土壤Cr含量高光谱反演模型组合优化研究

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)11-3273-07

Abstract
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (5086 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The accurate inversion of soil heavy metal pollution in hyperspectral analysis relies on carefully selecting characteristic band extraction methods and inversion models. Finding the optimal combination of these two factors to achieve the highest system inversion accuracy remains an urgent and essential problem in this field. The present study involved the collection of 92 sets of soil samples from a typical Chromium (Cr) contaminated area in South China. The Cr content was quantified using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). Additionally, the ASD Field Spec4 Spectrometer was employed to gather hyperspectral information in the laboratory. The spectral information preprocessing employed the combined SG+SNV+SD method. Here, SG refers to the Savitzky-Golay smoothing filter, SNV stands for Standard Normal Variate normalization, and SD represents second-order derivative transformation. This combined methodology was employed on the unprocessed spectral data to diminish the impact of soil scattering and noise. Consequently, it enhanced both the quality of spectral data and the precision of feature analysis. Four algorithms, namely Competitive Adaptive Reweighted Sampling (CARS), Successive Projections Algorithm (SPA), Uninformative Variable Elimination (UVE), and Genetic Algorithm (GA) were employed to extract Characteristic bands. Subsequently, the relationships between the extracted Characteristic bands and Cr content were established by using four inversion models: Multivariate Linear Regression (MLR), Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR), Support Vector Regression (SVR), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN). A comparative analysis of various Characteristic band extraction methods and combinations of inversion models regarding their impact on the accuracy of soil Cr content inversion determined that the SG+SNV+SD preprocessing enhances the spectral data's capability to represent characteristic information. CARS and UVE Characteristic band extraction methods can significantly enhance the predictive performance of PLSR, MLR, and SVR models. In contrast, the SPA method improves the predictive effectiveness of the ANN model. Through the combination approach of SG+SNV+SD+CARS+PLSR, a total of 98 characteristic bands located within the ranges of 800～1 000, 1 400～1 700, and 2 100～2 450 nm were extracted. Model validation yielded an R² value of 0.97, RMSE of 5.25 mg·kg^-1, MAE of 4.35 mg·kg^-1, and RPD of 3.94. These evaluation metrics demonstrate the exceptional predictive capability of the model for soil Chromium Cr. In this research, soil Cr pollution was selected as a case study for hyperspectral inversion. A comparative analysis of various combinations of characteristic band selections and inversion model methods identified the optimal approach for modeling the inversion of heavy metal pollution in representative soils characterized by limited sample size and high contaminant concentrations.

Key words：Hyperspectral; Model combination optimization; Feature band selection; Inversion model

Received: 2023-08-27 Accepted: 2024-03-15

ZTFLH:

TP79

Corresponding Authors: CHEN Zhi-liang, XIAO Rong-bo E-mail: chenzhiliang@scies.org；ecoxiaorb@163.com

Cite this article:

GUO Hong-xu,WANG Long,YANG Kai, et al. Research on Combination Optimization of Hyperspectral Inversion Model for Soil Cr Contamination[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2024, 44(11): 3273-3279.

URL:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)11-3273-07 OR https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/Y2024/V44/I11/3273

[1] WANG Yue, LIU Ying-xue, LI Dan-dan, et al(王玥，刘莹雪，李丹丹, 等). Journal of Agro-Environment Science(农业环境科学学报), 2021, 40(12): 2723.
[2] Ding S, Zhang X, Sun W, et al. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2022, 22(5): 1431.
[3] Zhang J, Wang M, Yang K, et al. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, 19(13): 7755.
[4] Wu T, Yu J, Lu J, et al. Agriculture, 2020, 10(7): 292.
[5] Hou L, Li X, Li F. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2019, 48(1): 57.
[6] Trifi M, Gasmi A, Carbone C, et al. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022, 29(58): 87490.
[7] Ahmad S, Pandey A C, Kumar A, et al. Applied Geomatics, 2021, 13: 361.
[8] ZHANG Xia, SUN You-xin, SHANG Kun, et al(张霞，孙友鑫，尚坤, 等). Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery(农业机械学报), 2024, 55(1): 186.
[9] TU Yu-long, ZOU Bin, JIANG Xiao-lu, et al(涂宇龙，邹滨，姜晓璐, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2018, 38(2): 575.
[10] AN Bai-song, WANG Xue-mei, HUANG Xiao-yu, et al(安柏耸，王雪梅，黄晓宇, 等). Earth and Environment(地球与环境), 2023, 51(2): 246.
[11] Zhao L, Hu Y M, Zhou W, et al. Sustainability, 2018, 10(7): 2474.
[12] GAO Zhong-yuan, XIAO Rong-bo, WANG Peng, et al(高中原，肖荣波，王鹏, 等). Environmental Science(环境科学), 2021, 42(1): 343.
[13] Guo H, Yang K, Wu F, et al. Sensors, 2023, 23(21): 8756.
[14] MENG Shan, LI Xin-guo, JIAO Li(孟珊，李新国，焦黎). Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2023, 54(2): 286.
[15] Akbari D. IET Image Processing, 2019, 13(12): 2169.
[16] Su L, Shi W, Chen X, et al. Food Chemistry, 2021, 338: 127797.
[17] Sekulic Z, Antanasijevic D, Stevanovic S, et al. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2017, 14(7): 1383.
[18] CHEN Jun-jian, ZHANG Hui-hua, LIU Jian-ming, et al(陈俊坚，张会化，刘鉴明, 等). Ecology and Environmental Sciences(生态环境学报), 2011, 20(4): 646.
[19] CHENG Yong-sheng, ZHOU Yao(成永生，周瑶). The Chinese Journal of Nonferrous Metals(中国有色金属学报), 2021, 31(11): 3450.