See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326268587

Techniques for Insect Detection in Stored Food Grains: An Overview

Article  in  Food Control · July 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.07.008

CITATIONS READS

16 1,488

4 authors:

Km. Sheetal Banga Nachiket Kotwaliwale

Janta Vedic College Baghpat (UP) Indian Council of Agricultural Research
21 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS    71 PUBLICATIONS   703 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Debabandya Mohapatra Saroj K Giri

Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering
61 PUBLICATIONS   1,543 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   730 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Book chapter View project

polishing of rice under varying environmental conditions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Km. Sheetal Banga on 29 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Control
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Review

Techniques for insect detection in stored food grains: An overview T

∗
Km Sheetal Banga , Nachiket Kotwaliwale, Debabandya Mohapatra, Saroj Kumar Giri
ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, 462038, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Insects cause a major loss in stored food grains. Besides, pestilential activities of insects in stored food grains
Detection method affect the marketability as well as the nutritional values. Early detection and monitoring of insects in the stored
Post-harvest losses food grains become necessary for applying corrective actions. Visual inspection, probe sampling, insect trap,
Pestilential Berlese funnel, visual lures, pheromone devices etc., are some of the popular methods largely used in commercial
Acoustic detection
granaries or grain storage establishments. Of late, electronic nose, solid phase micro-extraction, thermal ima-
Electronic nose
ging, acoustic detection, etc. have been reported to be successful in detecting insects. The capability of in-situ
early detection, monitoring, cost, reliability, and labor requirements are the major factors considered during for
selection of the method. Detection of hidden infestation, whose population may be many times higher than the
free-living insects is an important concern to mitigate the losses in bulk storage warehouses, so as to enable the
early actions for fumigation or to dispose off the grain. This paper reviews some of the widely used detection
methods for early detection of insects’ pestilential activities in stored food grains as well as some of the novel
technologies with an emphasis on acoustic method, which has a good commercial potential.

1. Introduction used as insect-free or insect absence checked by using standard method

Global food security is an important issue as the world's population
is increasing rapidly and will reach over 9.1 billion by the year 2050
(FAO, 2014; Parfitt et al., 2010). About 20–40% post-harvest losses
(PHL) occur during field and post-harvest operations, and among these
losses 55% losses occur during storage (World Bank, 2011). The
worldwide damage of food grains due to insect infestation is estimated
to be 10–40% annually (Asrar, Ashraf, Hussain, Zia, & Rasool, 2016). In
India, storage losses for cereals were about 0.75–1.21%, while the
losses in the case of pulses and oilseeds were in the range of 1.18–1.67%
and 0.22–1.61%, respectively (Jha, Vishwakarma, Ahmad, Rai, & Dixit,
2015). The economic value of harvest and post-harvest losses of agri-
cultural produces are estimated to be INR 926510 million (based on
production data of 2012-13 and wholesale prices of 2014, India) (Jha
et al., 2015). Ensuring availability of food to the ever increasing po-
pulation will be a major challenge in future due to a gradual decrease in
the land and natural resources. It can be met through the efficient use of
agricultural produce and reducing the pre and post-harvest losses.
Kumar, Mohapatra, Kotwaliwale, and Singh (2017) reported that in-
festation caused the total quality loss as evident from the reduction in
seed germination, pH level and protein content, elevated moisture
content and free fatty acid content. Current standards of international
trade apply only for external insects, and for the practical purpose, it is
(ISO 6639-3, 2001).
In Asia, about 6% of the total PHL occur due to improper storage
facilities, in which insects and fungi are responsible for the half (3%) of
the storage losses (Sharon, Abirami, & Alagusundaram, 2014). Speci-
fically, whole pulses are at greatest risk, followed by the oilseeds and
then by the cereal grains for infestation (Sarwar, 2013). Food grains
respire during storage; hence deterioration occurs during storage, either
quantitatively or qualitatively or both. Insects multiply at a higher rate
under favourable conditions and may even destroy 100% of the grains
and contaminate the grains with their excreta and dead body parts
resulting in with abominable odors and flavors (Neethirajan et al.,
2007). Insect infestation increases with the increase in temperature up
to 45 °C and high relative humidity due to their metabolic exertion,
which aids to the growth of microflora and the development of hotspots
in stored food grains. At times, the whole lot of grain can be charred
due to increase in temperature, while stored in silo (Neethirajan et al.,
2007). Fig. 1 indicates the losses occurred in various crops during pre
and post-harvest operations, from where it can be observed that losses
due to insects are about 30% of the total loss.
Several detection techniques have been developed for the internal
and external detection of insects in stored food grains such as detection
probe, staining of the kernel, Berlese funnel method, acoustic techni-
ques, uric-acid method, X-ray imaging, nuclear magnetic resonance

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sheetal.0415@gmail.com (K.S. Banga).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.07.008
Received 7 November 2017; Received in revised form 11 June 2018; Accepted 6 July 2018
Available online 09 July 2018
0956-7135/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.S. Banga et al.
5%
20%
45%
30%
Weeds Insects Disease Others
Fig. 1. Globally total annual loss in agricultural produce (Oerke, 2006).
imaging, thermal imaging and solid-phase micro-extraction method
(Neethirajan et al., 2007). Some of these techniques are time-con-
suming, expensive, have potential health hazard, and less efficient.
Manual sampling traps and probes are the most common methods used
on farms, while manual inspection, sieving, and Berlese funnel method
are used in grain storage and handling facilities (Neethirajan et al.,
2007). However, these methods are slow and are not able to detect the
hidden infestation at early stages of primary pest species (Curculionidae,
Bostrichidae, Gelechiidae, and Bruchidae), whose population are ten
times more than the free-living insects (Fleurat-Lessard, 2006).
Monitoring of stored food grains is used to ascertain the trends in
insect's number, insect's development stages or infestation level in a
period of time. It also furnishes the insect's activity in respect to en-
vironmental conditions and determines the efficacy of insect pest
management actions. To reduce these losses and to ensure the safe
storage for sustainable agriculture production, there is a need to de-
velop advanced insect infestation detection methods with higher sen-
sitivity. While looking at traditional methods, this review paper is to
give a birds-eye view of the recently developed technologies for insect
detection in stored products. Special emphasis has been given to the
acoustic detection of insects in stored food grains.
2. Conventional methods of insect detection
Several conventional methods are used in grain storage establish-
ments of which visual inspection, probe sampling, and insect trap
method are popular. These methods are simple but time-consuming,
labour-intensive and subjective. Some of the popular techniques are
discussed in brief in the following sections.
2.1. Detection of insect presence
2.1.1. Visual inspection
Detection of insect infestation in stored food grains can be done
through visual inspection. It is a uniform, qualitative and subjective
method, used as a standard method for comparison of quantitative
methods (Semple, 1980). Presence of eggs, adult insects, and infested
grains can be seen by the naked eye without drawing grain samples or
looking for residual infestation within the storage bags. Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Inspector, Britain, developed some
notations for the use of sack, storage, and sampling inspection
(Table 1).
2.1.2. Probe sampling and trap method
Probe sampling and sieving are the most widely used methods;
however it is laborious and time-consuming. In this method, grains are
drawn (0.5–1 kg) by probes from the stored bin. Sieves are used for
screening the insects from the grains. Probes are kept in grain storage
bins for long periods; an inspector manually removes it and visually
inspects them, thus making it a time-consuming and sometimes difficult
168
Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176
procedure.
Various types of traps have been developed by TNAU, Coimbatore
(India) (Mohan et al., 1994). These devices (Fig. 2) are useful in timely
detection and monitoring of insect infestation in stored food grains.
Wandering of insects towards air is used as a concept to design. The
efficiency of two-in-one probe trap is high due to a combination of
probe and pitfall trap. It is best suited for trapping of pulse beetles as
they always wander on the grain surface. An indicator device consists of
a perforated cone-shaped cup with a lid at the top, is fixed at the bottom
with a container and circular dish coated with a sticky material
(Mohan, 2007; Mohan and Rajesh, 2016). TNAU automatic insect re-
moval bin removes the insect and crushes the eggs laid by them. Its
efficiency is very high (90%) as most of the insects can be removed
within 10 days. It produced 1–4% damage in grains as compared to
33–65% damage in the ordinary bin after 10 months storage period in
paddy and sorghum grains (Mohan, 2007). The UV light traps em-
bedded with an ultra-violet light (4 W germicidal lamp) rays of 250 nm
are used in storage godowns at 1.5 m above the ground level. These
traps are useful in the trapping of a variety of stored grain insects in-
cluding lesser grain borer (Rhyzopertha dominica F.), rice weevil (Sito-
philus oryzae L.), red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum Herbst), saw-
toothed grain beetle (Oryzaephilus surnamensis) etc. (Mohan and Rajesh,
2016).
2.1.3. Visual lures and pheromones
“Light” can be used for detection, monitoring and management of
insects in stored food grains in warehouses, godowns, elevators etc. by
utilizing the responses of insects towards the light. It is a “clean” form
of technology and uses three types of lights: incandescent, fluorescent,
and ultraviolet. Insects allured towards the lights of wavelength be-
tween 280 and 600 nm and some colored objects due to their explicit
reflectance (Neethirajan et al., 2007). Insect species, age, environ-
mental conditions, sex and intensity of light affects the responses of
insects towards the light (Shimoda and Honda, 2013). Pheromones are
chemical substances secreted by the insects, used in traps to control
insect populations. These are used for communication among insects.
Traps of different materials, containing pheromones (sex and aggrega-
tion pheromone) used on adhesive-coated surface or a funnel-shaped
structure to catch the insects (Laopongsit & Srzednicki, 2010).
2.2. Detection of insect density
2.2.1. Berlese funnel method
It consists of a standard Berlese funnel apparatus with a mesh screen
(Minkevich, Demianyk, White, Jayas, & Timlick, 2002). Grain samples
are put in the funnel below the incandescent light for 8 h and a jar
containing alcohol/water is used for capturing the insects. Funnels are
equipped with screen bottom small enough to retain the grains and
large enough to allow passage of the insects through it. It uses dry heat
to remove the insects from the grains. Dry heat warms the grains and
compels the insects to move opposite to heat in a funnel (Neethirajan
et al., 2007).
2.2.2. Uric acid method
Uric acid, the main element of insect's excreta has been re-
commended as a tracing element of insect infestation in stored food-
grains. This method detects the insect infestation of the entire storage
period indirectly (Rajendran, 2005). Later on, different methods were
developed to determine the uric acid level: by paper chromatographic,
fluorometric, colorimetric, gas-liquid chromatography (GLC), thin layer
chromatography (TLC), high performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC) and by enzymatic methods (Ghaedian, 1995). As per BIS
(1970), colorimetric method can be used for uric acid measurement to
determine the level of infestation.
K.S. Banga et al. Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176

Table-1
Characters for insect inspection in storage structures.
Character Specification Number of insects

C - Clear or none No insects Require protection from cross-infestation and regular inspection.
F - Few or light Irregular occurrence of few numbers of insects. < 20 insects per 90 kg sieved sample for a few notations (requires disinfestation in near
Absence of insects in sacks future). 20–300 insects per 90 kg sieve sample for light notation.
MN - Moderate numbers Regular occurrence and formation of small 50-300 insects per 90 kg sieved sample.
population of insects
LN - Large numbers Large number of insects creeping on the stack 300-1500 insects per 80 kg sieved sample.
surface
VLN - Very large numbers Intense occurrence of insects, audible and dead > 1500 insects per 90 kg sieved sample.
skins seen around the stalk

(Source: Semple, 1980).

Fig. 2. (a) Indicator device, (b) TNAU automatic insect removal bin, (c) Insect Egg Removal Device, (d) Ultra Violet Light Trap (with permission from Mohan et al.,
1994).

2.2.3. Hidden infestation detector stained the infested grains, which were counted and percentage of in-
It is a very simple and low-cost device used to detect hidden in- festation was estimated by comparing with other methods (Anonymous,
festation in grains. It consists of three circular plates placed over one 1991; Dakshinmurthy & Ali, 1984).
another. The top and middle plates are hinged for easy operation during
lifting. The base plate is covered with ninhydrin treated filter paper.
3. Modern methods of insect detection
Sorghum infested with S. oryzae, wheat with angoumois grain moth
(Sitotroga Cerealella) and green gram with cowpea weevil
The approach of modern methods in stored food grains may offer an
(Callosobruchus maculatus) were tested with this detector. Holes of
easy, rapid solution to detect both internal and external infestation even
middle plate were filled with grain samples of about 20% moisture
of low density, through less destruction of materials, so that decisive
content. The top plate was pressed to crush the grains. Filter paper
action can be taken as early as possible. Some of the technologies use

169
K.S. Banga et al.
sensors, cameras, microscope, radiation sources, volatiles, sound etc. as
measures for insect detection. These methods need comparatively less
labour than the conventional methods; however, the labor should be
skilled enough to control the sophisticated equipment as per the pro-
tocols. These technologies can be grouped based on the properties
employed for detection of insects viz., electrical conductivity, olfactory,
response to electromagnetic-spectrum and acoustic signals. Details of
the attempts made under these different categories are given in fol-
lowing sections.
3.1. Conductance based method
3.1.1. Electrically conductive roller mill
In this method principle of electrical conductance and compression
force is used for infestation in stored foodgrains. In single kernel
characterization system of two resistors and voltage–divider circuit, one
kernel acts as a resistor. The conductance of kernels is inspected
through the voltage during the crushing of kernels between the rolls.
Presence of insects inside the kernel increases the kernel moisture
content, which provides an easy discrimination of sound kernels from
the infested kernel. This method is not suitable for detecting the insect
eggs, immature larvae and dead insects in low moisture grains (Pearson
and Brabec, 2007).
Pearson et al. (2003) developed an electrically conductive roller
mill “insect-o-graphˮ for wheat classification. Infested kernels were
classified from the uninfested kernels on the basis of the signal char-
acteristics of the system and the conductance signal received. Pearson
and Brabec (2007) reported the detection of infested kernels above 70%
along with larvae and pupae of R. dominica, and tested 1 kg of wheat in
about 2 min. Rice weevil (S. oryzae L.), and the lesser grain borer (R.
dominica F.), major internally infesting insects were tested. It can be a
useful tool for classification of grains at the receiving stations as it
provides the information to grain storage managers to make a decision
whether a storage bin should be fumigated or to be discarded. Brabec,
Pearson, Flinn, and Katzke (2010) investigated the detection of lesser
grain borer (LGB) fragments in wheat flour by using conductive roller
mill. They found that conductance mill was suitable for testing of in-
ternally infested insects in grains of low density (up to 3 insects) in
1–2 kg of grains at the rate of 1 kg of grain per minute.
Brabec, Pearson, and Flinn (2012) used the modified laboratory mill
to detect the internal infestation of immature LGB in brown rice and
wheat. The modified conductance mill had detected LGB in 500 g
sample of brown rice and wheat by 97, 83, and 42% of large, medium,
and small LGB larvae, respectively within 150 s. The detection rate was
higher for wheat as compared to thinner brown rice. Brabec, Dowell,
Campbell, and West (2017) detected the maize weevil (Sitophilus zea-
mais) infestation with different development stages in popcorn kernels
through a conductive roller mill. Two mills were tested and it was
observed that slower feeding mill could detect 81% pupae, 91%
medium larvae, and 47% small larvae while the faster mill detected
75% pupae, 80% medium larvae, and 43% small larvae. Results show
that this method is suitable for quick detection of matured stages of
larvae and pupae.
3.2. Olfactory based methods
3.2.1. Solid phase micro-extraction (SPME)
Odour detection techniques for insect infestation and grain quality
evaluation are gaining popularity. In addition, this method facilitates
early detection of infestation, storage age determination, varietal dis-
crimination of foodgrains etc. SPME used the headspace techniques to
isolate volatile compounds vaporized from samples, which was then
condensed and finally evaluated by gas chromatography-mass spec-
trometry (GCMS) for quantification of volatiles. The efficiency and
sensitivity of SPME method depend on extraction time and tempera-
ture. High temperature and long extraction time favor in the collection
170
Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176
of more analytes (Laopongsit, Srzednicki, & Craske, 2014).
Senthilkumar et al. (2012) detected the T. castaneum and C. ferrugineus
by headspace analysis (HS-SPME) coupled with GCMS. Niu et al. (2016)
used SPME coupled with GC-FID (gas chromatography-flame ionization
detection) and GC-MS to establish relationships between storage period
and grain quality, and grain quality and insect infestation of R. dominica
in wheat. Abuelnnor, Jones, Ratcliffe, de Lacy Costello, and Spencer-
Phillips (2010) identified distinct volatile compounds from infested
wheat flour and wheat grain with the T. confusum and S. granaries, re-
spectively by SPME clenched with gas chromatography-mass spectro-
metry. Larval and adult insects secreted distinct volatiles and these
distinct volatiles were useful for early monitoring of infestation.
3.2.2. Electronic nose (E-nose)
The intervention of divergent electronic nose (E-nose) sensor types
and instruments, works on the principle of electronic aroma detection
(EAD) (Wilson, 2012). E-nose consists of three parts: an odour sensor(s)
set, a data pre-processor, and a data interpretation system. Sensor set
detects the volatile compounds present in the headspace of stored food
grains and reacts by changing the electrical properties. It is embedded
with a predefined database to differentiate certain volatiles (Wu et al.,
2013). E-nose has the potential of rapid and automatic detection of
insects in stored grains (Zhang et al., 2007). Selection of sensors array
for specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) requires special atten-
tion to achieve the targeted results. Sensors array should be selected to
maximize the overall performance of the instrument and furnish the
different selectivity profiles for a particular application
(Phaisangittisagul et al., 2010). Metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) and
conducting polymers (CP) type sensors are most widely used but,
carbon black composite (CBC), carbon dioxide (CO2), metal oxide
semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET), surface acoustic wave
(SAW), optical fiber live cell (OF-LC) etc. have also been used (Wilson,
2013).
Evans et al. (2000) used e-nose used to discriminate between in-
fested and non-infested samples of different fungal species through the
development of secondary volatile metabolites.) used the E-noses have
been employed to discriminate and detect the insect infestation, dif-
ferentiate between insect species, predict insect population (Stetter
et al., 1993; Wu et al. 2013) with some successes. Zhang and Wang
(2007) used the E-nose to assess the detection of storage age and insect
(R. dominica F.) damage incurred in wheat.
3.3. Electromagnetic-spectrum based methods
3.3.1. Imaging methods
3.3.1.1. Machine vision within visible domain. Machine vision also
known as computer vision, is an emerging technology which
combines the mechanics, optical instrumentation, electromagnetic
sensing, digital and image processing technology (Patel et al., 2012).
It uses the principle of object recognition and classification on the basis
of information extracted from the image captured by using the camera
(Sun, 2016). It is a rapid, consistent, economic and objective inspection
technique that has the potential for applications in quality evaluation of
agricultural produce. The speed and accuracy of this non-destructive
technique can satisfy the demand of ever-increasing production and
quality requirements hence is helpful in intensifying the development
of automated processes. Machine vision technology consists of three
main processes-image acquisition, image processing or analysis and,
recognition and interpretation. Image acquisition consists of capturing
a real image by using cameras, scanners, videos etc. and transforming it
into a digital image (Fig. 3). Image pre-processing assigns the initial
processing of the raw image. Sometimes, pre-processing is
accomplished to enhance the image quality by suppressing undesired
distortions “noise” or by the advancement of important features of view
of interest (Narendra and Hareesh, 2010). Image feature extraction
comprised the extraction of image features at distinct levels of intricacy
K.S. Banga et al.
Fig. 3. Block diagram of a machine vision system (adopted from Singh et al., 2004 and Patel et al., 2012).
from the image data (Davies, 2005). In image segmentation process,
cutting, adding and feature analysis of images is done to divide image
regions that have a substantial correlation with objects or view of
interest using the principle of matrix analysis. It is one of the most
crucial steps of the whole image processing technique, as the accuracy
of this technique is extremely dependent on consequent extracted data.
Image recognition and interpretation provide the useful information
after image analysis that can be used for process or machine control
(Gunasekaran, 1996). Monitoring and evaluation of varieties and
soundness of grains, amount of foreign material, mold and insect
infestation etc. in bulk grains can be successfully carried out (Aviara,
Fabiyi, Ojediran, Ogunniyi, & Onatola, 2016). This technique is suitable
to detect the whole and live insects in stored food grains. Zayas and
Flinn (1998) used the multispectral analysis with pattern recognition to
detect the R. dominica in bulk wheat samples and the results revealed
that recognition efficiency for adult lesser grain borer and some foreign
material was more than 90%.
3.3.1.2. X-ray imaging. X-ray imaging method is an encouraging
technique utilized the non-contact sensor for inspection of large
samples while appreciably providing the information (Yacob et al.,
2005). Soft X-ray imaging is a fast non-destructive and direct method,
used for the detection of invisible insects in stored food grains
(Karunakaran, Jayas, & White, 2003), grading, internal quality of
agricultural produce also for hidden insects in mangoes (Kotwaliwale
et al., 2014). The imaging system encompassed with X-ray source; X-ray
converter; imaging system and isolated casing for image capture
(Kotwaliwale, Kalne, & Singh, 2011). The imaging medium, captured
the images, isolated from the surrounding radiation by a casing
(Kotwaliwale, Subbiah, Weckler, Brusewitz, & Kranzler, 2007).
Electromagnetic waves of 0.1–10 nm wavelengths with 0.12–12 KeV
energy are used as soft X-ray for internal inspection in very less time
(3–5 s) to produce a X-ray image. Kotwaliwale, Weckler, Brusewitz,
Kranzler, and Maness (2007a) determined the quality of pecans (Carya
illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch) by using soft X-ray with voltage levels
ranging from 15 to 50 kVp in steps of 5 kVp, and five current levels
(0.1–1.0 mA) and with two orientations. They found that severely insect
171
Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176
damaged samples and severely underdeveloped nutmeat could be
isolated easily due to low percent area occupancy. Features of pecan
such as shell, nutmeat, air gap between shell and nutmeat, defects, and
presence of insects were distinctly visible in X-ray images after contrast
stretching (Fig. 4). Karunakaran, Jayas, and White (2003a) used the soft
X-ray method in detecting Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens), T.
castaneum (Herbst), Indianmeal moth (Plodia interpunctella), S. oryzae
(L.), and R. dominica (F.) in wheat kernels. The parametric classifier
identified infested kernels by different stages of S. oryzae and larvae of
R. dominica with more than 98% accuracy.
Chelladurai, Karuppiah, Jayas, Fields, and White (2014) used the
soft X-ray and near-infrared (NIR) hyperspectral imaging techniques to
acquire images of soybeans infested by C. maculatus along with unin-
fested kernels. 33 features were extracted by soft X-ray imaging and 48
features were extracted by hyperspectral imaging for data analysis.
Different stages of infestation were classified by using LDA and quad-
ratic discriminant analysis (QDA) models. About 86% of uninfested
grains and 83% of infested grains by C. maculatus were classified by
LDA for soft X-ray images. Hyperspectral data were classified by the
principal component analysis (PCA) at wavelengths of 960 nm,
1030 nm, and 1440 nm. Combination of X-ray and hyperspectral fea-
tures improved the classification accuracy of egg and larvae stages.
3.3.1.3. Thermal imaging. Thermal imaging is a night vision
Fig. 4. X-ray images of pecans with different visible traits. (a) Good nut; (b)
insect damage to one cotyledon from inside; (c) visible insect hole; (d) insect
damage and insect (with permission from Kotwaliwale et al., 2007a).
K.S. Banga et al.
technology, which improves the visibility of an object in a dark
environment by detecting the infrared radiation energy emitted by
the object and transforming it into the visible image. Infrared energy
emitted by an object is a function of temperature and known as heat
signature and the produced image is known as thermogram (Nanje
Gowda and Alagusundaram, 2013). This imaging system consists of
detectors and lenses, thermal imaging cameras and data collection
tools. This technique is useful in the management of stored food grains
by detecting damaged grains, foreign materials, and internal and
external infestation of grains. It is useful, where temperature
differences are used in evaluation or quantification of a process.
Thermal imaging provides the potential advantages over the
fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging in cost reduction and
determination of material properties.
Detection of Rusty grain beetle (Ceyptolestes ferrugineus) infestation
in the wheat kernel by infrared thermal imaging with the camera,
control panel, microwave applicator, conveyor etc. has been reported
by Manickavasagan, Jayas, and White (2008). They used the system for
detection of C. ferrugineus inside the seed coat on the germ of wheat
kernels. Thermal images were captured for the infested kernels to
identify the developmental stages of the insect. Respiration rate of
different stages of C. ferrugineus were highly correlated (r = 0.83–0.91)
with the temperature distribution on the surface of the infested kernels.
Classification accuracy of quadratic and linear function for infested and
sound kernels was 83.5% and 77.7% and, 77.6% and 83.0%, respec-
tively. Chelladurai, Kaliramesh, and Jayas (2012) used the thermal
imaging for moong bean infested by C. maculatus. Classification accu-
racy of 55.24–77.84% by LDA model and 75.45–91% by QDA model
were obtained. More than 80% moong beans were identified as infested
by initial stages of C. maculatus with QDA model. Thermal images of
fungal infected paddy were obtained using mid infrared thermal camera
at 0 s (before heating), 180s (after heating) and 210 s (30 s after
cooling) (Fig. 5). Average pixel of the image was used as feature to
determine the moisture content. Fungal infected paddy gave higher
average pixel values compared with non-fungal paddy (Khairunniza-
Bejo & Jamil, 2013).
3.3.2. Non-imaging methods
3.3.2.1. Electronic grain probe insect counter (EGPIC). An automated
passive grain probe, known as Electronic Grain Probe Insect Counter
acquires offsite monitoring and detection of insect pests and remotely
displays the data of infestation levels in stored food grains. It consists of
a probe, system circuitry, data logger and a user interface. Due to the
danger of grain dust explosions, electric power and circuitry are kept
outside from the storage structure and pass only low voltage, high
impedance, sensor leads through the grains from the beam generation/
detection circuitry to sensor head. Acquired information by sensors is
Fig. 5. Grayscale representation of pseudo color images of non-fungal samples at (a) 0 s, (b) 180 s, (c) 210 s and fungal samples at (d) 0 s, (e) 180 s, (f) 210 s.
172
Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176
transmitted to the computer that analyses the signals and makes time-
stamped records of detection (Litzkow, Shuman, Kruss, & Coffelt,
1997). When an insect falls on the sensor head of EGPIC across the
infrared beam, signal is generated by the infrared diode and is then
received by the infrared phototransistor, which makes a slight
declination in the light intensity passing to the phototransistor. The
electronic circuitry system detects this slight declination and converts it
into a time-stamped insect count and then insects exit the probe
(Shuman and Epsky, 2001). It monitors the insect's levels
continuously at any depth. Flinn, Opit, and Throne (2009) tested the
commercial electronic grain probe trap in two bins of wheat (32.6
tonnes) during 2 years of storage. They developed a regression model
and compared it with the insect density estimated by EGPIC. There was
40–75% variation in predicted insect density against EGPIC. An expert
system “Stored Grain Advisor Pro” was coupled with EGPIC to estimate
the C. ferrugineus (Stephens), R. dominica (F.), and T. castaneum (Herbst)
density from trap catch counts. Expert system estimated insect density
efficiently but it was unable to differentiate the R. dominica and T.
Castaneum due to the same size (Flinn et al., 2009).
3.3.2.2. NIR spectroscopy. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) measures
the concentration of biological materials such as water, protein, starch
etc. by taking the dispersed reflectance, interactance or transmittance
of the sample in the range of 780–2500 nm. It is a non-destructive, fast,
accurate and cost-effective method viable for internal as well as
external detections in fruits, vegetables, cereals and pulses (Elizabeth,
Dowell, Baker, & Throne, 2002; Kim, Phyu, Kim, & Lee, 2003; Xing and
Guyer, 2008). Reflectance mode measures the light reflected or
dispersed back from the surface of the object. Interactance mode is
acclamatory when transmittance assessment is arduous to access the
internal information (Kavdir, Lu, Ariana, & Ngouajio, 2007). Ridgway
and Chambers (1996) reported the use of NIR reflectance spectroscopy
in the detection of internal infestation by Sitophilus granarius (L.) in
wheat. Chelladurai et al. (2014) used soft X-Ray imaging and NIR
hyperspectral imaging in the detection of C. maculatus and classified the
infested and sound kernels of soybean. Maghirang, Dowell, Baker, and
Throne (2003) detected the live pupae and larvae of S. oryzae (L.) with
an accuracy of 92%–93% by an automated NIRS system
(400–1700 nm). A comparison was done by Perez-Mendoza et al.
(2003) between a NIRS and standard floatation method for wheat
flour and they found that NIRS was the rapid method (less than 1 min/
sample), could be able to detect in bulk samples without any sample
preparation. Fourier transformation near-infrared (FT-NIR) technology,
a rapid detection instrument was used to detect moldy maize kernels
with a 86.7% validation accuracy on characteristic wavelengths of
1466 nm, 1530 nm, 1926 nm, 2321 nm and 2384 nm (Chu et al., 2014).
K.S. Banga et al. Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176

3.4. Acoustic detection

Amplifier
Acoustic technology depends on the hypothesis that the sound made
due to movement and feeding of insects can be monitored to estimate
the type and density of insects within a stored grain mass. It has shown Filter
encouraging results on detection of internal and external insects in the
grain mass during early stages of infestation through insect feeding
sounds (Eliopoulos, Potamitis, Kontodimas, & Givropoulou, 2015).
Acoustic sensors detect the mechanical or acoustic waves. When an
Impulse Converter
acoustic wave transmits through certain material or object, it gets af-
fected by the properties of material/object and by any hurdle present in
the path. Due to this, velocity or amplitude of the acoustic waves Adjust detectable threshold
dampens and then these changes are translated into digital or analog Sensors
signal through transducers. It generally uses the piezoelectric substrate
as a sensor. Detection of concealed insects in grain kernel depends on Computer Documentation
amplification and filtering of their movement and feeding sounds.
Classification of targeted sounds from other sounds and other limiting Fig. 6. Schematic representation of the acoustical probe and signal processing
factors such as sensor sensitivity, sound-noise ratio, the range of sensors system for detection of insect infestation in grains (adopted from Fleurat-
etc., limit the applicability of acoustic devices. With technological ad- Lessard, 2006).
vancement, improved sensors and the use of digital signal processing
software tools has enabled increased receptiveness and the credibility.
acoustic insect detection probe to detect and identify the sounds of
Pattern features (spectral and temporal) are also useful in classification
different species of different stages of primary insects in long-term
of background noise from the targeted noise. Standard speech re-
storage, operated from the surface of the bulk grain. The equipment
cognition tools like Gaussian mixture models, hidden Markov models
possesses the prediction of live concealed insects of all stages with a
were used for the separation of insects’ sounds from background noise
confidence factor greater than 90% in a 30 kg grain mass. Eliopoulos
(Mankin, Samson, & Chandler, 2009).
et al. (2015) reported the efficacy of bioacoustics in detecting the
Attempts were also made to detect the damage and infestation in
presence of adult beetles inside the grain mass of wheat. Adults of the
wheat and hazelnuts by using impact acoustic technology and voice
most important beetle pests of stored cereals and pulses, in various
recognition methods (Pearson and Brabec, 2007). Acoustic detection of
population densities (1, 2, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 & 500 beetle adults/kg
internal feeding and movement sounds of S. zeamais, rice weevil (S.
grain) were used. The linear model was very effective in describing the
oryzae (L.)) and granary weevil (S. granarius (L.)) were at relatively low
relationship between population density and number of sounds.
intensity, 15–35 dB with frequency 2–6 kHz (Pittendrigh et al., 1997).
Njoroge et al. (2016) investigated the frequency and time pattern dif-
Generally, the sound of insects comprises of trains of short broadband
ferences in acoustic signals produced by Prostephanus truncates (Horn)
impulses (1–10 ms), whereas background noise occurs as continuous
and S. zeamais (Motschulsky) in stored maize to distinguish among
signals with symphonic peaks (Mankin & Moore, 2010). Hagstrum,
these species and stages. Frequency profiles were categorized into five
Flinn, and Shuman (1996) acoustically detected the R. dominica (F.), T.
types of profiles to show the differences between peak energy and
castaneum (h.) and S. oryzae (L.) in wheat grains. The sound produced
broadness of frequency range. Bursts of three closely spaced impulses
by insects was detected without removing grain samples from the sto-
were observed and mean rates of bursts, mean counts of impulses per
rage bin. Above 90% detection level could be achieved at the bottom of
burst, and mean rate of impulses in bursts were calculated to compare
the structure. They suggested it as an easy and quick method of de-
the species and stages.
tection and population density estimation of insects. Kiobia et al.
Bioacoustics of bean weevil (Acanthoscelides obtectus) on Common
(2015) developed a sound and vibration controlled system to detect
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) was used to see its emergence inside the grains
Prostephanus truncates and S. Zeamais in maize storage for managing the
in an anechoic chamber. Low amplitude sound impulses at low and
pest in stored food grains in Sub-Saharan Africa. They found that larval
higher rate were used in real-time detection and classification of insect
impulses were measurable by the sensors within 25 cm range. Software
sound from background noise (Njoroge et al., 2017). Advancement in
tools were also developed on the basis of differences in the spectral and
research of such technology in the future will reduce its cost develop-
temporal pattern of insect sounds correlated with differences in phy-
ment of acoustic detection mobile app with existing data for specific
siological activities. Feeding sounds produced broad, high-frequency
species for farmers use.
spectrum than the low energy moving sounds (Mankin & Moore, 2010).
Trains of consecutive insect impulses (200 ms or less) established more
significant indicator of insect presence than the single impulse (Njoroge 3.4.1. Signal processing
et al., 2016, 2017). Processing of recorded sound for classification of background noise
Fleurat-Lessard, Tomasini, Kostine, and Fuzeau (2006) developed a and targeted noise uses speech recognition methods. For the analysis of
fully automatic system for the inspection of insects in bulk grains of acoustic signals, various types of windows are used for spectrogram
wheat and a pilot scale system of 300 kg (Fig. 6). Detection of primary analysis.
pests of adult and larvae of S. oryzae (SO) at a density of one adult/
10 kg and one larva/kg of wheat within 2 min scanning time with more 3.4.1.1. Window function and filtering. In signal processing, a window
than 95% of likelihood could be achieved by this system in 20 cm de- function (also known as an apodization or tapering function) is a
tection range with a sample of 65 kg. Detection of R. dominica (RD) was mathematical function, used to smoothly draw a sampled signal down
easier than SO. For SO, peak sound was 3.3–3.8 kHz and for RD was to zero at the edges of the sampled region (Prabhu, 2013). The
2.6–3.2 kHz. The relationship between insect activity and density levels spectrum of window function can be given in time-domain as well as
was quantitatively modeled in the range from one individual per 10 kg in the frequency domain. In the analysis of acoustic signals, more than
to 10 individuals per kg at temperature levels ranging from 5 to 30 °C. one sample (atleast two full cycles) is used. In the window, a series of
Threshold temperature for larval activity was as low as 8 °C (SO) and speech samples are selected for spectral analysis. Different types of
15 °C for RD. windows are used for acoustic detection system, viz. rectangular,
Leblnac, Gaunt, and Fleurat-Lessard (2011) developed a real-time bartlett, hamming, hanning, blackman, blakman-harris, welch and

173
K.S. Banga et al.
Table-2
Advantages and limitations of modern methods of insect detection in stored food grains.
Insect Detection Methods Advantages
1 Conductance based method
1.1 Electrically Suitable for detection of hidden infestation,
conductive roller inexpensive
mill
2 Olfactory based methods
2.1 Solid phase micro Dynamic headspace increases the sensitivity,
extraction high sensitivity
2.2 Electronic Nose Automatic, non-destructive, suitable for hidden
infestation and mold, rapid, in-situ, suitable for
early detection
3. Electromagnetic spectrum based methods
3.1 Imaging methods
3.1.1 Machine Vision Suitable for identification and classification of
within visible range varieties, insect infestation, grain discoloration,
used for grading of agricultural produce
3.1.2 X-ray imaging Direct method, non-destructive, high accuracy,
adequate to detect the internal and external
insects, capable to detect both live and dead
insects
3.1.3 Thermal Imaging Suitable to detect all the stages of insects,
identify the infested and uninfested grains
3.2 Non-imaging methods
3.2.1 Electronic Grain Automatic, real-time monitoring, suitable for
Probe Insect Counter bulk storage at any depth
3.2.2 NIR Spectroscopy Rapid method, detect hidden insect infestation
4 Acoustic based method
4.1 Acoustic Detection Non-destructive, automatic, detect internal and
external insects, high sensitivity, suitable for
taking reliable decision in silos, estimate density
of insects
gaussian (Prabhu, 2013). Rectangular window is not used for frequency
analysis of the acoustic signal (Mannell, 2008). Hanning window uses
cosine cycles, valued between 0 and 1. Hamming window is related to
hanning and it covers the values between 0.054 and 1. Generally,
gaussian windows are used for the analysis of acoustic signals (Mannell,
2008) in biological materials. Complex acoustic signals are filtered
prior to processing via low-pass (LP) filter, high pass (HP) filter and
band pass (BP). During filtering, some frequencies are allowed to pass
and others should be blocked. In most filters, there is a region around
the cut-off frequency where frequencies are partially allowed to pass.
This provides a more gentle transition between the pass-band (the
frequencies which are unattenuated) and the stop-band (the frequencies
which are attenuated) (Mannell, 2008).
The duration of R. ferrugineus sound impulse was 3–50 ms and
3.8 kHz peak frequency range (Potamitis et al., 2009). Usually, the peak
of relative energy of background noise was high at low frequency
(below 1 kHz) (Mankin & Moore, 2010). Requisite of filtering depends
on the nature and intensity of the background noise. After filtering,
signals above the threshold amplitude were removed. The amplitude
and frequency of insects were affected by the installed locations of
sensors. If multiple sensors are used then signals from one sensor can be
subtracted from the other to reduce distant noise before further signal
processing.
3.4.1.2. Acoustic spectrum features. Discrimination of signal-noise can
be done by separating respective sound produced by the insects by
computing certain features of each impulse and then they are compared
with the normalized spectral features (Potamitis et al., 2009). Several
spectral features were reported to be useful for discrimination viz.
Fourier transform, the dominant harmonic, and linear frequency
Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176
Limitations References
Time-consuming as it inspects a single grain, not Brabec et al. 2012, 2017; Pearson and
suitable for large capacity, unable to detect the egg, Brabec, 2007
larvae stages and dead insects, not suitable for low
moisture content sample
Costly, detects only adults insects and not suitable for Laopongsit et al., 2014; Niu et al., 2016
immature insects, requires a skilled person
Expensive, necessity of long-term training of device, use Magan & Evans, 2000; Wu et al., 2013;
of complicated data fusion techniques, expensive Zhou and Wang, 2011
sensors affected by environmental factors and need
replacement after some time, cannot detect all species
of insects
Expensive, inadequate to detect the dead and internal Zayas and Flinn, 1998; Miranda et al.,
insects, unable to classify the species of insects 2014, Vithu and Moses, 2016
Inadequate to detect insect egg, high cost, requires Karunakaran et al., 2003; Kotwaliwale
skilled workers, need safety measures to operate et al., 2007
Time-consuming, unable to categorize the mixed Nanje Gowda and Alagusundaram, 2013
variety of grains, the camera is expensive, cannot
identify the development stages of insects
Sophisticated system requires a skilled person to Shuman and Epsky, 2001; Flinn et al.,
operate, expensive, unable to detect the dead insects 2009
High cost and required trained person, inadequate to Neethirajan et al., 2007; Maghirang
detect low levels of infestation, requires calibration and et al., 2003
care of equipment
Cannot detect eggs and dead insects, requires sound Eliopoulos et al., 2015; Fleurat-Lessard
and vibration-insulated structure, detects within a et al. 2006; Mankin & Hagstrum, 2012;
suitable range, sophisticated equipment Pearson and Brabec, 2007
cespstral coefficients (Mankin et al., 2009). Clustering of features of
insect produced sound have been used to discriminate the background
noise features viz. vector quantization and Gaussian mixture models
(Potamitis et al., 2009).
3.4.1.3. Acoustic temporal pattern features. The authenticity of insect
detection can be enhanced by consolidating temporal pattern features.
Many insects possess behavioral patterns with regularities. Some of the
patterns with insufficient regularities were not characterized reliably by
the computer programs, but some studies found that these patterns
were identified as a burst of impulses separated by quiet intervals of
0.25 s or more (Mankin et al., 2009). About six impulses occurred in a
burst due to feeding or movement of insects. This phenomenon can be
used as signal features to discriminate a target insect sound from the
background sounds. Identification of temporal features is easy for large
and active insects. Consolidation of bursts as a signal processing feature
enables the removal of wind-induced trapping noise or other
background noise similar to the sound signals produced by insects.
A detailed description of advantages and limitations of modern
methods employed for insect detection are tabulated in Table 2.
4. Conclusions
Several methods are available to detect the insect infestation in
stored foodgrains. Among conventional methods, visual inspection is a
simple, direct and inexpensive method but not suitable for bulk storage,
detection of hidden and low-density infestation; besides being time-
consuming. Sampling probes and traps can be effective but are time-
consuming and tedious in nature and provide only the temporal data
and sometimes need destruction of samples. The visual lure is a
174
K.S. Banga et al.
chemical-free method which attracts the insect by light but their ac-
curacy is affected by environmental factors and offers low sensitivity
and gives information only about adult insects. Pheromones method
does not need sampling and it can detect the internal as well as external
insects, however its detection effciency is limited to few species of in-
sects as limited information is available on different pheromone char-
acteristics. Berlese funnel method is one of the most common methods
used in grain elevators, but it is slow, unable to detect hidden infesta-
tion and accuracy depends on insects’ size. The uric acid detection
method is an officially accepted method in many developing countries,
however it is applicable to highly infested grains and produces low
sensitivity. Hidden infestation detector is a simple, cost-effective ap-
paratus but it is applicable for a very small quantity, and destructive in
nature. Most of the conventional methods show effectiveness for ex-
ternal detection only.
In recently developed methods, electrical conductance method de-
tects the hidden infestation but it cannot detect the egg and larvae
stages and requires high moisture content and applicable only for single
grain characterization at a time. The solid phase micro extraction
method coupled with dynamic headspace has high sensitivity but it can
detect only the adult stages and requires the skilled person for the
operation and analysis. An electronic nose in the detection of insects
provides the quick, objective, less poisoning high technology but its
limitation lies in the requirement of a large amount of experimental
data to train the sensors; besides the sensors are affected by the en-
vironmental factors and also their efficiency decreases over time.
Machine Vision system operating in visible range is used for various
applications in agricultural operations and it shows the ability to clas-
sify the grains but it is expensive and unable to detect the dead and
internal insects. X-ray is a non-destructive and direct method, applic-
able for internal as well as external detection but it is costly and
harmful as it requires the skilled person. Thermal imaging has the po-
tential to identify the infested and sound grains but it cannot identify
the development stages of insects and it is low in cost as compared to
the hyperspectral and fluorescence imaging. EGPIC is a real-time au-
tomatic monitoring method suitable for bulk storage but it restricts the
placement of EGPIC to easily accessible locations. NIR spectroscopy
cannot detect the low level of infestation and unable to differentiate
between the live and dead insects but it is very sensitive to the moisture
content of samples. Acoustic detection technique demonstrates the su-
perior sensitivity in internal and external infestation as well as it is low
in cost, automatic, rapid, non-destructive and able to perform well in
bulk storage of grains. Discrimination of background noise from the
insect's sound spectrum is a challenging task. The advent of various
software, technology, and statistical tools reduced the complexity in the
analysis of capture sound spectrums. Therefore, it has a potential to be
used in bulk storage of food grains for early detection of insect in-
festation. Some researchers suggest large-scale application of this
technology to ensure the safety of stored agriculture produces. There is
a need for such a potential technology which caters automation, high
efficiency in bulk storage, less human power and little or no destruction
of the commodity. With the advancement of computational power and
availability of very good sensing devices at affordable cost, acoustic
technology emerges as a promising technique to non-destructively de-
tect and continuously monitor insects in stored food grains.
References
Abuelnnor, N., Jones, P. R. H., Ratcliffe, N. M., de Lacy Costello, B., & Spencer-Phillips, P.
T. (2010). Investigation of the semiochemicals of confused flour beetle
Triboliumconfusum Jaquelin du Val and grain weevil Sitophilus granarius (L.) in
stored wheat grain and flour. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 7(2), 105–121.
Anonymous (1991). AICRP on post-harvest technology (1976-90). Bhopal: CIAE53–56.
Asrar, M., Ashraf, N., Hussain, S. M., Zia, K., & Rasool, B. (2016). Toxicity and repellence
of plant oils against Tribolium castaneum (herbst), Rhyzopertha Dominica (f.) and
Trogoderma granarium (e.). Pak. Entomol. 38(1), 55–63.
Aviara, N. A., Fabiyi, O. E., Ojediran, J. O., Ogunniyi, O. I., & Onatola, I. T. (2016).
Application of computer vision in food grain quality inspection, evaluation and
175
Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176
control during bulk storage. 37th Annual conference and annual general meeting–“minna
2016”.
BIS (1970). IS: 4333 (part V) - determination of uric acid. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
standards.
Brabec, D., Dowell, F., Campbell, J., & West, M. (2017). Detection of internally infested
popcorn using electrically conductive roller mills. Journal of Stored Products Research,
70, 37–43.
Brabec, D., Pearson, T., & Flinn, P. W. (2012). Detection of lesser grain borer larvae in
internally infested kernels of Brown rice and wheat using an electrically conductive
roller Mill1. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 19(6), 727–733.
Brabec, D., Pearson, T., Flinn, P., & Katzke, D. (2010). Detection of internal insects in
wheat using a conductive roller mill and estimation of insect fragments in the re-
sulting flour. Journal of Stored Products Research, 46(3), 180–185.
Chelladurai, V., Kaliramesh, S. J., & Jayas, D. J. (2012). Detection of Callosobruchus
Maculatus (F.) Infestation in Mung Bean (Vignaradiata) using Thermal Imaging
Technique. NABEC/CSBE12–121.
Chelladurai, V., Karuppiah, K., Jayas, D. S., Fields, P. G., & White, N. D. G. (2014).
Detection of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) infestation in soybean using soft X-ray
and NIR hyperspectral imaging techniques. Journal of Stored Products Research, 57,
43–48.
Chu, X., Wang, W., Yuan, Y., Xi, M., Yoon, S. C., & Peng, Y. (2014, July). Detection of
Mildew maize kernels using FT-NIR spectroscopy. 2014 Montreal, Quebec Canada July
13–July 16, 2014 (pp. 1). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Dakshinmurthy, A., & Ali, N. (1984). A simple device for determining hidden infestation
in grains. In: Proc. Of the XXI Annual Convention of ISAE held at New Delhi during April,
1984.
Davies, E. R. (2005). Machine vision: theory, algorithms, Practicalities. New York: Morgan
Kaufmann0-12-206093-8.
Eliopoulos, P. A., Potamitis, I., Kontodimas, D. C., & Givropoulou, E. G. (2015). Detection
of adult beetles inside the stored wheat mass based on their acoustic emissions.
Journal of Economic Entomology, 108(6), 2808–2814.
Elizabeth, B. M., Dowell, F. E., Baker, J. E., & Throne, J. E. (2002). Detecting single wheat
kernels containing live or dead insects using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. ASAE
Paper No. 023067Chicago, IL: ASAE.
Epsky, N. D., & Shuman, D. (2001). Laboratory evaluation of an improved electronic grain
probe insect counter. Journal of Stored Products Research, 37(2), 187–197.
Evans, P., Persaud, K. C., McNeish, A. S., Sneath, R. W., Hobson, N., & Magan, N. (2000).
Evaluation of a radial basis function neural network for the determination of wheat
quality from electronic nose data. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 69(3), 348–358.
Fleurat-Lessard, F. (2006). Advanced methods for the monitoring of fungal spoilage and
insect pest infestation risks during cereal storage. Industries des Cereales, 148.
Fleurat-Lessard, F., Tomasini, B., Kostine, L., & Fuzeau, B. (2006). Acoustic detection and
automatic identification of insect stages activity in grain bulks by noise spectra
processing through classification algorithms. In: Proc. 9th international working con-
ference on stored product protection (pp. 15–18). .
Flinn, P. W., Opit, G. P., & Throne, J. E. (2009). Predicting stored grain insect population
densities using an electronic probe trap. Journal of Economic Entomology, 102(4),
1696–1704.
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (2014). Global initiative on food
losses and waste reduction. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Ghaedian, A. R. (1995). Detection of insect infestation in stored products by instrumental
methods of analysis.
Gunasekaran, S. (1996). Computer vision technology for food quality assurance - review.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 7, 245–256.
Hagstrum, D. W., Flinn, P. W., & Shuman, D. (1996). Automated monitoring using
acoustical sensors for insects in farm-stored wheat. Journal of Economic Entomology,
89(1), 211–217.
ISO 6639-3 (2001). Cereals and Pulses - determination of hidden insect infestation. Part 3:
Reference method (English).
Jha, S. N., Vishwakarma, R. K., Ahmad, T., Rai, A., & Dixit, A. K. (2015). Report on as-
sessment of quantative harvest and post-harvest losses of major crops and commodities in
IndiaICAR-All India Coordinated Research Project on Post-Harvest Technology ICAR-
CIPHET, PO-PAU, Ludhiana-141004.
Karunakaran, C., Jayas, D. S., & White, N. D. G. (2003). Soft X-ray inspection of wheat
kernels infested by Sitophilus oryzae. Transactions of the ASAE, 46(3), 739–745.
Karunakaran, C., Jayas, D. S., & White, N. D. G. (2003a). X-ray image analysis to detect
infestations caused by insects in grain. Cereal Chemistry, 80(5), 553–557.
Kavdir, I., Lu, R., Ariana, D., & Ngouajio, M. (2007). Visible and near-infrared spectro-
scopy for nondestructive quality assessment of pickling cucumbers. Postharvest
Biology and Technology, 44(2), 165–174.
Khairunniza-Bejo, S., & Jamil, N. (2013). Preliminary study on detection of fungal in-
fection in stored paddy using thermal image. International Proceedings of Chemical,
Biological and Environmental Engineering, 60, 19–23.
Kim, S. S., Phyu, M. R., Kim, J. M., & Lee, S. H. (2003). Authentication of rice using near
infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Cereal Chemistry, 80(3), 346–349.
Kiobia, D. O., Tumbo, S. D., Cantillo, J., Rohde, B. B., Mallikarjunan, P. K., & Mankin, R.
W. (2015). Characterization of sounds in maize produced by internally feeding in-
sects: Investigations to develop inexpensive devices for detection of prostephanus-
truncatus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae) in small-scale storage facilities in sub-saharan africa. Florida
Entomologist, 98(2), 405–409.
Kotwaliwale, N., Kalne, A., & Singh, K. (2011). Radiography, CT and MRI. In S. N. Jha
(Ed.). Book chapter in non-destructive evaluation of food quality-theory and practice.
Berlin: Springer.
Kotwaliwale, N., Singh, K., Kalne, A., Jha, S. N., Seth, N., & Kar, A. (2014). X-ray imaging
methods for internal quality evaluation of agricultural produce. Journal of Food
K.S. Banga et al.
Science & Technology, 51(1), 1–15.
Kotwaliwale, N., Subbiah, J., Weckler, P. R., Brusewitz, G. H., & Kranzler, G. A. (2007).
Calibration of a soft X-ray digital imaging system for biological materials.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 50(2),
661–666.
Kotwaliwale, N., Weckler, P. R., Brusewitz, G. H., Kranzler, G. A., & Maness, N. O.
(2007a). Non-destructive quality determination of pecans using soft X-rays.
Postharvest Biology and Technology, 45(3), 372–380.
Kumar, S., Mohapatra, D., Kotwaliwale, N., & Singh, K. K. (2017). Vacuum hermetic
fumigation: A review. Journal of Stored Products Research, 71, 47–56.
Laopongsit, W., & Srzednicki, G. (2010). Early detection of insect infestation in stored
grain based on head space analysis of volatile compounds. Julius-Kühn-Archiv, (425),
999.
Laopongsit, W., Srzednicki, G., & Craske, J. (2014). Preliminary study of solid phase
micro-extraction (SPME) as a method for detecting insect infestation in wheat grain.
Journal of Stored Products Research, 59, 88–95.
Leblnac, M. P., Gaunt, D., & Fleurat-Lessard, F. (2011). Experimental study of acoustic
equipment for real-time insect detection in grain bins—assessment of their potential
for infestation risk prediction during long term storage periods. IOBC-WPRS Bulletin,
69, 79–88.
Litzkow, C. A., Shuman, D., Kruss, S., & Coffelt, J. A. (1997). U.S. Patent No. 5,646,404.
Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Magan, N., & Evans, P. (2000). Volatiles as an indicator of fungal activity and differ-
entiation between species, and the potential use of electronic nose technology for
early detection of grain spoilage. Journal of Stored Products Research, 36(4), 319–340.
Maghirang, E. B., Dowell, F. E., Baker, J. E., & Throne, J. E. (2003). Automated detection
of single wheat kernels containing live or dead insects using near–infrared reflectance
spectroscopy. Transactions of the ASAE, 46(4), 1277.
Manickavasagan, A., Jayas, D. S., & White, N. D. G. (2008). Thermal imaging to detect
infestation by Cryptolestes ferrugineus inside wheat kernels. Journal of Stored
Products Research, 44(2), 186–192.
Mankin, R., & Hagstrum, D. W. (2012). Acoustic monitoring of insects. Stored Product
Protection, 263.
Mankin, R. W., & Moore, A. (2010). Acoustic detection of oryctes rhinoceros (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) and nasutitermes luzonicus (Isoptera: Termitidae) in palm
trees in urban Guam. Journal of Economic Entomology, 103(4), 1135–1143.
Mankin, R. W., Samson, P. R., & Chandler, K. J. (2009). Acoustic detection of
Melolonthine larvae in Australian sugarcane. Journal of Economic Entomology, 102(4),
1523–1535.
Mannell, R. (2008). Speech acoustics. http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/acoustics/frequency/
analog_digital.html.
Minkevich, J. M., Demianyk, C. J., White, N. D. G., Jayas, D. S., & Timlick, B. (2002). A
rapid method to detect Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Cucujidae) larvae in
stored grain. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 82(3), 591–597.
Miranda, J. L., Gerardo, B. D., & Tanguilig, B. T., III (2014). Pest detection and extraction
using image processing techniques. International Journal of Computer and
Communication Engineering, 3(3), 189.
Mohan, S. (2007). Ecofriendly post-harvest technologies for management of stored grain
insects. Green Farming, 1, 45–47.
Mohan, S., Gopalan, M., Sundarababu, P. C., & Sreenarayanan, V. V. (1994). Practical
studies on the use of light traps and bait traps in the management of Rhyzopertha
Dominica (F.) in rice warehouses. International Journal of Pest Management, 40(2),
148–152.
Mohan, S., & Rajesh, A. (2016). Tools for stored product insects management and tech-
nology transfer. Indian Journal of Entomology, 78(special), 59–63.
Nanje Gowda, N. A., & Alagusundaram, K. (2013). Use of thermal imaging to improve the
food grains quality during storage. Internat. J. Current Agric. Res, 1(7), 34–41.
Narendra, V. G., & Hareesh, K. S. (2010). Prospects of computer vision automated grading
and sorting systems in agricultural and food products for quality evaluation - a re-
view. International Journal of Computer Application, 2(1), 43–65.
Neethirajan, S., Karunakaran, C., Jayas, D. S., & White, N. D. G. (2007). Detection
techniques for stored-product insects in grain. Food Control, 18(2), 157–162.
Niu, Y., Hardy, G., Agarwal, M., Hua, L., & Ren, Y. (2016). Characterization of volatiles
Tribolium castaneum (H.) in flour using solid phase micro extraction–gas chroma-
tography mass spectrometry (SPME–GCMS). Food Science and Human Wellness, 5(1),
24–29.
Njoroge, A. W., Affognon, H., Mutungi, C., Richter, U., Hensel, O., Rohde, B., et al.
(2017). Bioacoustics of acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae:
Bruchinae) on Phaseolus vulgaris (Fabaceae). Florida Entomologist, 100(1), 109–115.
Njoroge, A. W., Affognon, H., Mutungi, C., Rohde, B., Richter, U., Hensel, O., et al.
(2016). Frequency and time pattern differences in acoustic signals produced by
Prostephanus truncatus (Horn)(Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and Sitophilus zeamais
(Motschulsky)(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in stored maize. Journal of Stored Products
Research, 69, 31–40.
Oerke, E. C. (2006). Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 144(01),
31–43.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains:
Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081.
Patel, K. K., Kar, A., Jha, S. N., & Khan, M. A. (2012). Machine vision system: A tool for
176
View publication stats
Food Control 94 (2018) 167–176
quality inspection of food and agricultural products. Journal of Food Science &
Technology, 49(2), 123–141.
Pearson, T., & Brabec, D. L. (2007). Detection of wheat kernels with hidden insect in-
festations with an electrically conductive roller mill. Applied Engineering in Agriculture,
23(5), 639.
Pearson, T. C., Brabec, D. L., & Schwartz, C. R. (2003). Automated detection of internal
insect infestations in whole wheat kernels using a PERTEN SKCS 4100. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture, 19(6), 727–733.
Perez-Mendoza, J., Throne, J. E., Dowell, F. E., & Baker, J. E. (2003). Detection of insect
fragments in wheat flour by near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Stored Products
Research, 39(3), 305–312.
Phaisangittisagul, E., Nagle, H. T., & Areekul, V. (2010). Intelligent method for sensor
subset selection for machine olfaction. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 145,
507–515.
Pittendrigh, B. R., Huesing, J. E., Shade, R. E., & Murdock, L. L. (1997). Monitoring of rice
weevil, Sitophilus oryzae, feeding behavior in maize seeds and the occurence of su-
pernumerary molts in low humidity conditions. Entomologia Experimentalis et
Applicata, 83(2), 225–231.
Potamitis, I., Ganchev, T., & Kontodimas, D. (2009). On automatic bioacoustic detection
of pests: The cases of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Sitophilus oryzae. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 102(4), 1681–1690.
Prabhu, K. M. M. (2013). Window functions and their applications in signal processing. CRC
Press.
Rajendran, S. (2005). Detection of insect infestation in stored foods. Advances in Food &
Nutrition Research, 49, 163–232.
Ridgway, C., & Chambers, J. (1996). Detection of external and internal insect infestation
in wheat by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture, 71(2), 251–264.
Sarwar, M. (2013). Development and boosting of integrated insect pests management in
stored grains. Research Review: Journal Agricultural Allied Science, 2(4), 16–20.
Semple, R. L. (1980). Inspection procedures for grain handling facilities and methods for
detecting stored grain insects. Inspection and detection methods for storage insect pests.
FAO Corporate Document Repository.
Senthilkumar, T., Jayas, D. S., White, N. D. G., Freund, M. S., Shafai, C., & Thomson, D. J.
(2012). Characterization of volatile organic compounds released by granivorous in-
sects in stored wheat. Journal of Stored Products Research, 48, 91–96.
Sharon, M., Abirami, C. V., & Alagusundaram, K. (2014). Grain storage management in
India. Journal of Post-Harvest Technology, 2(1), 12–24.
Shimoda, M., & Honda, K. I. (2013). Insect reactions to light and its applications to pest
management. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 48(4), 413–421.
Shuman, D., & Epsky, N. D. (2001). Commercialization of the electronic grain probe in-
sect counter. Proceeding of an international conference on controlled atmosphere and
fumigation in stored poducts, Fresno, CA. Vol. 29. Proceeding of an international con-
ference on controlled atmosphere and fumigation in stored poducts, Fresno, CA (pp. 665–
677).
Singh, M., Kaur, G., & Kaur, S. (2004). Machine vision: an upcoming realm everyman’s sci-
ence, 42, 186–189.
Stetter, J. R., Findlay, M. W., Jr., Schroeder, K. M., Yue, C., & Penrose, W. R. (1993).
Quality classification of grain using a sensor array and pattern recognition. Analytica
Chimica Acta, 284, 1–11.
Sun, D. W. (2016). Computer vision technology for food quality evaluation. Academic Press.
Vithu, P., & Moses, J. A. (2016). Machine vision system for food grain quality evaluation:
A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 56, 13–20.
Wilson, A. D. (2012). Review of electronic-nose technologies and algorithms to detect
hazardous chemicals in the environment. Proceeding Technology, 1, 453–463.
Wilson, A. D. (2013). Diverse applications of electronic-nose technologies in agriculture
and forestry. Sensors, 13(2), 2295–2348.
World Bank (2011). World Bank, FAO, NRI missing food: The case of post-harvest grain losses
in sub-saharan Africa. Washington, DC: Economic Sector Work Report No. 60371-
AFRWorld Bank.
Wu, J., Jayas, D. S., Zhang, Q., White, N. D. G., & York, R. K. (2013). Feasibility of the
application of electronic nose technology to detect insect infestation in wheat.
Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 55.
Xing, J., & Guyer, D. (2008). Comparison of transmittance and reflectance to detect insect
infestation in Montmorency tart cherry. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
64(2), 194–201.
Yacob, Y., Ahmad, H., Saad, P., Aliana, R., Raof, A., & Ismail, S. (2005). A comparison
between X-ray and MRI in the postharvest non-destructive detection method.
Proceedings of the international conference on information technology and multimedia at
UNITEN (ICIMU ‘05), Malaysia.
Zayas, I. Y., & Flinn, P. W. (1998). Detection of insects in bulk wheat samples with ma-
chine vision. Transactions of the ASAE, 41, 883–888.
Zhang, H., & Wang, J. (2007). Detection of age and insect damage incurred by wheat,
with an electronic nose. Journal of Stored Products Research, 43(4), 489–495.
Zhang, H., Wang, J., Tian, X., Yu, H., & Yu, Y. (2007). Optimization of sensor array and
detection of stored duration of wheat by electronic nose. Journal of Food Engineering,
82(4), 403–408.
Zhou, B., & Wang, J. (2011). Detection of insect infestations in paddy field using an
electronic nose. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 13(5).