4.7 Review

Non-destructive prediction of protein content in wheat using NIRS

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2017.08.055

Keywords

Partial least square regression; Monte Carlo cross validation; Outliers; PLSR components; Improved simulated annealing; Successive projections algorithm

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A steady and accurate model used for quality detection depends on precise data and appropriate analytical methods. In this study, the authors applied partial least square regression (PLSR) to construct a model based on the spectral data measured to predict the protein content in wheat, and proposed a new method, global search method, to select PLSR components. In order to select representative and universal samples for modeling, Monte Carlo cross validation (MCCV) was proposed as a tool to detect outliers, and identified 4 outlier samples. Additionally, improved simulated annealing (ISA) combined with PLSR was employed to select most effective variables from spectral data, the data's dimensionality reduced from 100 to 57, and the standard error of prediction (SEP) decreased from 0.0716 to 0.0565 for prediction set, as well as the correlation coefficients (R-2) between the, predicted and actual protein content of wheat increased from 0.9989 to 0.9994. In order to reduce the dimensionality of the data further, successive projections algorithm (SPA) was then used, the combination of these two methods was called ISA-SPA. The results indicated that calibration model built using ISA-SPA on 14 effective variables achieved the optimal performance for prediction of protein content in wheat comparing with other developed PLSR models (ISA or SPA) by comprehensively considering the accuracy, robustness, and complexity of models. The coefficient of determination increased to 0.9986 and the SEP decreased to 0.0528, respectively. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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