4.5 Article

In situ laboratory analysis of sucrose in sugarcane bagasse using attenuated total reflectance spectroscopy and chemometrics

期刊

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.01209.x

关键词

attenuated total reflectance spectroscopy; Fourier transform infrared (FTIR); high performance liquid chromatography; partial least square; principal component regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The determination of low-level sucrose residue in sugarcane bagasse was investigated by attenuated total reflectance (ATR) spectroscopy to increase the level of sugar production in on-line sugar processing. The efficacy of ATR spectroscopy and chemometrics is described to determine the sucrose level of 0.5 percentage (w/w) or less. The ATR spectra from a range of sugar concentrations obtained by Fourier transform infrared spectrometer in its finger print region (900-1200 cm(-1)) were incorporated to compute the calibration model using chemometrics approaches such as partial least square and principal component regression. Through the use of this procedure, a calibration model based on absorbance spectra was computed for sucrose residue with standard errors of calibration of 0.662% and standard of prediction of 0.34% over 0.5-5% range. The correlation coefficient (R-2) value of 0.998-0.988 suggested the accuracy of the calibration model. An independent set of twenty samples of sucrose solution was used to reconfirm the modal. Ten sugarcane bagasse samples were prepared in vitro and sucrose concentration were predicted using develop calibration model. The mathematically extracted sucrose concentrations were verified for accuracy by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The results presented demonstrate that described technique is effective to determine sucrose level < 0.5% (w/w) in sugarcane bagasse during sugar processing. The importance of timeframe for the analysis and the feasibility of using ATR spectroscopy to screen sucrose residue in sugarcane bagasse samples is discussed.

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

4.5
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