Machine Learning-Based Identification of Plastic Types Using Handheld Spectrometers

Plastic waste and pollution is growing rapidly worldwide and most plastics end up in landfill or are incinerated because high-quality recycling is not possible. Plastic-type identification with a low-cost, handheld spectral approach could help in parts of the world where high-end spectral imaging systems on conveyor belts cannot be implemented. Here, we investigate how two fundamentally different handheld infrared spectral devices can identify plastic types by benchmarking the same analysis against a high-resolution bench-top spectral approach. We used the handheld Plastic Scanner, which measures a discrete infrared spectrum using LED illumination at different wavelengths, and the SpectraPod, which has an integrated photonics chip which has varying responsivity in different channels in the near-infrared. We employ machine learning using SVM, XGBoost, Random Forest and Gaussian Naïve Bayes models on a full dataset of plastic samples of PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP and PS, with samples of varying shape, color and opacity, as measured with three different experimental approaches. The high-resolution spectral approach can obtain an accuracy (mean ± standard deviation) of (0.97 ± 0.01), whereas we obtain (0.93 ± 0.01) for the SpectraPod and (0.70 ± 0.03) for the Plastic Scanner. Differences of reflectance at subsequent wavelengths prove to be the most important features in the plastic-type classification model when using high-resolution spectroscopy, which is not possible with the other two devices. Lower accuracy for the handheld devices is caused by their limitations, as the spectral range of both devices is limited-up to 1600 nm for the SpectraPod, while the Plastic Scanner has limited sensitivity to reflectance at wavelengths of 1100 and 1350 nm, where certain plastic types show characteristic absorbance bands. We suggest that combining selective sensitivity channels (as in the SpectraPod) and illuminating the sample with varying LEDs (as with the Plastic Scanner) could increase the accuracy in plastic-type identification with a handheld device.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sensors
Published
2025-06-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/s25123777
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Machine Learning-Based Identification of Plastic Types Using Handheld Spectrometers

Amey Vasulkar, Arie‐Willem de Leeuw, Hedde van Hoorn, Steven van den Berg et al.
5 citations
Sensors
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
2.52
article

Machine Learning-Based Identification of Plastic Types Using Handheld Spectrometers

Amey Vasulkar, Arie‐Willem de Leeuw, Hedde van Hoorn, Steven van den Berg, Johannes G. Vos, Fahimeh Pourmohammadi
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Plastic waste and pollution is growing rapidly worldwide and most plastics end up in landfill or are incinerated because high-quality recycling is not possible. Plastic-type identification with a low-cost, handheld spectral approach could help in parts of the world where high-end spectral imaging systems on conveyor belts cannot be implemented. Here, we investigate how two fundamentally different handheld infrared spectral devices can identify plastic types by benchmarking the same analysis against a high-resolution bench-top spectral approach. We used the handheld Plastic Scanner, which measures a discrete infrared spectrum using LED illumination at different wavelengths, and the SpectraPod, which has an integrated photonics chip which has varying responsivity in different channels in the near-infrared. We employ machine learning using SVM, XGBoost, Random Forest and Gaussian Naïve Bayes models on a full dataset of plastic samples of PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP and PS, with samples of varying shape, color and opacity, as measured with three different experimental approaches. The high-resolution spectral approach can obtain an accuracy (mean ± standard deviation) of (0.97 ± 0.01), whereas we obtain (0.93 ± 0.01) for the SpectraPod and (0.70 ± 0.03) for the Plastic Scanner. Differences of reflectance at subsequent wavelengths prove to be the most important features in the plastic-type classification model when using high-resolution spectroscopy, which is not possible with the other two devices. Lower accuracy for the handheld devices is caused by their limitations, as the spectral range of both devices is limited-up to 1600 nm for the SpectraPod, while the Plastic Scanner has limited sensitivity to reflectance at wavelengths of 1100 and 1350 nm, where certain plastic types show characteristic absorbance bands. We suggest that combining selective sensitivity channels (as in the SpectraPod) and illuminating the sample with varying LEDs (as with the Plastic Scanner) could increase the accuracy in plastic-type identification with a handheld device.

SensorsVol. 25(12)
The Hague University of Applied Sciences (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
2.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.