4.7 Article

Assessment of chestnut (Castanea spp.) slice quality using color images

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING
Volume 115, Issue 3, Pages 407-414

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.09.017

Keywords

Classification; Computer vision; Pattern recognition; Processed chestnuts

Funding

  1. Ernie and Mabel Rogers Endowment
  2. Project GREEEN at Michigan State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Unbiased internal quality classification of Chestnuts (Castanea spp.) is extremely important to the fresh and processed industries. It can also be used as a tool for applied scientific studies, such as the training of non-invasive techniques to determine chestnut internal quality, and the effect of pre- and post-harvest treatments. At the moment, humans visually perform the invasive quality assessment of chestnuts. This procedure is prone to errors and high variability due to individuals' fatigue, lack of training, and subjectivity. Thus, there is a need to develop a technique that is able to objectively classify internal quality of chestnuts. In this paper, a computer vision methodology is proposed to sort chestnuts into five classes, as established by an expert human rater. 1790 color images from slices with different quality classes were acquired, using a flat panel scanner, from the hybrid cultivar 'Colossal' and 'Chinese seedlings'. After preprocessing, a total of 1931 color, textural, and geometric features were extracted from each color image. Furthermore, the most relevant features were selected using a sequential forward selection algorithm. Thirty-six features were found to be effective in designing a quadratic discriminant classifier with a cross-validated overall performance accuracy of 89.6%. These results showed that this method is an accurate, reliable, and objective tool to determine chestnut slice quality, and might be applicable to in-line sorting systems. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available