| Literature DB >> 28070445 |
Francisco Anguebes1, Lucio Pat2, Bassam Ali3, Armando Guerrero4, Atl V Córdova1, Mohamed Abatal5, José P Garduza1.
Abstract
Attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infrared spectrometry and chemometrics model was used for determination of physicochemical properties (pH, redox potential, free acidity, electrical conductivity, moisture, total soluble solids (TSS), ash, and HMF) in honey samples. The reference values of 189 honey samples of different botanical origin were determined using Association Official Analytical Chemists, (AOAC), 1990; Codex Alimentarius, 2001, International Honey Commission, 2002, methods. Multivariate calibration models were built using partial least squares (PLS) for the measurands studied. The developed models were validated using cross-validation and external validation; several statistical parameters were obtained to determine the robustness of the calibration models: (PCs) optimum number of components principal, (SECV) standard error of cross-validation, (R2cal) coefficient of determination of cross-validation, (SEP) standard error of validation, and (R2val) coefficient of determination for external validation and coefficient of variation (CV). The prediction accuracy for pH, redox potential, electrical conductivity, moisture, TSS, and ash was good, while for free acidity and HMF it was poor. The results demonstrate that attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infrared spectrometry is a valuable, rapid, and nondestructive tool for the quantification of physicochemical properties of honey.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28070445 PMCID: PMC5192472 DOI: 10.1155/2016/5427526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Figure 1Geographical origin of the honey samples collected from different regions of the state of Campeche, Mexico.
Figure 2Characteristic of FTIR-ATR spectrum from all honeys samples, acquired from 3700 to 700 cm−1.
PLS calibration models were developed applying different mathematics treatments to reduced errors in predicting of the properties of honeys.
| Honey properties | Different spectral treatments sequence | Mahalanobis distance, criterion | Outliers points |
|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Autoscale, baseline correct (quadratic), normalize, smooth (order polynomial 25) |
| 23 |
| Free acidity | Autoscale, 1st derivate (order polynomial 15), log10, baseline correct (quadratic), normalize |
| 43 |
| Electrical conductivity | Autoscale, baseline correct (quadratic), normalize, 1st derivate (order polynomial 15), smooth (order polynomial 25) |
| 27 |
| Ash | Autoscale, 1st derivate (order polynomial 15), log10, normalize, baseline correct (quadratic) |
| 23 |
| TSS (Brix°) | Mean-center, log10, baseline correct (quadratic), normalize, smooth (order polynomial 25) |
| 21 |
| Moisture | Autoscale, baseline correct (quadratic), log10, normalize, align (15) |
| 19 |
| HMF | Autoscale, baseline correct (quadratic), log10, 1st derivate (order polynomial 15), align (15) |
| 22 |
| Redox potential | Autoscale, 1st derivate (order polynomial 15), log10, baseline correct (quadratic), normalize |
| 19 |
Statistical parameters obtained for each of the calibration models.
| Honey properties | PCs | SECV |
| PCs | SEP |
| Coefficient of variation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 4 | 0.093 | 0.904 | 6 | 0.211 | 0.842 | 5.783 |
| Free acidity | 2 | 1.257 | 0.973 | 3 | 4.203 | 0.668 | 21.061 |
| Electrical | 2 | 0.021 | 0.968 | 2 | 0.109 | 0.862 | 8.583 |
| Ash | 2 | 0.008 | 0.984 | 1 | 0.041 | 0.861 | 7.849 |
| TSS (Brix°) | 2 | 0.380 | 0.965 | 4 | 1.846 | 0.859 | 5.314 |
| Moisture | 5 | 0.298 | 0.979 | 5 | 1.205 | 0.971 | 6.343 |
| HMF | 3 | 0.474 | 0.982 | 3 | 29.18 | 0.961 | 43.217 |
| Redox potential | 2 | 1.473 | 0.984 | 4 | 1.337 | 0.816 | 5.593 |
Physicochemical for honey samples of Campeche state.
| Municipalities | pH | Free acidity | Electrical conductivity | Ash | TSS | Moisture | HMF | Redox potential |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calakmul | 4.03 ± 0.02 | 16.2 ± 0.44 | 0.58 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.06 | 84.86 ± 0.15 | 15.14 ± 0.15 | 3.28 ± 0.56 | 173.26 ± 1.20 |
| Calkiní | 4.09 ± 0.01 | 15.77 ± 0.74 | 0.68 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.11 | 86.06 ± 0.25 | 18.94 ± 0.25 | 2.73 ± 0.23 | 173.53 ± 2.04 |
| Campeche | 3.95 ± 0.04 | 23.03 ± 0.54 | 0.48 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.08 | 85.85 ± 0.18 | 14.15 ± 0.18 | 3.34 ± 0.64 | 177.32 ± 1.49 |
| Champotón | 3.80 ± 0.03 | 22.81 ± 0.62 | 0.55 ± 0.07 | 0.13 ± 0.09 | 84.18 ± 0.21 | 15.82 ± 0.21 | 2.86 ± 0.46 | 187.96 ± 1.70 |
| Escarcega | 3.88 ± 0.05 | 22.72 ± 0.67 | 0.58 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.10 | 84.97 ± 0.22 | 15.03 ± 0.22 | 2.45 ± 0.11 | 181.43 ± 1.80 |
| Hopelchén | 4.40 ± 0.03 | 15.82 ± 0.59 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.09 | 85.28 ± 0.20 | 14.72 ± 0.20 | 3.15 ± 0.19 | 151.03 ± 1.62 |
| Hecelchakán | 4.01 ± 0.06 | 16.23 ± 0.38 | 0.61 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.20 | 82.44 ± 0.46 | 17.56 ± 0.46 | 4.45 ± 0.53 | 170.49 ± 3.81 |
| Sabancuy | 3.97 ± 0.02 | 21.55 ± 0.51 | 0.57 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.08 | 84.98 ± 0.17 | 15.02 ± 0.17 | 3.91 ± 0.35 | 186.03 ± 1.42 |
Figure 3PLS validation plots of pH, contribution of PCA, and regression vector (a)–(c); PLS validation plots of free acidity, contribution of PCA, and regression vector (d)–(f).
Figure 4PLS validation plots of electrical conductivity, contribution of PCA, and regression vector (a)–(c); PLS validation plots of Ash, contribution of PCA, and regression vector (d)–(f).
Figure 5PLS validation plots of TSS (Brix°), contribution of PCA, and regression vector (a)–(c); PLS validation plots of moisture contribution of PCA and regression vector (d)–(f).
Figure 6PLS validation plots of HMF, contribution of PCA, and regression vector (a)–(c); PLS validation plots of Redox potential, contribution of PCA, and regression vector (d)–(f).