4.6 Article

Classification and authentication of tea according to their harvest season based on FT-IR fingerprinting using pattern recognition methods

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2022.104995

关键词

Tea; FT-IR spectral fingerprint; Authentication; Classification; Linear discriminant analysis; Harvest season

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential of FT-IR spectral fingerprinting was investigated for classifying tea samples based on their harvest season. The results demonstrated that the two harvest seasons of tea samples can be identified accurately using FT-IR spectral fingerprints. Classification and prediction of the harvest season of tea samples were achieved using PCA-LDA and PLS-LDA models.
The potential of FT-IR spectral fingerprinting was investigated to classify tea samples based on the harvest season (May and September). Tea samples were collected from five geographical regions (north of Iran) during the harvesting period 2019-2020. Principal component analysis (PCA), principal component analysis-linear discriminant analysis (PCA-LDA) and partial least square-linear discriminant analysis (PLS-LDA) were employed in order to assess the feasibility of discrimination of tea samples based on their harvest season using their FT-IR spectral data. The results showed that the tea samples from two harvest seasons can be identified based on FT-IR spectral fingerprints. All calibration samples were correctly classified (100.0 %) by the PCA-LDA and PLS-LDA models using leave-one-out cross validation. The mean sensitivity and specificity (for prediction set) were both 98.6 % for PCA-LDA model and 100.0 % for PLS-LDA mode. A high percentage of correct clas-sifications for the training set shows the strong relationship between the FT-IR spectral fingerprinting and the harvest season, while the satisfactory results for the prediction set demonstrates the ability to identify the harvest season of an unknown tea sample based on its FT-IR spectral data.

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

4.6
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