变量优选补正算法的鲜枣可溶性固形物检测模型传递方法研究

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2019)04-1041-06

Abstract
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1992 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The difficulty of sharing detection models built by different instruments is common in the quality inspection and classification of fruits. In the study, the “Huping” jujube was used as the research object, and the transfer method of the soluble solids content (SSC) detection model between instruments was explored using visible/near infrared spectroscopy. First, the spectral information of samples was collected using two instruments produced by American Analytical Spectral Device. Based on the original, Savitzky-Golay first derivative processed and standard normal variable transformed spectrum, SSC detection models were established by least squares-support vector machines (LS-SVM), respectively. The prediction ability of the three methods for the spectra acquired by different instruments was poor. The built model by the original spectrum of the master instrument was optimal in predicting spectra from the same instrument. The determination coefficient (R²_p) and the root mean squared error of prediction (RMSEP) were 0.73 and 1.36%, respectively. Next, the Kennard/Stone algorithm was used to select standard samples. The Shenk’s, direct standardization (DS) and slope/bias (S/B) algorithm were used for model transfer, respectively. Then, according to the regression coefficient, the sensitive wavelengths of the master instrument (24) and the slave instrument (28) were extracted. 24 single variables (SV), 23 common variables (CV) and 29 fusion variables (FV) were selected, all of which contained the main absorption bands of SSC. LS-SVM detection models of the master instrument were respectively established by the preferred variables, which (R²_p=0.78~0.80, RMSEP=1.07%~1.13%) was better than the model built by the full wavelength for the prediction result of the master instrument. However, the model failed in predicting spectra from different instruments (RMSEP=6.62%~7.88%). Finally, based on the wavelength position shift and the absorbed property of molecular vibration, these algorithms named as common variable-subtraction correction (CV-MC), single variable- subtraction correction, fusion variable-subtraction correction and common variable-wavelength correction (CV-WC) were respectively proposed for model transfer. These methods were compared with SV-Shenk’s, CV-Shenk’s, FV-Shenk’s, SV-DS, CV-DS, FV-DS, SV-S/B, CV-S/B and FV-S/B algorithms. The results showed that the prediction results (R²_p=0.03~0.34, RMSEP=2.44%~4.67%) were poor when the model was transferred by the full-band. Using the model built by the preferred variables, the results transferred by SV-Shenk’s, CV-Shenk’s and FV-Shenk’s were poor, and the results transferred by other algorithms (R²_p=0.47~0.73, RMSEP=1.30%~1.90%) were better than the full wavelength. The CV got better transfer results than the SV and the FV, and the CV-MC result was the best (R²_p=0.73, RMSEP=1.30%). The predicted result after CV-WC transfer (RMSEP=1.62%) was similar to CV-DS and CV-S/B. The research indicates that both CV-MC and CV-WC are effective model transfer algorithms, which are of great significance to establishing a common jujube quality detection model between different instruments.

Key words：Near/infrared spectroscopy; Calibration transfer; Jujube; Non-destructive detection

Received: 2018-11-28 Accepted: 2019-03-01

ZTFLH:

S123

Corresponding Authors: ZHANG Shu-juan E-mail: zsujuan1@163.com

Cite this article:

URL:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2019)04-1041-06 OR https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/Y2019/V39/I04/1041

[1] LI Xin, BIN Jun, FAN Wei, et al（李鑫, 宾俊, 范伟, 等）. Chinese Journal of Analytical Chemistry（分析化学）, 2017, 45(7): 958.
[2] Qin Yuhua, Gong Huili. Infrared Physics & Technology, 2016, 77: 239.
[3] Mou Yi, Zhou Long, Yu Shujian, et al. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 2016, 156: 62.
[4] LIU Jiao, LI Xiao-yu, GUO Xiao-xu, et al（刘娇, 李小昱, 郭小许, 等）. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering（农业工程学报）, 2014, 30(17): 276.
[5] WENG Hai-yong, CEN Hai-yan, HE Yong（翁海勇, 岑海燕, 何勇）. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis（光谱学与光谱分析）, 2018, 38(1): 235.
[6] Liu Yan, Cai Wensheng, Shao Xueguang. Spectrochimica Acta Part A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 2016, 169: 197.
[7] Liang Chen, Yuan Hongfu, Zhao Zhong, et al. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 2016, 153: 51.
[8] XU Hui-rong，LI Qing-qing（徐惠荣, 李青青）. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery（农业机械学报）, 2017, 48(9): 312.
[9] Zhang Shujuan, Zhang Haihong, Zhao Yanru, et al. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2013, 58(3-4): 545.
[10] Kennard R W, Stone L A. Technometrics，1969, 11(1): 137.
[11] Yao Yang, Chen Huarui, Xie Lijuan, et al. Journal of Food Engineering, 2013, 119(1): 22.
[12] NI Li-jun, HAN Ming-yue, ZHANG Li-guo, et al（倪力军, 韩明月, 张立国）. Chinese Journal of Analytical Chemistry（分析化学）, 2018, 46(10): 1660.
[13] Travers S, Bertelsen M G, Petersen K K, et al. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 2014, 59(2): 1107.
[14] Jerry Workman Jr, Lois Weyer. Practical Guide to Interpretive Near-Infrared Spectroscopy（近红外光谱解析实用指南）. Translated by CHU Xiao-li, XU Yu-peng, TIAN Gao-you（褚小立, 许育鹏, 田高友, 译）. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press（北京: 化学工业出版社）, 2009. 19.