Infrared and Laser Engineering, Volume. 52, Issue 8, 20230265(2023)
A study on the uniform distribution and counting method of raw cow's milk somatic cells based on microfluidic chip
Figures & Tables(13)
Fig. 1. Simulation of cell distribution. (a) Particle distribution of observation cavity radius and flow channel width at different ratios; (b) Particle distribution of nine-cell channel
Fig. 2. Microfluidic chip preparation. (a) Anode mode of microfluidic chip channel; (b) Photolithography step; (c) Microfluidic chip preparation process; (d) Nine-cell grid microfluidic chip
Fig. 3. Image processing process. (a) Original image; (b) Grayscale image; (c) Filtered image; (d) Enhanced image; (e) Output image after the Canny edge detection; (f) The final output image after morphological opening operation
Fig. 6. (a) Microscopic imaging systems; (b) Schematic diagram of the two-degree-of-freedom displacement platform
Fig. 7. Somatic cell images. (a) Taken on nine-grid microfluidic chip; (b) Taken on slides
Fig. 9. (a) Bar graph of measured values compared to true values; (b) Error distribution between the measured and true values
Fig. 10. (a) Neutrophil; (b) Lymphocyte; (c) Mammary epithelium; (d) Macrophage
Table 1. Number of somatic cells per image in each group and the standard deviation coefficient
View tableView in ArticleTable 1. Number of somatic cells per image in each group and the standard deviation coefficient
Group number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Standard deviation coefficient Standard deviation coefficient(1/9) 1 179 180 177 181 182 178 177 182 180 1.08% 4.31% 2 152 151 153 149 150 149 151 152 148 1.11% 4.37% 3 286 290 291 287 287 288 290 287 288 0.60% 2.06% 4 171 169 167 172 173 168 170 172 169 1.19% 3.81% 5 347 350 351 350 349 347 348 347 350 0.45% 1.67% 6 121 118 119 120 117 119 118 121 120 1.17% 5.85% 7 773 770 768 769 771 770 772 768 770 0.22% 1.75% 8 528 525 526 523 525 524 529 526 527 0.36% 1.21% 9 153 152 149 148 151 152 149 150 148 1.24% 4.36% 10 407 403 405 404 406 402 403 407 405 0.45% 1.55% 11 1094 1092 1095 1088 1089 1090 1092 1091 1093 0.21% 1.53% 12 163 167 165 164 163 164 166 165 164 0.81% 3.92% 13 903 905 899 902 907 900 902 905 901 0.29% 1.37% 14 309 312 310 307 308 306 311 312 310 0.69% 2.05% 15 455 456 451 456 457 453 452 451 454 0.50% 2.13% 16 789 783 786 784 782 785 783 780 781 0.35% 1.46% 17 471 470 469 470 468 472 466 471 467 0.43% 1.34% 18 216 214 216 213 215 214 212 216 215 0.66% 3.09% 19 614 613 615 610 616 612 613 611 616 0.35% 1.03% 20 107 109 111 112 109 111 108 110 112 1.61% 5.81%
Table 2. Criteria for judging the cow’s udder health status and degree of illness
View tableView in ArticleTable 2. Criteria for judging the cow’s udder health status and degree of illness
SCC/mL Cow’s udder health status Degree of illness SCC < 200 000 Healthy - 200 000 < SCC < 300 000 Subclinical suspicion Slight 300 000 < SCC < 400 000 Subclinical suspicion Moderate 400 000 < SCC < 500 000 Subclinical suspicion Severe 500 000 < SCC < 600 000 Subclinical mastitis Slight 600 000 < SCC < 800 000 Subclinical mastitis Moderate 800 000 < SCC < 1 000 000 Subclinical mastitis Severe 1 000 000 < SCC < 1 200 000 Clinical mastitis Slight 1 200 000 < SCC < 1 500 000 Clinical mastitis Moderate SCC > 1 500 000 Severe clinical mastitis Severe
Table 3. Judging the cow’s udder health status and degree of illness
View tableView in ArticleTable 3. Judging the cow’s udder health status and degree of illness
Group number Manually measured value/ mL Automatically measured value/mL True value/ mL Manual relative error Automatic relative error Cow’s udder status Degree of illness Determine whether the results are consistent 1 190426 186170 189031 0.75% −1.50% Healthy - Yes 2 159574 162766 158126 0.92% 2.93% Healthy - Yes 3 306383 313830 305152 0.40% 2.84% Subclinical suspicion Moderate Yes 4 180851 176596 180413 0.24% −2.12% Healthy - Yes 5 370213 377660 372329 −0.57% 1.43% Subclinical suspicion Moderate Yes 6 126596 129787 126931 −0.26% 2.25% Healthy - Yes 7 819149 806383 821459 −0.28% −1.84% Subclinical Severe Yes 8 558511 554255 560396 −0.34% −1.10% Subclinical Slight Yes 9 159574 157447 161345 −1.10% −2.42% Healthy - Yes 10 429787 421277 426732 0.72% −1.28% Subclinical suspicion Severe Yes 11 1161702 1177660 1156930 0.41% 1.79% Clinical Slight Yes 12 175532 180851 177624 −1.18% 1.82% Healthy - Yes 13 960638 947872 963326 −0.28% −1.60% Subclinical Severe Yes 14 328723 321277 326129 0.80% −1.49% Subclinical suspicion Moderate Yes 15 482979 490426 485745 −0.57% 0.96% Subclinical suspicion Severe Yes 16 834043 843617 839188 −0.61% 0.53% Subclinical Severe Yes 17 498936 491489 496021 0.59% −0.91% Subclinical suspicion Severe Yes 18 228723 224468 226619 0.93% −0.95% Subclinical suspicion Slight Yes 19 652128 664894 647174 0.76% 2.73% Subclinical Moderate Yes 20 117021 113830 116018 0.86% −1.89% Healthy - Yes
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Wei Zhou, Minghui Wang, Guangxin An, Hongbiao Zheng, Xingyu Li, Qingyi Meng. A study on the uniform distribution and counting method of raw cow's milk somatic cells based on microfluidic chip[J]. Infrared and Laser Engineering, 2023, 52(8): 20230265
Paper Information
Category: Image processing
Received: May. 4, 2023
Accepted: --
Published Online: Oct. 19, 2023
The Author Email: Meng Qingyi (baobaomengqing@163.com)
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20