Detecting Pesticide Concentration Levels using
Colour Information and Machine learning
Abstract
The following research compares and
tests the proficiency suitable machine
learning models in effectively predicting
pesticide concentration levels, particularly
Organophosphate pesticide concentration
levels using only colour information. For
this task, 9 diverse machine learning
models were trained on 5 different feature
sets derived from the same dataset in
order to find the best model and
combination of features for the task with
the feature sets including the RGB, HSI,
and LAB colour spaces, either
individually or in combination. The study
found that K-Nearest Neighbours
achieved the highest accuracy, surpassing
the other models. The Ensemble models
showed promise but their inability to
capture regional patterns resulted in lower
accuracies, while the linear and
probabilistic models struggled due to
them not being able capture the complex,
non-linear patterns present in the data.
Introduction
Pesticides are essential in modern
agriculture due to their ability to protect
crops from harmful pests and diseases;
their indiscriminate usage, however,
endangers human health and can result in
environmental damage.[1] Moreover, the
advent of modern agricultural practices
has been instrumental in ensuring global
food security, but it also brings forth
challenges related to the indiscriminate
pesticide usage and its impact on the
environment and human health[1]. As a
result,
It is crucial to have accurate, efficient and
cost-effective technologies for measuring
pesticide concentration levels in order to
maintain safe food production and
sustainable agriculture practices even in
areas without developed infrastructure.
The current development in the field
involves the usage of expensive and
intricate machinery wherein a cost
analysis of the classification of pesticide
detection techniques done in published
literature demonstrates how various
techniques range from either medium to
high cost, but with none having low cost
[2]. Pesticide detection methods
currently commonly in use include gas
chromatography, liquid chromatography,
and GC-mass spectrometry. While these
methods are known for their high
accuracy they are burdened by their
exorbitant costs, substantial instrument
volumes, and limited portability.[3]
The way to counteract this is by
transferring the capabilities of this
intricate machinery, by leveraging
machine learning techniques to build a
model that can accurately recognize
pesticide concentration levels using colour
information. Since, by using Machine
Learning technology and building a
suitable model one can ideally eliminate
the need for such equipment on the field,
due to its low-cost nature of
implementation.
Therefore, In the following research, we
aim to compare multiple models to test
which models can accurately identify
pesticide concentration levels based on
colour information in order to find the
most efficient.
Nine different machine learning models
are used in the study, each of which was
trained using five different feature sets
taken from the dataset. The feature sets
include either separately or jointly the
RGB, HSI, and LAB color spaces.
Literature Review
Image processing or Picture detection is a
field that has been thoroughly researched,
even for agricultural applications [4], with
past studies indicating the potential for
future implementation of statistical
machine learning technology in
agricultural applications [5]
On the other hand, colour information has
successfully been used in other fields such
as Chemistry, in predicting concentration
levels for chemicals such as
Formaldehyde [6], or Biology in detecting
glucose concentration [7].
Its success in other such comparable fields
hints at the promise of its further
applications in the agricultural landscape.
Moreover, although studies have
investigated methodologies for the
detection of pesticide concentration levels
using colour information[8] , the
examination was confined to a restricted
set of models. This research, seeks to
extend the exploration by encompassing a
diverse array of models, aiming to
facilitate a comparative analysis of
multiple models’ accuracy levels.
Background:
The data for this dataset was collected
using an on-spot biosensor that utilizes the
Organophosphate Hydrolase enzyme
(OPH) to detect Organophosphate
Pesticides. [3] The developed OPH was
then integrated into a 96 well plate format
with UIISScan 1.1, an advanced imaging
array technology based field‐portable
high‐throughput sensory system. [8]
The UIIS utilizes the principles of
colorimetry and enzymatic reactions to
provide a rapid and reliable detection
platform.
The OPH bioreceptor is essential to the
working of the device. It is an
amidohydrolase enzyme that can
hydrolyze a wide range of
organophosphate insecticides with
specific P-F, P-O, P-S, and P-CN bonds in
their chemical structures. This unique
characteristic of OPH allows it to break
down these harmful pesticides resulting in
the formation of a yellow-coloured
product called p-nitrophenol (pNP); the
concentration of pNP is directly
proportional to the pesticide
concentration. [3] Therefore, the higher
the yellow concentration of a particular
sample, the higher the pesticide
concentration; since more pNP (yellow
byproduct) produced equates to the more
pesticides being present for the OPH to
break down, resulting in a higher yellow
concentration.
The colour information is then extracted
using a contact image sensor (CIS) as the
image array technology. The pNP
increases in intensity as the enzymatic
activity of the OPH increases, this change
in colour intensity is detected by the CIS
and translated into electronic impulses
resulting in real-time pesticide data. [3]
For the purposes of this exact dataset, the
samples were prepared using pesticide
spiked samples in a mixture of water,
NaCl, and Acetonitrile. The resultant
colour was recorded simultaneously with
a UV–Visible spectrophotometer and the
developed UIIS based system. This dual
recording system likely provided a more
accurate and reliable measure of pesticide
concentration [3].
For the purposes of this study the dataset
was divided into 6 distinct levels of
pesticide concentrations
(0,10,100,250,500,1000)(ppb).Each
datapoint consists of the respective
sample’s colour information, or 9 features
(RGBHSILAB) representing the RGB,
HSI, and LAB colour spaces, allowing us
to explore the individual and combined
influences of these colour components on
model performance.
The Models:
 Nine diverse models were chosen for this of the loss function in each iteration. By
task due to the complex nature of the data, optimizing differentiable loss functions,
They are: Gradient Boosting can efficiently handle
various classification problems.
HistGradient Boosting
1. Support Vector Machine (SVM) Histogram Gradient Boosting
2. Random Forest (HistGradient Boosting) is a variant of
3. Gradient Boosting gradient boosting that combines high-
4. Histogram Gradient Boosting speed training time with the prediction
(HistGradient Boosting) advantage of Gradient Boosting, making it
5. K-Nearest Neighbours a competitive model[12] This method is
6. Naive Bayes especially advantageous for large datasets
7. Multivariate Linear Regression(MLR) with numerous features, making it more
8. Extreme Gradient Boosting (X-Gradient scalable while maintaining performance.
Boosting) K-Nearest Neighbours
9. Logistic Regression K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN) is a
straightforward algorithm that classifies
SVM new instances based on their similarity to
The SVM divides data points belonging to neighbouring data points [13]. KNN
different classes in a high-dimensional determines the k closest data points
space, by identifying an ideal (neighbours) based on a selected distance
hyperplane[9]. It, then seeks to optimize measure when classifying a new instance.
the distance between each class's closest A majority vote among the new instance's
data points, known as the support vectors, k closest neighbours then determines its
and the hyperplane. The ability of SVM to class. This makes KNN a popular choice
maximize the margin, which makes it for classification wherein similar
resistant to outliers and data noise, instances belong to the same class such as
enhances its performance in complex this dataset.
datasets. It can successfully handle high- Naive Bayes
dimensional datasets, making it Naive Bayes classifiers are probabilistic
appropriate for this data set as well as models that make predictions based on
others with a variety of attributes. Bayes' theorem and assume strong
Random Forest independence between features [14].
A Random Forest constructs numerous These classifiers calculate the probability
decision trees, the outcomes are of a given feature belonging to a
then subsequently integrated via majority particular class during training. It then
voting[10]. By using this technique, the determines the probability of each class
likelihood of overfitting reduces, and the given the observable features when
model's capacity to generalize to huge classifying a new instance, and chooses
datasets in general improves. Thus, the class with the highest probability as
Random Forest is a great option for this the final prediction. This model performs
purpose since it can record feature particularly well in text classification and
interactions and manage high-dimensional document categorization tasks.
data. Multivariate Linear Regression
Gradient Boosting MLR models the linear relationship
Gradient Boosting is another powerful between a dependent variable and
ensemble technique that builds an multiple independent variables [15]. MLR
ensemble of weak prediction models, is helpful for datasets where a linear
typically decision trees, in an incremental equation can reasonably approximate the
manner [11] Beginning with a base connection between the variables;
model, it iteratively enhances its however, its performance may be
performance by concentrating on the constrained when dealing with complex
flaws of the earlier models. It effectively non-linear relationships.
lowers the prediction errors by fitting a X-Gradient Boosting
fresh decision tree to the negative gradient
X-Gradient Boosting is an optimized
distributed gradient boosting library
designed for speed and accuracy [16].
Similar to Gradient Boosting, XGBoost
creates an ensemble of decision trees but
it uses more regularization terms and
sophisticated optimization techniques to
boost speed. This makes the model highly
efficient and flexible, making it suitable
for a wide range of classification tasks.
Logistic Regression
Logistic regression models the
relationship between the dependent
variable and the independent factors using
the logistic function in order to forecast
the likelihood that an event will occur
[17]. Although the model is frequently
employed for binary classification
problems, complex non-linear datasets
may not lend themselves to it as well.
Methodology
We trained the Nine machine learning
models on different sets of features to
investigate the impact of colour -related
information on predicting pesticide
concentration levels.
Each model was trained on each of the 5
feature sets that the data was divided into
(RGBHSILAB, GBHSI, RGB. HSI,
LAB).
The motivation behind training models on
different feature sets stems from the need
to analyse the relative importance of
colour -related features in predicting
pesticide concentration. Although, colour
information allows us to detect the
concentration, this feature selection is
necessary to assess not only the efficacy
of each set in capturing essential patterns
Results:
Model RGBHSILAB GBHSI
Accuracy (%) Accuracy
(%)
SVM 47.34 64.85
related to pesticide concentration but also
to help us avoid the curse of
dimensionality due to potential noise
introduced by less relevant features. The
models were first trained on the
RGB color space (Red, Green, Blue)
served as the baseline experiment,
allowing us to evaluate the performance
when considering raw color information
alone. Subsequently, we explored the HSI
color space (Hue, Saturation,
Intensity) to assess the influence of hue,
saturation, and intensity components on
model accuracy. The LAB color space
(Lightness, A - Green and Red, B- Yellow
and Blue) was also considered to
understand how lightness and two colour
components (A and B) contribute to the
predictive power.
Additionally, we combined the RGB and
HSI colour spaces using selected features.
This selection consisted of the GBHSI
(Green, Blue, Hue, Saturation, Intensity)
features. Not only did this combination
showcase the best overall accuracy during
initial testing, but by doing so we aimed
to uncover potential synergistic effects
between RGB and HSI colour
components, which could provide more
comprehensive information for pesticide
concentration prediction.
Moreover, we trained models on the entire
feature set (RGBHSILAB, 1-11) to
understand how all colour -related
features together contribute to the overall
predictive performance. This allowed us
to gauge whether incorporating
information from all colour spaces
provides better accuracy than individual
colour spaces or selected combinations.
RGB HSI LAB
Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy
(%) (%) (%)
62.66 61.20 50.99
Random 61.20 65.58 55.36 64.85 59.01
Forest

Gradient 64.12 64.85 58.28 63.39 61.20

Boosting

HistGradient 58.28 59.01 54.64 63.39 62.66

Boosting

K-Nearest 64.85 70.69 62.66 58.28 47.34

Neighbours

Naive Bayes 59.74 59.74 59.01 61.93 60.47

MLR 46.61 45.91 49.53 50.99 53.91

X-Gradient 59.74 60.47 56.09 62.66 61.20

Boosting

Logistic 59.74 63.39 48.80 57.55 50.26

Regression

Figure 1: Visual Representation of the Accuracies of the models

was included in the RGBHSILAB feature

Discussion:
Due to various characteristics of each
method and the nature of the data itself,
the machine learning models performed
differently on the varied feature sets. First
off, the accuracy of the models was
considerably impacted by the feature
selection. All available colour-related data
set, which provided a thorough
representation of pesticide concentration
patterns; however the accuracy of models
trained on this feature set tended to be
lower. While, the models trained on the
GBHSI feature set tended to have higher
accuracies showcasing that the inclusion
of hue, saturation, and intensity
components may have offered useful
discriminative capacity for forecasting
pesticide concentration levels. The models
trained on the RGBHSILAB data set
resulted in lower accuracies possibly due
to the increased dimensionality and the
inclusion of less relevant or noisy features
hindering the functioning of the model.
KNN achieved the highest accuracy
(70.69%) amongst the entire batch while
utilising the GBHSI feature set. The
success of KNN lies in its ability to
capture local patterns and work with non-
linear relationships effectively. This is
presumably due to its reliance on
neighbouring data points, allowing it to
discern regional values in pesticide
concentrations. On the other hand, GBHSI
feature set in particular seemed to have
the most valuable information for the
purposes of detecting pesticide
concentration levels, as this specific
combination in features allowed the
model to find distinct patterns in the data
as opposed to other feature sets, even with
the same model, KNN using the LAB
feature set(47.34%). KNNs relative
success suggests that the dataset might
exhibit spatial or regional patterns and
that the dataset night not have strong
global patterns that ensemble models like
Random Forests and Gradient Boosting
excel at capturing.
Speaking off, ensemble models such as
Random Forests and Gradient Boosting
demonstrated relatively competitive
performances but could not reach
accuracies as high as KNN. These models
operate by leveraging the power of
combining multiple weak learners to
improve their predictive accuracy.
Random forest despite having a diverse
set of decision trees enabling it to ideally
handle complex relationships and
interaction among features, achieved a
highest accuracy of 65.58%.Similarly,
Gradient Boosting’s sequential
optimization process which enables it to
learn from errors of previous iterations
and capture intricate patterns in a data,
attained an accuracy of 64.12% from the
RGBHSILAB feature set. The lower
performance of the Ensemble methods is
due to the presence of clear regional
patterns within different classes itself as
opposed to a clear available global pattern
across all classes. Moreover, since
ensemble methods aim to optimize
performance across the entire dataset they
may struggle to capture localised
fluctuations withing classes, however
KNN’s local approach reliant on
neighbouring data points allows it to adapt
to these variations within the dataset.
While the quite lower accuracy of models
like logistic regression and MLR shows
that a linear model is unable to fully
capture complicated patterns. These
models had been unable to fit the
accuracy tiers attained by means of
greater adaptable models like KNN or
even Random forest, emphasizing the
necessity of taking into account and
adjusting for localized differences
inherent inside the dataset. additionally,
models like Naive Bayes that rely on
opportunity distributions do their
paintings via assuming sure matters
approximately the dataset and the
connections between its variables, which
may not as it should be reflect the
complex, non-linear structure of the
statistics. However, SVM additionally
performed worse than KNN in terms of
accuracy. This is probably due to the fact
if the education data for an SVM isn't
linearly separable, it turns into hard for
the version to decide most useful
parameters [9].
The numerous performances of diverse
models, even within a particular feature
with diverse characteristic sets, reveal the
complexity of the underlying, non-linear
relationships within the records.
Furthermore, for the reason that intense
outliers can nonetheless affect the
performance of ensemble models
(Random woodland, Gradient Boosting,
and XGBoost), the dataset may
additionally have contained noise or
outliers that decreased its performance.
The overall effects spotlight the complex
shape of the dataset, with capability
relationships among capabilities in the
same shade space and variances in
statistics distribution across colour areas,
however the restrictions seen in some
models.

Conclusion and Future Enhancement
The data was divided into 5 different
feature sets with each of the models being
trained on each of the feature sets. The
GBHSI feature set resulted in the most
consistent results across the models
possibly due to its discriminatory power,
or the lack of noise in the form of less
relevant features. However, the complex
nature of the data set and the presence of
regional patterns resulted in KNN being
the superior model to predict pesticide
concentration levels. Ensemble models
such as Gradient Boosting and Random
forest showed promising results but had
lower accuracies due to it not being able
to capture localized variations. While,
linear models struggled with respect to the
Citations
other models resulting in lower accuracies
across the feature sets.
Overall, this research sheds light on the
potential of colorimetric data and machine
learning models to predict pesticide
concentration levels accurately. The
findings provide valuable insights into the
most effective feature sets and models for
this task, offering opportunities for
enhanced monitoring of pesticide usage.
Future enhancements must include
modifying the models to better capture the
regional patterns present within the data in
order to obtain a higher accuracy with
other options such as feature engineering,
outlier handling and development of a
larger dataset to train the models on are
also worth considering.

[1] Aktar, Wasim, et al. “Impact of Pesticides Use in Agriculture: Their Benefits and Hazards.”
Interdisciplinary Toxicology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–12, https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-
009-0001-7.

[2] Thorat, Tanmay, et al. “Advancements in Techniques Used for Identification of Pesticide
Residue on Crops.” Journal of Natural Pesticide Research, vol. 4, 2023, p. 100031,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.napere.2023.100031.

[3] Mukherjee, Subhankar, et al. “On-Spot Biosensing Device for Organophosphate Pesticide
Residue Detection in Fruits and Vegetables.” Current Research in Biotechnology, vol. 3, 2021,
pp. 308–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbiot.2021.11.002.

[4] Sonawane, Sachin, et al. “A Literature Review on Image Processing and Classification
Techniques for Agriculture Produce and Modeling of Quality Assessment System for Soybean
Industry Sample.” International Journal of Innovative Research in Electronics and
Communications, vol. 6, no. 2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-4050.0602002.

[5] Rehman, Tanzeel U., et al. “Current and Future Applications of Statistical Machine
Learning Algorithms for Agricultural Machine Vision Systems.” Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, vol. 156, 2019, pp. 585–605, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.12.006.

[6] Cao, Zhihao, et al. “HCHODetector: Formaldehyde Concentration Detection Based on

Deep Learning.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1848, no. 1, 2021, p. 012047,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1848/1/012047.

[7] Kim, Ji-Sun, et al. “A Study on Detection of Glucose Concentration Using Changes in
Color Coordinates.” Bioengineered, vol. 8, no. 1, 2016, pp. 99–104,
https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2016.1227629.

[8] Lapcharoensuk, Ravipat, et al. “Nondestructive Detection of Pesticide Residue

(Chlorpyrifos) on Bok Choi (Brassica Rapa Subsp. Chinensis) Using a Portable NIR
Spectrometer Coupled with a Machine Learning Approach.” Foods, vol. 12, no. 5, Feb. 2023,
p. 955. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12050955.
[9] Mukherjee, Subhankar, Souvik Pal, Abhra Pal, et al. “UIISScan 1.1: A Field Portable High-
Throughput Platform Tool for Biomedical and Agricultural Applications.” Journal of
Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, vol. 174, 2019, pp. 70–80,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2019.05.042.

[10] Aktar, Wasim, et al. “Impact of Pesticides Use in Agriculture: Their Benefits and
Hazards.” Interdisciplinary Toxicology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7.

[11] Breiman, Leo. “Random Forests.” Machine Learning, vol. 45, no. 1, 2001, pp. 5–32,
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324.

[12] Friedman, Jerome H. “Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine.”

The Annals of Statistics, no. 5, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Oct. 2001. Crossref,
doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451.

[13] Guryanov, Aleksei. “Histogram-Based Algorithm for Building Gradient Boosting

Ensembles of Piecewise Linear Decision Trees.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Dec.
2019, pp. 39–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37334-4_4.

[14] Cover, T., and P. Hart. “Nearest Neighbor Pattern Classification.” IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, no. 1, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Jan. 1967,
pp. 21–27. Crossref, doi:10.1109/tit.1967.1053964.

[15] Lewis, David D. “Naive (Bayes) at Forty: The Independence Assumption in Information
Retrieval | SpringerLink.” SpringerLink, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1998,
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/bfb0026666.

[16] Alexopoulos, E C. “Introduction to multivariate regression analysis.” Hippokratia vol.

14,Suppl 1 (2010): 23-8.

[17] Chen, Tianqi, and Carlos Guestrin. “XGBoost.” Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Aug. 2016. Crossref,
https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785.

[18] Cox, D. R. “The Regression Analysis of Binary Sequences.” Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), no. 1, Wiley, Jan. 1959, pp. 238–238. Crossref,
doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1959.tb00334.