS-SVM | Correlation coefficient of 0.93 | ( |
| Rhubarb | Identification | PLS-DA, SIMCA, SVM and ANN | Accuracy of 94.12% | ( |
| Beef | Adulteration | AF | Correlation coefficient of 0.91 | ( |
| Beef, chicken and lard | Authentication and classification | SVM | Accuracy of 98.33% | ( |
| Turkey meat | Identification | PLS-DA | Correlation coefficient >0.884 | ( |
SVM, support vector machine; BP-AdaBoost, namely back propagation artificial neural network (BP-ANN) and adaptive boosting (AdaBoost); PCA, principal component analysis; PLSR, partial least squares regression; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; LS-SVM, least square support vector machine; PLS-DA, partial least squares-discriminant analysis; SIMCA, soft independent modeling of class analogies; LS-SVM, least square support vector machines; ANN, artificial neural network; AF, artificial fish swarm algorithm.
Fig. 3.Hypercube information diagram of hyperspectral image for meat detection.
Recent studies on meat quality detection using hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technique
| Category | Measured attribute | Analytical method | Performance | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicken meat | Texture | ACO-BPANN and PCA-BPANN | Correlation coefficient of 0.754 | ( |
| Prawn | TVB-N (freshness) | PLSR, LS-SVM, and BP-NN | Correlation coefficient of 0.9547 | ( |
| Beef | Total viable count (TVC) of bacteria (freshness) | PLS and LS-SVM | Accuracy of 97.14% | ( |
| Pork meat | Protein and TVB-N content | PLSR and LS-SVM | Correlation coefficient of 0.861 | ( |
| Fish | Freshness | PCA and BP-ANN | Accuracy of 94.17% | ( |
| Pork muscles | Intramuscular fat contents | SVM, SG, SNV, MSC, and PLSR | Correlation coefficient of 0.9635 | ( |
| Frozen pork | Myofibrils cold structural deformation degrees | PLSR and SPA | Correlation coefficient of 0.896 | ( |
| Lamb, beef, and pork | Adulteration | SVM and CNN | Accuracy of 94.4% | ( |
| Beef | Adulteration | PLSR and SVM | Accuracy of 95.31% | ( |
| Fish (grass carp) | Textural changes (Warner-Bratzler shear force, hardness, gumminess and chewiness) | PLSR | Correlation coefficient of 0.7982-Correlation coefficient of 0.8774 | ( |
| Lamb meat | Adulteration | SPA and SG | Correlation coefficient above 0.99 | ( |
| Pork | Intramuscular fat content | MLR | Correlation coefficient of 0.96 | ( |
| Pork | Moisture content (MC) | PLSR | Correlation coefficient of 0.9489 | ( |
| Grass carp ( | Moisture content | PLSR | Correlation coefficient of 0.9416 | ( |
| Lamb muscle | Discrimination | PCA, LMS, MLP-SCG, SVM, SMO, and LR | Accuracy of 96.67% | ( |
| Beef | Adulteration | PLSR, SVM, ELM, CARS, and GA | Correlation coefficient of 0.97 | ( |
ACO, ant colony optimization; PCA, principle component analysis; BPANN, back propagation artificial neural network; PLSR, partial least squares regression; LS-SVM, least square support vector machines; BP-NN, back propagation neural network; PLS, partial least squares; SG, savitzky golay; SNV, smoothing, standard normal variate; MSC, multiplicative scatter correction; SPA, successive projections algorithm; CNN, convolution neural networks; LMS, linear least mean squares; MLP-SCG, multilayer perceptron with scaled conjugate gradient; SVM, support vector machine; SMO, sequential minimal optimization; LR, logistic regression; ELM, extreme learning machine; CARS, and competitive adaptive reweighted sampling; GA, Genetic algorithm.
Recent studies on meat quality detection using Raman spectra technique
| Category | Measured attribute | Raman frequency range | Analytical method | Performance | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grass carp surimi | Changes of protein structure and amino acid residue microenvironment | 2,900 cm–1 | / | Effective | ( |
| Bull beef | Sensory characteristics (flavour) | 1,300–2,800 cm–1 | PLSR | Correlation coefficient of 0.80–0.96 | ( |
| Beef tallow, pork lard, chicken fat, duck oil | Adulteration (unsaturated fatty acids and total fatty acids) | 700–1,800 cm–1 | Correlated linear | Correlation coefficient of 0.96674 and 0.97148 | ( |
| Chicken | Sodium chloride or sodium bicarbonate | 1,659±0.58 cm–1 to 1,661±0.58 cm–1 | one-way ANOVA | / | ( |
| Bovine | Tenderness (shear force) | 800–1,550 cm–1 | PLSR | Accuracy of 70%–88% | ( |
| Lamb | Intramuscular fat content and major fatty acid groups | 500–1,800 cm–1 | PLSR and linear regression | Correlation coefficient of 0.93 | ( |
| Bovine serum albumin | Orientation of Norfloxacin | 300–1,800 cm–1 | / | / | ( |
| Cooked meat | Endpoint temperature | 1,800–2,000 cm–1 | PLS-DA and PCA | Accuracy of 97.87% | ( |
| Beef lions | Eating quality traits (juiciness and tenderness) | 671 nm | PLSR | / | ( |
| Porcine meat | pH | 323–2,105 cm–1 | ACO | Correlation coefficient of 0.90 | ( |
PLSR, partial least squares regression; ANOVA, one-way analysis of variance; PLS-DA, partial least squares-discriminant analysis; PCA, principle component analysis; ACO, ant colony optimization.