4.7 Article

Study on feasibility of determination of glucosamine content of fermentation process using a micro NIR spectrometer

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2018.05.005

关键词

N-acetyl-D-glucosamine (GlcNAc); Microbial fermentation; Process analytical technology (PAT); Passing-Bablok regression method; Micro near infrared spectrometer

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2017MB012]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017 M622224]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

N-acetyl-D-glucosamine (GlcNAc) is a microbial fermentation product, and NIR spectroscopy is an effective process analytical technology (PAT) tool in detecting the key quality attribute: the GlcNAc content. Meanwhile, the design of NIR spectrometers is under the trend of miniaturization, portability and low-cost nowadays. The aim of this study was to explore a portable micro NIR spectrometer with the fermentation process. First, FT-NIR spectrometer and Micro-NIR 1700 spectrometer were compared with simulated fermentation process solutions. The R-c(2), R-p(2) RMSECV and RMSEP of the optimal FT-NIR and Micro-NIR 1700 models were 0.999, 0.999, 3.226 g/L, 1.388 g/L and 0.999, 0.999, 1.821 g/L, 0.967 g/L. Passing-Bablok regression method and paired t-test results showed there were no significant differences between the two instruments. Then the Micro-NIR 1700 was selected for the practical fermentation process, 135 samples from 10 batches were collected. Spectral pretreatment methods and variables selection methods (BiPLS, FiPLS, MWPLS and CARS-PLS) for PLS modeling were discussed. The RMSECV and RMSEP of the optimal GlcNAc content PLS model of the practical fermentation process were 0.994, 0.995, 2.792 g/L and 1.946 g/L. The results have a positive reference for application of the Micro-NIR spectrometer. To some extent, it could provide theoretical supports in guiding the microbial fermentation or the further assessment of bioprocess. (C) 2018 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