KMITL

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://dspace.kmitl.ac.th/handle/123456789/1

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 45

Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Author Correction: Predicting biomass global warming potential with FT-NIR spectroscopy (Scientific Reports, (2025), 15, 1, (33725), 10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z)
(2026-12-01)
Gyawali, Prakash
;
Shrestha, Bijendra
;
Phanomsophon, Thitima
;
Posom, Jetsada
;
Pornchaloempong, Pimpen
Correction to: Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z, published online 30 September 2025 The original version of this Article contained errors. In the original version of this article, the climate-carbon effect value was not included as introduced in AR6. As a result, in the Materials and methods section, under the subheading ‘Estimation of global warming potential and emission of greenhouse gas (GHG)’, where: “Step 1: (CO<inf>2</inf>, CH<inf>4</inf>, N<inf>2</inf>O) emissions (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × Carbon emission factor (kg TJ-1) × HHV (kg TJ-1) Step 2: Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) +(GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) +(GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions)” now reads: “Step 1: GHG (CO<inf>2</inf>, CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O) emissions (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × Specific GHG emission factor (kg TJ-1) × HHV (TJ kg-1) Step 2: Total GWP (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) + (GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) + (GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions)” In addition, under the subheading ‘Model development and validation’, where: “The model was optimized by selecting wavenumbers through various variable selection methods, including the Correlation Method (CM), Variance Method (VM), Co-Variance Method (COVM), and Variable Importance Projection (VIP). The spectral data were pretreated using raw spectra, standard normal variate (SNV), as well as first derivative and second derivative transformations. The following spectra pretreatment methods: Standard Normal Variate (SNV) is for corrects scatter effects and baseline variations35,” now reads: “The model was optimized by selecting wavenumbers through various variable selection methods, including the Correlation Method (CM), Variance Method (VM), Co-Variance Method (COVM), and Variable Importance Projection (VIP). The following spectra pretreatment methods: Standard Normal Variate (SNV) is for correcting scatter effects and baseline variations35,” In addition, Equations 3, 4 and 6 contained typesetting errors. As a result, Equation 3: (Formula presented.) now reads, (Formula presented.) Equation 4: (Formula presented.) now reads: (Formula presented.) And Equation 6 (Formula presented.) now reads: (Formula presented.) Furthermore, under the Results section, subheading ‘Predicting performance of biomass GWP using PLSR’, where: “The model developed with CM (reduction of 1150 wavenumber of full range to 325 wavenumber) of 1st derivative spectra, gave best performance with R2<inf>P</inf> was 0.87 (Table 4).” now reads: “The model developed with COVM (reduction of 1150 wavenumber of full range to 325 wavenumber) of 1st derivative spectra, gave the best performance with R2<inf>P</inf> was 0.85 (Table 4).” Under the subheading ‘Prediction result of HHV using PLSR’, where: “This approach reduced the number of variables from 1150 to 365 wavenumbers, significantly enhancing the model’s performance (R2<inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R2<inf>P</inf> of 0.87)” now reads: “This approach reduced the number of variables from 1150 to 365 wavenumbers, significantly enhancing the model’s performance (R2<inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R2<inf>P</inf> of 0.86)” Under the subheading ‘Regression coefficient and x-loading of GWP model’, where: “Prominent peaks were identified and the bond vibration interpretation is shown in Table 7 and the vibration indicated by Workman and Weyer38 at the wavenumbers in bold were not found or not related to biomass.” now reads: “Prominent peaks were identified, and the bond vibration interpretation is shown in Table 7, which was indicated by Workman and Weyer38.” Equation 8: GWP for CO<inf>2</inf>, or CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O Emissions = (1×CO<inf>2</inf> Emission) or (29.8×CH<inf>4</inf> Emission) or (273×N<inf>2</inf>O Emission) = (1×112 HHV) for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or (29.8×30 HHV) for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or (273×4 HHV) for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission = 112.0×HHV for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or 894.0×HHV for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or 1092.0×HHV for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission and GWP total = 2098.0 (HHV, TJ kg-1) = 0.000002098 kJ kg-1 = 0.000002098 Jg-1 now reads: GWP for CO<inf>2</inf>, or CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O Emissions = (1×CO<inf>2</inf> Emission) or (27.2×CH<inf>4</inf> Emission) or (273×N<inf>2</inf>O Emission) = (1×112 HHV) for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or (27.2×30 HHV) for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or (273×4 HHV) for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission = 112.0×HHV for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or 816.0×HHV for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or 1092.0×HHV for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission and GWP total (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) = 2020.0 (HHV, TJ kg-1) = 0.000002020 kJ kg-1 = 0.000002020 J g-1 Moreover, Tables 1 and 3 have been corrected. Incorrect Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg-1 CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ-1, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg-1: Since 1 TJ = 1012 J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg-1 to TJ kg-1: HHV in TJ kg-1 = 17932000 J kg-1 / 1012 = 1.7932×10-3 TJ kg-1 CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ-1) × HHV (TJ kg-1) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ-1 × 0.017932 TJ kg-1 Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg-1 and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ-1 would be approximately 2.0083×10-3 kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ-1 (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg-1 CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ-1 Convert HHV unit to TJ kg-1 1 TJ= 1012 J HHV from J kg-1 to TJ kg-1: HHV in TJ kg-1 = 17932000 J kg-1 / 1012 = 1,7932×10-5 TJ kg-1 CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ-1) × HHV (TJ kg-1) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ-1 × 1,7932×10-5 TJ kg-1 CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10-4 kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ-1 Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg-1 N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ-1 Convert HHV unit to TJ kg-1 1 TJ = 1012 J HHV from J kg-1 to TJ kg-1: HHV in TJ kg-1 = 17932000 J kg-1 / 1012 = 1.7932 ×10-5 TJ kg-1 N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ-1) × HHV (TJ kg-1) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ-1 × 1.7932×10-5 TJ kg-1 N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10-5 kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ The concept of global warming potential (GWP) was introduced in IPCC –AR1 (Shine et al. 1990) to compare the greenhouse effects of different greenhouse gases relative to a reference gas, normally taken as carbon dioxide, under this definition, CO<inf>2</inf> would have a GWP value of 1. Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions)+(GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions)+(GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions) Total GWP =1×2.0083×10-3+29.8× 5.379 ×10-4+273×7.1728×10-5 Total GWP=0.0376 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 7 Correct Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg-1 CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ-1, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg-1: Since 1 TJ = 1012 J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg-1 to TJ kg-1: HHV in TJ kg-1 = 17932000 J kg-1 / 1012 = 1.7932×10-5 TJ kg-1 CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ-1) × HHV (TJ kg-1) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ-1 × 1.7932 × 10-5 TJ kg-1 Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg-1 and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ-1 would be approximately 2.0083 × 10-3 kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ-1 (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg-1 CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ-1 Convert HHV unit to TJ kg-1 1 TJ= 1012 J HHV from J kg-1 to TJ kg-1: HHV in TJ kg-1 = 17932000 J kg-1 / 1012 = 1,7932×10-5 TJ kg-1 CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ-1) × HHV (TJ kg-1) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ-1 × 1,7932×10-5 TJ kg-1 CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10-4 kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ-1 Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg-1 N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ-1 Convert HHV unit to TJ kg-1 1 TJ = 1012 J HHV from J kg-1 to TJ kg-1: HHV in TJ kg-1 = 17932000 J kg-1 / 1012 = 1.7932 × 10-5 TJ kg-1 N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ-1) × HHV (TJ kg-1) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ-1 × 1.7932×10-5 TJ kg-1 N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10-5 kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ-1 The concept of global warming potential (GWP) was introduced in IPCC –AR1 (Shine et al. 1990) to compare the greenhouse effects of different greenhouse gases relative to a reference gas, normally taken as carbon dioxide, under this definition, CO<inf>2</inf> would have a GWP value of 1. Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) + (GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) + (GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions) Total GWP = 1×2.0083×10-3+ 27.2× 5.3796 × 10-4+ 273×7.1728×10-5 Total GWP= 0.03622 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 7 Incorrect Table 3: Calibration set Prediction set Parameter Method NT NC Max Min Mean SD NP Max Min Mean SD GWP IPCC Guidelines 197 147 0.03905 0.03080 0.03564 0.00180 50 0.038943 0.033002 0.03577 0.00165 HHV (J g-1) Bomb Calorimeter 197 147 18616 16405 16976 910 50 17950 15268 17051 787 Correct Table 3: Parameter Method NT Calibration Set Prediction Set NC Max Min Mean SD NP Max Min Mean SD GWP (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) IPCC Guidelines 197 147 0.03905 0.03080 0.03564 0.00180 50 0.038943 0.033002 0.03577 0.00165 HHV (J g-1) Bomb Calorimeter 197 147 18616 16405 15268 910 50 17950 16976 17051 787 Finally, the legends of Tables 4 and 7 have been updated: “Table 4: Prediction of GWP of biomass of fast-growing tree and agriculture residue by PLSR. N: Number of samples in calibration set, R2<inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R2<inf>p</inf>: coefficient of determination of prediction set, RPD: ratio of prediction to deviation, CM: correlation method, VM: variance method, COVM: co-variance method, VIP: variable. Significant values are in [bold].” now reads: “Table 4. Prediction of GWP of biomass of fast-growing tree and agriculture residue by PLSR. N: Number of samples in calibration set, R2<inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R2<inf>p</inf>: coefficient of determination of prediction set, RPD: ratio of prediction to deviation, CM: correlation method, VM: variance method, COVM: co-variance method, VIP: variable important projection, FstDev: 1st derivative, SecDev: 2nd derivative. Significant values are in [bold].” “Table 7. The function groups corresponding to the wavenumber shown in regression coefficient plot and x-loading plot of models for GWP and HHV. *1ν, fundamental stretching vibration; 2ν, 1st overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 3ν, 2nd overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 5ν, 4th overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 1δ, fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 3δ, 2nd overtone of fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 1, symmetric stretching vibration; 2, bending vibration; 3, asymmetric stretching vibration; and + is combination. now reads: “Table 7. The function groups corresponding to the wavenumber shown in regression coefficient plot and x-loading plot of models for GWP and HHV. 1ν, fundamental stretching vibration; 2ν, 1st overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 3ν, 2nd overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 5ν, 4th overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 1δ, fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 3δ, 2nd overtone of fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; and + is combination.” The original version of this Article has been corrected.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Filter-based short-wave infrared imaging combined with machine learning for non-destructive quality assessment of durian pulp
(2026-09-01)
Promnioy, Surasak
;
Phetpan, Kittisak
;
Riza, Dimas Firmanda Al
;
Sharma, Sneha
;
Sirisomboon, Panmanas
The development of affordable, real-time quality monitoring tools is essential for industrial applications involving high-value tropical fruits such as durian. This study presents a cost-effective short-wave infrared multispectral imaging (SWIR-MSI) system employing three discrete bandpass filters (880, 905, and 940 nm) integrated with machine learning algorithms for non-destructive evaluation of fresh-cut durian pulp. Compared with conventional point-based NIR spectroscopy and complex hyperspectral imaging systems, the proposed configuration markedly reduces system complexity and cost while maintaining sensitivity to key compositional variations. It accurately predicted dry matter content (DMC) and starch, demonstrating that limited spectral information within the 860–1100 nm range can effectively capture moisture- and carbohydrate-related features. These findings confirm the feasibility of implementing filter-based SWIR imaging as a practical and scalable alternative to hyperspectral systems for on-line fruit quality assessment. Practically, this approach enables rapid, non-destructive, and spatially adaptable evaluation of durian pulp quality, offering significant potential for on-site grading, ripeness classification, and process control in fresh-cut durian production and packaging operations, particularly for small- and medium-scale agro-processors.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
NIR Spectroscopy for Non-Destructive Prediction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Warming Potential by Biomass Combustion
(2026-05-01)
Sirisomboon, Panmanas
;
Gyawali, Prakash
;
Posom, Jetsada
;
Lapcharoensuk, Ravipat
;
Shrestha, Bim Prasad
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from biomass combustion include carbon dioxide (CO<inf>2</inf>), methane (CH<inf>4</inf>) and nitrous oxide (N<inf>2</inf>O), which cause climate change and global warming. By measuring GHG emissions by biomass combustion, a potent protocol for the calculation of global warming potential (GWP), which is how much the global temperature has risen due to combustion processes, can be achieved, contributing to determining the mean reduction in global temperature rise and fostering a transition towards more sustainable energy systems. Additionally, warning can be given of the GHG and GWP risks associated with different species of biomass. This review includes the GHG emissions and GWP of biomass combustion and their measurement and estimation directly through biomass sample combustion, using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and satellite measurements of radiation interacting with atmospheric gases, or satellite-derived data and calculations according to IPCC guidelines. In addition, the relationship of lignocellulosic compounds and elements in biomass to HHV and GHG emissions is described. The key mechanism of molecular vibration of hydrogen bonds in biomass caused by NIR radiation related to GHG emissions is revealed and recorded regarding the possibility of using NIR spectroscopy for the prediction of GHG emissions and GWP. Calculation examples for sugarcane bagasse and other biomass species are shown. The comparative advantages and limitations of NIR spectroscopy with respect to other methods are included. These factors lead to elucidation of the possibility of using NIR spectroscopy for non-destructive prediction of GHG emissions. In this review, the feasibility of using NIR spectroscopy to evaluate GHG emissions, GWP and emission factors (EFs) as an alternative to IPCC estimation methods related to climate change by biomass combustion is confirmed. NIR spectroscopy is a novel methodology for predicting GHG emissions and GWP directly from intact chip or powder biomass spectral data without explicit gas measurement. This article records the essential spectroscopic knowledge of biomass polymer valorization that is of value in polymer science.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Prediction of Cross-Link Density of Prevulcanized Latex Using InGaAs NIR Spectroscopy
(2026-02-17)
Dachapan, Suntaree
;
Saengprachatanarug, Khwantri
;
Phuphaphud, Arthit
;
Sirisomboon, Panmanas
;
Lim, Chin Hock
Cross-link density plays a critical role in determining the mechanical strength, elasticity, and long-term performance of prevulcanized (PV) latex products. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy for predicting cross-link density in PV latex using InGaAs-based instruments. Two spectrometers operating in the 960–1700 nm range were investigated: a noncontact MicroNIR and a contact AvaSpec system. Partial least-squares regression (PLSR) models were developed using two data sets. Data set I contained only NIR spectra, whereas Data set II combined spectra with industrial process variables, including holding time and latex grade. Cross-link density was referenced using the Prevulcanizate Relaxed Modulus (PRM, 100% and 300% elongation) and Toluene Swelling Index (TSI, 3 and 6 h) methods. Models based solely on Data set I showed limited predictive performance, while Data set II yielded markedly improved accuracy, highlighting the importance of integrating process information. The TSI-based models consistently surpassed PRM, with TSI-3 h identified as the most reliable reference. Using MicroNIR, the best TSI-3 h and TSI-6 h models achieved SEP values of 5.64 × 104 and 5.96 × 104 N·m– 2 and R2 values of 0.96 and 0.95, respectively. Comparable performance between contact and noncontact instruments further confirmed the practicality of noncontact NIR measurement. This work demonstrates, for the first time, that combining InGaAs NIR spectroscopy with process variables enables accurate, rapid, and nondestructive forecasting of TSI-based cross-link density for PV latex manufacturing.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Identification and quantification of quality of intact durian fruits using NIR spectroscopy
(2026-01-01)
Pitak, Lakkana
;
Ditcharoen, Sirirak
;
Maraphum, Kanvisit
;
Khamwan, Buathip
;
Warorost, Nithithada
Quality classification of durian fruits is based on the dry matter (DM) content of the pulp. According to Thai agricultural standards, durian fruit (Monthong variety) must contain at least 32% DM. This study aimed to develop a classification model for assessing durian quality based on DM content, categorizing fruits as either “rejected” (DM < 32%) or “accepted” (DM ≥ 32%). Near-infrared (NIR) spectra were collected as the durian fruits moved along a conveyor belt. The models were developed using two spectral ranges: short-wavelength near-infrared (SWNIR; 4501000 nm) and long-wavelength near-infrared (LWNIR; 8601750 nm). Owing to the imbalance in the dataset between the two classes, the data were adjusted using the synthetic minority oversampling technique to create a balanced dataset. Prediction models were built using different spectral preprocessing methods and algorithms. For the LWNIR range, the models constructed using LDA, SVM, KNN, and SDA achieved accuracies of 95%, 90%, 93%, and 93%, respectively, for the test set. The SWNIR models, developed using the same algorithms, achieved accuracies of 90%, 88%, 90%, and 90%, respectively, for the test set. PLS-regression was used to predict the DM content from both LWNIR and SWNIR data. With the 2nd derivative preprocessing method, the models achieved R² values of 0.89 and 0.79, SEP values of 5% and 6.89%, and RPD values of 2.29 and 1.66, respectively. The wavelength range significantly influenced the model performance, whereas spectral pretreatment had a minor effect on the model's predictive ability. Overall, NIR spectroscopy demonstrated the potential for nondestructive quality grading of whole durian fruits. This work is the first to establish real-time, in-line models for durian grading based on DM content, advancing beyond the previous destructive method. The findings demonstrate the feasibility of automated, nondestructive, and objective quality assessment, supporting industrial automation, precision agriculture, and export quality assurance.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Predicting biomass global warming potential with FT-NIR spectroscopy
(2025-12-01)
Gyawali, Prakash
;
Shrestha, Bijendra
;
Phanomsophon, Thitima
;
Posom, Jetsada
;
Pornchaloempong, Pimpen
This research is to predict the global warming potential (GWP) of biomass by using Fourier transform near-infrared (FT-NIR) spectroscopy. A partial least squares regression model of 197 biomass chip samples was developed for predicting GWP of fast-growing trees and agricultural residues. The reference value of GWP of biomass sample was calculated by the method provided by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). After applying different spectral pretreatments and variable selection methods, the best model for predicting GWP was found using the 1st derivative spectrum pretreatment and covariance method (COVM) based variable selection. The results indicate GWP model exhibit good predictive capabilities, where the model can be usable with caution for any purpose including research, by achieving a coefficient of determination for prediction set (R2<inf>P</inf>) of 0.86, and ratio of prediction to deviation (RPD) of 2.6. Additionally, the RMSEP of 0.00063 suggests a low prediction error. This pioneering approach presents a swift and efficient means to determine GWP, the complex functionality parameter, which reveals an optimal relationship model, showcasing its efficacy in a significant advancement in the assessment of biomass functionality related to climate change issue. Additionally, the further research is recommended to integrate FT-NIR data with thermogravimetric analyser to simulate of different thermal conversion of biomass type where different emission gases are generated and with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for evaluation of concentration of the generated gases for further refine GWP predictions which providing more comprehensive insights and exact content of emission gases affect global warming to support the IPCC.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Identification and Removal of Negative Biomass Samples via Scatter Plot Analysis to Improve GWP Predictive Modeling
(2025-11-13)
Gyawali, Prakash
;
Shrestha, Bijendra
;
Posom, Jetsada
;
Pornchaloempong, Pimpen
;
Sirisomboon, Panmanas
Accurate prediction of Global Warming Potential (GWP) from biomass constituents is essential for evaluating the sustainability of bioenergy sources. However, the inclusion of biomass samples with weak or negative correlation to key elemental components such as Carbon (C). Hydrogen (H). Nitrogen (N). and Oxygen (O)'can reduce model accuracy and lead to misleading conclusions. This study utilizes scatter plot regression analysis to evaluate and remove "negative biomass samples."defined as those with consistently low R2 values across constituent-GWP relationships using HHV = 0.2949C + 0.82 50H developed for wood biomass by Yin. Regression models were generated for each biomass species using elemental concentrations as predictors of GWP. Notably, several non-wood species (e.g.. Zea Mays-Shell. Bagasse. Bamboo) exhibited very low R- values (often <0.05) for model between elemental composition and GWP. where all elemental correlations indicated weak predictive relationships. In contrast, wood-based species such as Alnus demonstrated significantly higher R2 values, especially with Carbon (R2 = 0.69). Hydrogen (R2 = 0.57). and Oxygen (R2 = 0.68), suggesting a stronger linear influence on GWP. Removing these low-contributing samples improved the clarity and reliability of the predictive model related to HHV and each type of element (C.H.N and O) as evidenced by a sharper regression slope of a graph plotted between predicted GWP and measured GWP of positive species and better fit (increased R2) for the remaining samples. These results highlight the value of preliminary scatter plot analysis in identifying biomass species that obscure rather than support predictive modeling. This filtering step ultimately enhances the robustness and inteipretability of constituent-based GWP prediction frameworks, particularly when applying FT-XIR spectroscopy and chemometric modelling.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Deep neural networks (DNNs) chemical compositions estimation of fresh durian in-line via near infrared spectroscopy
(2025-06-01)
Posom, Jetsada
;
Saenphon, Chirawan
;
Ditcharoen, Sirirak
;
Pitak, Lakkana
;
Sirisomboon, Panmanas
Near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy and deep neural network (DNN) models were adopted for evaluating the nutritional compositions in durian pulp. The quality inspection of durians through online channels remains challenging because consumers cannot directly touch or smell the fruit. This leads to issues with substandard durians, such as unripe ones or those infested with pests. One hundred and sixty durian samples of Mon Thong varieties were used in this experiment. Then, the collected NIR spectra were augmented to improve the generalization ability of regression models. Deep neural network (DNNs) regressions were developed. The results showed that deep neural network (DNN) regression model possessed the best prediction performance, which were provided performance index. Almost all the best performance models were developed from the second derivative, except for the fat content model, which was developed from raw spectra. The best total soluble solids (TSS) model provided the coefficient of determination of calibration (R2c) and root mean square error of calibration (RMSEc) were 0.84 and 2.25 % and coefficient of determination of calibration (R2p), root mean square error of prediction (RMSEp) and ratio of performance to deviation (RPD) were 0.72 2.92 % and 1.92, respectively, and those of dry matter content (DMC) were provided R2c and RMSEc were 0.997, 0.58 %, and for prediction set provided R2p, RMSEp and RPD were 0.94, 3.13 %, and 4.21, respectively. For fat content (FC), they have also provided R2c and RMSEc were 0.84, 0.36 (g/100 g), while it provided R2p, RMSEp and RPD were 0.86, 0.50 (g/100 g), and 2.72, respectively. Moreover, for total sugar content (TSC) value, it also gave high accuracy, which provided R2c and RMSEc were 0.93, 0.49 (g/100 g) and R2p, RMSEp, and RPD were 0.91, 0.81 (g/100 g), 3.44, and for starch content (SC) also provided R2c and RMSEc were 0.93, 0.49(g/100 g) and R2p, RMSEp, and RPD were 0.76, 2.79 (g/100 g), 2.09, respectively. Therefore, the proposed method offers an ultrasensitive and effective strategy for estimation of nutritional compositions.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Modeling of Combustion Characteristics in Chip and Ground Biomass from Fast-Growing Trees and Agricultural Residue
(2024-03-01)
Shrestha, Bijendra
;
Posom, Jetsada
;
Pornchaloempong, Pimpen
;
Sirisomboon, Panmanas
;
Shrestha, Bim Prasad
This study focuses on the investigation and comparison of combustion characteristic parameters and combustion performance indices between fast-growing trees and agricultural residues as biomass sources. The investigation is conducted through direct combustion in an air environment using a thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA). Additionally, partial least squares regression (PLSR)-based models were developed to assess combustion performance indices via near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), serving as a non-destructive alternative method. The results obtained through the TGA reveal that, specifically, fast-growing trees display higher average ignition temperature (227 °C) and burnout temperature (521 °C) in comparison to agricultural residues, which exhibit the values of 218 °C and 515 °C, respectively. Therefore, fast-growing trees are comparatively difficult to ignite, but sustain combustion over extended periods, yielding higher temperatures. However, despite fast-growing trees having a high ignition index (D<inf>i</inf>) and burnout index (D<inf>f</inf>), the comprehensive combustion performance (S<inf>i</inf>) and flammability index (C<inf>i</inf>) of agricultural residue are higher, indicating the latter possess enhanced thermal and combustion reactivity, coupled with improved combustion stability. Five distinct PLSR-based models were developed using 115 biomass samples for both chip and ground forms, spanning the wavenumber range of 3595–12,489 cm−1. The optimal model was selected by evaluating the coefficients of determination in the prediction set (R2<inf>P</inf>), root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP), and RPD values. The results suggest that the proposed model for D<inf>f</inf>, obtained through GA-PLSR using the first derivative (D1), and S<inf>i</inf>, achieved through full-PLSR with MSC, both in ground biomass, is usable for most applications, including research. The model yielded, respectively, an R2<inf>P</inf>, RMSEP, and RPD, which are 0.8426, 0.4968 wt.% min⁻4, and 2.5; and 0.8808, 0.1566 wt.%2 min⁻2 °C⁻3, and 3.1. The remaining models (D<inf>i</inf> in chip and ground, D<inf>f</inf>, and S<inf>i</inf> in chip, and C<inf>i</inf> in chip and ground biomass) are primarily applicable only for rough screening purposes. However, including more representative samples and exploring a more suitable machine learning algorithm are essential for updating the model to achieve a better nondestructive assessment of biomass combustion behavior.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
NIR Spectroscopy as an Alternative to Thermogravimetric Analyzer for Biomass Proximate Analysis: Comparison of Chip and Ground Biomass Models
(2024-02-01)
Shrestha, Bijendra
;
Posom, Jetsada
;
Sirisomboon, Panmanas
;
Shrestha, Bim Prasad
;
Pornchaloempong, Pimpen
This study investigates the non-destructive analysis of proximate parameters (moisture content, MC; volatile matter, VM; fixed carbon, FC; ash content) in various chipped and ground biomass using a combination of destructive thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and non-destructive near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) with partial least squares regression (PLSR). The thermogravimetric method determines proximate analysis data through TG and DTG curves, tracking biomass mass loss over time or temperature. NIRS scans chipped biomass in diffuse reflectance, and ground biomass in transflectance mode, covering the wavenumber range from 3595 to 12,489 cm−1. PLSR-based models (Full-PLSR, GA-PLSR, SPA-PLSR, MP PLSR 5-range method, and MP PLSR 3-range method) are developed and evaluated based on R2P, RMSEP, and RPD. MC and FC models for chip biomass exhibit satisfactory performance, making them cautiously applicable in various applications, including research. Optimal models for MC and FC in chip biomass, constructed using GA-PLSR with the second derivative and Full-PLSR with a constant offset, yield high R2P values (0.8654 and 0.8773), low RMSEP values (0.85% and 2.12%), and high RPD values (2.9 and 3.0), indicating applicative capabilities. Other parameters such as MC and FC in ground biomass, as well as VM and ash content in both chip and ground biomass, are found suitable for rough screening. Model sensitivity, assessed by calculating LOQ, indicates high sensitivity for VM in both chip and ground biomass and FC in chip biomass, as the calculated LOQ value is lower than the minimum reference values used during model development. However, for the remaining parameters, LOQ values surpass the established minimum reference value, suggesting limitations in predicting samples below the calibration range. Continuous model enhancement incorporating an ample number of representative biomass samples and consistent validation with unknown samples are imperative for ensuring accurate predictions.

KMITL

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results