4.6 Article

NIR models for predicting total sugar in tobacco for samples with different physical states

Journal

INFRARED PHYSICS & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 77, Issue -, Pages 239-243

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.infrared.2016.06.005

Keywords

NIR tobacco calibration model; Different physical states; Calibration transfer; Hybrid modeling

Funding

  1. National Key Technology Support Program [2015BAF12B01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to the spectra variation of the inhomogeneous tobacco flakes results the inaccuracy and instability of the near infrared model. This paper presented the strategies of calibration transfer and hybrid modeling for determining total sugar content in tobacco based on the homogeneous powder model. The necessity judgments and acceptance criteria of the calibration transfer were also proposed. Calibration transfer methods include Slope/Bias Correction (S/B), Piecewise Direct Standardization (PDS), double window piecewise direct standardization (DWPDS), and Shenk's were adopted, a transfer set of 15 samples were chosen for each methods, and the results showed that Shenk's is the adequate transfer method as only one indicator did not fulfill the acceptance criteria of the transfer. Other methods were all dissatisfied with the acceptance criteria and cannot be applied to the calibration transfer between the tobacco flake and powder. While the hybrid model of adding some flake samples to the powder model achieved preferred prediction ability. The study showed that adding around 10% variation samples caused the average prediction error of total sugar content (range 12.1-37.2%) in flake samples from 7.25% (predicted by a flake model) significantly dropping to 4.98%, even close to the prediction of the same powder samples (4.21%) by the powder model. It will valuable for the promotion of the NIR network and online analysis. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available