the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Real-Time Pollen Identification using Holographic Imaging and Fluorescence Measurement
Sophie Erb
Elias Graf
Yanick Zeder
Simone Lionetti
Alexis Berne
Bernard Clot
Gian Lieberherr
Fiona Tummon
Pascal Wullschleger
Benoît Crouzy
Abstract. Over the past few years, a diverse range of automatic real-time instruments has been developed to respond to the needs of end users in terms of information about atmospheric bioaerosols. One of them, the SwisensPoleno Jupiter, is an airflow cytometer used for operational automatic bioaerosol monitoring. The instrument records holographic images and fluorescence information for single aerosol particles, which can be used for identification of several aerosol types, in particular different pollen taxa. To improve the pollen identification algorithm applied to the SwisensPoleno Jupiter and currently based only on the holography data, we explore the impact of merging fluorescence spectra measurements with holographic images. We demonstrate that combining information from these two sources results in a considerable improvement in the classification performance compared to using only a single source (balanced accuracy of 0.992 vs. 0.968 and 0.878). This increase in performance can be ascribed to the fact that often classes which are difficult to resolve using holography alone can be well identified using fluorescence and vice versa. We also present a detailed statistical analysis of the features of the pollen grains that are measured and provide a robust, physically-based insight into the algorithm’s identification process. The results are expected to have a direct impact on operational pollen identification models, particularly improving the recognition of taxa responsible for respiratory allergies.
- Preprint
(1093 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Sophie Erb et al.
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1572', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2023
reply
General comments
This paper describes a new measurement technique for identifying pollen grains that combines holography and fluorescence. Overall, the paper reports methods and laboratory results that will be useful to the pollen observation community, although with the caveat that this has only been tested and trained in the lab and has not yet been used on ambient samples. It would be helpful to include something to this effect (e.g, laboratory only, needs to be tested in ambient air) in the abstract, as it only is raised briefly in the discussion. I would have preferred to see some ambient samples presented in the paper but recognize that this increases the scope of work substantially. Otherwise, the technique holds promise for distinguishing different types of pollen for real-time sampling, which is an exciting result. I have several minor presentation comments below that would make this manuscript acceptable for publication.
Minor comments
- Title: “measurement” -> “measurements”
- Line 61: “… for the main allergenic species….” – is this the main species in Switzerland, or more broadly in Europe? More clarity for the selection of these seven pollen types would be beneficial.
- Line 75: What size of particles trigger the detector? While this study is specifying the types of pollen evaluated, what would happen if it were an ambient air sample?
- There is some terminology in the paper that is rather confusing:
- “event” – this is defined on line 89, but that makes it sound like you are sampling ambient air versus a controlled emission. Also confusing in Table 1, where it really seems to be the number of particles counted and evaluated. I would suggest something like “number of particles counted”, “number of images”, or even just “pollen count”
- “class” – defined on line 95 as the same as plant taxa, although it was unclear why this specific term was used – why not just keep “taxa”? Also, later throughout the paper (e.g., line 218, 241, y-axis label on Figure 5) these are used interchangeably and makes it rather confusing.
- Table 1: If using the term “class” in the paper, I would suggest changing the header on the first column from “Common name” to “Class (common name)” to clarify the terms more clearly.
- Line 179: eccentricity seems to be a useful metric, but is there also one about symmetry that might be helpful for more complex grains?
- In Figure 3c, the standard deviation on the relative fluorescence is extremely large. Can the authors comment on why they think that this metric improves the ML model?
- Line 183: “superior” -> “larger”
- Line 247-248: Please rephrase
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1572-RC1
Sophie Erb et al.
Sophie Erb et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
267 | 138 | 11 | 416 | 10 | 5 |
- HTML: 267
- PDF: 138
- XML: 11
- Total: 416
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1