Embedded bone fragment detection in chicken fillets using transmittance image enhancement and hyperspectral reflectance imaging

  • Seung Chul YoonEmail author
  • Kurt C. Lawrence
  • Douglas P. Smith
  • Bosoon Park
  • William R. Windham
Original Paper


This paper is concerned with the detection of bone fragments embedded in compressed de-boned skinless chicken breast fillets by enhancing single-band transmittance images generated by back-lighting and exploiting spectral information from hyperspectral reflectance images. Optical imaging of chicken fillets is often dominated by multiple scattering properties of the fillets. Thus, resulting images from multiple scattering are diffused, scattered and low contrast. In this study, a fusion of hyperspectral transmittance and reflectance imaging, which is a non-ionized and non-destructive imaging modality, was investigated as an alternative method to the conventional transmittance X-ray imaging technique which is an ionizing imaging modality. An image formation model, called an illumination–transmittance model, was applied for correcting non-uniform illumination effects so that embedded bones are more easily detectable by a simple segmentation method using a single threshold value. Predicted bones from the segmentation were classified by the nearest neighbor classifier that was trained by the spectral library of mean reflectance of chicken tissues like fat, meat and embedded bones. Experimental results with chicken breast fillets and bone fragments are provided.


Bone detection Poultry inspection Chicken breast fillet Food safety Bone fragment Image enhancement Illumination–transmittance model Hyperspectral imaging 



The authors would like to express a deep appreciation to Jerry Heitschmidt, Allan Savage, and Peggy Feldner for their support and help for this project.


  1. 1.
    D.P. Smith, Defects of pre- and post-deboned broiler breast. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 10, 33–40 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Goldman, The physical hazards of foreign materials. Presentation for the public meeting on foreign material contamination (USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, D.C., 2002). Available at: Accessed 12 December 2007
  3. 3.
    C.D. Papanicolopoulos, J.C. Wyvill, W.D. Daley, W.R. Owens, X-ray monitoring system. U.S. Patent No. 5,428,657 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Tao, J. Ibarra, Thickness invariant X-ray imaging detection of bone fragments in de-boned poultry meat: model analysis. Trans. ASAE. 43(2), 453–459 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Gregerson, 20/20 vision. Food Eng. 73(6), 60–64 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.S. Gleason, M.J. Paulus, J.A. Mullens, Automatic detection of bone fragments in poultry using multi-energy X-rays. U.S. Patent No. 6,370,223 2002Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Wilson, X-ray imaging checks food purity. Vision Systems Design. 7(5), 17–20 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N.J.B. McFarlane, R.D. Speller, C.R. Bull, R.D. Tillett, Detection of bone fragments in chicken meat using X-ray backscatter. Biosys. Eng. 85(2), 185–199 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Tao, Combined X-ray and laser imaging for sensitive detection of bone fragments for poultry de-boning lines (2000) ASAE Paper No. 003144. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAEGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.C. Hebden, S.R. Arridge, D.T. Delpy, Optical imaging in medicine: I. Experimental techniques. Phys. Med. Biol. 42(5), 825–840 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Loeb, J.K. Barton, Imaging botanical subjects with optical coherence tomography: a feasibility study. Trans. ASAE 46(6), 1751–1757 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Lu, Detection of bruises on apples using near-infrared hyperspectral imaging. Trans. ASAE 46(2), 523–530 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H.J. Swatland, M. Irie, Effect of wavelength on spatial measurements of light scattering for the measurement of pork quality. J. Animal Sci. 70(7), 2138–2143 (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. Tuchin, Tissue Optics: Light Scattering Methods and Instruments for Medical Diagnosis. SPIE Tutorial Texts in Optical Engineering, vol. TT38. Bellingham, Wash.: SPIEGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Garcia, T. Nicosevici, X. Cufi, On the way to solve lighting problems in underwater imaging. In Oceans ‘02 MTS/IEEE. 2, 1018–1024 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.P. Gibson, J.C. Hebden, S.R. Arridge, Recent advances in diffuse optical imaging. Phys. Med. Biol. 50, R1–R43 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.G. Narasimhan, S.K. Nayar, B. Sun, S.J. Koppal, Structured light in scattering media. in Proceedings 10th International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), I: (IEEE, Piscataway, N.J.,2005), 420–427Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S.C. Yoon, K.C. Lawrence, D.P. Smith, B. Park, W.R. Windham, Bone fragment detection in chicken breast fillets using diffuse scattering pattern of back-illuminated structured light. Proc. SPIE vol. 6381. (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S.C. Yoon, K.C. Lawrence, D.P. Smith, B. Park, W.R. Windham, Bone fragment detection in chicken breast fillets using transmittance image enhancement. Trans. ASABE. 51(1), 331–339 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K.C. Lawrence, B. Park, W.R. Windham, C. Mao, Calibration of a pushbroom hyperspectral imaging system for agricultural inspection. Trans. ASAE. 46(2), 513–521 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R.C. Gonzalez, R.E. Woods, (1992) Digital Image Processing. (Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seung Chul Yoon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kurt C. Lawrence
    • 1
  • Douglas P. Smith
    • 1
  • Bosoon Park
    • 1
  • William R. Windham
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServiceRichard Russell Research CenterAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations