4.7 Article

Development of NIRS models for rapid quantification of protein content in sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) LAM.]

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 63-70

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.04.032

关键词

Partial least square; Non-destructive; Calibration; Validation

资金

  1. Professional Development Program of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) of South Africa through ARC-VOP
  2. National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa
  3. University of KwaZulu-Natal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is an alternative analytical method that can be used to quantify protein content in sweetpotato. It is relatively cheaper and efficient than other methods. This study was conducted to develop NIRS-based models for quantifying protein content of sweetpotato for selection or wide-area production of recommended varieties. A pool of 104 sweetpotato varieties were sampled and roots scanned using NIR spectrometer. Calibration models were developed by subjecting spectral and reference datasets to partial least squares regression. Several pre-processing methods were investigated. Models that yielded the highest coefficient of determination (R-2), residual predictive deviation (RPD) and lowest root mean square error of calibration (RMSEC) and prediction (RMSEP) were selected. Optimal model performances were obtained using second derivative pre-processing, showing the highest values of R-v(2), RMSEP and RPDv of 0.98, 0.29, and 4.0, respectively. The regression analysis indicated that informative NIR bands for quantifying protein content of sweetpotatoes ranged between 1600 and 2200 nm. The results demonstrated that NIRS is capable of predicting protein content on sweetpotatoes, rapidly and accurately. Therefore, the NIRS model developed in this study may help to quantify protein composition of sweetpotato for rapid screening of germplasm in breeding programs with high throughput and accuracy. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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