Wool Testing Grant

Christopher Schauer, Hettinger Research Extension Center

Igathinathane Cannayen, Ag & Biosystems Engineering

Reid Redden, Animal Science Department*

(Currently with Texas A&M)

Background

• ASI convention 2012 asked if a cell phone

could take a picture and “Grade” Wool

– Willing to sacrifice some accuracy to have an

inexpensive, widely available software to

analyze wool.

• Establish Collaborative Scientist

– Igathi Cannayen, Ag & Biosystems

Background

• Cell Phone Camera – not good enough

• Scanner (19200 DPI – 1.3 micron

resolution) and software analysis

Plan of Work

Possible system modification leading to

simpler layout (similar to laser instrument)

– but intelligent program evaluating from fiber

clusters of simpler layout

Time consuming layout Simpler layout

Budget

• Transportation – $4,500

• Labor - $8,500

• Equipment - $6,000

• Publication - $1,000

• Indirects - $2,000

• Total - $22,000

– Delivery of 3 “units” with the software installed

Report of Tasks Completed

• Single fiber layout – plugin developed

• Steel wool fibers – measured

• Effect of weight in fiber layout – studied

• Calibration using microscope – completed

• Tungsten wire calibration – completed

• Running same samples – OFDA & Scanning – calibration

• Development of glass cover & SS plate

• Development of feature rich plugin – OFDA calibration

Delivery of NDSU OonSA (Wool Scan Analyzer and

user manual) today on a USB key!

Development path and update from last year:

Snapshot of overall measurement procedure

using NDSU OonSA

• Handling multiple fiber layout

• 19,200 DPI = 1.3 mic; also handle higher DPI images

• Simpler interface; DPI, Wool type, Ear tag#

• Inbuilt OFDA based calibration

• Results in 2 textual and 2 graphical formats

• Several cutoff factors to select less variation chosen

• Plugin integrated in Fiji/ImageJ

• Optionally operated by shortcut

• Windows and Mac versions

• Entire software (Fiji + OonSA) comes in a flash drive

• Future updates can be communicated through *.jar files

Features of NDSU OonSA

Details of Procedure – Scanning Wool

• Scan preview showing the scanner bed (black), transparent sheet, glass cover, stainless steel frame, and wool sample

• Advanced mode for selecting 0.5” by 0.5” scan window and 19200 DPI

Fiji/ImageJ and NDSU OonSA

• Fiji/ImageJ is the basic open source image processing system• NDSU OonSA is the developed plugin – installed in Fiji• Windows and Mac version already developed

Details of Procedure

Opening Image & Plugin Operation

• Image can be opened by drag & drop or by File > Open• Plugin input panel receives simple inputs

Details of Procedure

Multiple fiber layout

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

Details of Procedure

Textual output - Log

• Results summary in the form of log window • Accumulates results

Details of Procedure

Graphical outputs – Frequency & Widths

• Fifty frequency intervals – width vs % of fibers• accumulates results

Details of Procedure

Interpretation of results

• Red numbers - labeled measurements used in the analysis• Blue crosses indicate no overlap segments - measured but not included in

the analysis – due to excess variation and touching grids• Gray lines indicate 12 actual width measurements – average used• Black lines grids for digitally chopping the fibers

Details of Procedure

Spreadsheet – Storing results

• Spreadsheet output of the results analysis summary – automatic generation• New results are appended – whole history of results stored • Contents copied for storage/report or further analysis – friendly format

Details of Procedure

Results

• Set of washed wool and greasy wool tested

• Same samples subjected to OFDA and OonSA plugin

• Calibration equations using (i) U.S. grade diameter chart

and (ii) OFDA measurements were developed

• Both calibration equations were comparable

• OFDA calibration equations were used in OonSA plugin

• Running more samples – different sets will improve the

calibration equation – hence accuracy of OonSA

US grade chart calibration

• Calibration model (rather than single factor) was used• Washed wool lines up well • Greasy wool older samples – reduced R2 - same US chart values used – no

correction for grease applied

Results

y=1.1899x- 40.064

R²=0.90748

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

U.S.WoolStd.Dia(micron)

OonSAdirectvalues(micron)

Washedwool

y=1.2884x- 46.404

R²=0.721910

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

U.S.W

oolStd.Dia(micron)

OonSAdirectvalues(micron)

Greasywoll

US grade chart calibration – values compared

• Variation exists even between US chart value and OFDA (Blue & Gray bars)• Washed wool trends are better • Greasy wool samples more variation among methods - older samples - same

US chart values used – no correction for grease applied

Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

36 44 46 48 50 54 56 58 60 62 64 70 80

Woolfiberdiameter(m

icron)

Grade

Washedwool

Actual OFDA OonSA

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

36 40 44 46 48 50 54 56 58 60 62 64 70 80

Woolfiberdiameter(m

icron)

Grade

GreasywoolActual OFDA OonSA

OFDA & OonSA calibration

• Calibration equations were similar for US grade values and OonSA• These equations used in OonSA plugin

Results

y=1.1851x- 39.92

R²=0.89404

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

OFDADia(m

icron)

OonSAdirectvalues(micron)

Washedwool

y=1.2286x- 42.889

R²=0.789010

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

OFD

ADia(micron)

OonSAdirectvalues(micron)

Greasywoll

OFDA & OonSA calibration – values comparison

• More variation with greasy then washed • With washed good comparison obtained throughout grades – some highly

deviated• More sets of samples would improve accuracy

Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

36 44 46 48 50 54 56 58 60 62 64 70 80

Woolfiberdiameter(m

icron)

Grade

Washedwool

OFDA OonSA

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

36 40 44 46 48 50 54 56 58 60 62 64 70 80

Woolfiberdiameter(m

icron)

Grade

GreasywoolOFDA OonSA

• Developed NDSU OonSA plugin produces acceptable results

• Cost of the developed system excluding the computer is well than $200 (scanner + supplies) Field of view better for scanner

• Preparation time for laying out sample is slightly longer than OFDA

• Processing time (scan time + analysis) is 1 minute 15 seconds –high RAM computers will have better speed

• Variation exists even with OFDA compared to grade chart values

• OonSA is rich in features yet simple to operate (textual and graphical outputs + data storage)

• A user manual was developed

Conclusions

Status of Budget

• $6,800 returned to Wool Council

– We didn’t think buying computers and

scanners was necessary.

– USB key is the only deliverable needed.

Future Developments

• Additional field testing

• Calibration routine already included – but need to be

developed for user application

• Users scan known wools and develop their calibration –

hence better measurements (a standard similar to OFDA)

• With user-defined calibration, OonSA can work

irrespective of (i) type of scanner or imaging device –

(camera, microscope), (ii) type of sample – extended to

other type of fibers (e.g., mohair)

The Good:

• R2 between 0.79 and

0.90, depending on

washed vs. clean

• Relatively user

friendly

• $200 cost – just a

scanner

• Easily upgraded to

address

improvements

• 1.5 minutes to run a

sample

The Limitations:

• Version 1 is a proof of

concept, additional

testing is needed.

• Sample layout is still

very important for

accuracy.

• It measures a small

area, not a whole

staple.

Where could it be used best?

• Vocational Education instructors

• Youth activities and livestock shows

• Small ram sales that don’t have access to the

OFDA units

• Measuring the affects of nutrition/stress

throughout the staple length (research?)

• Extension Agents

• In my opinion, its best use if it is kept cheap

(free?) and highly available.

What’s next?

• Wool Council needs to decide if they like

the product and want to continue

development – we are interested in

upgrading it.

• We will publish the results. It will be open

access at that point – no patents.

• Marketing? You tell us how you would like

to proceed. We are not marketers.

Questions