• Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis
  • Vol. 42, Issue 3, 910 (2022)
Jia-yi XU1、*, Xue HUANG2、2; 3;, Hua-ping LUO1、1; 3; *;, Jin-xiu LIU1、1; 3;, Yu-ting SUO1、1; 3;, and Chang-xu WANG1、1; 3;
Author Affiliations
  • 11. College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China
  • 22. College of Plant Science, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2022)03-0910-09 Cite this Article
    Jia-yi XU, Xue HUANG, Hua-ping LUO, Jin-xiu LIU, Yu-ting SUO, Chang-xu WANG. Effects of Orientation and Quality on Spatial Spectrum Characteristics of Fruits in Southern Xinjiang[J]. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis, 2022, 42(3): 910 Copy Citation Text show less
    Layout of test samples
    Fig. 1. Layout of test samples
    Background spectra of some samples
    Fig. 2. Background spectra of some samples
    Eliminating abnormal spectra of winter Jujube by Mahalanobis distance
    Fig. 3. Eliminating abnormal spectra of winter Jujube by Mahalanobis distance
    Eliminating abnormal sugar content samples of winter Jujube by concentration residual
    Fig. 4. Eliminating abnormal sugar content samples of winter Jujube by concentration residual
    CARS method selects the characteristic wavelength of winter Jujube sugar(a): Relationship between interation number and wavelength variable; (b): RMSECV value for different interations; (c): Variable PLS regression coefficient value
    Fig. 5. CARS method selects the characteristic wavelength of winter Jujube sugar
    (a): Relationship between interation number and wavelength variable; (b): RMSECV value for different interations; (c): Variable PLS regression coefficient value
    Background spectra of winter jujube and results of con+1st modeling of sugar content(a): Model sample regression; (b): Model sample error
    Fig. 6. Background spectra of winter jujube and results of con+1st modeling of sugar content
    (a): Model sample regression; (b): Model sample error
    Comparison of inversion results of Roujean model(a): Winter jujube; (b): Red grapes; (c): Fragrant pear
    Fig. 7. Comparison of inversion results of Roujean model
    (a): Winter jujube; (b): Red grapes; (c): Fragrant pear
    Comparison of inversion results of Walthall model(a): Winter jujube; (b): Red grapes; (c): Fragrant pear
    Fig. 8. Comparison of inversion results of Walthall model
    (a): Winter jujube; (b): Red grapes; (c): Fragrant pear
    Error comparison of different fruits retrieved by Roujean model(a): Winter jujube; (b): Red grapes; (c): Fragrant pear
    Fig. 9. Error comparison of different fruits retrieved by Roujean model
    (a): Winter jujube; (b): Red grapes; (c): Fragrant pear
    Error comparison of different fruits retrieved by Walthall model(a): Winter jujube; (b): Red grapes; (c): Fragrant pear
    Fig. 10. Error comparison of different fruits retrieved by Walthall model
    (a): Winter jujube; (b): Red grapes; (c): Fragrant pear
    处理方法rrmsecrmsep
    Con0.549 932.402.72
    MSC0.814 821.672.43
    SNV0.827 291.622.34
    Con+1st0.853 311.502.29
    MSC+1st0.806 891.702.26
    SNV+1st0.803 861.712.28
    Con+2st0.723 362.002.26
    MSC+2st0.751 781.922.16
    SNV+2st0.746 101.912.42
    Table 1. Results of background spectrum and sugar modeling of winter Jujube under different treatment methods
    理化值预处理方法rrmsecrmsep
    糖度Con+1st0.853 311.502.29
    SNV0.827 291.622.34
    MSC0.814 821.672.43
    水分Con0.741 280.5510.950
    SNV0.669 930.6101.10
    MSC0.664 990.6141.11
    探测角Con+2st0.985 580.2270.404
    Con0.975 400.2960.260
    Con+1st0.974 720.3000.323
    方位角Con+2st0.941 832.845.72
    MSC+1st0.925 333.214.33
    SNV+1st0.914 643.424.35
    相位角MSC+2st0.960 940.8101.38
    SNV+2st0.960 420.8041.48
    Con+2st0.957 550.8601.45
    Table 2. Modeling results of different winter jujube physicochemical values
    理化值预处理方法rrmsecrmsep
    糖度Con+2st0.822 670.4600.645
    MSC+1st0.818 210.4651.05
    SNV+1st0.816 460.4671.02
    水分Con+1st0.784 740.5770.955
    Con+2st0.721 790.6441.09
    MSC0.616 770.7331.11
    探测角Con+1st0.992 730.4630.633
    Con0.992 410.4730.633
    Con+2st0.990 570.5270.803
    方位角Con0.910 452.503.99
    MSC+1st0.894 782.705.24
    SNV+1st0.890 702.754.70
    相位角Con0.957 011.201.20
    Con+1st0.955 671.221.32
    SNV+1st0.950 291.291.77
    Table 3. Modeling results of different Red grapes physicochemical values
    理化值预处理方法rrmsecrmsep
    糖度Con+2st0.913 340.5051.02
    MSC+2st0.909 230.5240.982
    SNV+2st0.904 020.5300.965
    水分SNV+2st0.891 330.4120.885
    MSC+1st0.868 040.4511.02
    SNV0.720 120.6311.09
    探测角Con0.974 690.5880.692
    Con+2st0.966 590.6740.661
    SNV0.964 620.6940.666
    方位角MSC0.936 883.765.55
    SNV0.934 543.825.56
    MSC+1st0.900 144.696.30
    相位角Con0.956 271.251.91
    SNV0.950 561.331.70
    MSC0.946 251.381.71
    Table 4. Modeling results of different Fragrant Pear physicochemical values
    样品
    编号
    冬枣红提香梨
    R2rrmsep误差/%R2rrmsep误差/%R2rrmsep误差/%
    10.968 80.992 60.028 04.410.975 00.989 40.031 69.120.981 50.982 10.041 22.92
    20.932 80.989 70.042 88.840.952 60.984 10.038 89.270.756 20.986 50.076 012.65
    30.925 00.989 60.044 47.200.897 80.988 40.058 214.320.876 50.957 40.046 94.70
    40.853 20.979 50.065 29.890.834 00.977 00.073 716.600.746 20.967 10.075 011.03
    50.958 40.996 70.033 87.540.918 80.966 10.062 08.360.814 80.962 10.069 410.57
    60.989 80.996 60.017 12.800.975 90.988 70.029 27.030.892 90.964 50.046 94.65
    70.971 60.991 70.027 63.920.900 00.991 20.062 914.310.814 90.963 70.066 79.53
    80.875 60.985 30.059 713.550.971 00.985 90.033 29.130.762 10.969 60.079 612.88
    Table 5. Comparison of inversion results of roujean model
    样品
    编号
    冬枣红提香梨
    R2rrmsep误差/%R2rrmsep误差/%R2rrmsep误差/%
    10.977 60.992 50.024 02.620.909 20.977 30.056 513.890.767 70.975 30.079 77.62
    20.912 70.995 40.047 38.920.883 10.961 50.064 210.940.912 00.988 40.050 63.73
    30.931 50.998 60.042 98.510.685 90.963 60.105 229.630.849 40.985 00.067 47.89
    40.964 60.997 50.030 95.830.796 00.957 60.084 717.190.790 70.970 80.081 39.99
    50.873 70.971 50.058 48.510.752 70.949 70.094 820.090.889 00.955 60.059 06.76
    60.985 80.992 90.019 63.380.964 60.988 10.035 98.470.913 00.975 10.052 16.00
    70.979 00.996 00.023 84.250.911 50.988 20.056 714.410.820 20.988 00.074 910.67
    80.921 60.990 20.045 97.520.974 60.988 30.030 48.590.770 30.923 00.084 610.07
    Table 6. Comparison of inversion results of Walthall model
    Jia-yi XU, Xue HUANG, Hua-ping LUO, Jin-xiu LIU, Yu-ting SUO, Chang-xu WANG. Effects of Orientation and Quality on Spatial Spectrum Characteristics of Fruits in Southern Xinjiang[J]. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis, 2022, 42(3): 910
    Download Citation