4.7 Article

Geographical origin and botanical type honey authentication through elemental metabolomics via chemometrics

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 338, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127936

关键词

Authenticity; Honey; Rare earth elements; Geographical origin; Botanical type; Chemometrics; Elemental metabolomics

资金

  1. project FoodOmicsGR Comprehensive Characterisation of Foods -Operational Programme Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (NSRF 20142020) [MIS 5029057]
  2. European Union (European Regional Development Fund)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the rare earth and trace element content of 93 honeys of different botanical types and origins using ICP-MS. Discriminant Analysis was successful in classifying both botanical type and geographical origin, while Cluster Analysis only worked for botanical type. Probabilistic Neural Network analysis correctly classified 85.3% of samples based on geographical origin and 73.3% based on organic characterization. A Partial Least Squares model was constructed with a prediction accuracy of over 95%, using information from rare earths and trace elements for classification of honey samples.
The trace and rare earth elements content of 93 honeys of different botanical type and origin have been studied through ICP-MS. Discriminant Analysis (DA) was successful for botanical type and geographical origin classification while Cluster Analysis (CA) was successful only for botanical type. Through Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN) analysis, 85.3% were correctly classified by the network according to their geographical origin and 73.3% according to their organic characterization. A Partial Least Squares (PLS) model was constructed, giving a prediction accuracy of more than 95%. Information obtained using Rare Earths (Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu) and trace elements (Li, Mg, Mn, Ni, Co, Cu, Sr, Ba, Pb) via chemometric evaluation facilitated classification of honey samples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据