| Literature DB >> 29382092 |
Christopher T Kucha1, Li Liu2, Michael O Ngadi3.
Abstract
Fat is one of the most important traits determining the quality of pork. The composition of the fat greatly influences the quality of pork and its processed products, and contribute to defining the overall carcass value. However, establishing an efficient method for assessing fat quality parameters such as fatty acid composition, solid fat content, oxidative stability, iodine value, and fat color, remains a challenge that must be addressed. Conventional methods such as visual inspection, mechanical methods, and chemical methods are used off the production line, which often results in an inaccurate representation of the process because the dynamics are lost due to the time required to perform the analysis. Consequently, rapid, and non-destructive alternative methods are needed. In this paper, the traditional fat quality assessment techniques are discussed with emphasis on spectroscopic techniques as an alternative. Potential spectroscopic techniques include infrared spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance and Raman spectroscopy. Hyperspectral imaging as an emerging advanced spectroscopy-based technology is introduced and discussed for the recent development of assessment for fat quality attributes. All techniques are described in terms of their operating principles and the research advances involving their application for pork fat quality parameters. Future trends for the non-destructive spectroscopic techniques are also discussed.Entities:
Keywords: fat colour; fat quality; fatty acid; hyperspectral imaging; iodine value; multivariate analysis; oxidative stability; pork; solid fat content; spectroscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29382092 PMCID: PMC5855493 DOI: 10.3390/s18020377
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Chemical and physical parameters used to desceibe the quality of fat.
Advantage and drawbacks of non-destructive spectroscopic techniques for fat quality assessment.
| Technique | Advantages | Drawbacks |
|---|---|---|
| IR | Low instrument cost No special skills are required for operation Provides multicomponent information | Requires complex data analysis Prediction success depends on reliability of reference method No spatial information |
| Raman | Simple to operate Provides spectral information Provides multicomponent information Sensible to minor component detection | Not suitable for materials that emit strong fluorescence Require complex data analysis Strong interfering with biological fluorescence background signals Laser heat could affect the effectiveness of assessments |
| NMR | Presence of spatial information Provides multicomponent information Fat quality information can be obtained in vivo | Highly expensive equipment Strict testing environment Requires specific skills to interpret the spectra Insensitive to minor fat component detection |
| HSI | Provides spatial and spectral information that shows component distribution Provides multicomponent information Sensible to minor component detection Relatively easy to operate Insensitive to minor fat component detection | Requires complex data analysis Prediction success depends on reliability of the reference method High instrument cost Redundancy of information in the hypercube Requires time and skills to acquire the desired information from the spectral images |
Prediction of individual FAs in pork by Near infrared spectroscopy.
| 1100–2000 | Loin (I) | 0.62 | 0.01 | 0.79 | 0.14 | 0.80 | 1.10 | 0.83 | 0.03 | 0.77 | 0.93 | 0.46 | 0.04 | 0.64 | 0.10 | No test set | MSC, DT, SNV, 2D | MPLSR | [ |
| 1100–2000 | Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | 0.67 | 0.10 | 0.94 | 0.58 | - | - | 0.87 | 0.80 | - | - | 0.54 | 0.24 | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | MPLSR | [ |
| 1100–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | 0.84 | 0.01 | 0.70 | 0.11 | 0.89 | 0.66 | 0.62 | 0.04 | 0.85 | 0.54 | 0.85 | 0.03 | 0.66 | 0.23 | No test set | MSC, SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | MPLSR | [ |
| 900–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | 0.75 | 0.20 | 0.37 | 1.40 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | No test set | EMSC, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 0.87 | 0.38 | - | - | 0.78 | 0.36 | - | - | - | - | No test set | NOR, 1D, 2D, MSC | MPLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 0.97 | 0.27 | - | - | 0.99 | 0.32 | - | - | - | - | Test set | SNV, DT | MPLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 0.84 | 0.87 | - | - | 0.96 | 0.64 | - | - | - | - | Test set | MSC, SNV, DT | MPLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | - | - | 0.92 | 0.45 | - | - | 0.95 | 0.36 | - | - | 0.67 | 0.07 | Test set | 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 0.87 | 0.79 | - | - | 0.90 | 0.45 | - | - | - | - | No test set | 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | - | - | 0.80 | 0.88 | - | - | 0.70 | 0.80 | - | - | - | - | Test set | MSC, SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 1600–2400 | Sub. fat (I) | - | - | - | - | 0.78 | 1.00 | - | - | 0.83 | 0.68 | - | - | - | - | Test set | 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | - | - | 0.42 | 1.12 | - | - | 0.59 | 1.37 | - | - | - | - | Test set | SMO, DT | iPLSR | [ | |
| 1042–2380 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 0.88 | 1.70 | - | - | 0.94 | 2.20 | - | - | - | - | No test set | 1D, NOR | PLSR | [ |
| 450–2300 | in vivo | - | - | - | - | 0.74 | 1.24 | - | - | 0.72 | 0.67 | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 450–2000 | Carcass | - | - | - | - | 0.87 | 0.82 | - | - | 0.46 | 0.94 | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 450–2300 | Fat with skin | - | - | - | - | 0.86 | 0.89 | - | - | 0.80 | 0.57 | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 450–2300 | Fat without skin | - | - | - | - | 0.88 | 0.81 | - | - | 0.80 | 0.57 | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 1100–2300 | Transverse | - | - | - | - | 0.93 | 0.65 | - | - | 0.84 | 0.54 | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 0.73 | 0.01 | 0.73 | 0.14 | 0.81 | 0.87 | 0.73 | 0.04 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.04 | 0.63 | 0.16 | ||||||
| 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.16 | 0.35 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.44 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.08 | ||||||
| 1100–2000 | Loin (I) | 0.79 | 0.47 | 0.76 | 0.03 | 0.70 | 1.09 | 0.86 | 1.15 | 0.88 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | No test set | MSC, DT, SNV | MPLSR | [ |
| 1100–2000 | Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | - | - | 0.89 | 1.19 | 0.95 | 0.52 | 0.61 | 0.13 | - | - | - | - | No test set | MSC, DT, SNV | MPLSR | [ |
| 1100–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | 0.75 | 0.24 | 0.66 | 0.04 | 0.91 | 1.15 | 0.88 | 0.49 | 0.77 | 0.12 | - | - | - | - | No test set | MSC, SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | MPLSR | [ |
| 900–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.68 | 1.10 | 0.38 | 0.10 | No test set | EMSC, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 0.86 | 0.59 | 0.91 | 0.23 | - | - | - | - | - | - | No test set | NOR, 1D, 2D, MSC | MPLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 0.99 | 0.20 | 0.98 | 0.16 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Test set | SNV, DT | MPLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | 0.89 | 0.10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.98 | 0.29 | 0.68 | 0.09 | Test set | MSC, SNV, DT | MPLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | - | - | 0.87 | 1.19 | 0.94 | 0.29 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Test set | 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 1.00 | 0.4 | 1.00 | 0.19 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Test set | 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | - | - | 0.84 | 1.15 | - | - | - | - | 0.83 | 0.99 | 0.81 | 0.22 | No test set | MSC, SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 1600–2400 | Intact carcass | - | - | - | - | 0.83 | 0.68 | 0.81 | 1.30 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Test set | 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | - | - | 0.63 | 1.39 | 0.74 | 0.95 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Test set | SMO, DT | iPLSR | [ | |
| 1042–2380 | Sub. Fat (H) | - | - | - | - | 0.92 | 1.40 | - | - | - | - | 0.86 | 8.70 | 0.76 | 35.90 | No test set | 1D, NOR | PLSR | [ |
| 450–2300 | in vivo | - | - | - | - | 0.77 | 1.42 | 0.60 | 0.36 | - | - | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 450–2000 | Carcass | - | - | - | - | 0.80 | 1.48 | 0.31 | 0.55 | - | - | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 450–2300 | Fat with skin | - | - | - | - | 0.82 | 1.44 | 0.39 | 0.47 | - | - | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 450–2300 | Fat without skin | - | - | - | - | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.42 | 0.58 | - | - | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 1100–2300 | Transverse section | - | - | - | - | 0.90 | 1.05 | 0.64 | 0.35 | - | - | - | - | - | - | No test set | SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 0.81 | 0.27 | 0.71 | 0.04 | 0.85 | 1.05 | 0.74 | 0.54 | 0.75 | 0.12 | 0.84 | 2.77 | 0.66 | 9.08 | ||||||
| 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 0.22 | 0.34 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 3.44 | 0.17 | 15.49 | ||||||
PLSR: partial least squares regression; MPLSR: modified PLSR; iPLSR: interval PLSR; R2CV: determination coefficient of cross-validation; SEP: standard error of prediction; SECV: standard error of cross-validation; H: homogenised sample; I: intact sample; MVA: multivariate analysis; C12:0: Lauric acid; C16:0: Palmitic acid; C17:0: heptadecanoic acid; C18:0: Stearic acid; C12:0: Arachidic acid; C16:1: Palmitoleic acid; C17:1: cis- 10-heptadecenoic; C18:1: Oleic acid, C18:2: Linoleic; C18:3: Linolenic acid; C182n-6: Linoleic acid; C18:3n-3: α- linolenic acid, SNV: standard normal variate; DT: detrending; 1D: first derivative; 2D: second derivative; EMSC: extended multiplicative scatter correction; NOR: normalization; SMO: smoothing.
Prediction of FA groups and IV in pork by NIRS. SFA: saturated fatty acids; MUFA: mono-saturated fatty acids; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids; IV: iodine value.
| Spectral Range | Sample Presentation | SFA | MUFA | PUFA | IV | Test Set Samples | Data Prep. Method | MVA Method | Ref. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (nm) | R2cv | SEP | R2cv | SEP | R2cv | SEP | R2cv | SEP | |||||
| 1100–2000 | Loin (I) | 0.81 | 1.76 | 0.94 | 1.29 | 0.74 | 1.25 | - | - | No test set | MSC, DT, SNV | MPLSR | [ |
| 1100–2000 | Sub. Fat (I) | 0.96 | 1.10 | 0.98 | 1.50 | 0.95 | 0.60 | - | - | No test set | MSC, DT, SNV | MPLSR | [ |
| 1100–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 1.12 | 0.90 | 0.52 | - | - | No test set | MSC, SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | MPLSR | [ |
| 900–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | 0.81 | 1.70 | 0.94 | 1.20 | 0.73 | 1.60 | - | - | Test set | EMSC, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (H) | 0.95 | 0.49 | 0.94 | 0.65 | - | - | 0.97 | 1.22 | Test set | MSC, SNV, DT | MPLSR | [ |
| 400–2500 | Sub. Fat (I) | 0.86 | 1.37 | 0.82 | 1.23 | 0.86 | 1.08 | 0.87 | 1.80 | No test set | MSC, SNV, DT, 1D, 2D | PLSR | [ |
| Sub. Fat (I) | 0.79 | 1.38 | 0.77 | 1.20 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 1.67 | Test set | SMO, DT | iPLSR | [ | |
| 1042–2380 | Sub. Fat (H) | 0.98 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 1.60 | 0.96 | 4.70 | 0.98 | 0.80 | Test set | 1D, NOR, MSC | PLSR | [ |
| Sub. Fat (I) | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.83 | 1.44 | Test set | EMSC | iPLSR | [ | |
| 2500–20,000 | Sub. Fat (H) | 0.99 | 0.35 | 0.99 | 0.43 | 0.99 | 0.4 | 0.99 | 0.66 | No test set | MSC, 1D, NOR | PLSR | [ |
| 0.90 | 1.10 | 0.91 | 1.14 | 0.87 | 1.38 | 0.91 | 1.27 | ||||||
| 0.08 | 0.45 | 0.07 | 0.335 | 0.09 | 1.24 | 0.07 | 0.39 | ||||||
Prediction of FA groups and IV in pork by Raman spectroscopy.
| Sample Presentation | SFA | MUFA | PUFA | IV | SFA | MUFA | PUFA | IV | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2cv | SEP | R2cv | SEP | R2cv | SEP | R2cv | SEP | |||||
| Sub. Fat (H) | 0.98 | 0.60 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 1.40 | Test set | SNV, 1D | PLSR | [ |
| Sub. Fat (I) | 0.92 | 1.10 | 0.83 | 1.50 | 0.90 | 1.50 | 0.94 | 1.80 | Test set | SNV, 1D | PLSR | [ |
| Sub. Fat (I) | 0.50 | 2.24 | 0.57 | 2.28 | 0.72 | 1.17 | 0.69 | 2.00 | No test set | SNV | PLSR | [ |
| Sub. Fat (I) | 0.84 | 1.50 | 0.81 | 1.53 | 0.90 | 1.17 | 0.89 | 3.26 | No test set | EMSC | PLSR | [ |
| Inner Sub. Fat (I) | 0.83 | 1.52 | 0.80 | 1.56 | 0.88 | 2.29 | 0.87 | 3.55 | No test set | EMSC | PLSR | [ |
| Outer Sub. Fat (I) | 0.79 | 1.69 | 0.74 | 1.81 | 0.85 | 2.60 | 0.83 | 4.10 | No test set | EMSC | PLSR | [ |
| 0.81 | 1.44 | 0.78 | 1.61 | 0.87 | 1.62 | 0.86 | 2.69 | |||||
| 0.15 | 0.51 | 0.11 | 0.38 | 0.07 | 0.61 | 0.09 | 1.00 | |||||
Figure 2Classification of pork sample from the into rind, adipose tissue, and background (a); The background (b) and fat tissue (c) pixels. (d) is the gray image of the pork sample [82].
Figure 3Chemical maps of TBARS distribution in pork samples by different frozen–thawed cycles [91].