| Literature DB >> 27735832 |
Magdalena Śliwińska1,2, Celia Garcia-Hernandez3, Mikołaj Kościński4, Tomasz Dymerski5, Waldemar Wardencki6, Jacek Namieśnik7, Małgorzata Śliwińska-Bartkowiak8,9, Stefan Jurga10, Cristina Garcia-Cabezon11, Maria Luz Rodriguez-Mendez12.
Abstract
The capability of a phthalocyanine-based voltammetric electronic tongue to analyze strong alcoholic beverages has been evaluated and compared with the performance of spectroscopic techniques coupled to chemometrics. Nalewka Polish liqueurs prepared from five apple varieties have been used as a model of strong liqueurs. Principal Component Analysis has demonstrated that the best discrimination between liqueurs prepared from different apple varieties is achieved using the e-tongue and UV-Vis spectroscopy. Raman spectra coupled to chemometrics have not been efficient in discriminating liqueurs. The calculated Euclidean distances and the k-Nearest Neighbors algorithm (kNN) confirmed these results. The main advantage of the e-tongue is that, using PLS-1, good correlations have been found simultaneously with the phenolic content measured by the Folin-Ciocalteu method (R² of 0.97 in calibration and R² of 0.93 in validation) and also with the density, a marker of the alcoholic content method (R² of 0.93 in calibration and R² of 0.88 in validation). UV-Vis coupled with chemometrics has shown good correlations only with the phenolic content (R² of 0.99 in calibration and R² of 0.99 in validation) but correlations with the alcoholic content were low. Raman coupled with chemometrics has shown good correlations only with density (R² of 0.96 in calibration and R² of 0.85 in validation). In summary, from the three holistic methods evaluated to analyze strong alcoholic liqueurs, the voltammetric electronic tongue using phthalocyanines as sensing elements is superior to Raman or UV-Vis techniques because it shows an excellent discrimination capability and remarkable correlations with both antioxidant capacity and alcoholic content-the most important parameters to be measured in this type of liqueurs.Entities:
Keywords: Raman spectroscopy; UV-Vis; apple liqueurs; electronic tongue; nalewka; voltammetric sensor
Year: 2016 PMID: 27735832 PMCID: PMC5087442 DOI: 10.3390/s16101654
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Phenolic content and density of liqueurs made from different varieties of apple.
| Apple Variety | Phenolic Content (mg·gallic·acid/L) | Density (g/cm3) |
|---|---|---|
| Ligol | 661.01 | 1.1061 |
| Kosztela | 767.81 | 1.0982 |
| Grey Reinette | 1005.98 | 1.0955 |
| Rubin | 783.88 | 1.0946 |
| Cox Orange | 600.52 | 1.0995 |
Figure 1Cyclic voltammograms registered using CPEs immersed in nalewkas made from different varieties of apples. (a) Unmodified CPE; (b) ZnPc–CPE; (c) FePc–CPE; (d) CoPc–CPE Samples: Ligol (black), Kosztela (red), Grey Reinette (blue), Rubin (green), Cox Orange (purple).
Figure 2UV-vis spectrum of liqueurs made with different varieties of apple. Samples: Ligol (black), Kosztela (red), Grey Reinette (blue), Rubin (green), Cox Orange (purple).
CIELab color parameters of liqueurs made from different varieties of apples.
| Apple Variety | L* | a* | b* | C* | h* [°] | BI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ligol | 87.74 ± 0.01 | −0.10 ± 0.01 | 31.36 ± 0.01 | 31.36 ± 0.01 | 90.18 ± 0.01 | 42.39 ± 0.00 |
| Kosztela | 87.52 ± 0.01 | 1.16 ± 0.01 | 32.45 ± 0.01 | 32.47 ± 0.01 | 87.96 ± 0.01 | 45.49 ± 0.01 |
| Grey Reinette | 87.05 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.01 | 48.50 ± 0.01 | 48.50 ± 0.01 | 89.52 ± 0.01 | 76.64 ± 0.02 |
| Rubin | 92.52 ± 0.01 | −0.34 ± 0.01 | 28.02 ± 0.01 | 28.02 ± 0.01 | 90.69 ± 0.01 | 34.46 ± 0.01 |
| Cox Orange | 92.91 ± 0.01 | −1.43 ± 0.01 | 22.00 ± 0.01 | 22.04 ± 0.01 | 93.71 ± 0.01 | 24.90 ± 0.00 |
All values given are the mean calculated from three determinations ± SD (standard deviation).
Figure 3Raman spectrum of liqueurs made with different varieties of apple.
Figure 4Principal component analysis scores plot corresponding to the classification of the five nalewka liqueurs using (a) e-tongue composed by an array of carbon paste electrodes modified with metal phthalocyanines; (b) using color parameters: L, a*, b*, C*, h* and BI; and (c) Raman spectra.
Calculated values of Euclidean distances and coefficients of variation between groups according to PCA results from e-tongue, CIELab parameters and Raman Spectra.
| Relation between Groups | E-Tongue | CIELab Parameters | Raman Spectra | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E. Distance | CV | E. Distance | CV | E. Distance | CV | ||
| Ligol | Kosztela | 5899.50 | 0.06 | 4.19 | <0.01 | 28.83 | 0.15 |
| Ligol | Grey Reinette | 2808.12 | 0.15 | 41.97 | <0.01 | 34.86 | 0.18 |
| Ligol | Cox Orange | 6064.19 | 0.06 | 22.81 | <0.01 | 21.88 | 0.29 |
| Ligol | Rubin | 5066.53 | 0.10 | 10.60 | <0.01 | 20.34 | 0.23 |
| Kosztela | Grey Reinette | 6514.71 | 0.05 | 38.57 | <0.01 | 20.07 | 0.12 |
| Kosztela | Rubin | 3238.44 | 0.14 | 13.97 | <0.01 | 8.94 | 0.07 |
| Kosztela | Cox Orange | 10191.66 | 0.04 | 26.66 | <0.01 | 8.58 | 0.36 |
| Grey Reinette | Rubin | 5916.40 | 0.09 | 51.48 | <0.01 | 19.26 | 0.13 |
| Grey Reinette | Cox Orange | 5115.47 | 0.07 | 64.30 | <0.01 | 17.25 | 0.24 |
| Rubin | Cox Orange | 8118.85 | 0.06 | 13.17 | <0.01 | 2.13 | 1.17 |
E. distance—calculated Euclidean distance between two groups. CV (coefficient of variation)—sum of SD from two groups divided by the Euclidean distance between them.
Figure 5Identification rate of the k-Nearest Neighbors algorithm with different k values.
Statistical parameters obtained for the PLS-1 regression model established between the chemical parameters and the voltammetric (e-tongue), CIELab and Raman responses towards nalewka liqueurs.
| Polyphenolic content | 0.976744 | 29.75508 | 0.939679 | 47.74666 | 4 |
| Density | 0.925237 | 0.001112 | 0.878397 | 0.001751 | 4 |
| Polyphenolic content | 0.996525 | 8.180929 | 0.994252 | 11.27284 | 3 |
| Density | 0.879691 | 0.001410 | 0.807301 | 0.001912 | 3 |
| Polyphenolic content | 0.906231 | 42.49629 | 0.793365 | 67.59048 | 6 |
| Density | 0.962399 | 0.000788 | 0.856644 | 0.001650 | 3 |
(a) Squared correlation coefficient in calibration; (b) Root mean square error of calibration; (c) Squared correlation coefficient in prediction; (d) Root mean square error of prediction.
Figure 6Plot of predicted polyphenolic content obtained with the e-tongue vs. the values of polyphenolic content obtained by the Folin–Ciocalteu method.