4.7 Article

Quality evaluation of intact acai and jucara fruit by means of near infrared spectroscopy

期刊

POSTHARVEST BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 64-74

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.10.001

关键词

Anthocyanin; Euterpe oleracea Mart; Euterpe edulis Mart; Classification; Partial least squares regression; Soluble solids content

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2008/51408-1, 2011/19669-2, 2013/0.6089-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to report the robustness of partial least squares regression (PLSR) models developed using FT-NIR reflectance spectra obtained from intact acai and jucara fruit. Mature fruit were collected over two years (6 populations of acari and jucara, totalling 505 samples). Diffuse reflectance spectra were acquired (64 scans and spectral resolution of 8 cm(-1)) using 25 fruits per batch on a 90 mm diameter glass dish in a single layer. Spectra were subject to several pre-processing procedures and two variable selection methods to develop the PLSR models. For total anthocyanin content (TAC) in acai, a PLSR model developed using the wavelength range of 1606-1793 nm, standard normal variate (SNV) and second derivative of Savitzky-Golay (SNV + d(2)A) achieved a bias corrected root mean square error (SEP) of 3.6 g kg(-1) and a R-p(2) of 0.7 in predicting an external independent set, which was better than PLSR models for jucara (SEP of 3.7 g kg(-1),R-p(2) of 0.5), and for both species combined (SEP of 5.7 g kg(-1), R-p(2) of 0.5). For soluble solids content (SSC) in gal the models developed using SNV + d(2)A spectra over the window of 1640-1738-nm achieved a bias-corrected SEP of 2.9% and R-p(2) of 0.8, similar to jucara (SEP of 1.1%, R-p(2) of 0.9) and for both species combined (SEP of 2.3%, R-p(2) of 0.8). The developed models can be used to sort acai and jucara based on SSC and TAC into two grades (low and high contents). (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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