| Literature DB >> 35062387 |
Yang Cao1, Yuchen Zhang2,3,4, Menghua Lin2,3,4, Di Wu1,2,3,4,5, Kunsong Chen2,3,4.
Abstract
Strawberries are susceptible to mechanical damage. The detection of damaged strawberries by their volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can avoid the deficiencies of manual observation and spectral imaging technologies that cannot detect packaged fruits. In the present study, the detection of strawberries with impact damage is investigated using electronic nose (e-nose) technology. The results show that the e-nose technology can be used to detect strawberries that have suffered impact damage. The best model for detecting the extent of impact damage had a residual predictive deviation (RPD) value of 2.730, and the correct rate of the best model for identifying the damaged strawberries was 97.5%. However, the accuracy of the prediction of the occurrence time of impact was poor, and the RPD value of the best model was only 1.969. In addition, the gas chromatography-mass spectrophotometry analysis further shows that the VOCs of the strawberries changed after suffering impact damage, which was the reason why the e-nose technology could detect the damaged fruit. The above results show that the mechanical force of impact caused changes in the VOCs of strawberries and that it is possible to detect strawberries that have suffered impact damage using e-nose technology.Entities:
Keywords: GC-MS; electronic-nose; impact damage; strawberry; volatile organic compound
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062387 PMCID: PMC8780591 DOI: 10.3390/s22020427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Strawberries with different damage extents and post-impact storage times.
Figure 2Polar plot of the average response data of the e-nose signal for strawberries that have suffered different extents of impact and have been stored for different times after the occurrence of the impact.
Best models for the prediction of the extent of impact damage in strawberries at different storage times (4, 8, and 24 h) after being impacted and all kinds of storage times. Correlation coefficient of calibration (Rc), root-mean-square error of calibration (RMSEC), correlation coefficient of prediction (Rp), root-mean-square error of prediction (RMSEP), residual predictive deviation (RPD), and the absolute difference between RMSEC and RMSEP (AB_RMSE).
| Time | Feature Variables | Calibration | Calibration | Prediction | AB_RMSE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rc | Rc2 | RMSEC | Rp | Rp2 | RMSEP | RPD | ||||
| 4 h | ENSum | PLSR | 0.944 | 0.892 | 0.372 | 0.944 | 0.858 | 0.426 | 3.007 | 0.053 |
| 4 h | EN60 | LS-SVM | 0.995 | 0.989 | 0.117 | 0.960 | 0.918 | 0.323 | 3.548 | 0.206 |
| 8 h | ENAll | PLSR | 0.936 | 0.876 | 0.388 | 0.945 | 0.873 | 0.407 | 2.983 | 0.019 |
| 8 h | ENAll | LS-SVM | 0.986 | 0.972 | 0.185 | 0.964 | 0.929 | 0.304 | 3.764 | 0.119 |
| 24 h | EN100 | PLSR | 0.837 | 0.701 | 0.634 | 0.688 | 0.434 | 0.821 | 1.377 | 0.187 |
| 24 h | ENSum | LS-SVM | 0.990 | 0.980 | 0.165 | 0.962 | 0.920 | 0.309 | 3.614 | 0.144 |
| All | ENAll | PLSR | 0.648 | 0.420 | 0.858 | 0.510 | 0.250 | 0.982 | 1.156 | 0.124 |
| All | ENAll | LS-SVM | 0.993 | 0.984 | 0.143 | 0.931 | 0.858 | 0.428 | 2.730 | 0.285 |
Best models for identification of strawberries with impact damage.
| Feature Variables | Calibration Method | 4 h | 8 h | 24 h | all | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration | Prediction | Calibration | Prediction | Calibration | Prediction | Calibration | Prediction | ||
| ENAll | PLS-DA | 98.3% | 100.0% | 95.0% | 94.1% | 95.0% | 85.3% | 96.1% | 92.1% |
| ENSum | LS-SVM | 100.0% | 97.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 97.5% |
Best models for the prediction of the time of occurrence of the impact on the fruit.
| High | Feature | Calibration | Calibration | Prediction | AB_RMSE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rc | Rc2 | RMSEC | Rp | Rp2 | RMSEP | RPD | ||||
| 20 cm | EN100 | PLSR | 0.967 | 0.935 | 2.183 | 0.945 | 0.892 | 2.903 | 3.056 | 0.720 |
| 20 cm | ENMax | LS-SVM | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.996 | 0.991 | 0.823 | 10.743 | 0.823 |
| 40 cm | ENMin | PLSR | 0.883 | 0.779 | 4.069 | 0.925 | 0.792 | 3.667 | 2.508 | 0.402 |
| 40 cm | ENAll | LS-SVM | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.101 | 0.995 | 0.983 | 1.056 | 8.704 | 0.955 |
| 60 cm | ENAll | PLSR | 0.993 | 0.986 | 1.035 | 0.991 | 0.982 | 1.135 | 7.487 | 0.100 |
| 60 cm | ENSum | LS-SVM | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.998 | 0.995 | 0.609 | 13.944 | 0.609 |
| all | ENsum | PLSR | 0.799 | 0.638 | 4.692 | 0.755 | 0.568 | 5.456 | 1.523 | 0.764 |
| all | ENAll | LS-SVM | 0.932 | 0.856 | 2.957 | 0.876 | 0.733 | 4.294 | 1.969 | 1.337 |
Figure 3Five volatile organic compounds (VOCs) whose relative content was related to the extent of impact damage suffered by the fruit. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Six VOCs whose relative contents increased with the storage time after impact. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Four VOCs detected only in the later stage of storage after the fruit had been impacted. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 6Five VOCs whose relative contents decreased with increasing storage time after impact onset. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).