| Literature DB >> 35892795 |
Bo Wang1, Jihong Deng1, Hui Jiang1.
Abstract
This work provides a novel approach to monitor the aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) content in maize by near-infrared (NIR) spectra-based deep learning models that integrates Markov transition field (MTF) image coding and a convolutional neural network (CNN) strategy. According to the data structure characteristics of near-infrared spectra, new structures of one-dimensional CNN (1D-CNN) and two-dimensional MTF-CNN (2D-MTF-CNN) were designed to construct a deep learning model for the monitoring of AFB1 in maize. The results obtained showed that compared with the 1D-CNN model, the performance of the 2D-MTF-CNN model had been significantly improved, and its root mean square error of prediction, coefficient of predictive determination, and relative percent deviation were 1.3591 μg·kg-1, 0.9955, and 14.9386, respectively. The results indicate that the MTF is an effective data encoding technique for converting one-dimensional spectra into two-dimensional images. It more intuitively reflects the intrinsic characteristics of the NIR spectra from a new perspective and provides richer spectral information for the construction of deep learning models, which can ensure the detection accuracy and generalization performance of deep learning quantitative detection models. This study provides a new analytical perspective for the chemometrics analysis of the NIR spectroscopy.Entities:
Keywords: Markov transition field; aflatoxin B1; convolutional neural network; maize; near-infrared spectroscopy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35892795 PMCID: PMC9332458 DOI: 10.3390/foods11152210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1NIR spectra (A) and the NIR spectra by data augmentation (B) of all samples.
Figure 2The designed structure of convolutional neural network models. (A) 1D-CNN; (B) 2D-MTF-CNN.
Statistical results of the AFB1 value of peanut oil samples in calibration set and the prediction set.
| Sample Sets | Sample Number | Minimum/ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration set | 450 | 63.0195 | 2.6214 | 24.4588 | 20.4806 |
| Prediction set | 150 | 61.9111 | 2.7252 | 24.4746 | 20.3720 |
Figure 3The images of Markov transition field with different noise levels. (A) No noise added; (B) Add a noise level of 80 dB; (C) Add a noise level of 70 dB; (D) Add a noise level of 60 dB; (E) Add a noise level of 50 dB.
The structures and parameters of the 1D-CNN and 2D-MTF-CNN models.
| Models | Layers | Size | Number | Activation | Output Shape | Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1D-CNN | Input | (215,1) | - | - | - | - |
| Conv1 | 3×1 | 32 | Relu | (213,32) | 128 | |
| Max pooling | 3×1 | - | - | (71,32) | 0 | |
| Conv2 | 3×1 | 64 | Relu | (69,64) | 6208 | |
| Max pooling | 3×1 | - | - | (23,64) | 0 | |
| Conv3 | 3×1 | 64 | Relu | (21,64) | 12,352 | |
| Max pooling | 3×1 | - | - | (7,64) | 0 | |
| Conv4 | 3×1 | 64 | Relu | (5,64) | 12,352 | |
| Max pooling | 2×1 | - | - | (2,64) | 0 | |
| Flatten | - | - | - | 128 | 0 | |
| Dense | 1 | - | Linear | 1 | 129 | |
| 2D-MTF-CNN | ||||||
| Input | (215,215,1) | |||||
| Conv1 | 11×11 | 6 | Relu | (206,206,6) | 732 | |
| Max pooling | 2×2 | - | - | (103,103,6) | 0 | |
| Conv2 | 11×11 | 32 | Relu | (93,93,32) | 23,264 | |
| Max pooling | 3×3 | - | - | (31,31,32) | 0 | |
| Flatten | - | - | - | 30,752 | 0 | |
| Dense1 | 10 | - | Relu | 10 | 307,530 | |
| Dense2 | 10 | - | Relu | 10 | 110 | |
| Dense3 | 1 | - | Relu | 1 | 11 |
Figure 4The training results of the convolutional neural network. (A) Loss of 1D-CNN; (B) Accuracy of 1D-CNN; (C) Loss of 2D-MTF-CNN; (D) Accuracy of 2D-MTF-CNN.
Raman characteristic peak attribution.
|
|
|
|
| RPD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1D-CNN | (215,1) | 3.7397 | 0.9637 | 5.5360 | 0.9227 | 3.8101 |
| 2D-MTF-CNN | (215,215,1) | 0.6799 | 0.9989 | 1.3591 | 0.9955 | 14.9386 |
Figure 5Comparison of measured and the 2D-MTF-CNN model predicted values.