Detection of Adulteration in Red Meat Species Using Hyperspectral Imaging

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10749)

Abstract

This paper reports the performance of hyperspectral imaging for detecting the adulteration in red-meat species. Line-scanning images are acquired from muscles of lamb, beef, or pork. We consider the states of fresh, frozen, or thawed meat. For each case, packing and unpacking the sample with a transparent bag is considered and evaluated. Meat muscles are defined either as a class of lamb, or as a class of beef or pork. For visualization purposes, fat regions are also considered. We investigate raw spectral features, normalized spectral features, and a combination of spectral and spatial features by using texture properties. Results show that adding texture features to normalized spectral features achieves the best performance, with a 92.8% overall classification accuracy independently of the state of the products. The resulting model provides a high and balanced sensitivity for all classes at all meat stages. The resulting model yields 94% and 90% average sensitivities for detecting lamb or the other meat type, respectively. This paper shows that hyperspectral imaging analysis provides a rapid, reliable, and non-destructive method for detecting the adulteration in red-meat products.

Keywords

Hyperspectral imaging Spectral-spatial features Meat classification Meat processing Adulteration detection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors appreciate funding by the AgResearch Core Fund and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand. Authors also acknowledge conference support by Auckland University of Technology, the School of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences.

References

  1. 1.
    Bock, J., Connelly, R.: Innovative uses of near-infrared spectroscopy in food processing. J. Food Sci. 73, 91–98 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cen, H., He, Y.: Theory and application of near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy in determination of food quality. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 18, 72–83 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elmasry, G., Kamruzzaman, M., Sun, D.-W., Allen, P.: Principles and applications of hyperspectral imaging in quality evaluation of agro-food products: a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 52, 999–1023 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Du, C., Sun, D.: Comparison of three methods for classification of pizza topping using different colour space transformations. J. Food Eng. 68, 277–287 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zheng, C., Sun, D., Zheng, L.: Recent developments and applications of image features for food quality evaluation and inspection: a review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17, 642–655 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu, D., Sun, D.: Colour measurements by computer vision for food quality control: a review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 29, 5–20 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kamruzzaman, M., Elmasry, G., Sun, D., Allen, P.: Application of NIR hyperspectral imaging for discrimination of lamb muscles. J. Food Eng. 104, 332–340 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamruzzaman, M., Barbin, D., Elmasry, G., Sun, D., Allen, P.: Potential of hyperspectral imaging and pattern recognition for categorization and authentication of red meat. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 104, 332–340 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karrer, A., Stuart, A, Craigie, C., Taukiri, K., Reis, M.M.: Detection of adulteration in meat product using of hyperspectral imaging. In: Proceedings of Chemometrics Analytical Chemistry, p. 177 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghamisi, P., Couceiro, M., Benediktsson, J.: Integration of segmentation techniques for classification of hyperspectral images. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 11, 342–346 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ropodi, A., Pavlidis, D., Moharebb, F., Panagou, E., Nychas, G.: Multispectral image analysis approach to detect adulteration of beef and pork in raw meats. Food Res. Int. 67, 12–18 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamruzzaman, M., Makino, Y., Oshita, S.: Rapid and Non-destructive detection of chicken adulteration in minced beef using visible near-infrared hyperspectral imaging and machine learning. J. Food Eng. 170, 8–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanz, J., Fernandes, A., Barrenechea, E., Silva, S., Santos, V., Goncalves, N., Paternain, D., Jurio, A., Melo-Pinto, P.: Lamb muscle discrimination using hyperspectral imaging comparison of various machine learning algorithms. J. Food Eng. 174, 92–100 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klette, K.: Concise Computer Vision. UTCS. Springer, London (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6320-6 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu, Y., Monteiro, S., Saber, E.: Super pixel based classification using conditional random fields for hyperspectral images. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 2202–2205 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fang, L., Li, S., Duan, W.: Classification of hyperspectral images by exploiting spectral-spatial information of superpixel via multiple kernels. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 53, 6663–6674 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burger, J., Geladi, P.: Hyperspectral NIR image regression part I: calibration and correction. J. Chemom. 19, 355–363 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savitzky, A., Golay, M.: Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Anal. Chem. 36, 1627–1639 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Achanta, R., Shaji, A., Smith, K., Lucchi, A., Fua, P., Susstrunk, S.: SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 34(11), 2274–2282 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kennard, R., Stone, L.: Computer aided design of experiments. Technometrics 11(1), 137–148 (1969)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ambroise, C., McLachlan, G.: Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99(10), 6562–6566 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Svetnik, V., Liaw, A., Tong, C., Wang, T.: Application of Breiman’s random forest to modeling structure-activity relationships of pharmaceutical molecules. In: Roli, F., Kittler, J., Windeatt, T. (eds.) MCS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3077, pp. 334–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25966-4_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haralick, R.: Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proc. IEEE 67(5), 786–804 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hsu, C.W., Chang, C.C., Lin, C.J.: A practical guide to support vector classification. Technical report, National Taiwan University (2003, last update 2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical SciencesAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.AgResearchPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations