4.7 Article

One-class classification of special agroforestry Brazilian coffee using NIR spectrometry and chemometric tools

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 366, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130480

关键词

Agroforestry coffee; Classification; DD-SIMCA; NIRS

资金

  1. conselho nacional de desenvolvimento cientifico e tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Instituto nacional de ciencias e tecnologias analiticas avancadas (INCTAA)
  3. CNPq [465768/2014-8]
  4. Fundacao cearense de apoio ao desenvolvimento cientifico e tecnologico (FUNCAP) [9993820/2018-PDCTR]
  5. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, near-infrared spectrometry combined with one-class classification method was used for quality control of agroforestry-grown specialty coffee, with successful verification of the authenticity of the samples. The model achieved a high correct classification rate and demonstrated its effectiveness in distinguishing specialty coffee from non-specialty types.
The near-infrared spectrometry combined with the one-class classification method was applied as quality control of the agroforestry-grown specialty coffee. A total of 34 samples were analyzed in this study. Spectral data were obtained using a NIR portable and different pre-treatment strategies for baseline correction were evaluated. Unsupervised pattern recognition (PCA and HCA) techniques were performed. The construction of the classification model was carried out using the DD-SIMCA algorithm with 19 samples acquired directly from producers that are recognized for the best quality control of the specialty type coffee. In order to test the model, 15 samples of non-specialty type, obtained in local markets, were evaluated. The classification model with the highest correct classification rate (CCR) scored 100% and 87% in the validation and test groups, respectively. The results demonstrated that the application of this strategy was successful in verifying the authenticity of specialty type agroforestry-grown coffee 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