Wool Testing Grant

Reid Redden, Animal Science Department

Igathinathane Cannayen, Ag & Biosystems Engineering

Christopher Schauer, Hettinger Research Extension Center

Background

• ASI convention 2012

• Establish Collaborative Scientist

– C. Igathi

Background

• Cell Phone Camera – not good enough

• Scanner (19200 DPI – 1.3 micron

resolution) and software analysis

Preliminary Data

Preliminary Data

Standardized Specifications Scanner Results

Wool Grade

MicronRange

Standard Deviation

Initial FiberMicron

Initial Standard Deviation

CorrectionFactor

Corrected Fiber

Micron

Corrected Standard Deviation

70 17.70 - 19.14 4.59 51.59 14.59 2.53 20.43 5.78

62 22.05 - 23.49 5.89 71.44 11.49 2.53 28.28 4.55

60 23.50 - 24.94 6.49 54.24 13.97 2.53 21.47 5.53

58 24.95 - 26.39 7.09 62.18 13.35 2.53 24.61 5.29

56 26.40 - 27.84 7.59 71.44 16.68 2.53 28.28 6.6

54 27.85 - 29.29 8.19 76.73 12.58 2.53 30.38 4.98

48 31.00 - 32.69 9.09 82.02 13.16 2.53 32.47 5.21

Plan of Work

1. Increase Knowledge of Technology, Work

Environment, and Scanning Logistics –

Completed

Plan of Work

2. Possible system modification leading to

simpler layout (similar to laser instrument)

– but intelligent program evaluating from

fiber clusters of simpler layout

Time consuming layout Simpler layout

Plan of Work

2. Development of the system from verified

samples and test the system in various

work environments

Plan of Work

3. Publish the findings and present the new

system to the Wool Council

– Revision in 2013/2014

• NDSU Technology Transfer Office

– Patents/Licensing

– Commercialization of Products

• Work with Wool Council

Budget

• Transportation – $4,500

• Labor - $8,500

• Equipment - $6,000

• Publication - $1,000

• Indirects - $2,000

• Total - $22,000

Update of Tasks Completed

• Single fiber layout – plugin developed

• Multi fiber layout – initial plugin developed

• Steel wool fibers – measured

• Effect of weight in fiber layout – studied

• Calibration using microscope – completed

Single fiber layout

Single fiber layout – plugin results

Multiple fiber layout

Measures shape factors (area, roundness, solidity, and aspect ratio)Eliminates the overlap (e.g., segment 5)

Multiple fiber layout – plugin results

Sel_Area (1829) Sel_Round (0.70) Sel_Solidity (0.89) Sel_RAR(0.80)

Imaging with and without weights

Glass slides hold the fibers Weights applied on the ends of glass slide

Steel wool tested (12, 14, 22, and 26.6 micron)

Steel wool with and without weights – plugin test results

Additional wool tests with and without weights – plugin test results

Zeiss Imager M2 microscope

using 20x 0.8NA objective

ImagePro (MediaCybernetics)

software

Microscope and image processing

In focus central region

Ends out of focus

Micrograph calibration image – resolution: 1.115 micron; 22780 DPI

Processed and measured using plugin – caliper dimensions

With scale factor: 2.386 -> 34.651 38.422 36.690 0.831USDA Grade 31.96 micron

Results of microscope image analysis by plugin

Preprocessed scanner binary image – res: 1.323 micron; 19200 DPI

Measurements illustrated – res: 1.323 micron; 19200 DPI

Same fiber process by scanner and plugin

With scale factor: 2.386 -> 19.414 51.896 31.218 4.015USDA Grade 31.96 micron

Results of scanner image analysis by plugin

Single fibers width measurements using different techniques (microns)

Samples Microscope Plugin-Mic Plugin-Direct

WashWool-18.8 16.117 20.043 22.709

Grade 70s 21.444 21.271 23.786

WashWool-26.4 27.364 25.252 24.434

Grade 48s 39.590 36.907 31.962

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

WashWool-18.8 Grade 70s WashWool-26.4 Grade 48s

Fib

er

thic

kne

ss (

mic

ron

)

Samples

Microscope Plugin-Mic Plugin-Direct

Single fibers width measurement deviation from microscope (%)

Abs avg dev 9.92 20.45

Samples Plugin-Mic (%) Plugin-Direct (%)

WashWool-18.8 24.36 40.90

Grade 70s -0.80 10.92

WashWool-26.4 -7.72 -10.71

Grade 48s -6.78 -19.27

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

WashWool-18.8 Grade 70s WashWool-26.4 Grade 48s

Fib

er

thic

kne

ss d

evia

tio

n f

rom

mic

rosc

op

e

(%)

Samples

Plugin-Mic (%) Plugin-Direct (%)

•Developed a method for calibrated samples

•Applying weight produces slightly better image

•Scanner methods were comparable to calibrated samples

• Field of view better for scanner

•Scanner is still a viable option

•About 1 minute process time – we will try to shorten it without affecting accuracy.

Conclusions

Status of Budget

• Salary - $0

• Travel - $3,000

• Publication - $1,000

• Equipment - $3,500

• I will take over as lead with Reid leaving

for TX.

Further Steps Required

• Test Multi-fiber Layout on Calibrated Samples

• Plugin improvement to tackle various scenarios (multi-fiber layout, curved fiber layout, orientation, etc.)

• Standardization of procedure

• Tests on on finely cut (chopped) wool – as additional method

• Deliver the 3 units at next year’s ASI annual convention.

Questions