| Literature DB >> 35872864 |
R Srinivasan1, T Lalitha2, N C Brintha3, T N Sterlin Minish4, Sami Al Obaid5, Sulaiman Ali Alharbi5, S R Sundaram6, Jenifer Mahilraj7.
Abstract
In distinct parts of the food web, Fusarium culmorum and Fusarium preserving the relationship can germinate and grow zearalenone (ZEA) and fumonisins (FUM), accordingly. Antimicrobial drugs used to combat these fungi and toxic metabolites raise the risk of hazardous residue in food products, as well as the development of fungus tolerance. For modeling fungal growth and pathogenicity under separate water action (a q ) (0.96 and 0.99) and surface temp (20 and 28°C) tyrannies, several machine learning (ML) methodologies (artificial neural, regression trees, and extreme rise enhanced trees) and multiple regression model (MLR) were used also especially in comparison. GR and mycotoxin levels inside the environment often reduced as EOC concentrations grew, although some treatment in association with specific a q and temperature values caused ZEA production. In terms of predicting the growth rate of F. culmorum and F. maintaining the relationship and the production of ZEA and FUM, random forest techniques outperformed neural network models and extreme gradient boosted trees. The MLR option was the most inefficient. It is the first research to look at the ML potential of bio EVOH products containing EOCs and ambient variables of F. culmorum and F. proliferatum development, as well as the generation of zearalenone and fumonisins. The findings show that these entire novel wrapping technologies, in tandem using machine learning techniques, could be useful in predicting and controlling the dangers connected with fungal species or biotoxins in foodstuff.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35872864 PMCID: PMC9307379 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9592365
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1A prediction model.
Figure 2Machine learning algorithm framework.
Figure 3Graph for the performance of GR, T-2, and HT-2.
Performance of ML models for predicting the growth rate, HR-2, and T-2.
| Output parameter | Machine learning tested model | Parameter of best model | RMSE |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth rate | XGBoost | Dimension = 5; decay = 0.4, ntree = 500, mtry = 4, max_depth = 7, eta = 0.1, | 1.445 | 0.866 |
| Artificial neural network | 1.265 | 0.898 | ||
| SVM | 1.162 | 0.921 | ||
| Random forest | 1.542 | 0.918 | ||
| MLR | 1.670 | 0.845 | ||
| Production of T-2 | XGBoost | Dimension = 5; decay = 0.2, ntree = 500, mtry = 4, max_depth = 2, eta = 0.1, | 0.768 | 0.795 |
| Artificial neural network | 0.402 | 0.945 | ||
| SVM | 0.356 | 0.765 | ||
| Random forest | 0.623 | 0.787 | ||
| MLR | 0.635 | 0.765 | ||
| Production of HT-2 | XGBoost | Dimension = 2; decay = 0.4, ntree = 500, mtry = 7, max_depth = 6, eta = 0.3, | 0.543 | 0.723 |
| Artificial neural network | 0.525 | 0.782 | ||
| SVM | 0.567 | 0.805 | ||
| Random forest | 0.543 | 0.775 | ||
| MLR | 0.885 | 0.764 |
Machine learning main parameter model and their values.
| Machine learning model | Name of the parameter | Description | Standard values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neural network | Decay | Decay rate weight | [0.2, 0.4, 0.6] |
| Size | Unit of hidden layer | [5, 10, 15, 20, 25] | |
| Random forest | ntree | Number of trees | 500 |
| mtry | A randomly selected number of predictors | [2, 3, 5] | |
| Extreme gradient boosted tree | Max_depth | Maximum of tree depth | [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] |
| Gamma | Penalty factor regularization | 0 | |
| nrounds | Number of iterations | 150 | |
| Colsample_bytree | Column fraction to be arbitrarily tested for every tree | 1 | |
| Subsample | Subsample percentage from the training established to cultivate a tree | [0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25] | |
| Minimum_child_weight | Weight of low weight instance per node | 0.5 | |
| Eta | Shrinkage or rate of learning | [0.1, 0.2, 0.3] |
Figure 4Flowchart of methodology.
Figure 5Radial GR of F. culmorum dosages, control measurements, and treatments.
Figure 6Radial GR of F. proliferatum colony dosages, control measurements, and treatments.
The film efficiency.
| Regions | Level | Bacterial spices | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F. culmorum | F. proliferatum | ||||||
| Rate of growth | Rate of growth | ||||||
| Low to high | Low to high | ||||||
| EVOH-EOC films | CIT | ∗ | ∗ | ||||
| IEG | ∗ | ∗ | |||||
| CINHO | ∗ | ∗ | |||||
| LIN | ∗ | ∗ | |||||
| Dosage ( | 444 | ∗ | ∗ | ||||
| 555 | ∗ | ∗ | |||||
| 1465 | ∗ | ∗ | |||||
| 3250 | ∗ | ∗ | |||||
| Heat (°C) | 25 | ∗ | ∗ | ||||
| 30 | ∗ | ||||||
| Activity of water | 0.96 | ∗ | ∗ | ||||
| 0.99 | ∗ | ||||||
The effective dosage of EVOH-EOC film/Petri plate.
| Spices | Heat °C |
| Ethylene vinyl-trans-cinnamaldehyde | Ethylene vinyl-citral | Ethylene vinyl-isoeugenol | Ethylene vinyl-linalool | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ED40 | ED80 | ED100 | ED40 | ED80 | ED100 | ED40 | ED80 | ED100 | ED40 | ED80 | ED100 | |||
| F. culmorum | 28 | 0.94 | 2300 | >3080 | >3080 | 437 | 436 | 560 | 1200 | >3080 | >3080 | 2450 | >3080 | >3080 |
| 0.98 | 580 | 1332 | 1325 | 300 | 453 | 560 | 780 | 1332 | 1325 | 670 | >3080 | >3080 | ||
| 30 | ||||||||||||||
| 0.94 | 470 | 765 | 3080 | 733 | 243 | 560 | 568 | 765 | 3080 | 540 | >3080 | >3080 | ||
| F. proliferatum | 28 | 0.98 | 3080 | >3080 | 670 | 654 | 987 | 560 | 983 | >3080 | 670 | >3080 | >3080 | >3080 |
| 0.94 | >890 | >896 | 670 | 984 | 548 | 560 | 780 | >896 | 670 | >3080 | >3080 | >3080 | ||
| 30 | ||||||||||||||
| 0.98 | >3080 | >3080 | 3080 | 900 | 850 | 560 | 450 | >3080 | 3080 | >3080 | >3080 | >3080 | ||