scholarly journals Diagnosis of Varroosis Based on Bee Brood Samples Testing with Use of Semiconductor Gas Sensors

Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (14) ◽  
pp. 4014
Author(s):  
Beata Bąk ◽  
Jakub Wilk ◽  
Piotr Artiemjew ◽  
Jerzy Wilde ◽  
Maciej Siuda

Varroosis is a dangerous and difficult to diagnose disease decimating bee colonies. The studies conducted sought answers on whether the electronic nose could become an effective tool for the efficient detection of this disease by examining sealed brood samples. The prototype of a multi-sensor recorder of gaseous sensor signals with a matrix of six semiconductor gas sensors TGS 823, TGS 826, TGS 832, TGS 2600, TGS 2602, and TGS 2603 from FIGARO was tested in this area. There were 42 objects belonging to 3 classes tested: 1st class—empty chamber (13 objects), 2nd class—fragments of combs containing brood sick with varroosis (19 objects), and 3rd class—fragments of combs containing healthy sealed brood (10 objects). The examination of a single object lasted 20 min, consisting of the exposure phase (10 min) and the sensor regeneration phase (10 min). The k-th nearest neighbors algorithm (kNN)—with default settings in RSES tool—was successfully used as the basic classifier. The basis of the analysis was the sensor reading value in 270 s with baseline correction. The multi-sensor MCA-8 gas sensor signal recorder has proved to be an effective tool in distinguishing between brood suffering from varroosis and healthy brood. The five-time cross-validation 2 test (5 × CV2 test) showed a global accuracy of 0.832 and a balanced accuracy of 0.834. Positive rate of the sick brood class was 0.92. In order to check the overall effectiveness of baseline correction in the examined context, we have carried out additional series of experiments—in multiple Monte Carlo Cross Validation model—using a set of classifiers with different metrics. We have tested a few variants of the kNN method, the Naïve Bayes classifier, and the weighted voting classifier. We have verified with statistical tests the thesis that the baseline correction significantly improves the level of classification. We also confirmed that it is enough to use the TGS2603 sensor in the examined context.


Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (14) ◽  
pp. 4917
Author(s):  
Beata Bąk ◽  
Jakub Wilk ◽  
Piotr Artiemjew ◽  
Jerzy Wilde

American foulbrood is a dangerous disease of bee broods found worldwide, caused by the Paenibacillus larvae larvae L. bacterium. In an experiment, the possibility of detecting colonies of this bacterium on MYPGP substrates (which contains yeast extract, Mueller-Hinton broth, glucose, K2HPO4, sodium pyruvate, and agar) was tested using a prototype of a multi-sensor recorder of the MCA-8 sensor signal with a matrix of six semiconductors: TGS 823, TGS 826, TGS 832, TGS 2600, TGS 2602, and TGS 2603 from Figaro. Two twin prototypes of the MCA-8 measurement device, M1 and M2, were used in the study. Each prototype was attached to two laboratory test chambers: a wooden one and a polystyrene one. For the experiment, the strain used was P. l. larvae ATCC 9545, ERIC I. On MYPGP medium, often used for laboratory diagnosis of American foulbrood, this bacterium produces small, transparent, smooth, and shiny colonies. Gas samples from over culture media of one- and two-day-old foulbrood P. l. larvae (with no colonies visible to the naked eye) and from over culture media older than 2 days (with visible bacterial colonies) were examined. In addition, the air from empty chambers was tested. The measurement time was 20 min, including a 10-min testing exposure phase and a 10-min sensor regeneration phase. The results were analyzed in two variants: without baseline correction and with baseline correction. We tested 14 classifiers and found that a prototype of a multi-sensor recorder of the MCA-8 sensor signal was capable of detecting colonies of P. l. larvae on MYPGP substrate with a 97% efficiency and could distinguish between MYPGP substrates with 1–2 days of culture, and substrates with older cultures. The efficacy of copies of the prototypes M1 and M2 was shown to differ slightly. The weighted method with Canberra metrics (Canberra.811) and kNN with Canberra and Manhattan metrics (Canberra. 1nn and manhattan.1nn) proved to be the most effective classifiers.



Author(s):  
Saurav Limbu ◽  
Katherine Stewart ◽  
James Nightingale ◽  
Hao Yan ◽  
Chandran Balamurugan ◽  
...  


Author(s):  
Raivo Jaaniso ◽  
Ooi Kiang Tan


Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Jakub T. Wilk ◽  
Beata Bąk ◽  
Piotr Artiemjew ◽  
Jerzy Wilde ◽  
Maciej Siuda

Honeybee workers have a specific smell depending on the age of workers and the biological status of the colony. Laboratory tests were carried out at the Department of Apiculture at UWM Olsztyn, using gas sensors installed in two twin prototype multi-sensor detectors. The study aimed to compare the responses of sensors to the odor of old worker bees (3–6 weeks old), young ones (0–1 days old), and those from long-term queenless colonies. From the experimental colonies, 10 samples of 100 workers were taken for each group and placed successively in the research chambers for the duration of the study. Old workers came from outer nest combs, young workers from hatching out brood in an incubator, and laying worker bees from long-term queenless colonies from brood combs (with laying worker bee’s eggs, humped brood, and drones). Each probe was measured for 10 min, and then immediately for another 10 min ambient air was given to regenerate sensors. The results were analyzed using 10 different classifiers. Research has shown that the devices can distinguish between the biological status of bees. The effectiveness of distinguishing between classes, determined by the parameters of accuracy balanced and true positive rate, of 0.763 and 0.742 in the case of the best euclidean.1nn classifier, may be satisfactory in the context of practical beekeeping. Depending on the environment accompanying the tested objects (a type of insert in the test chamber), the introduction of other classifiers as well as baseline correction methods may be considered, while the selection of the appropriate classifier for the task may be of great importance for the effectiveness of the classification.





Author(s):  
V. Golovanov ◽  
J.L. Solis ◽  
V. Lantto ◽  
S. Leppdvuori


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 293-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianqiao Liu ◽  
Wanqiu Wang ◽  
Zhaoxia Zhai ◽  
Guohua Jin ◽  
Yuzhen Chen


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document