| Literature DB >> 30719372 |
Haiyan Fu1, Ou Hu1, Lu Xu2, Yao Fan3, Qiong Shi1, Xiaoming Guo1, Wei Lan1, Tianming Yang1, Shunping Xie4, Yuanbin She3.
Abstract
In this paper, mid- and near-infrared spectroscopy fingerprints were combined to simultaneously discriminate 12 famous green teas and quantitatively characterize their antioxidant activities using chemometrics. A supervised pattern rEntities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30719372 PMCID: PMC6334341 DOI: 10.1155/2019/4372395
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
The detailed information of green teas.
| Group code | Famous green tea samples | Quality rank |
|---|---|---|
| G01 | Biluochun | Super second grade |
| G02 | Biluochun | Super grade |
| G03 | Zuyeqing | Lundao grade |
| G04 | Zuyeqing | Qingyuxin grade |
| G05 | Zuyeqing | Pinwei grade |
| G06 | Duyunmaojian | Super grade |
| G07 | Duyunmaojian | First grade |
| G08 | Duyunmaojian | Super first grade |
| G09 | Yunwumaojian | Super grade |
| G10 | Juansumaofeng | First grade |
| G11 | Xinyangmaojian | Super grade |
| G12 | Xinyangmaojian | First grade |
Figure 1(a) Raw MIR spectra of 12 green tea samples; (b) raw NIR spectra of 12 green tea samples.
FOMs of MIR and NIR models in 12 famous green teas by the PLSDA method.
| Group code | Training set | Prediction set | MIR | NIR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Sample | Number | Sample | SEN | SEL | SEN | SEL | |
| G01 | 9 | 1st–9th | 1 | 1st | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G02 | 6 | 10th–15th | 4 | 2nd–5th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G03 | 8 | 16th–23th | 2 | 6th–7th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G04 | 8 | 24th–31th | 2 | 8th–9th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G05 | 6 | 32th–37th | 4 | 10th–13th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G06 | 8 | 38th–45th | 2 | 14th–15th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G07 | 5 | 46th–50th | 5 | 16th–20th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G08 | 8 | 51th–58th | 2 | 21th–22th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G09 | 7 | 59th–65th | 3 | 23th–25th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G10 | 8 | 66th–73th | 2 | 26th–27th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G11 | 8 | 74th–81th | 2 | 28th–29th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G12 | 7 | 82th–88th | 3 | 30th–32th | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Figure 2Dummy vectors (G01, G02, G03, G04, G05, G06, G07, G08, G09, G10, G11, G12) of PLSDA for 12 famous green tea samples with different species and grades: (a) 88 training samples from MIR PLSDA model; (b) 32 prediction samples from MIR PLSDA model; (c) 88 training samples from NIR PLSDA model; (d) 32 prediction samples from NIR PLSDA model.
The calculation of antioxidant activities from 12 famous green teas by DPPH and ABTS.
| Group code | DPPH scavenging activity | ABTS radical scavenging activity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average (%) | RSD | Average (TEAC) | RSD | |
| G01 | 36.19 ± 0.28 | 0.77 | 4.45 ± 0.01 | 0.25 |
| G02 | 36.10 ± 0.26 | 0.73 | 4.12 ± 0.02 | 0.36 |
| G03 | 48.06 ± 0.23 | 0.47 | 4.04 ± 0.01 | 0.18 |
| G04 | 40.26 ± 0.15 | 0.37 | 4.22 ± 0.01 | 0.22 |
| G05 | 48.99 ± 0.25 | 0.51 | 4.34 ± 0.02 | 0.35 |
| G06 | 35.52 ± 0.32 | 0.90 | 4.28 ± 0.01 | 0.35 |
| G07 | 20.59 ± 0.47 | 2.30 | 1.81 ± 0.01 | 0.76 |
| G08 | 29.60 ± 0.28 | 0.93 | 3.55 ± 0.02 | 0.56 |
| G09 | 37.78 ± 0.19 | 0.51 | 3.81 ± 0.02 | 0.42 |
| G10 | 36.68 ± 0.25 | 0.68 | 4.55 ± 0.02 | 0.35 |
| G11 | 51.27 ± 0.30 | 0.58 | 5.72 ± 0.01 | 0.16 |
| G12 | 26.24 ± 0.24 | 0.93 | 3.55 ± 0.04 | 1.18 |
Figure 3(a) Residue lines obtained by MWPLS for the training sets in MIR spectroscopy; (b) residue lines obtained by MWPLS for the training sets in NIR spectroscopy; (c) residue line obtained by MWPLS for the training sets in the fusion of MIR and NIR spectroscopy.
Figure 4Chemical structures of five representative polyphenols.
Figure 5Sample weights after a 70-cycle PSO search for the (a) DPPH scavenging activity characterized by MIR, (b) ABTS scavenging activity characterized by MIR, (c) DPPH scavenging activity characterized by NIR, (d) ABTS scavenging activity characterized by NIR, (e) DPPH scavenging activity characterized by fusion of MIR and NIR, (f) ABTS scavenging activity characterized by fusion of MIR and NIR using OSWLS-SVM.
The predictions of DPPH scavenging activities by OSWLS-SVM.
| Prediction samples | Actual DPPH scavenging activity (%) | Recoveries (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIR | NIR | Fusion data | MIR | NIR | Fusion data | |
| 1 | 36.07 | 36.07 | 36.07 | 97.1 | 100.7 | 100.0 |
| 2 | 36.53 | 36.23 | 36.23 | 100.0 | 100.3 | 100.0 |
| 3 | 36.07 | 36.53 | 35.80 | 101.6 | 97.5 | 103.5 |
| 4 | 36.53 | 36.07 | 36.23 | 94.9 | 101.3 | 104.9 |
| 5 | 35.65 | 36.23 | 35.65 | 98.2 | 103.2 | 97.3 |
| 6 | 36.16 | 36.53 | 36.16 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 |
| 7 | 36.34 | 35.65 | 36.16 | 100.0 | 101.8 | 100.0 |
| 8 | 36.16 | 36.16 | 36.16 | 100.0 | 100.1 | 98.2 |
| 9 | 35.65 | 35.65 | 35.65 | 96.8 | 102.4 | 99.2 |
| 10 | 36.34 | 36.16 | 36.34 | 101.3 | 99.1 | 99.2 |
| 11 | 36.16 | 47.80 | 36.16 | 100.0 | 100.8 | 100.0 |
| 12 | 47.92 | 48.06 | 47.92 | 100.0 | 100.2 | 100.0 |
| 13 | 48.38 | 48.38 | 48.38 | 100.0 | 100.2 | 100.9 |
| 14 | 48.06 | 48.06 | 47.92 | 100.0 | 99.4 | 99.6 |
| 15 | 48.38 | 48.17 | 48.17 | 96.5 | 98.0 | 100.0 |
| 16 | 40.02 | 40.02 | 40.02 | 103.9 | 101.6 | 101.2 |
| 17 | 40.37 | 40.37 | 40.37 | 100.0 | 97.5 | 100.0 |
| 18 | 40.32 | 40.32 | 40.32 | 95.8 | 101.4 | 98.6 |
| 19 | 40.21 | 40.21 | 40.21 | 105.8 | 100.3 | 99.6 |
| 20 | 40.37 | 40.37 | 40.37 | 103.3 | 96.8 | 100.0 |
| 21 | 48.67 | 48.67 | 48.67 | 100.0 | 103.3 | 103.9 |
| 22 | 49.04 | 49.04 | 49.04 | 95.5 | 100.6 | 99.7 |
| 23 | 49.16 | 48.67 | 49.16 | 97.6 | 100.2 | 100.0 |
| 24 | 48.81 | 49.04 | 48.81 | 100.0 | 90.5 | 100.0 |
| 25 | 49.27 | 49.16 | 49.27 | 100.0 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 26 | 35.11 | 35.52 | 35.11 | 101.0 | 98.7 | 100.0 |
| 27 | 35.52 | 35.73 | 35.52 | 100.0 | 98.3 | 96.4 |
| 28 | 35.92 | 35.92 | 35.92 | 100.0 | 97.6 | 100.0 |
| 29 | 35.32 | 35.11 | 35.32 | 100.0 | 99.6 | 100.0 |
| 30 | 35.73 | 35.32 | 35.73 | 103.5 | 99.1 | 101.7 |
| Correlation coefficient | 1.0000 | 0.9904 | 1.0000 | |||
| Regression equation |
|
|
| |||
| Average recoveries (%) | 99.8 ± 2.5 | 99.7 ± 2.4 | 100.1 ± 1.7 | |||
| RMSECa | 5.7261 × 10−5 | 0.0122 | 6.4662 | |||
| RMSEPb | 0.0100 | 0.0108 | 0.0065 | |||
| T( | 0.0841 < t0.0529 | 0.0820 < t0.0529 | 0.0441 < t0.0529 | |||
aRMSEC denotes calibration root-mean-squared error, bRMSEP denotes prediction root-mean-squared error.
The predictions of ABTS scavenging activities by OSWLS-SVM.
| Prediction samples | Actual ABTS radical scavenging activity (TEAC) | Recoveries (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIR | NIR | Fusion data | MIR | NIR | Fusion data | |
| 1 | 4.44 | 4.44 | 4.44 | 97.4 | 99.4 | 100.0 |
| 2 | 4.46 | 4.44 | 4.44 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 |
| 3 | 4.44 | 4.46 | 4.43 | 96.1 | 100.5 | 100.4 |
| 4 | 4.46 | 4.44 | 4.44 | 98.2 | 99.6 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 4.11 | 4.44 | 4.11 | 100.5 | 99.2 | 100.2 |
| 6 | 4.11 | 4.46 | 4.11 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 100.0 |
| 7 | 4.12 | 4.11 | 4.14 | 100.0 | 100.7 | 100.0 |
| 8 | 4.14 | 4.14 | 4.14 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 99.3 |
| 9 | 4.11 | 4.11 | 4.11 | 100.5 | 99.8 | 100.3 |
| 10 | 4.12 | 4.11 | 4.12 | 100.2 | 99.4 | 100.0 |
| 11 | 4.14 | 4.03 | 4.14 | 100.0 | 100.2 | 100.0 |
| 12 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 100.0 | 99.7 | 100.0 |
| 13 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 100.0 | 100.3 | 100.1 |
| 14 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 100.0 | 99.7 | 100.2 |
| 15 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 4.04 | 97.8 | 97.0 | 100.0 |
| 16 | 4.21 | 4.21 | 4.21 | 100.1 | 101.2 | 100.3 |
| 17 | 4.22 | 4.22 | 4.22 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| 18 | 4.23 | 4.23 | 4.23 | 99.8 | 100.4 | 99.9 |
| 19 | 4.22 | 4.22 | 4.22 | 100.2 | 100.4 | 100.1 |
| 20 | 4.23 | 4.23 | 4.23 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 100.0 |
| 21 | 4.33 | 4.33 | 4.33 | 100.0 | 101.8 | 100.3 |
| 22 | 4.35 | 4.35 | 4.35 | 99.7 | 100.7 | 99.9 |
| 23 | 4.36 | 4.33 | 4.36 | 99.5 | 100.4 | 100.0 |
| 24 | 4.33 | 4.35 | 4.33 | 100.0 | 99.2 | 100.0 |
| 25 | 4.36 | 4.36 | 4.36 | 100.0 | 100.5 | 100.0 |
| 26 | 4.27 | 4.28 | 4.27 | 100.4 | 100.4 | 100.0 |
| 27 | 4.28 | 4.29 | 4.28 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 98.4 |
| 28 | 4.30 | 4.30 | 4.30 | 100.0 | 99.4 | 100.0 |
| 29 | 4.27 | 4.27 | 4.27 | 100.0 | 100.3 | 100.0 |
| 30 | 4.29 | 4.27 | 4.29 | 99.8 | 100.4 | 99.7 |
| Correlation coefficient | 1.0000 | 0.9990 | 1.0000 | |||
| Regression equation |
|
|
| |||
| Average recoveries (%) | 99.7 ± 1.0 | 99.9 ± 0.8 | 100.0 ± 0.4 | |||
| RMSECa | 1.1315 × 10−6 | 0.0394 | 7.6170 × 10−7 | |||
| RMSEPb | 0.0447 | 0.0347 | 0.0155 | |||
| T( | 0.4615 < t0.0529 | 0.0634 < t0.0529 | 0.0054 < t0.0529 | |||
aRMSEC denotes calibration root-mean-squared error; bRMSEP denotes prediction root-mean-squared error.
Figure 6Correlation plots of the predicted antioxidant activities obtained by OSWLS-SVM versus the actual antioxidant activities in 12 famous green teas: (a) DPPH scavenging activity estimated by MIR model; (b) ABTS radical scavenging activity estimated by the NIR model; (c) DPPH scavenging activity estimated by the MIR model; (d) ABTS radical scavenging activity estimated by NIR model; (e) DPPH scavenging activity estimated by the spectroscopic data fusion model; (f) ABTS radical scavenging activity estimated by the spectroscopic data fusion model.
Figure 7(a) EJCRs for DPPH scavenging activity by applying E-nose, E-tongue, and spectroscopic fusion data; (b) EJCRs for ABTS radical scavenging activity by applying E-nose, E-tongue, and spectroscopic fusion data. The pentacle (★) indicates the ideal points (0, 1).