| Literature DB >> 34368554 |
Li Wang1, Jieqing Li2, Tao Li3, Honggao Liu4, Yuanzhong Wang5.
Abstract
The taste of fresh mushrooms is always appealing. Phlebopus portentosus is the only porcini that can be cultivated artificially in the world, with a daily output of up to 2 tons and a large sales market. Fresh mushrooms are very susceptible to microbial attacks when stored at 0-2 °C for more than 5 days. Therefore, the freshness of P. portentosus must be evaluated during its refrigeration to ensure food safety. According to their freshness, the samples were divided into three categories, namely, category I (1-2 days, 0-48 h, recommended for consumption), category II (3-4 days, 48-96 h, recommended for consumption), and category III (5-6 days, 96-144 h, not recommended). In our study, a fast and reliable shelf life identification method was established through Fourier transform near-infrared (FT-NIR) spectroscopy combined with a machine learning method. Deep learning (DL) is a new focus in the field of food research, so we established a deep learning classification model, traditional support-vector machine (SVM), partial least-squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), and an extreme learning machine (ELM) model to identify the shelf life of P. portentosus. The results showed that FT-NIR two-dimensional correlation spectroscopy (2DCOS) combined with the deep learning model was more suitable for the identification of fresh mushroom shelf life and the model had the best robustness. In conclusion, FT-NIR combined with machine learning had the advantages of being nondestructive, fast, and highly accurate in identifying the shelf life of P. portentosus. This method may become a promising rapid analysis tool, which can quickly identify the shelf life of fresh edible mushrooms.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34368554 PMCID: PMC8340397 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c02317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Figure 1Samples: (A) raw spectrum and (B) average spectrum.
Results of the SVM Model for Identifying the Shelf Life of P. portentosus Based on Different Preprocessing Methods
| data matrices | best | best | accuracy of training set (%) | accuracy of test set (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| raw | 1.31072 × 105 | 1.7263 × 10–4 | 78.17 | 80.95 |
| FD | 9.26819 × 104 | 3.0518 × 10–5 | 97.61 | 94.05 |
| SD | 32 | 4.8828 × 10–4 | 96.03 | 100 |
Results of the PLS-DA Model for Identifying the Shelf Life of P. portentosus Based on Different Preprocessing Methods
| data matrices | LVs | RMSECV | RMSEE | RMSEP | accuracy of training set (%) | accuracy of test set (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| raw | 0.506 | 0.419 | 14 | 0.3647 | 0.3412 | 0.3533 | 82.14 | 79.76 |
| FD | 0.81 | 0.671 | 15 | 0.2956 | 0.2374 | 0.2685 | 99.21 | 91.67 |
| SD | 0.905 | 0.769 | 10 | 0.2314 | 0.1476 | 0.2262 | 99.21 | 97.62 |
Figure 2Permutation test results of the PLS-DA model of the SD data set.
Results of the ELM Model for Identifying the Shelf Life of P. portentosus Based on Different Preprocessing Methods
| data matrices | hidden neurons | accuracy of training set (%) | accuracy of test set (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | 71 | 86.11 | 70.11 |
| FD | 71 | 98.81 | 90.80 |
| SD | 71 | 96.83 | 93.10 |
Figure 3Synchronous, asynchronous, and i2DCOS images of P. portentosus with different shelf lives: (a–c) category I; (d–f) category II; and (g–i) category III.
Figure 4Results of the deep learning model of P. portentosus. (A) Model accuracy based on synchronization; (B) model loss value based on synchronization; (C) model accuracy based on asynchronization; and (D) model accuracy based on i2DCOS.
Comparison of Different Model Parameters
| raw | FD | SD | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| methods | parameter | I | II | III | I | II | III | I | II | III |
| SVM | Sen | 0.893 | 0.714 | 0.821 | 0.964 | 0.929 | 0.929 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Spe | 0.893 | 0.911 | 0.911 | 0.929 | 0.982 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| Eff | 0.893 | 0.807 | 0.865 | 0.946 | 0.955 | 0.964 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| PLS-DA | Sen | 0.750 | 0.786 | 0.857 | 0.929 | 0.900 | 0.857 | 0.964 | 1.000 | 0.964 |
| Spe | 0.911 | 0.857 | 0.929 | 0.946 | 0.981 | 0.982 | 0.982 | 1.000 | 0.982 | |
| Eff | 0.826 | 0.821 | 0.892 | 0.937 | 0.940 | 0.918 | 0.973 | 1.000 | 0.973 | |
| ELM | Sen | 0.724 | 0.690 | 0.759 | 1.000 | 0.828 | 0.897 | 0.931 | 0.931 | 0.931 |
| Spe | 0.828 | 0.793 | 0.966 | 0.931 | 0.948 | 0.983 | 0.983 | 0.948 | 0.966 | |
| Eff | 0.774 | 0.740 | 0.856 | 0.965 | 0.886 | 0.939 | 0.957 | 0.940 | 0.948 | |
| DL | Sen | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Spe | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||||||
| Eff | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||||||
Figure 5(A) SVM classification principle; (B) ELM neural network; and (C) DL neural network.
Figure 6Schematic diagram of the ResNet module.