Effect of scanning samples through polypropylene film on predicting nitrogen content of forage using handheld NIR

Isaac R. Rukundo; Mary-Grace C. Danao; Robert B. Mitchell; Steven D. Masterson; Randy L. Wehling; Curtis L. Weller; Isaac R. Rukundo; Mary-Grace C. Danao; Robert B. Mitchell; Steven D. Masterson; Randy L. Wehling; Curtis L. Weller

doi:10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.835

AIMS Agriculture and Food

2020, Volume 5, Issue 4: 835-849. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.835

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Effect of scanning samples through polypropylene film on predicting nitrogen content of forage using handheld NIR

1.
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
2.
Wheat, Sorghum, and Forage Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA

Received: 17 August 2020 Accepted: 30 October 2020 Published: 05 November 2020

Abstract
Full Text(HTML)
Download PDF

This study examined the effect of collecting near infrared (NIR) spectra of forage samples through a transparent polypropylene (PP) plastic film instead of glass cups on calibrating two handheld NIR spectrometers to nitrogen content (N). The first device was a transportable spectrometer (H1) covering 790–2500 nm at 1 nm interval, while the second device was a smartphone spectrometer (H2) covering 900–1700 nm at 4 nm interval. The spectra from each spectrometer were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) to identify wavebands for PP packaging that would interfere in subsequent partial least squares (PLS) regression modeling to predict N. PCA results showed that the loadings of the first principal component (PC1) of the first derivative of the spectra from H1 and loadings of the second principal component (PC2) of the second derivative of the spectra from H2 were useful in identifying wavebands due to PP film. Regression models for H1 had better prediction performance when spectra were collected through glass than through PP films, in terms of coefficient of determination (r² = 0.958), standard error of prediction (SEP = 0.96 g kg^-1), and ratio of performance to deviation (RPD) = 4.93 vs. (r² = 0.942, SEP = 1.13 g kg^-1, and RPD = 4.17). Similar results were obtained for H2 using spectra collected through glass (r² = 0.821, SEP = 1.73 g kg^-1, and RPD = 2.72) than through PP (r² = 0.499, SEP = 2.99 g kg^-1, and RPD = 1.57). Removing peaks due to PP in the sample spectra improved the PLS models for H1 (r² = 0.959, SEP = 0.94 g kg^-1, and RPD = 5.02), but not for H2 (r² = 0.521, SEP = 3.17 g kg^-1, and RPD = 1.49). Hence, scanning samples through PP films can reduce the accuracy of predicting N, but for some handheld NIR spectrometers, this could be overcome by excluding wavebands due to PP.
- Nitrogen,
- forage,
- packaging,
- PCA,
- PLS regression
Citation: Isaac R. Rukundo, Mary-Grace C. Danao, Robert B. Mitchell, Steven D. Masterson, Randy L. Wehling, Curtis L. Weller. Effect of scanning samples through polypropylene film on predicting nitrogen content of forage using handheld NIR[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 835-849. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.835

Related Papers:

Abstract

This study examined the effect of collecting near infrared (NIR) spectra of forage samples through a transparent polypropylene (PP) plastic film instead of glass cups on calibrating two handheld NIR spectrometers to nitrogen content (N). The first device was a transportable spectrometer (H1) covering 790–2500 nm at 1 nm interval, while the second device was a smartphone spectrometer (H2) covering 900–1700 nm at 4 nm interval. The spectra from each spectrometer were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) to identify wavebands for PP packaging that would interfere in subsequent partial least squares (PLS) regression modeling to predict N. PCA results showed that the loadings of the first principal component (PC1) of the first derivative of the spectra from H1 and loadings of the second principal component (PC2) of the second derivative of the spectra from H2 were useful in identifying wavebands due to PP film. Regression models for H1 had better prediction performance when spectra were collected through glass than through PP films, in terms of coefficient of determination (r² = 0.958), standard error of prediction (SEP = 0.96 g kg^-1), and ratio of performance to deviation (RPD) = 4.93 vs. (r² = 0.942, SEP = 1.13 g kg^-1, and RPD = 4.17). Similar results were obtained for H2 using spectra collected through glass (r² = 0.821, SEP = 1.73 g kg^-1, and RPD = 2.72) than through PP (r² = 0.499, SEP = 2.99 g kg^-1, and RPD = 1.57). Removing peaks due to PP in the sample spectra improved the PLS models for H1 (r² = 0.959, SEP = 0.94 g kg^-1, and RPD = 5.02), but not for H2 (r² = 0.521, SEP = 3.17 g kg^-1, and RPD = 1.49). Hence, scanning samples through PP films can reduce the accuracy of predicting N, but for some handheld NIR spectrometers, this could be overcome by excluding wavebands due to PP.

References

[1]	Blanco M, Villarroya I (2002) NIR spectroscopy: A rapid-response analytical tool. TrAC, Trends Anal Chem 21: 240-250.
[2]	Alcalà M, Blanco M, Moyano D, et al. (2013) Qualitative and quantitative pharmaceutical analysis with a novel hand-held miniature near infrared spectrometer. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 21: 445-457.
[3]	Gowen AA, O'Donnell CP, Esquerre C, et al. (2010) Influence of polymer packaging films on hyperspectral imaging data in the visible-near-infrared (450-950 nm) wavelength range. Appl Spectrosc 64: 304-312.
[4]	Altinpinar S, Sorak D, Siesler HW (2013) Near infrared spectroscopic analysis of hydrocarbon contaminants in soil with a hand-held spectrometer. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 21: 511-521.
[5]	Kumagai M, Suyama H, Sato T, et al. (2002) Discrimination of plastics using a portable near infrared spectrometer. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 10: 247-255.
[6]	Miller CE, Svendsen SA, Næ s T (1993) Nondestructive characterizations of polyethylene/nylon laminates by near-infrared spectroscopy. Appl Spectrosc 47: 346-356.
[7]	Nagata T, Ohshima M, Tanigaki M (2000) In-line monitoring of polyethylene density using near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. Polym Eng Sci 40: 1107-1113.
[8]	Rani M, Marchesi C, Federici S, et al. (2019) Miniaturized Near-Infrared (MicroNIR) Spectrometer in Plastic Waste Sorting. Materials 12: 2740.
[9]	Shimoyama M, Ninomiya T, Sano K, et al. (1998) Near Infrared Spectroscopy and Chemometrics Analysis of Linear Low-Density Polyethylene. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 6: 317-324.
[10]	Xie LG, Sun HM, Jin SH (2011) Screening adulteration of polypropylene bottles with postconsumer recycled plastics for oral drug package by near-infrared spectroscopy. Anal Chim Acta 706: 312-320.
[11]	Yan H, Siesler HW (2018) Identification Performance of Different Types of Handheld Near-Infrared (NIR) Spectrometers for the Recycling of Polymer Commodities. Appl Spectrosc 72: 1362-1370.
[12]	Zhu C, Hieftje GM (1992) Near-infrared analysis of chemical constituents and physical characteristics of polymers. Appl Spectrosc 46: 69-72.
[13]	Zhu S, Chen H, Wang M, et al. (2019) Plastic solid waste identification system based on near infrared spectroscopy in combination with support vector machine. Adv Ind Eng Polym Res 2: 77-81.
[14]	Rukundo IR, Danao MGC, Weller CL, et al. (2020) Use of a handheld near infrared spectrometer and partial least squares regression to quantify metanil yellow adulteration in turmeric powder. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 28: 096703351989888.
[15]	Crocombe RA (2018) Portable Spectroscopy. Appl Spectrosc72: 1701-1751.
[16]	Foster AJ, Kakani VG, Ge J, et al. (2013) Rapid assessment of bioenergy feedstock quality by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Agron J 105: 1487-1497.
[17]	Vogel KP, Dien BS, Jung HG, et al. (2011) Quantifying Actual and Theoretical Ethanol Yields for Switchgrass Strains Using NIRS Analyses. Bioenergy Res 4: 96-110.
[18]	Watson ME, Isaac RA (1990) Analytical instruments for soil and plant analysis, In: Westerman RL (Ed.), Soil testing and plant analysis, Madison, Soil Science Society of America, Inc., 691-740.
[19]	Wold S, Esbensen K, Geladi P (1987) Principal component analysis. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 2: 37-52.
[20]	Verboven S, Hubert M, Goos P (2012) Robust preprocessing and model selection for spectral data. J Chemom 26: 282-289.
[21]	Fearn T (2002) Assessing Calibrations: SEP, RPD, RER and R 2. NIR News 13: 12-13.
[22]	Martens H, Martens M (2000) Modified Jack-knife estimation of parameter uncertainty in bilinear modelling by partial least squares regression (PLSR). Food Quality Preference 11: 5-16.
[23]	Williams P (2014) The RPD Statistic: A Tutorial Note. NIR News 25: 22-26.
[24]	Aenugu HPR, Sathis Kumar D, Srisudharson, et al. (2011) Near infrared spectroscopy-An overview. Int J Chem Tech Res 3: 825-836.
[25]	Ellis DI, Brewster VL, Dunn WB, et al. (2012) Fingerprinting food: Current technologies for the detection of food adulteration and contamination. Chem Soc Rev 41: 5706-5727.
[26]	Rodriguez-Saona LEE, Giusti MMM, Shotts M (2016) Advances in infrared spectroscopy for food authenticity testing. Advances in Food Authenticity Testing, Elsevier Inc., 71-116.
[27]	Payne CE, Wolfrum EJ (2015) Rapid analysis of composition and reactivity in cellulosic biomass feedstocks with near-infrared spectroscopy. Biotechnol Biofuels 8: 43.

Reader Comments

your name:*

Email:*
© 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)