| Literature DB >> 35956591 |
Jordi-Roger Riba1, Rosa Cantero2, Rita Puig2.
Abstract
There is an urgent need to reuse and recycle textile fibers, since today, low recycling rates are achieved. Accurate classification methods for post-consumer textile waste are needed in the short term for a higher circularity in the textile and fashion industries. This paper compares different spectroscopic data from textile samples in order to correctly classify the textile samples. The accurate classification of textile waste results in higher recycling rates and a better quality of the recycled materials. The data fusion of near- and mid-infrared spectra is compared with single-spectrum information. The classification results show that data fusion is a better option, providing more accurate classification results, especially for difficult classification problems where the classes are wide and close to one another. The experimental results presented in this paper prove that the data fusion of near- and mid-infrared spectra is a good option for accurate textile-waste classification, since this approach allows the classification results to be significantly improved.Entities:
Keywords: FTIR spectroscopy; MIR spectroscopy; NIR spectroscopy; circular economy; classification; data fusion; post-consumer waste; textile waste
Year: 2022 PMID: 35956591 PMCID: PMC9370096 DOI: 10.3390/polym14153073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Diagram of classification strategy applied to spectral data for classifying unknown incoming fiber samples according to pre-established classes of textile fibers.
Figure 2Entire body of samples divided into calibration and prediction sets.
Figure 3Summary of data-fusion strategy applied in this paper.
Figure 4NIR spectra of natural and synthetic fibers.
Figure 5MIR spectra of natural and synthetic fibers.
Figure 6NIR spectra of binary mixtures of viscose/polyester.
Figure 7MIR spectra of binary mixtures of viscose/polyester.
Figure 8NIR spectra of binary mixtures of cotton/polyester.
Figure 9MIR spectra of binary mixtures of cotton/polyester.
Textile Samples Analyzed in Study No. 1.
| Type | Composition | Number of Samples |
|---|---|---|
| Natural fiber | Cotton, 100% | 30 (15/15) |
| Natural fiber | Linen, 100% | 30 (15/15) |
| Natural fiber | Wool, 100% | 30 (15/15) |
| Natural fiber | Silk, 100% | 30 (15/15) |
| Synthetic fiber | Polyester, 100% | 30 (15/15) |
| Synthetic fiber | Polyamide, 100% | 30 (15/15) |
| Artificial fiber | Viscose, 100% | 30 (15/15) |
Study No. 1 with NIR Spectral Data. Prediction-Set Classification Errors (105 samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 3/105 | 2/105 | 2/105 | 2/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0636 | 0.0648 | 0.0650 | 0.0657 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 1/105 | 1/105 | 1/105 | 1/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0497 | 0.0497 | 0.0497 | 0.0497 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 0/105 | 0/105 | 0/105 | 0/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0024 | |
Study No. 1 with MIR Spectral Data. Prediction-Set Classification Errors (105 Samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 1/105 | 1/105 | 1/105 | 1/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0510 | 0.0516 | 0.0517 | 0.0517 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 2/105 | 2/105 | 2/105 | 2/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0703 | 0.0703 | 0.0680 | 0.0670 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 1/105 | 1/105 | 1/105 | 1/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0497 | 0.0499 | 0.0501 | 0.0502 | |
Study No. 1 with combined NIR + MIR spectral data. Prediction-set classification errors (105 samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 1/105 | 1/105 | 1/105 | 1/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0497 | 0.0497 | 0.0497 | 0.0497 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 0/105 | 0/105 | 0/105 | 0/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0185 | 0.0211 | 0.0212 | 0.0204 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 0/105 | 0/105 | 0/105 | 0/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0024 | |
Textile Samples Analyzed in Study No. 2.
| Composition | Number of Samples |
|---|---|
| Viscose, 100% | 26 (13/13) |
| Viscose, 90%/Polyester, 10% | 26 (13/13) |
| Viscose, 70–75%/Polyester, 30–25% | 21 (11/10) |
Study No. 2 with NIR spectral data. Prediction-set classification errors (36 samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 3/36 | 2/36 | 2/36 | 2/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.5233 | 0.4676 | 0.4314 | 0.4085 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 2/36 | 2/36 | 2/36 | 2/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.5346 | 0.5346 | 0.5346 | 0.5346 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 1/36 | 1/36 | 1/36 | 1/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.1890 | 0.2268 | 0.2520 | 0.2700 | |
Study No. 2 with MIR spectral data. Prediction-set classification errors (36 samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 2/36 | 2/36 | 2/36 | 2/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.5346 | 0.5306 | 0.5298 | 0.5312 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 6/36 | 6/36 | 6/36 | 6/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.9259 | 0.9259 | 0.9259 | 0.9259 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 4/36 | 4/36 | 4/36 | 4/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.7560 | 0.7560 | 0.7560 | 0.7560 | |
Study No. 2 with Combined NIR + MIR Spectral Data. Prediction-Set Classification Errors (36 Samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 0/36 | 0/36 | 0/36 | 0/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 0/36 | 0/36 | 0/36 | 0/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 1/36 | 1/36 | 1/36 | 1/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.3780 | 0.3780 | 0.3780 | 0.3780 | |
Textile samples analyzed in study No. 3.
| Composition | Number of Samples |
|---|---|
| Cotton ≥ 97% | 30 (15/15) |
| Cotton, 70–90%/Polyester, 30–10% | 30 (15/15) |
| Cotton, 30–65%/Polyester, 70–35% | 30 (15/15) |
Study No. 3 with NIR Spectral Data. Prediction-Set Classification Errors (45 Samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 17/45 | 12/45 | 10/45 | 10/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.8226 | 0.7973 | 0.7848 | 0.7775 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 9/45 | 8/45 | 7/45 | 7/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.7199 | 0.7156 | 0.7113 | 0.7099 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 5/45 | 5/45 | 5/45 | 5/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.6048 | 0.6048 | 0.6048 | 0.6048 | |
Study No. 3 with MIR Spectral Data. Prediction-Set Classification Errors (45 Samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 8/45 | 8/45 | 8/45 | 8/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.7311 | 0.7166 | 0.7049 | 0.6991 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 5/45 | 5/45 | 5/45 | 5/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.5860 | 0.5738 | 0.5659 | 0.5605 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 5/45 | 5/45 | 5/45 | 5/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.6065 | 0.6072 | 0.6072 | 0.6070 | |
Study No. 3 with Combined NIR + MIR Spectral Data. Prediction-Set Classification Errors (45 Samples).
| Processing Type | PCA + CVA + | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean centering | Errors | 3/45 | 3/45 | 3/45 | 3/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.4685 | 0.4685 | 0.4590 | 0.4499 | |
| 1st derivative + mean centering | Errors | 2/45 | 2/45 | 2/45 | 2/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.3825 | 0.3825 | 0.3825 | 0.3825 | |
| 2nd derivative + mean centering | Errors | 3/45 | 3/45 | 3/45 | 3/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.4685 | 0.4685 | 0.4685 | 0.4685 | |
Summary of the Results Attained in the Three Studies from the NIR, MIR and NIR + MIR Spectral Information.
| Spectral Information | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | NIR | MIR | NIR + MIR | |
| Study #1 | Errors | 1.08/105 | 1.33/105 | 0.33/105 |
| RRMSE | 0.0382 | 0.0568 | 0.0235 | |
| Study #2 | Errors | 1.75/36 | 4.00/36 | 0.33/36 |
| RRMSE | 0.4089 | 0.7378 | 0.1260 | |
| Study #3 | Errors | 8.33/45 | 6.00/45 | 2.67/45 |
| RRMSE | 0.7048 | 0.6305 | 0.4375 | |