Bubble analysis during titration: A hybrid method study based on adaptive thresholding and watershed transformation


Abstract

In automated titrations in chemical experiments, syringe pump injection and rotor stirring often generate numerous random bubbles within the solution, obscuring true color and destabilizing features, leading to false endpoint detection. To address this issue, this paper proposes a hybrid segmentation framework combining adaptive thresholding and improved watershed filtering. First, illumination normalization and bilateral filtering are used as preprocessing methods. First, illumination normalization and bilateral filtering are used as preprocessing to mitigate uneven illumination. Then, an adaptive thresholding method is combined with bubble extraction, and a threshold difference feedback mechanism is introduced to ensure the accuracy of the threshold difference. Then, an adaptive thresholding method is combined with bubble extraction, and a threshold difference feedback mechanism is introduced to ensure convergence. Finally, optimized labeling is generated for the binary image and embedded in a Vincent submerged watershed to effectively mitigate over-segmentation. Experimental results show that this method achieves a PA of 0.97, IoU of 0.82, Dice of 0.9, Recall of 0.96, and Precision of 0.84, outperforming other segmentation methods. Ablation experiments verify the effective complementarity of these modules. This method provides robust, real-time technical support for accurate analysis of the segmentation methods. This method provides robust, real-time technical support for accurate analysis of titrations and other bubble-containing scenarios.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].