| Literature DB >> 31181678 |
Hui Xiao1, Li Feng2, Dajie Song3, Kang Tu4, Jing Peng5, Leiqing Pan6.
Abstract
The potential of visible-near infrared (vis/NIR) spectroscopy (400 nm to 1100 nm) for classification of grape berries on the basis of multi inner quality parameters was investigated. Stored Vitis vinifera L. cv. Manicure Finger and Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ugni Blanc grape berries were separated into three classes based on the distribution of total soluble solid content (SSC) and total phenolic compounds (TP). Partial least squares regression (PLS) was applied to predict the quality parameters, including color space CIELAB, SSC, and TP. The prediction results showed that the vis/NIR spectrum correlated with the SSC and TP present in the intact grape berries with determination coefficient of prediction (RP2) in the range of 0.735 to 0.823. Next, the vis/NIR spectrum was used to distinguish between berries with different SSC and TP concentrations using partial least squares discrimination analysis (PLS-DA) with >77% accuracy. This study provides a method to identify stored grape quality classes based on the spectroscopy and distributions of multiple inner quality parameters.Entities:
Keywords: grading and sorting; grape; partial least squares regression; total phenolic compounds; total soluble solid content
Year: 2019 PMID: 31181678 PMCID: PMC6603771 DOI: 10.3390/s19112600
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Quality classes of stored berries based on total soluble solid content and total phenolic compounds.
|
| I | II | III | IV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| I | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| II | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| III | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| IV | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
Statistical results of each parameter for two varieties.
| Variety | Parameter | Min | Max | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manicure Finger |
| 34.82 | 49.50 | 42.26 | 3.49 |
|
| 2.07 | 11.03 | 5.94 | 1.97 | |
|
| 2.80 | 15.43 | 9.41 | 2.76 | |
| 13.93 | 19.01 | 16.57 | 1.13 | ||
| 2.18 | 16.16 | 9.72 | 2.75 | ||
| Ugni Blanc |
| 37.21 | 44.85 | 42.12 | 1.26 |
|
| −3.05 | −0.54 | −1.93 | 0.73 | |
|
| 8.94 | 17.09 | 12.61 | 1.48 | |
| 14.68 | 17.31 | 15.81 | 0.60 | ||
| 4.43 | 24.67 | 13.73 | 3.50 |
SD: Standard deviation.
Figure 1Normal probability plots for the distributions of total soluble solid content and total phenolic compounds in two grape varieties. SSC: soluble solid content; TP: total phenolic compounds. (a) expected and observed values of SSC in Manicure Finger; (b) expected and observed values of TP in Manicure Finger; (c) expected and observed values of SSC in Ugni Blanc; (d) expected and observed values of TP in Ugni Blanc).
Figure 2Frequency histograms and Gaussian curve fitting for total soluble solid content and total phenolic compounds. ((a), frequency percentage of SSC in Manicure Finger; (b), frequency percentage of TP in Manicure Finger; (c), frequency percentage of SSC in Ugni Blanc; (d), frequency percentage of TP in Ugni Blanc).
Figure 3Mean reflectance spectra of ’Manicure Finger’ (a) and ’Ugni Blanc’ (b) in different classes.
PLS regression for SSC, color, and TP of Manicure Finger and Ungi Blanc berries based on full band spectra.
| Variety | Parameter |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manicure Finger |
| 0.624 | 6.033 | 0.537 | 7.315 | 0.615 |
|
| 0.781 | 0.890 | 0.724 | 1.324 | 2.191 | |
|
| 0.829 | 2.787 | 0.816 | 2.887 | 1.212 | |
| 0.833 | 0.764 | 0.799 | 0.976 | 1.435 | ||
| 0.851 | 0.114 | 0.823 | 0.164 | 1.830 | ||
| Ugni Blanc |
| 0.610 | 4.729 | 0.589 | 5.432 | 0.700 |
|
| 0.686 | 0.834 | 0.624 | 0.967 | 0.620 | |
|
| 0.819 | 3.653 | 0.702 | 4.022 | 0.795 | |
| 0.813 | 1.157 | 0.793 | 1.575 | 0.546 | ||
| 0.811 | 0.157 | 0.735 | 0.185 | 0.544 |
RC2: Determination coefficient of calibration; RP2: Determination coefficient of prediction; RMSEC: root mean square of calibration; RMSEP: root mean square of prediction; RPD: ratio of standard error of performance to standard deviation.
Discrimination accuracies of two varieties from different classes using partial least squares discrimination analysis.
| Variety | Set | Class | Class I | Class II | Class III | Accuracy% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manicure Finger | Calibration | Class I | 38 | 4 | 1 | 88.4 |
| Class II | 1 | 46 | 4 | 90.2 | ||
| Class III | 1 | 2 | 29 | 90.6 | ||
| Prediction | Class I | 12 | 3 | 0 | 80.0 | |
| Class II | 4 | 14 | 0 | 77.8 | ||
| Class III | 0 | 1 | 10 | 90.9 | ||
| Ugni Blanc | Calibration | Class I | 24 | 2 | 0 | 92.3 |
| Class II | 2 | 61 | 5 | 89.7 | ||
| Class III | 2 | 0 | 30 | 93.8 | ||
| Prediction | Class I | 7 | 1 | 1 | 77.8 | |
| Class II | 4 | 18 | 1 | 78.3 | ||
| Class III | 0 | 2 | 9 | 81.8 |
Figure 4Calculated response of three classes using partial least squares discrimination analysis. (a) the calculated response of PLS-DA for Manicure Finger; (b) the calculated response of PLS-DA for Ugni Blanc)