| Literature DB >> 26861317 |
Claudia Conesa1, Javier Ibáñez Civera2, Lucía Seguí3, Pedro Fito4, Nicolás Laguarda-Miró5.
Abstract
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has been used for monitoring the enzymatic pineapple waste hydrolysis process. The system employed consists of a device called Advanced Voltammetry, Impedance Spectroscopy &amp; Potentiometry Analyzer (AVISPA) equipped with a specific software application and a stainless steel double needle electrode. EIS measurements were conducted at different saccharification time intervals: 0, 0.75, 1.5, 6, 12 and 24 h. Partial least squares (PLS) were used to model the relationship between the EIS measurements and the sugar determination by HPAEC-PAD. On the other hand, artificial neural networks: (multilayer feed forward architecture with quick propagation training algorithm and logistic-type transfer functions) gave the best results as predictive models for glucose, fructose, sucrose and total sugars. Coefficients of determination (R²) and root mean square errors of prediction (RMSEP) were determined as R² > 0.944 and RMSEP < 1.782 for PLS and R² > 0.973 and RMSEP < 0.486 for artificial neural networks (ANNs), respectively. Therefore, a combination of both an EIS-based technique and ANN models is suggested as a promising alternative to the traditional laboratory techniques for monitoring the pineapple waste saccharification step.Entities:
Keywords: electrochemical impedance spectroscopy; monitoring; pineapple waste; saccharification
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26861317 PMCID: PMC4801565 DOI: 10.3390/s16020188
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1A view of the experimental set-up.
Sugar profile of pineapple waste during saccharification at different time intervals (0 h to 24 h). Values correspond to the average of three replicates (Standard deviation).
| Saccharification Time (h) | Glucose (g/L) | Fructose (g/L) | Sucrose (g/L) | Total Sugars 1 (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33.5 (1.2) a | 33.18 (1.1) a | 28.1 (0.3) e | 94.8 (0.3) a | |
| 36.4 (1.6) b | 36.69 (0.15) b | 20.6 (1.5) d | 95.7 (0.2) b | |
| 36.1 (0.9) b | 41.3 (0.5) c | 19.0 (0.7) c | 96.5 (1.4) b | |
| 44.3 (0.5) c | 51.3 (1.1) d | 9.4 (0.3) b | 105.0 (0.9) c | |
| 47.63 (1.07) d | 58.9 (1.2) e | 0.0 (0.0) a | 107.0 (0.7) d | |
| 48.8 (0.8) d | 60 (2) e | 0.0 (0.0) a | 108 (3) d |
a,b,c,d,e Similar lowercase letters indicate statistically homogeneous groups with a confidence level of 95%; 1 Total Sugars obtained by adding glucose, fructose and sucrose contents.
Figure 2HPAEC-PAD chromatograms (dilution 1:2000 v/v) for (a) pineapple waste before saccharification (0 h); and (b) saccharified pineapple waste (24 h).
Figure 3Phase data for pineapple waste saccharification at different time intervals (0 to 24 h) for (a) the complete analyzed frequency range; and (b) the studied frequency range (6.6 × 105 Hz–7.0 × 105 Hz).
Figure 4Principal component analyses (PCA) biplot for EIS phase data (6.6 × 105 Hz–7.0 × 105 Hz) during pineapple waste saccharification (0 to 24 h). R1-3: average of each replicate. The blue ellipsis indicates 95% confidence level.
Statistical values of Partial Least Square (PLS) discriminant analysis for the quantification of the studied fermentable sugars for EIS phase data from 6.6 × 105 Hz–7.0 × 105 Hz. (R2: coefficient of determination; RMSEP: Root Mean Square Error of Prediction; LV: Latent Variables).
| Sugars | Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | RMSEP | LV | |
| Glucose | 0.955 | 1.306 | 1 |
| Fructose | 0.970 | 1.782 | 1 |
| Sucrose | 0.975 | 1.645 | 1 |
| Total Sugars | 0.944 | 1.353 | 2 |
Artificial neural network (ANN) results for the studied fermentable sugars for EIS phase data from 6.6 × 105 Hz–7.0 × 105 Hz (R2: coefficient of determination; RMSE: Root Mean Square Error).
| R2 | RMSEP | |
|---|---|---|
| Training | 0.970 | 0.686 |
| Validation | 0.995 | 0.251 |
| Test | 0.998 | 0.233 |
| Training | 0.986 | 0.414 |
| Validation | 0.998 | 0.309 |
| Test | 0.996 | 0.486 |
| Training | 0.995 | 0.666 |
| Validation | 0.987 | 1.206 |
| Test | 0.998 | 0.901 |
| Training | 0.989 | 0.420 |
| Validation | 0.991 | 0.298 |
| Test | 0.991 | 0.333 |
Figure 5Scatter plot showing the relationship between analyzed (HPAEC-PAD) and predicted (ANN model) fructose concentrations in saccharified pineapple waste (g/L) for the studied EIS phase data (6.6 × 105 Hz–7.0 × 105 Hz).