Next Article in Journal
Seasonal Precipitation Variability and Non-Stationarity Based on the Evolution Pattern of the Indian Ocean Dipole over the East Asia Region
Next Article in Special Issue
A Dual Attention Convolutional Neural Network for Crop Classification Using Time-Series Sentinel-2 Imagery
Previous Article in Journal
A Study of the Application and the Limitations of GPR Investigation on Underground Survey of the Korean Expressways
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Hyperspectral Imaging and Near-Infrared Spectroscopy to Determine Nitrogen and Carbon Concentrations in Wheat
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Performance Evaluation of Vis/NIR Hyperspectral Imaging to Predict Curcumin Concentration in Fresh Turmeric Rhizomes

1
Genecology Research Centre, School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, ML 40, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore DC, QLD 4558, Australia
2
School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, ML 40, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore DC, QLD 4558, Australia
3
Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, School of Environment and Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia
4
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland Government, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 10 March 2021 / Revised: 30 April 2021 / Accepted: 2 May 2021 / Published: 6 May 2021

Abstract

:
Hyperspectral image (HSI) analysis has the potential to estimate organic compounds in plants and foods. Curcumin is an important compound used to treat a range of medical conditions. Therefore, a method to rapidly determine rhizomes with high curcumin content on-farm would be of significant advantage for farmers. Curcumin content of rhizomes varies within, and between varieties but current chemical analysis methods are expensive and time consuming. This study compared curcumin in three turmeric (Curcuma longa) varieties and examined the potential for laboratory-based HSI to rapidly predict curcumin using the visible–near infrared (400–1000 nm) spectrum. Hyperspectral images (n = 152) of the fresh rhizome outer-skin and flesh were captured, using three local varieties (yellow, orange, and red). Distribution of curcuminoids and total curcumin was analysed. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) models were developed to predict total curcumin concentrations. Total curcumin and the proportion of three curcuminoids differed significantly among all varieties. Red turmeric had the highest total curcumin concentration (0.83 ± 0.21%) compared with orange (0.37 ± 0.12%) and yellow (0.02 ± 0.02%). PLSR models predicted curcumin using raw spectra of rhizome flesh and pooled data for all three varieties (R2c = 0.83, R2p = 0.55, ratio of prediction to deviation (RPD) = 1.51) and was slightly improved by using images of a single variety (orange) only (R2c = 0.85, R2p = 0.62, RPD = 1.65). However, prediction of curcumin using outer-skin of rhizomes was poor (R2c = 0.64, R2p = 0.37, RPD = 1.28). These models can discriminate between ‘low’ and ‘high’ values and so may be adapted into a two-level grading system. HSI has the potential to help identify turmeric rhizomes with high curcumin concentrations and allow for more efficient refinement into curcumin for medicinal purposes.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Hyperspectral imaging (HSI) is an emerging technology that has recently been used to non-destructively evaluate a variety of chemical compounds and quality indicators in soils and agricultural products (nuts, fruits, and vegetables) [1,2,3,4]. Traditional laboratory-based methods to detect compounds in plants are destructive and require specialised instrumentation and lengthy sample preparation procedures [5,6]. Additionally, soil physico-chemical properties, organic amendments, and crop growing conditions can lead to high variation in the chemical composition of plant materials [7,8]. Therefore, rapid and non-destructive HSI methods are required to reduce cost and can improve efficiency in agricultural processes [9]. HSI can be adapted for different purposes including predicting nutrient concentrations in materials and identifying contamination and adulteration in foods and products refined from plants and animals [1,3,10].
Hyperspectral imaging utilises both spectral and spatial information collected by a single instrument and in doing so, generates large datasets [11]. As such, various methods exist to pre-process data and reduce dimensionality without losing important information. For example, many spectral wavelengths provide additional unnecessary information including light scatter and noise [1,12,13]. Transformations are applied to raw spectra to remove additive and multiplicative scatter effects prior to model development [14]. Minimal spectral transformation is preferred, with the aim, to produce robust models with high prediction accuracy. Transformations may be applied to data individually or in combination and many have specific calibration options leading to a multitude of user options that must be selected through trial and error [15]. For example, derivatives (particularly first and second) are useful for removing baseline shifts and selecting important wavelengths, whereas multiplicative scatter correction (MSC) can correct for effects such as light scattering due to variation in particle size [11]. Importantly, transformed spectra may not always perform better than untransformed spectra and choices must be made following analysis of any given data set [16]. Multivariate models are then developed with raw or transformed spectra using appropriate chemometric algorithms, such as partial least squares regression (PLSR) [11,16]. PLSR remains appropriate where collinearity exists between predictor variables and has successfully been used to analyze plant-based samples [17]. Hyperspectral imaging can be adapted to detect important compounds used in pharmaceutical products and in the plant materials they are derived from.
Curcumin is an important natural compound used for treatment of inflammatory disorders, carcinogenesis, and oxidative stress-induced pathogenesis [18,19,20]. Curcumin is refined from Curcuma spp. that contain varying levels of three polyphenolic curcuminoids: (1) curcumin, (2) desmethoxycurcumin, and (3) bisdemethoxycurcumin [21,22]. However, the genus Curcuma has 80 species and each species can have multiple varieties, for example, C. longa has 70 varieties in India [23]. It is important to know the level of curcumin in cultivated rhizomes and to identify high-yielding varieties. Traditional measurement of curcumin is carried out destructively by extracting curcumin from fresh rhizomes or dried powder and analysing it using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) or ultra-violet and visible spectrophotometry [7,24,25]. Isolation of curcumin from plant material is time consuming, laborious, and expensive, requiring specialised laboratory equipment and trained personnel [6,21]. Therefore, a rapid and non-destructive method to quantify curcumin in fresh rhizomes would represent a significant advantage for farmers and processors. Hyper- and multi-spectral detection of curcumin in turmeric powders using a variety of methods have been well investigated [26,27,28]. For example, HSI of midrange NIR spectra has successfully predicted curcumin concentration in turmeric powder [29]. However, prediction of curcumin using HSI images of fresh turmeric rhizomes has not yet been thoroughly explored.
Turmeric rhizomes contain an outer and inner zone with intermediate layers and individual vascular bundles, and as such, present difficulty for development of non-destructive technologies [22]. Therefore, studies describing the development of spectral methods to predict curcumin using rhizome skin, to the best of our knowledge, do not exist. Predicting chemical composition using plant material skin has always been challenging because spectral radiation needs to penetrate into the plant material to allow for internal measurement [30]. Additionally, many studies have explored hyperspectral methods using refined turmeric powders whereas studies using fresh rhizomes are limited. Therefore this study aimed to (1) compare total curcumin concentration and distribution of different curcuminoids in three varieties of C. longa grown in eastern Australia; and (2) evaluate the potential of PLSR models developed using visible–near infrared (Vis/NIR) spectra (400–1000 nm) to predict total curcumin concentration in fresh turmeric rhizomes. In particular we explored the potential of hyperspectral imaging to predict curcumin non-destructively in fresh rhizome outer-skin and destructively using a cross-section of cut rhizome flesh. Three undescribed and commercially grown varieties of turmeric of different colours (yellow, orange, and red) were examined [31].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design Overview

In this study, we used fresh turmeric rhizome samples to describe total curcumin concentration (%) and curcuminoid distribution in three undescribed local varieties and explore the potential for HSI and PLSR model development to predict total curcumin (%) using images of the fresh rhizome skin and flesh cross section (Figure 1).

2.2. Sample Collection and Preparation

Three varieties (yellow, orange, and red) of turmeric (C. longa) were obtained from five sites at different organic commercial and hobby farms throughout South East Queensland and northern New South Wales (Figure 2). The sampling sites included two locations at a non-certified organic farm at Mount Mellum, (1) road paddock (26°47′38.77″S, 152°56′20.13″E) and (2) bottom paddock (26°47′37.17″S, 152°56′25.14″E), a certified organic farm at (3) Kandanga (26°22′35.86″S, 152°41′5.60″E) and (4) Terania Creek (28°59′25.70″S, 153°30′13.01″E) and a hobby farm at (5) Lake Macdonald (26°22′6.39″S, 152°55′55.09″E) (Table 1). Sampling locations were geographically disparate to capture variability in curcumin concentrations within the different varieties that may arise from soil, climate, and farm management practices. The orange variety is preferred for commercial cultivation due to rhizome size and ease of post-harvest processing [31].
A total of 190 samples were collected from five study sites over a 12-month period between November 2018 and November 2019 to capture variation over the growth cycle. At the time of sampling, mother and connected finger rhizomes were lifted from the soil and one primary finger was cut from the mother rhizome, washed and airdried. Finger rhizomes were approximately 5–10 cm long. Samples from Terania Creek were express mailed to the laboratory to be delivered overnight. Samples were stored in a ziplock bags at room temperature for subsequent analysis within two days using the hyperspectral imaging system and HPLC.

2.3. Hyperspectral Imaging and Image Acquisition

Images were acquired using a laboratory-based visible–near infrared (Vis/NIR) hyperspectral imaging system (Figure 3a). The hyperspectral imaging system used incorporates a 12-bit push-broom line scanning camera with an operational spectral range of 400–1000 nm, a spectral sampling interval of ≈1.3 nm and spectral resolution of 2.3 nm (Resonon Pika XC2, Montana, USA) (Figure 3a). In the laboratory and immediately before hyperspectral imaging, a complete disc of each finger rhizome was cut laterally and approximately one-third from the base of the rhizome with a clean knife. The rhizome disc (cross-section) and remaining rhizome was placed on a black mat 320 mm below the camera lens and scanned using the hyperspectral system (Figure 3).
Finger rhizome samples were illuminated on a linear translation stage driven by electronic stepper motor for <1 min using four wide-spectrum (400–2500 nm), current controlled (12V DC) quartz halogen lights. Stage progression, data acquisition and image calibration were coordinated via SpectrononPro computer software v2.124 (Resonon Inc., Bozeman, MT, USA). Image calibration was undertaken prior to image acquisition in a darkened room and following calibration by removing dark current noise (dark calibration) and response correction (white calibration) by SpectrononPro software. Dark correction (D) was obtained by taking an image with the lens cap on. White correction (W) was obtained by taking an image of a highly reflective Lambertian material calibration sheet providing 99% reflectance. Reflectance was then calculated from raw spectral reflectance (I0) using:
R = (I0 − D)/(W − D),
Following scanning, the rhizome was reassembled to minimise oxidation and stored in a ziplock bag at room temperature until chemical extraction of curcumin within 6 h. Prevalence of curcumin cells varies between apical, nodal, and internodal regions therefore this method was employed to capture curcumin variation due to anatomical features [32]. Some of the rhizome discs sampled were internodal and others included a portion of undeveloped node (Figure 4).

2.4. Data Pre-Processing: Region of Interest Selection, Outlier Detection and Data Set Assignment

Regions of interest (ROI) were manually cropped from the background using the lasso tool function in SpectrononPro software by highlighting the (1) whole raw flesh inside the rhizome cross section, and (2) skin on the outside of the rhizome (Figure 3b,c). For each highlighted ROI, the average reflectance of selected pixels was extracted using SpectrononPro software v2.124 (Resonon Inc., Bozeman, MT, USA).
Outlying data points were detected and removed in order to establish a reliable and robust model [33]. Detection and removal of spectral outliers was carried out using principal component analysis (PCA) of the pooled varieties data set and visual inspection of the plotted spectra [34]. Three samples were spectrally and morphologically different and determined to be tuberous roots (Yujin), not rhizomes and were subsequently removed from the pooled data set [35]. Remaining samples (n = 152) were randomly assigned to calibration (n = 121) and test (n = 31) data sets (80/20%, respectively) for use in model development and evaluation (Table 1). This process was repeated until approximately relative proportions (80/20%) for each of the turmeric varieties were represented in both the calibration and test data sets (Table 1). Data sets were tested for centre and homogeneity of variance. Mean curcumin concentration and variation within the data in the calibration and test sets were not statistically different (p > 0.05) (Table 2). Samples of the orange variety (n = 118) only were used develop an additional model for a single variety only (Table 1 and Table 2).

2.5. Curcumin Quantitation Using HPLC

The complete rhizome disc of flesh including skin (~1 g) was analysed for curcumin concentration. Samples were extracted with 50 mL Milli-Q H2O and blended for 2 min and made up to 100.0 mL with acetonitrile (ACN) in a 100.0 mL volumetric flask. Samples were sonicated and shaken until no remaining colour was visible in the turmeric tissue. Solutions were filtered through 0.45 µm filter prior to analysis. Chromasolv™ HPLC gradient grade ACN and HPLC grade Milli-Q water was used in all analyses.
The reverse-phase HPLC (Agilent Technologies 1290 Infinity II, quarternary pump, autosampler, column oven and diode array detector) used a 75 × 4.6 mm column (Phenomenex Synergi Fusion) with 4 μm particle size. Mobile phase A (MPA) was water:ACN (75:25%, v/v) and mobile phase B (MPB) was ACN (100%). The pump flow rate was 1.0 mL min−1 and programmed to start at MPA/MPB 65:35 for 1.0 min, then grade to 45:55 at 6.0 min, then to 0/100 at 8.0 min, isocratic until 9.0 min, then back to 65:35 at 9.5 min and isocratic until 10.0 min. Injection was 20 µL, the column oven was set to 35 °C and detection was at 210 and 425 nm.
Standard aqueous solution of curcumin was prepared with curcumin (0.02 g) (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) sonicated and dissolved in 200 mL solvent (water 50%/ACN 50% (v/v)). Calibration standards were prepared from curcumin stock standard by serial dilution prior to analysis via HPLC as above. A calibration curve was constructed where the known concentration curcumin was plotted against the total peak area of curcumin (λ = 425 nm). Calibration curve for ten standards showed good linearity (R2 = 0.9998) over the range of concentrations from 0.19 to 98.85% total curcumin. A further nine samples were analysed in triplicate to validate the HPLC method and are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S1).
The three curcuminoids in extracts of rhizomes were separated well by HPLC (Figure 5). Curcuminoids: bisdemethoxycurcumin, desmethoxycurcumin, and curcumin eluted at approximately 3.34, 3.59, and 3.84 min (detection 425 nm) respectively for all turmeric varieties analysed (Figure 5 and Figure S2). Total curcumin concentration was determined by linear regression using the standard curve. Therefore, the proportion of curcumin in individual samples was determined against the standard calibration curve by linear regression. Peak areas of the three separate curcuminoids were obtained and summed for use as total curcumin (%) reference values in further PLSR model development.

2.6. Calibration Model Development and Spectral Data Transformations

LSR models were developed to describe the association between total curcumin concentrations in turmeric rhizome samples (described in an n × m matrix X) to their relative reflectance in the full spectral range (described in a n × p matrix Y) [36,37]. The goal of PLSR is to make predictions of the matrix Y values using the information in matrix X when the number of predictors ( m ) is much larger than the number of observations n (i.e., m > n ). PLSR models are developed in the current study because the number of predictor variables (m = 462) is greater than the number of observations (n ≤ 121) and therefore standard multivariate regression models are not appropriate [33]. Additionally, PLSR models are robust and reliable and can analyse noisy datasets and where collinearity (often a feature of hyperspectral data) exists among predictor variables [17,36]. PLSR finds a set of underlying variables (called latent variables, similar to Principal Components Analysis) common to X and Y that explain as much of the covariance between X and Y as possible [36,37]. The matrices X and Y are decomposed as X = TP T + E and Y = UQ T + F , where these decompositions of X and Y take into account information from each other. The aim of the decomposition is to maximize the covariance between T (the latent variables from X) and U (the latent variables from Y). The PLSR model was fitted using the non-linear iterative partial least squares (NIPALS) algorithm [36].
Once the X and Y matrices have been decomposed and the latent variables described, the decomposition of X (the spectral information matrix) is then regressed on the dependent data Y (curcumin concentration matrix) such that:
Y ^ =   TDQ T = X β ,
where β is the regression coefficient matrix [36,37].
The optimal number of LVs for PLSR calibration models were selected at the minimum predicted residual error sum of squares (PRESS) of the validation set [38]. To avoid overfitting data and to obtain optimum performance from the model a full validation (leave-one-out) method was used [38,39]. This was done by systematically removing one sample from the data set and converging the model for the remaining samples. Then using the model to predict the sample left out and repeating the procedure for all samples [38].
Calibration models using both raw and transformed data were evaluated during model development using the optimal number of latent variables. PLSR models were developed using The Unscrambler v11 software package (CAMO Software Inc., Trondheim, Norway). A wide range of data transformation techniques were systematically performed on calibration spectra to scatter effects and increase signal to noise ratio [40]. Transformations explored included smoothing, Savitzky–Golay (first to forth) derivatives with varying polynomial orders, multiplicative scatter correction (MSC), extended multiplicative scatter correction (EMSC), orthogonal signal correction (OSC), standard normal variate (SNV), detrending and various combinations of techniques were investigated to select optimal calibration [40,41,42]. All computations for outlier detection and data transformations and were performed using The Unscrambler® software package (version 11, CAMO Software Inc., Trondheim, Norway).
Selection of the best-fitted calibration using the highest coefficient of determination for calibration (R2c) and cross-validation (R2cv) and the lowest root mean square error for calibration (RMSEc) and cross-validation (RMSEcv). The best models identified were further developed using wavelength selection.

2.7. Wavelength Selection Using Jack-Knife Uncertainty Testing

Hyperspectral data naturally contains very large numbers of variables (462 spectral bands in this study) and many variables have high collinearity which can decrease the ability of PLSR to successfully quantitate chemical reference values [38]. Therefore, selecting the most informative wavelengths can simplify and enhance interpretation and accuracy of models due to a reduction in latent variables in the models [43]. Normally, the analysis of variability of the PLSR regression coefficients gives information about the significance of variables. In this study, uncertainty testing (Jack-knifing) was used to select variables by calculating the uncertainty estimates s2(b) associated with the regression coefficients (b) and loadings to remove unstable wavelengths in the models using:
s 2 b = M 1 M m = 1 M b b m 2 ,
where M = the number of segments [44]. Using this method, wavelengths that are considered important in predicting curcumin well are retained in the model. This process was repeated until model accuracy (R2c and R2cv) decreased from the previous model.

2.8. Evaluation of Calibration Models Using Test Data

The best fitted calibrations models were used to predict curcumin concentration in the test data. Accuracy of the calibration models to predict curcumin in new samples was evaluated by R2 and RMSE for the test data set (R2P and RMSEP). Ratio of prediction to (standard error) deviation (RPD) was also calculated using [17,45]:
RPD = SDY/RMSEp,
Using this indicator, RPD below 1.5 is considered ‘very poor’ and should not be used for prediction [46]. RPD between 1.5 and 2.5 can be considered ‘useable’ but with potential for increased efficacy, and ‘excellent’ if above 2.5 [46].

2.9. Statistical Analysis of the Different Turmeric Varieties

Descriptive analysis of the calibration and test data sets and tests for equality and difference between calibration and test sets, outlier detection, spectral data transformations and PLSR computations were performed using The Unscrambler® software package (version 11, CAMO Software Inc., Trondheim, Norway). The three varieties of turmeric were analysed for differences in total curcumin and the distribution of curcuminoids using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and likelihood ratio test by generalized linear modelling using R (v4.0.0) in the RStudio (v1.2.5042) environment [47,48,49].

3. Results

3.1. Quantitation of Three Curcuminoids and Total Curcumin in Varieties of C. longa

Total curcumin (%) concentrations were significantly different among all varieties (Figure 6). The red variety had higher total curcumin (%) compared with the other varieties and ranged between 0.39 and 1.13% (Figure 6). The orange variety had higher curcumin (0.369%) compared with the yellow variety and ranged between 0.06 and 0.67% (Figure 6). The yellow variety had lower total curcumin compared with red and orange and ranged from <0.01 to 0.08% (Figure 6).
The turmeric varieties also contained different proportions of three curcuminoids (Figure 7). The red variety had higher proportion bisdemethoxycurcumin than both orange and yellow (Figure 7a). The orange variety contained higher proportion demethoxycurcumin compared to yellow and similar compared to red (Figure 7b) and the yellow variety had higher proportion curcumin compared with both orange and red (Figure 7c).

3.2. Descriptive Statistics for Data Sets Used in Model Calibration and Prediction

Mean curcumin concentration for the pooled data set (containing all three varieties) for calibration (0.366%) and test (0.391%) sets was not statistically different (Table 2). Mean curcumin concentration in the orange variety only data set for calibration (0.368%) and test (0.371%) sets was not statistically different (Table 2).

3.3. Attributes of Developed Prediction Models Using the Full Spectrum and Transformed Spectra

Partial least squares regression (PLSR) models developed using images of rhizome flesh had higher accuracy and prediction performance than rhizome skin. Calibration models to predict total curcumin were first developed using pooled data using from three turmeric varieties and images of rhizome skin (R2c = 0.64, RMSEc = 0.136) and flesh (R2c = 0.83, RMSEc = 0.093) (Figure 8a,b). Models were examined for prediction performance using a test set of images of rhizome skin (R2p = 0.37, RMSEp = 0.188, RPD = 1.28) and flesh (R2p = 0.55, RMSEp = 0.160, RPD = 1.51) (Figure 8a,b). Additionally, reference values were compared with predicated values and deviation using samples in the test set (Figure 8c). A wide variety of transformations were investigated and models using transformed spectra with the highest R2c are presented in Table 3. Application of Savitzky–Golay second order transformation with symmetric 11-point smoothing to spectra increased R2c for flesh (R2c = 0.95, RMSEc = 0.050), however transforming spectra did not improve models using images of rhizome skin (R2c = 0.63, RMSEc = 0.137) (Table 3).
Calibration models were developed using data from the orange variety only from images of rhizome skin (R2c = 0.21, RMSEc = 0.107) and flesh (R2c = 0.85, RMSEc = 0.046) (Figure 9a,b). Models were examined for prediction performance using a test set of images of rhizome skin (R2p = 0.21, RMSEp = 0.110, RPD = 1.15) and flesh (R2p = 0.62, RMSEp = 0.076, RPD = 1.65) (Figure 9a,b). Additionally, reference values were compared with predicated values and deviation using samples in the test set (Figure 9c). Application of spectral transformations did not improve model accuracy for models using the orange variety only. Results of all models developed using the full spectrum and respective prediction performance using test data are depicted in Table 3. Models developed using pooled data from all three varieties were tested for prediction robustness using test data for rhizome skin (R2p = 0.37, RPD = 1.28) and flesh (R2p = 0.55, RPD = 1.51) (Table 3). Models using only orange variety data were tested for prediction robustness using test data for rhizome skin (R2p = 0.21, RPD = 1.15) and flesh (R2p = 0.62, RPD = 1.66) (Table 3). Full spectrum models were based on 462 spectral wavelengths (predictor variables). However, some wavelengths may be redundant, contain noise/interference and not be conducive to the development of multispectral systems suitable for real-time monitoring that require fewer variables.

3.4. Attributes of Developed Prediction Models Following Spectral Wavelength Selection

To improve the accuracy of models and reduce computer processing demands, the previous PLSR models were redeveloped following data reduction via wavelength selection. Models developed using reduced and transformed spectra using the pooled data set from images of the rhizome skin (R2c = 0.55, RMSEc = 0.150) and flesh (R2c = 0.71, RMSEc = 0.120) were improved compared to models using all raw spectral wavelengths (Table 3). Models were tested for prediction performance using test data for rhizome skin (R2p = 0.41, RPD = 1.32) and flesh (R2p = 0.52, RPD = 1.47) (Table 3).
Additional models were developed using data from the orange variety only. Reduced and transformed spectra of images of rhizome skin (R2c = 0.28, RMSEc = 0.102) and flesh (R2c = 0.75, RMSEc = 0.059) were also improved compared to using all raw spectral wavelengths (Table 3). Models developed using reduced and transformed spectra from images of only the orange variety were tested for prediction performance using test data for rhizome skin (R2p = 0.24, RPD = 1.17) and flesh (R2p = 0.51, RPD = 1.45). Results for all PLSR models developed following wavelength selection and respective prediction performance are reported in Table 3.

4. Discussion

4.1. Curcumin Concentration among the Turmeric Varieties

The red variety had the highest total curcumin content varying between 0.39 and 1.34%. Variation in curcumin among varieties of C. longa and other species are well documented [50,51,52]. Curcumin content in rhizomes can vary with soil nutrient availability and agronomic conditions [51]. Distribution of curcuminoids for the red variety was similar to two identified varieties (Prathibha and Suguna) [52]. In this study, the red variety also contained proportionally more bisdemethoxycurcumin than the orange and yellow varieties. Anatomical variation in the number and shape of curcumin cells has been associated with variability among rhizomes of Curcuma spp. [53]. Additionally, the number of curcumin cells are higher in the apical and nodal region compared with the internodal region [32]. Thus, high variation within samples of the red and orange variety could therefore be explained by the presence or absence of anatomical features of the individual samples such as apical regions or nodes.

4.2. Assessment of Model Accuracy and Prediction Performance using Images of Rhizome Flesh

Rhizome flesh using pooled data from all three varieties provided moderate curcumin prediction for calibration and validation (R2c = 0.83, R2cv = 0.70). The usefulness and accuracy of models developed in this study were evaluated on the basis of both calibration and validation model accuracy (R2c and R2cv) and precision (RMSEc, and RMSEcv) followed by accuracy (R2P) and ratio of prediction to standard deviation (RPD) using the test data [54]. The respective coefficient of determination (R2) values indicate the percentage variation in predicted curcumin concentration explained by the measured reference value. Therefore, higher R2 values have improved prediction capability and specifically, models with an R2 above 0.50 allow for prediction between nominally low and high concentration to be made and between and R2 between 0.66 and 0.81 used for screening and approximate quantitative predictions [55]. Prediction accuracy (R2p = 0.55) of curcumin prediction was low for the flesh pooled data model, despite high calibration accuracy (R2c = 0.83). Therefore, this model would only be suitable to make predictions that discriminate between ‘low’ and ‘high’ values and as such may be suitable in a two-level grading system.
Transforming the data using a second order Savitzky–Golay derivative improved calibration accuracy (R2c = 0.95) and was the most accurate of all calibration models developed. Higher R2 values, between 0.92 and 0.96 reflect a model suitable for quality assurance applications [54,55]. However, prediction accuracy (R2p = 0.37) further decreased compared with that of raw data and the model did not predict test data to an acceptable level (RPD = 1.28). The prediction performance (robustness) of a model is considered ‘useable’ if the ratio of performance to deviation (RPD) falls between 1.5 and 2.5 and ‘excellent’ if greater than 2.5 [46,54]. We suggest the decrease in prediction accuracy can be explained by ‘data clusters’ of samples with very low (<0.1%) curcumin in the calibration data combined with a lack of similar samples in the test data. The combined effect was reduced bias (regression slope) for test predictions resulting in poor prediction performance (Figure 8c). Therefore, we conclude that the best model, using data pooled from all three varieties, was developed using raw (un-transformed) spectra (RPD = 1.51) and may be suitable for adaption in a two-level grading system (Figure 8b).
We further hypothesised that large variation among the three varieties (low in yellow and high in red) coupled with under-representation of yellow and red samples contributed to reduced prediction accuracy in pooled data. Our hypothesis was then confirmed when the PLSR model developed using the orange variety only had higher R2p compared with using data pooled from three varieties. This was the most accurate and robust model we developed and we consider it suitable for use in screening and approximate on-farm quantitation [46,55]. Additionally, models developed using one variety only were further improved by wavelength selection (Jack-knifing) making this method suitable for adaptation to smaller more portable multispectral imaging systems. We noted that not all samples in the test set were still predicted well (for example, W2, W23 and W103). Sample sizes > 200 have been successful for predicting quality parameters using images of flesh and skin in avocados [56]; therefore, we suggest increasing sample size prior to future model development. In general, each sample in the test set had similar deviation at the point of prediction in our study (Figure 9c). Deviation bars at the prediction point for a specific new sample in the test set, describe that sample’s similarity to all samples in the calibration data [57]. Samples with small deviation are considered ‘similar’ to calibration samples and therefore represent ‘reliable’ predictions and samples with high deviation are considered ‘dissimilar’ to calibration samples and ‘unreliable’ predictions [57]. Therefore, confirming test samples were similar to samples in the calibration data and that their prediction could be considered reliable.
We had initially hypothesised that pooling three varieties would provide a wider range of curcumin values leading to increased model accuracy and therefore better prediction performance. However, on the contrary, using images of the orange variety only increased prediction performance because of two reasons: orange only test samples were more similar to the sample in the calibration data and reduced clustering of the data, especially with very low curcumin concentrations. The pooled model often predicted test samples with relatively low (<0.01%) or high (>0.8%) curcumin poorly and was evidenced by large deviation (prediction reliability) at the prediction point. Using images from one turmeric variety only resulted in a calibration model that is more accurate and reliable at predicting new values. Our study suggested that models developed for curcumin prediction are variety dependent and we suggest that models should be developed for each variety prior to on-farm implementation.

4.3. Assessment of Model Accuracy and Prediction Performance using Images of Rhizome Outer-Skin

Our results indicated Vis/NIR hyperspectral imaging of rhizome skin did not predict curcumin in fresh turmeric well. The most accurate (R2c = 0.63) model developed using skin images involved transformation (Savitzky–Golay second order derivative) of spectral data and was not improved by wavelength selection. Importantly, prediction accuracy (R2p = 0.48) and prediction performance (RPD = 1.41) was considered ‘below acceptable’ and ‘un-useable’. Interestingly, model redevelopment using images of the orange variety only did not improve accuracy nor prediction performance. This was in contradiction to the models we developed using images of flesh. Internal prediction of parameters using images of the outer-skin of intact samples are always challenging because of heterogeneity and accuracy can be increased by milling, mincing, or grinding [15]. Internal curcumin prediction may have been possible using images of rhizome skin if light penetrated deeper through the skin and into the flesh or had we measured curcumin in the skin only which could then be correlated to curcumin concentration measured in the flesh. We did not measure light penetration in our samples. However, shorter wavelengths penetrate deeper into biological samples than longer ones [58]. Additionally, image deep learning in other studies has shown to improve prediction accuracy which can be further explored for skin images [59]. Therefore, we suggest further investigation using different detectors and spectral wavelengths is still required.

4.4. Implications of This Scoping Study

A costly and laborious initial process is required to develop PLSR models using HSI that require sample reference values to first be attained using traditional laboratory methods. However, the initial cost of HSI establishment including a benchtop HSI system, may not differ significantly compared with the cost of a HPLC instrument (Figure S3). After HSI modelling has been established, the cost to analyze a new sample can be reduced by up to 76% and processing time can be decreased by 66% per sample (30 to 10 min) when compared with HPLC. However, one important compromise is lower accuracy of curcumin prediction when using HSI rather than by HPLC. However, developments in machine and deep learning of HSI have recently increased the prediction accuracy of plant components [59]. Machine learning can be further explored to increase accuracy of curcumin prediction [59]. Additionally, benefits of higher accuracy using traditional methods is offset by the ability of HSI methods to analyze large quantities of samples due to reduced cost. Therefore, HSI would provide information across larger samples sizes and within short-time frames, such as in post-harvest processing and quality assurance [60]. This technology has the potential to be upscaled and used on farms following engineering design and modification to suit post-harvest processing lines and most recently has successfully been incorporated into commercial sorting of potato for sugar-end defect [61]. Adaption of HSI to help with grading rhizomes would be particularly useful where fresh turmeric rhizomes are being harvested for end use refinement into curcumin-based medicinal and/or pharmaceutical products.

5. Conclusions

The red variety of C. longa contained the highest curcumin and we recommend farmers cultivate this variety where curcumin yield is desired. The results from this study demonstrate that Vis/NIR hyperspectral imaging combined with PLSR has potential to predict curcumin in fresh turmeric using images of rhizome flesh but not outer-skin. During harvesting and washing, finger rhizomes are often broken from the mother rhizome and are still marketable, therefore, scanning of any broken rhizome pieces, randomly selected from a process batch, and using the PLSR models we developed may allow for on-farm means-based grading of packaged rhizomes under a two-level system. Developing models for each variety (rather than pooling varieties) improved prediction performance and reliability and is a more appropriate approach than using pooled data. Models developed using one turmeric variety (orange) were more accurate and had higher prediction performance and reliability. These were further improved by wavelength selection (Jack-knifing) making this method suitable for adaptation to smaller more portable multispectral imaging systems. However, larger sample sizes for each specific variety and investigation of data collected from other spectral regions should be undertaken in future studies. Additionally, this method should be examined to predict individual curcuminoids and emerging image deep learning algorithms may further improve model prediction performance in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/rs13091807/s1, Figure S1: Linear regression of total curcumin (%) concentration extracted and analysed by UV-Vis and HPLC (a) and boxplot showing total curcumin (%) concentration of triplicate analysis conducted for n = 3 of each variety of yellow (Y), orange (W) and red (S) turmeric rhizomes (b). To validate the HPLC method triplicate replications using three samples of each variety were analysed by both HPLC and UV-Vis to correlate results. Samples were prepared and analysed using the HPLC method above and Genesis 20 UV-Vis spectrometer in Shimadzu quartz crystal cuvettes with 10 µm light path at 425 nm (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). Curcumin concentration values for both instruments were correlated with R2 = 0.999994 (Figure S1a). Confirming accuracy of the HPLC method. Curcumin (%) concentration for the triplicate samples in the HPLC method validation set are presented in (Figure S1b), Figure S2: Spectral peaks used to identify the curcuminoids at retention time bisdemethoxycurcumin at 3.349 min (a), demethoxycurcumin at 3.3593 min (b), and curcumin at 3.844 min (c), Figure S3: Cost-benefit analysis comparing traditional laboratory based HPLC curcumin detection and prediction using hyperspectral imaging and PLSR methods.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B.F., P.B. and S.H.B.; Data curation, M.B.F.; Formal analysis, M.B.F., P.B. and I.T.; Funding acquisition, M.B.F., H.M.W. and S.H.B.; Investigation, M.B.F.; Methodology, M.B.F., P.B. and S.H.B.; Project administration, M.B.F.; Resources, M.B.F. and H.M.W.; Software, M.B.F., I.T., P.K.D. and S.H.B.; Validation, M.B.F., I.T., P.K.D. and S.H.B.; Visualization, M.B.F.; Writing—original draft, M.B.F. and S.H.B.; Writing—review and editing, M.B.F., H.M.W., P.B., C.M.Y., I.T., P.K.D. and S.H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

M.B.F. was funded by University of the Sunshine Coast and received an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship to undertake this research. M.B.F. received support from Mt. Mellum Horticulture via donation of turmeric rhizomes, nursery space, and facility support including irrigation infrastructure and water.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Michael B Farrar was supported by University of the Sunshine Coast and received an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship to undertake this research. The authors would like to acknowledge Jess and Jesse Joyce at Little Bunya Farm, Josh Rust at Nightcap Functional Foods, Mellum Horticulture, and Martyn Elliot for farm access and providing turmeric samples. Simon Williams, Linda Pappalardo, and Michael Nielson for help with laboratory analysis. The authors also thank Michael Joyce at Mighty Bean Foods for initialising a curiosity in local turmeric varieties and allowing access to initial planting rhizomes from ‘Wally’.

Conflicts of Interest

M.B.F. is a part owner of Mt Mellum Horticulture where the study took place. No financial gain will be received through publication of this manuscript. M.B.F. did not influence the results and all data and interpretations have been independently assessed. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ravikanth, L.; Jayas, D.S.; White, N.D.G.; Fields, P.G.; Sun, D.W. Extraction of spectral information from hyperspectral data and application of hyperspectral imaging for food and agricultural products. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2017, 10, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Huang, H.; Liu, L.; Ngadi, M.O. Recent developments in hyperspectral imaging for assessment of food quality and safety. Sensors 2014, 14, 7248–7276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Malmir, M.; Tahmasbian, I.; Xu, Z.; Farrar, M.B.; Bai, S.H. Prediction of soil macro- and micro-elements in sieved and ground air-dried soils using laboratory-based hyperspectral imaging technique. Geoderma 2019, 340, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gama, T.; Wallace, H.M.; Trueman, S.J.; Tahmasbian, I.; Bai, S.H. Hyperspectral imaging for non-destructive prediction of total nitrogen concentration in almond kernels. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1219, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anderson, A.M.; Mitchell, M.S.; Mohan, R.S. Isolation of curcumin from turmeric. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rohman, A. Analysis of curcuminoids in food and pharmaceutical products. Int. Food Res. J. 2012, 19, 19–27. [Google Scholar]
  7. Pothitirat, W.; Gritsanapan, W. Variability of curcuminoids: Antioxidative components in ethanolic turmeric extract determined by UV and HPLC methods. Acta Hortic. 2008, 786, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Farrar, M.B.; Wallace, H.M.; Xu, C.-Y.; Joseph, S.; Dunn, P.K.; Nguyen, T.T.N.; Bai, S.H. Biochar co-applied with organic amendments increased soil-plant potassium and root biomass but not crop yield. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 784–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tahmasbian, I.; Wallace, H.M.; Gama, T.; Bai, S.H. An automated non-destructive prediction of peroxide value and free fatty acid level in mixed nut samples. LWT 2021, 143, 110893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kamruzzaman, M.; Makino, Y.; Oshita, S. Non-invasive analytical technology for the detection of contamination, adulteration, and authenticity of meat, poultry, and fish: A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2015, 853, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. 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. 2012, 52, 999–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Buddenbaum, H.; Steffens, M. The effects of spectral pretreatments on chemometric analyses of soil profiles using laboratory imaging spectroscopy. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2012, 2012, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Liu, D.; Sun, D.W.; Zeng, X.A. Recent advances in wavelength selection techniques for hyperspectral image processing in the food industry. Food. Bioprocess Technol. 2014, 7, 307–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cheng, J.H.; Sun, D.W. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) applied to NIR and HSI spectral data modeling to predict chemical properties of fish muscle. Food. Eng. Rev. 2017, 9, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Manley, M. Near-infrared spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging: Non-destructive analysis of biological materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 8200–8214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Jia, B.; Wang, W.; Ni, X.; Lawrence, K.C.; Zhuang, H.; Yoon, S.C.; Gao, Z. Essential processing methods of hyperspectral images of agricultural and food products. Chemom. Intellig. Lab. Syst. 2020, 198, 103936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tahmasbian, I.; Hosseini Bai, S.; Wang, Y.; Boyd, S.; Zhou, J.; Esmaeilani, R.; Xu, Z. Using laboratory-based hyperspectral imaging method to determine carbon functional group distributions in decomposing forest litterfall. Catena 2018, 167, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lin, S.-R.; Fu, Y.-S.; Tsai, M.-J.; Cheng, H.; Weng, C.-F. Natural compounds from herbs that can potentially execute as autophagy inducers for cancer therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Rauf, A.; Imran, M.; Orhan, I.E.; Bawazeer, S. Health perspectives of a bioactive compound curcumin: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 74, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mishra, A.; Pathak, Y.; Choudhir, G.; Kumar, A.; Mishra, S.K.; Tripathi, V. Natural compounds as potential inhibitors of novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) main protease: An in silico study. Res. Sq. 2020, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jayaprakasha, G.; Rao, L.J.M.; Sakariah, K. Chemistry and biological activities of C. longa. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2005, 16, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nair, K.P. The Agronomy and Economy of Turmeric and Ginger; Elsevier: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sasikumar, B. Genetic resources of Curcuma: Diversity, characterization and utilization. Plant Genet. Resour. 2005, 3, 230–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wichitnithad, W.; Jongaroonngamsang, N.; Pummangura, S.; Rojsitthisak, P. A simple isocratic HPLC method for the simultaneous determination of curcuminoids in commercial turmeric extracts. Phytochem. Anal. 2009, 20, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tayyem, R.F.; Heath, D.D.; Al-Delaimy, W.K.; Rock, C.L. Curcumin content of turmeric and curry powders. Nutr. Cancer 2006, 55, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bandara, W.G.C.; Prabhath, G.W.K.; Dissanayake, D.W.S.C.B.; Herath, V.R.; Godaliyadda, G.M.R.I.; Ekanayake, M.P.B.; Demini, D.; Madhujith, T. Validation of multispectral imaging for the detection of selected adulterants in turmeric samples. J. Food Eng. 2020, 266, 109700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chao, K.; Dhakal, S.; Schmidt, W.F.; Qin, J.; Kim, M.; Peng, Y.; Huang, Q. Raman and IR spectroscopic modality for authentication of turmeric powder. Food Chem. 2020, 320, 126567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Su, W.H.; Sun, D.W. Fourier transform infrared and Raman and hyperspectral imaging techniques for quality determinations of powdery foods: A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 104–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tanaka, K.; Kuba, Y.; Sasaki, T.; Hiwatashi, F.; Komatsu, K. Quantitation of curcuminoids in curcuma rhizome by near-infrared spectroscopic analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 8787–8792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Arendse, E.; Fawole, O.A.; Magwaza, L.S.; Opara, U.L. Non-destructive prediction of internal and external quality attributes of fruit with thick rind: A review. J. Food Eng. 2018, 217, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Joyce, M.; (Mighty Bean Organics, Cooloolabin, Queensland, Australia). Personal communication, 2021.
  32. Remashree, A.; Balachandran, I. Anatomical and histochemical studies on four species of Curcuma. Phytomorphology 2006, 56, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kamruzzaman, M.; Makino, Y.; Oshita, S. Parsimonious model development for real-time monitoring of moisture in red meat using hyperspectral imaging. Food Chem. 2016, 196, 1084–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tahmasbian, I.; Xu, Z.; Boyd, S.; Zhou, J.; Esmaeilani, R.; Che, R.; Hosseini Bai, S. Laboratory-based hyperspectral image analysis for predicting soil carbon, nitrogen and their isotopic compositions. Geoderma 2018, 330, 254–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Qin, N.; Yang, F.; Wang, Y.; Li, S. Quantitative determination of eight components in rhizome (Jianghuang) and tuberous root (Yujin) of Curcuma longa using pressurized liquid extraction and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2007, 43, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wold, S.; Sjöström, M.; Eriksson, L. PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics. Chemom. Intellig. Lab. Syst. 2001, 58, 109–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Van Roon, P.; Zakizadeh, J.; Chartier, S. Partial least squares tutorial for analyzing neuroimaging data. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2014, 10, 200–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kamruzzaman, M.; ElMasry, G.; Sun, D.W.; Allen, P. Prediction of some quality attributes of lamb meat using near-infrared hyperspectral imaging and multivariate analysis. Anal. Chim. Acta 2012, 714, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Bai, S.H.; Tahmasbian, I.; Zhou, J.; Nevenimo, T.; Hannet, G.; Walton, D.; Randall, B.; Gama, T.; Wallace, H.M. A non-destructive determination of peroxide values, total nitrogen and mineral nutrients in an edible tree nut using hyperspectral imaging. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 151, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rinnan, Å.; Van Den Berg, F.; Engelsen, S.B. Review of the most common pre-processing techniques for near-infrared spectra. Trends Anal. Chem. 2009, 28, 1201–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fearn, T. On orthogonal signal correction. Chemom. Intellig. Lab. Syst. 2000, 50, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, B.; Liew, O.W.; Asundi, A.K. Pre-visual detection of iron and phosphorus deficiency by transformed reflectance spectra. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B: Biol. 2006, 85, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Peng, Y.; Knadel, M.; Gislum, R.; Schelde, K.; Thomsen, A.; Greve, M.H. Quantification of SOC and clay content using visible near-infrared reflectance–mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy with Jack-knifing partial least squares regression. Soil Sci. 2014, 179, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Karaman, İ.; Qannari, E.M.; Martens, H.; Hedemann, M.S.; Knudsen, K.E.B.; Kohler, A. Comparison of Sparse and Jack-knife partial least squares regression methods for variable selection. Chemom. Intellig. Lab. Syst. 2013, 122, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Morellos, A.; Pantazi, X.-E.; Moshou, D.; Alexandridis, T.; Whetton, R.; Tziotzios, G.; Wiebensohn, J.; Bill, R.; Mouazen, A.M. Machine learning based prediction of soil total nitrogen, organic carbon and moisture content by using VIS-NIR spectroscopy. Biosys. Eng. 2016, 152, 104–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Saeys, W.; Mouazen, A.M.; Ramon, H. Potential for onsite and online analysis of pig manure using visible and near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Biosys. Eng. 2005, 91, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  48. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R; RStudio, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  50. Akter, J.; Hossain, M.A.; Takara, K.; Islam, M.Z.; Hou, D.X. Antioxidant activity of different species and varieties of turmeric (Curcuma spp.): Isolation of active compounds. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C 2019, 215, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Raizada, S.; Kumar, A.; Dhyani, B.P.; Shahi, U.P.; Senger, R.S.; Singh, R.R. Productivity and quality of Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) under different nutritional level supplemented through organic and inorganic sources. J. Community Mob. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 13, 286–290. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kulyal, P.; Kuchibhatla, L.N.; Maheshwari, K.U.; Babu, K.N.; Tetali, S.D.; Raghavendra, A.S. Highly sensitive HPLC method for estimation of total or individual curcuminoids in Curcuma cultivars and commercial turmeric powders. Curr. Sci. 2016, 1816–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sherlija, K.; Remashree, A.; Unnikrishnan, K.; Ravindran, P. Comparative rhizome anatomy of four species of Curcuma. J. Spices Aromat. Crop. 1998, 7, 103–109. [Google Scholar]
  54. Davey, M.W.; Saeys, W.; Hof, E.; Ramon, H.; Swennen, R.L.; Keulemans, J. Application of visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (Vis/NIRS) to determine carotenoid contents in banana (Musa spp.) fruit pulp. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 1742–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Williams, P. A short course in the practical implementation of near-infrared spectroscopy for the user. In Near-Infrared Technology: Getting the Best Out of Light; Antoniszyn, J., Manley, M., Eds.; African Sun Media: Nanaimo, Canada, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kämper, W.; Trueman, S.J.; Tahmasbian, I.; Bai, S.H. Rapid determination of nutrient concentrations in Hass avocado fruit by Vis/NIR hyperspectral imaging of flesh or skin. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Esbensen, K.H.; Swarbrick, B.; Westad, F.; Whitcombe, P.; Anderson, M. Multivariate Data Analysis: An Introduciton to Multivariate Data Analysis, Process Analytical Technology and Quality by Design, 6th ed.; CAMO Software: Oslo, Norway, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kawano, S. New application of nondestructive methods for quality evaluation of fruits and vegetables in Japan (quality and its evaluation of horticultural products, for further development of horticulture in East Asia). J. Jpn. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1998, 67, 1176–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Han, Y.; Liu, Z.; Khoshelham, K.; Bai, S.H. Quality estimation of nuts using deep learning classification of hyperspectral imagery. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 180, 105868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tahmasbian, I.; Morgan, N.K.; Hosseini Bai, S.; Dunlop, M.W.; Moss, A.F. Comparison of Hyperspectral Imaging and Near-Infrared Spectroscopy to Determine Nitrogen and Carbon Concentrations in Wheat. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Walsh, K.; McGlone, V.; Han, D. The uses of near infra-red spectroscopy in postharvest decision support: A review. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 163, 111139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the experimental design features and processes used to develop hyperspectral models for detection of curcumin if fresh turmeric rhizomes.
Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the experimental design features and processes used to develop hyperspectral models for detection of curcumin if fresh turmeric rhizomes.
Remotesensing 13 01807 g001
Figure 2. Rhizomes and foliage of the three turmeric (Curcuma longa) varieties orange (a), yellow (b), and red (c), examined in the study. Ruler shows scale in 1 mm increments and guide indicates turmeric anatomical features including: leaf, flower, mother rhizome, finger rhizomes, and roots.
Figure 2. Rhizomes and foliage of the three turmeric (Curcuma longa) varieties orange (a), yellow (b), and red (c), examined in the study. Ruler shows scale in 1 mm increments and guide indicates turmeric anatomical features including: leaf, flower, mother rhizome, finger rhizomes, and roots.
Remotesensing 13 01807 g002
Figure 3. Scanning turmeric rhizome using hyperspectral imaging system Pika XC2 camera mounted 320 mm above the push-broom linear transition stage mat (a), selection of the rhizome flesh (cross-section) (b), and skin (c) region of interests (ROIs) used to extract mean spectral reflectance for each sample.
Figure 3. Scanning turmeric rhizome using hyperspectral imaging system Pika XC2 camera mounted 320 mm above the push-broom linear transition stage mat (a), selection of the rhizome flesh (cross-section) (b), and skin (c) region of interests (ROIs) used to extract mean spectral reflectance for each sample.
Remotesensing 13 01807 g003
Figure 4. True colour and infrared images of the (a,b) yellow, (c,d) orange, and (e,f) red turmeric varieties examined in the study using hyperspectral images taken with PikaXC2. True colour images use spectral wavelengths: red = 640 nm, green = 550 nm, blue = 460 nm, and infra–red images use spectral wavelengths: red = 860 nm, green = 650 nm, blue = 550 nm. Scale bar represents 1 cm increment.
Figure 4. True colour and infrared images of the (a,b) yellow, (c,d) orange, and (e,f) red turmeric varieties examined in the study using hyperspectral images taken with PikaXC2. True colour images use spectral wavelengths: red = 640 nm, green = 550 nm, blue = 460 nm, and infra–red images use spectral wavelengths: red = 860 nm, green = 650 nm, blue = 550 nm. Scale bar represents 1 cm increment.
Remotesensing 13 01807 g004
Figure 5. Typical HPLC chromatograms (λ = 425 nm) of the three turmeric (Curcuma longa) varieties yellow (a), orange (b), and red (c) used in the study. The chromatograms show three distinct peaks for the analogues of curcumin (bisdemethoxycurcumin, demethoxycurcumin and curcumin respectively) and different relative proportions between the different varieties.
Figure 5. Typical HPLC chromatograms (λ = 425 nm) of the three turmeric (Curcuma longa) varieties yellow (a), orange (b), and red (c) used in the study. The chromatograms show three distinct peaks for the analogues of curcumin (bisdemethoxycurcumin, demethoxycurcumin and curcumin respectively) and different relative proportions between the different varieties.
Remotesensing 13 01807 g005
Figure 6. Total curcumin (%) concentration in fresh rhizomes of varieties (yellow, orange and red) (a, b, c) examined in the study.
Figure 6. Total curcumin (%) concentration in fresh rhizomes of varieties (yellow, orange and red) (a, b, c) examined in the study.
Remotesensing 13 01807 g006
Figure 7. Percentage distribution of the three curcuminoids bisdemethoxycurcumin (a), demethoxycurcumin (b), and curcumin (c) within different varieties of turmeric examined in the study. Different letters within each panel are statistically different (p < 0.001).
Figure 7. Percentage distribution of the three curcuminoids bisdemethoxycurcumin (a), demethoxycurcumin (b), and curcumin (c) within different varieties of turmeric examined in the study. Different letters within each panel are statistically different (p < 0.001).
Remotesensing 13 01807 g007
Figure 8. Models developed using raw reflectance spectra from three turmeric varieties (yellow, orange, and red) and all available wavelengths of rhizome skin (a), and rhizome flesh (b); figures show measured vs. predicted curcumin (%) concentration in the calibration set (Cal): open triangle; validation set (Val): open upside-down triangle; and test set: closed circle predicted curcumin concentration. Predicted curcumin (%) (closed circle) for individual samples in the test set using the flesh model plotted with measured reference value (cross) and deviation bars (similarity to calibration samples) for individual samples in the test data set (c).
Figure 8. Models developed using raw reflectance spectra from three turmeric varieties (yellow, orange, and red) and all available wavelengths of rhizome skin (a), and rhizome flesh (b); figures show measured vs. predicted curcumin (%) concentration in the calibration set (Cal): open triangle; validation set (Val): open upside-down triangle; and test set: closed circle predicted curcumin concentration. Predicted curcumin (%) (closed circle) for individual samples in the test set using the flesh model plotted with measured reference value (cross) and deviation bars (similarity to calibration samples) for individual samples in the test data set (c).
Remotesensing 13 01807 g008
Figure 9. Models developed using raw reflectance spectra from orange variety turmeric only and all available wavelengths of rhizome skin (a), and rhizome flesh (b); figures show measured vs. predicted curcumin (%) concentration in the calibration set (Cal): open triangle; validation set (Val): open upside-down triangle; and test set: closed circle predicted curcumin concentration. Predicted curcumin (%) (closed circle) for individual samples in the test set using the flesh model plotted with measured reference value (cross) and deviation bars (similarity to calibration samples) for individual samples in the test data set (c).
Figure 9. Models developed using raw reflectance spectra from orange variety turmeric only and all available wavelengths of rhizome skin (a), and rhizome flesh (b); figures show measured vs. predicted curcumin (%) concentration in the calibration set (Cal): open triangle; validation set (Val): open upside-down triangle; and test set: closed circle predicted curcumin concentration. Predicted curcumin (%) (closed circle) for individual samples in the test set using the flesh model plotted with measured reference value (cross) and deviation bars (similarity to calibration samples) for individual samples in the test data set (c).
Remotesensing 13 01807 g009
Table 1. Distribution of sample variety and location of collection for all samples and in the calibration and external test sets.
Table 1. Distribution of sample variety and location of collection for all samples and in the calibration and external test sets.
All Samples Calibration SetTest Set
VarietyAll VarietiesVarietyAll VarietiesVarietyAll Varieties
LocationYellowOrangeRedYellowOrangeRedYellowOrangeRed
Mt. Mellum 1655768644555011213
Mt. Mellum 29178348137281416
Lake MacDonald01001007070303
Kandanga 0240240210210303
Josh Rust412016280102406
Total1911815152169312121325331
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of total curcumin (%) concentration for different varieties and locations in the calibration and test sets.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of total curcumin (%) concentration for different varieties and locations in the calibration and test sets.
All SamplesCalibration SetTest Set
VarietyAll Varieties (%)VarietyAll Varieties (%)VarietyAll Varieties (%)
Yellow (%)Orange (%)Red (%)Yellow (%)Orange (%)Red (%)Yellow (%)Orange (%)Red (%)
Mean0.0230.3690.8300.3720.0230.3680.8050.3660.0210.3710.9290.391
SD0.0220.1210.2240.2270.0230.1200.2320.2260.0180.1260.1920.241
SE0.0050.0110.0580.0180.0060.0120.0670.0210.0100.0250.1110.043
CV0.9570.3280.2700.6110.9970.3270.2880.6180.8380.3400.2070.617
Min0.0030.0620.3880.0030.0030.0620.3880.0030.0070.1050.7080.007
Max0.0760.6731.1331.1330.0760.6731.1331.1330.0410.6481.0501.050
Skewness1.336−0.177−0.3450.8361.352−0.129−0.1720.8171.212−0.365−1.7110.983
SD: Standard deviation; SE: Standard error; CV: Coefficient of variation. Not statistically different between calibration and test data sets at p < 0.05 independent student’s t-test.
Table 3. Performance of PLSR models to predict total curcumin (%) concentration of fresh turmeric rhizomes using a variety of spectral analytical techniques.
Table 3. Performance of PLSR models to predict total curcumin (%) concentration of fresh turmeric rhizomes using a variety of spectral analytical techniques.
ModelImagesTransformationWL LVR2CR2cvRMSECRMSECVR2PRMSEPRPD
Three varieties pooled with:
wavelength selectionFlesh 9580.710.640.120.140.550.161.52
Skin 940.250.180.190.210.270.201.19
best transformation/sFleshSG462140.950.740.050.120.370.191.28
SkinSG46260.630.430.140.170.480.171.41
best transformation/s + wavelength selectionFleshSG2540.710.670.120.130.520.161.47
SkinSG8830.550.480.150.160.410.181.32
Orange variety only with:
wavelength selectionFlesh 2880.700.580.070.080.510.091.46
Skin 18020.200.170.110.110.110.111.15
best transformation/sFleshSG46290.850.610.050.080.570.081.56
SkinSG + MSC46210.190.160.110.110.080.121.07
best transformation/s + wavelength selectionFleshSG3330.750.710.060.070.510.091.45
SkinSG + MSC5430.280.220.100.110.240.111.17
WL: Number of remaining wavelengths after wavelength selection to reduce dimensionality by uncertainty (Jack-knife) testing; LV: Optimal latent variables in the model; RPD: Ratio of prediction to deviation SG: Savitzky–Golay 2nd order derivative transformation with symmetric 11 point smoothing and 2nd order polynomial; SG + MSC: Savitzky-Golay 2nd order derivative transformation with symmetric 16 point smoothing and 2nd order polynomial followed by multiplicative scatter correction.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Farrar, M.B.; Wallace, H.M.; Brooks, P.; Yule, C.M.; Tahmasbian, I.; Dunn, P.K.; Hosseini Bai, S. A Performance Evaluation of Vis/NIR Hyperspectral Imaging to Predict Curcumin Concentration in Fresh Turmeric Rhizomes. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1807. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs13091807

AMA Style

Farrar MB, Wallace HM, Brooks P, Yule CM, Tahmasbian I, Dunn PK, Hosseini Bai S. A Performance Evaluation of Vis/NIR Hyperspectral Imaging to Predict Curcumin Concentration in Fresh Turmeric Rhizomes. Remote Sensing. 2021; 13(9):1807. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs13091807

Chicago/Turabian Style

Farrar, Michael B., Helen M. Wallace, Peter Brooks, Catherine M. Yule, Iman Tahmasbian, Peter K. Dunn, and Shahla Hosseini Bai. 2021. "A Performance Evaluation of Vis/NIR Hyperspectral Imaging to Predict Curcumin Concentration in Fresh Turmeric Rhizomes" Remote Sensing 13, no. 9: 1807. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs13091807

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop