Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Revealing the Power of Deep Learning in Quality Assessment of Mango and Mangosteen Purée Using NIR Spectral Data
    The quality control of fruit purée products such as mango and mangosteen is crucial for maintaining consumer satisfaction and meeting industry standards. Traditional destructive techniques for assessing key quality parameters like the soluble solid content (SSC) and titratable acidity (TA) are labor-intensive and time-consuming; prompting the need for rapid, nondestructive alternatives. This study investigated the use of deep learning (DL) models including Simple-CNN, AlexNet, EfficientNetB0, MobileNetV2, and ResNeXt for predicting SSC and TA in mango and mangosteen purée and compared their performance with the conventional chemometric method partial least squares regression (PLSR). Spectral data were preprocessed and evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation. For mango purée, the Simple-CNN model achieved the highest predictive accuracy for both SSC (coefficient of determination of cross-validation ((Formula presented.)) = 0.914, root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSE<inf>CV</inf>) = 0.688, the ratio of prediction to deviation of cross-validation (RPD<inf>CV</inf>) = 3.367) and TA ((Formula presented.) = 0.762, RMSE<inf>CV</inf> = 0.037, RPD<inf>CV</inf> = 2.864), demonstrating a statistically significant improvement over PLSR. For the mangosteen purée, AlexNet exhibited the best SSC prediction performance ((Formula presented.) = 0.702, RMSE<inf>CV</inf> = 0.471, RPD<inf>CV</inf> = 1.666), though the RPD<inf>CV</inf> values (<2.0) indicated limited applicability for precise quantification. TA prediction in mangosteen purée showed low variance in the reference values (standard deviation (SD) = 0.048), which may have restricted model performance. These results highlight the potential of DL for improving NIR-based quality evaluation of fruit purée, while also pointing to the need for further refinement to ensure interpretability, robustness, and practical deployment in industrial quality control.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Moisture content prediction in durian husk biomass via near infrared spectroscopy coupled with aquaphotomics and explainable machine learning
    (2025-12-15)
    Shrestha, Zenisha
    ;
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    ;
    ;
    Pun, Umed Kumar
    ;
    Bajracharya, Tri Ratna
    Accurate determination of moisture content is essential for energy efficiency and biomass management for fuel materials such as durian husk. Traditional methods of determining biomass moisture content are time-consuming and require specialized expertise, posing challenges for continuous monitoring. To address this limitation, this study applies Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) combined with machine learning models to rapidly and accurately assess moisture content. Both linear Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) and non-linear approaches were used, including Support Vector Machines (SVM), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB). The application of preprocessing techniques, notably the Savitzky-Golay second derivative (SD) and Standard Normal Variate (SNV), significantly augmented the predictive performance, highlighting the importance of data preprocessing in spectral analysis. Synthetic spectral augmentation using Gaussian noise revealed that while SVM and ANN exhibited near-perfect performance, SVM demonstrated quantifiable reliability. This study also demonstrates SVM as the most sensitive and reliable method for detecting and quantifying moisture content in durian husk. This research contributes novel insights to biomass analysis, highlighting the benefits of integrating NIRS and feasibility of explainable machine learning techniques to identify water related spectral parameters to advance aquaphotomics, thereby advancing rapid and accurate biomass characterization.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Predicting biomass global warming potential with FT-NIR spectroscopy
    (2025-12-01)
    Gyawali, Prakash
    ;
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    ;
    ;
    Posom, Jetsada
    ;
    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 (R<sup>2</sup><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 
    Item type:Publication,
    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
    ;
    ;
    Posom, Jetsada
    ;
    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<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) 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<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) 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 variations<sup>35</sup>,” 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 variations<sup>35</sup>,” 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 R<sup>2</sup><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 R<sup>2</sup><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 (R<sup>2</sup><inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R<sup>2</sup><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 (R<sup>2</sup><inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R<sup>2</sup><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 Weyer<sup>38</sup> 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 Weyer<sup>38</sup>.” 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<sup>-1</sup>) = 0.000002098 kJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 0.000002098 Jg<sup>-1</sup> 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<sup>-1</sup>) = 0.000002020 kJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 0.000002020 J g<sup>-1</sup> 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<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: Since 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932×10<sup>-3</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 0.017932 TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> would be approximately 2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup> kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ= 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10<sup>-4</sup> kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932 ×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> 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<sup>-3</sup>+29.8× 5.379 ×10<sup>-4</sup>+273×7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> Total GWP=0.0376 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 <sup>7</sup> Correct Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: Since 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932 × 10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> would be approximately 2.0083 × 10<sup>-3</sup> kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ= 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10<sup>-4</sup> kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932 × 10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ<sup>-1</sup> 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<sup>-3</sup>+ 27.2× 5.3796 × 10<sup>-4</sup>+ 273×7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> Total GWP= 0.03622 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 <sup>7</sup> 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<sup>-1</sup>) 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<sup>-1</sup>) 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, R<sup>2</sup><inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R<sup>2</sup><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, R<sup>2</sup><inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R<sup>2</sup><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: 1<sup>st</sup> derivative, SecDev: 2<sup>nd</sup> 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, 4<sup>th</sup> 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 
    Item type:Publication,
    Dataset of air cargo supply chain conditions and fruit quality evolution: Case study of mango shipment from Thailand to France
    (2025-08-01)
    Paviet-Salomon, Y.
    ;
    Laguerre, O.
    ;
    Duret, S.
    ;
    Denis, A.
    ;
    Mawilai, P.
    This study presents a detailed dataset collected during the international transport of mangoes (Mangifera indica L. cv. ‘Nam Dok Mai Si-Thong’) within a fully loaded Unit Load Device (ULD). The ULD contained 148 boxes (14 mangoes/box) and 31 boxes were instrumented by data loggers to monitor air and mango temperatures, as well as air humidity along the shipment. Measurements were recorded every 5 min throughout the 86.2 hour journey from Bangkok (Thailand) to Paris (France), it included cold storage, refrigerated transport, airport warehouse, air transport, and final delivery to the FRISE-INRAE laboratory in Paris suburban. At reception (Day 3), all boxes were stored at two temperatures (16 °C and 21 °C) over 15 days during which mango quality was assessed. Key quality attributes such as mass loss, peel color, pH, sugar content, and visual appearance were evaluated at Day 3, Day 6, Day 9, and Day 15 to highlight the impact of storage conditions on fruit quality. It is to be noticed that the same quality assessment was undertaken after harvest and before the cold storage in Thailand (Day 0). The dataset comprises raw and processed data files that include the temperature and humidity changes over time, as well as the quality evolution. These data are stored in series of txt files, with raw values and processed results i.e. min, max, average values, standard deviation and variance to facilitate future analysis. Additionally, the dataset includes series of jpeg files of mango images at different assessment days. This dataset is valuable for both practical and research purposes. For fruit exporters, it offers the insights into how different positions within a ULD can affect mango quality during a long-distance transport and implements certain measures to minimize quality degradation. For researchers, the dataset provides a base for numerical models validation, such as simplified thermal models and Computational Fluid Dynamics simulations. The international supply chain dataset is rare because of the complexity and the cost of implementation.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Postharvest detection of anthracnose (Colletotrichum asianum) on mango fruit (Mangifera indica L. cv Namdokmai Sithong) using near-infrared response
    (2026-12-01)
    Junto, Apiwat
    ;
    ;
    Sharma, Sneha
    ;
    Kaewsorn, Kannapot
    ;
    Anthracnose disease, caused by fungi of the genus Colletotrichum, poses a major threat to mango production and export industries, with Colletotrichum asianum being among the most significant pathogenic species. This work proposes the hypothesis that the simple difference in absorption between anthracnose-infected and noninfected mangoes illustrated by the average near-infrared (NIR) spectra obtained from hyperspectral images could be used for simple differentiation of the two groups. The method of depositing fungal spores by spraying the spores over the fruit surface, not a small area or specific point, allows for the number of spores per unit area to be harmonized and to detect infected or noninfected spores on every pixel of the mango surface using a hyperspectral imaging camera. Important wavelengths for differentiation included water bands of 970, 1190, and 1200 nm which resulted in the greatest difference in absorbance, and bands of chitin, the major component of the fungal cell wall; 1195 nm was the most important band. In addition, the vibration bands of 868 (protein in the fungal cell wall), 1134 (sugar and starch of the mango substrate), 1320 (NIR absorbers in the fungus-sprayed and mango substrate, not specifically defined) and 1069 nm (crystallinity and N-acetyl methyl groups in the fungal chitin and constituents of the mango), differed from each other. These wavelengths can be used for modelling, which can lead to high performance in quantifying the concentration of anthracnose and classifying the strength levels of anthracnose infection. The microbiological mechanism of anthracnose growth on infected mangoes corresponding to changes in the NIR spectrum during the 4 days after spore infection is comprehensively discussed. These results can aid in enhancing early detection and classification techniques for anthracnose-infected mangoes from noninfected mangoes using hyperspectral image sensors.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    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
    ;
    ;
    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 R<sup>2</sup> 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 R<sup>2</sup> values, especially with Carbon (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.69). Hydrogen (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.57). and Oxygen (R<sup>2</sup> = 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 R<sup>2</sup>) 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.