Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Integrating Vis-SWNIR spectrometer in a conveyor system for in-line measurement of dry matter content and soluble solids content of durian pulp
    (2021-11-01) ;
    Sharma, Sneha
    ;
    ;
    Leepaitoon, Kritsanaphon
    ;
    Chunsri, Rashphon
    The prediction of dry matter content (DMC) and soluble solids content (SSC) in durian pulp were performed using a small laboratory scale in-line visible and short wave near infrared (Vis-SWNIR) spectroscopic system. The fiber optic diode array spectrometer with a charged coupled device (CCD) detector in a wavelength range of 450−1000 nm was used for spectral data acquisition. The spectra of the sample were acquired on the moving conveyor belt in two different orientations, including scanning in the upright position of pulps collected in 2018 and the stable position by scanning on the side of the pulps collected in 2019. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) was used to establish the relationship between the spectra and observed DMC and SSC values using the different wavelength ranges, including 450−1000, 700−1000, and 800−1000 nm for the comparison. The results showed that the durian pulp should be scanned in the upright position at the center of the pulp. Moving average smoothing preprocessing combined with the standard normal variate (SNV) for DMC and multiple scatter correction (MSC) for SSC gave the best result. The suitable wavelength range for model development to predict the DMC and SSC was 700−1000 nm and 800−1000 nm, respectively. After comparing the results, the optimum model showed the coefficient of determination of calibration (R<inf>C</inf><sup>2</sup>), and prediction (R<inf>P</inf><sup>2</sup>), root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP), bias, and the ratio of performance to interquartile distance (RPIQ) of 0.88, 0.83, 4.32 %, 1.25 %, and 3.52 for DMC and 0.70, 0.70, 4.0 %, 0.4 %, and 2.2 for SSC prediction.
  • 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,
    Effect of Environment Temperature and Relative Humidity on Thermal Emissivity: Study Case of Mango Fruit
    (2024-01-01) ;
    Sripinyowanich Jongyingcharoen, Jiraporn
    ;
    Junto, Apiwat
    ;
    ;
    Dachoupakan Sirisomboon, Cheewanun
    This research was to study the effect of the environment condition during image captured including temperature and relative humidity in the packaging house of the mango exporting factory and in the orchard on the emissivity of mango fruit. The result showed that in the controlled environment of the packaging house in factory, the emissivity was increased (the mango emitted more energy) when the surface temperature was lower and the emissivity of mango is 0.71-0.84 and in the uncontrolled environment of open-air packaging yard in the mango orchard, the different transpiration rates of mango effected mainly by ambient temperature and relative humidity make the morning condition emissivity of 0.44-0.66 and the afternoon condition of 0.72-0.98. There was the effect of the different measured positions on the fruits where the physiology was different and the fluctuated environment in the latter condition made the wide range of emissivity of mangoes. This indicated the shortcoming of thermal imaging of horticultural product if the correct emissivity varied and difficult to set in the thermal camera setting, hence the inaccurate thermogram to be obtained.
  • 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,
    Classification of the Crosslink Density Level of Para Rubber Thick Film of Medical Glove by Using Near-Infrared Spectral Data
    (2024-01-01) ;
    Howimanporn, Suppakit
    ;
    Sitorus, Agustami
    ;
    ;
    Posom, Jetsada
    Classification of the crosslink density level of para rubber medical gloves by using near-infrared spectral data combined with machine learning is the first time reported in this paper. The spectra of medical glove samples with different crosslink densities acquired by an ultra-compact portable MicroNIR spectrometer were correlated with their crosslink density levels, which were referencely evaluated by the toluene swell index (TSI). The machine learning protocols used to classify the 3 groups of TSI were specified as less than 80% TSI, 80–88% TSI, and more than 88% TSI. The 80–88% TSI group was the group in which the compounded latex was suitable for medical glove production, which made the glove specification comply with the requirements of customers as indicated by the tensile test. The results show that when comparing the algorithms used for modeling, the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) developed by 2nd derivative spectra with 15 k-best selected wavelengths fairly accurately predicted the class but was most reliable among other algorithms, i.e., artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machines (SVM), and k-nearest neighbors (kNN), due to higher prediction accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score of the same value of 0.76 and no overfitting or underfitting prediction. This developed model can be implemented in the glove factory for screening purposes in the production line. However, deep learning modeling should be explored with a larger sample number required for better model performance.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    Item type:Publication,
    Rapid measurement of classification levels of primary macronutrients in durian (Durio zibethinus Murray CV. Mon Thong) leaves using FT-NIR spectrometer and comparing the effect of imbalanced and balanced data for modelling
    (2022-11-15) ;
    Jaisue, Natthapon
    ;
    Worphet, Akarawhat
    ;
    Tawinteung, Nukoon
    ;
    Shrestha, Bijendra
    For durian growth to produce high-quality fruit, plants should receive sufficient nutrients. Currently, farmers apply various fertilisers to produce a large quantity and quality of durian fruit, irrespective of the actual nutrients that the plant requires. Accordingly, the production cost is high and non-renewable resources. Therefore, this study focused on rapid classification primary macronutrient levels in durian (Durio zibethinus Murray CV. Mon Thong) leaves using Fourier transform near-infrared (FT-NIR) spectroscopy and investigated the effect of imbalanced data on efficient classification models. Contents of N, P, and K in durian leaves were measured via NIR with the wavelength range of 800–2,500 nm. Classification models were developed using partial least squares, k-nearest neighbour, and artificial neural networks (ANNs) with imbalanced and balanced data. The imbalanced data were balanced using a synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE). In this study, the model regarding the fresh leaf sample performed better than that for the dried ground leaf sample. Moreover, the ANN was the best algorithm, exhibiting validation accuracies of classified levels corresponding to N = 0.99 and P = 0.97 when the data were analysed with SMOTE and K = 1.00 from the original balanced data. The imbalanced data affected biased classification when the models could increase the classification accuracy by applying balanced data for modelling.