| Literature DB >> 31766131 |
F Anguebes-Franseschi1, M Abatal2, Lucio Pat3, A Flores2, A V Córdova Quiroz1, M A Ramírez-Elias1, L San Pedro4, O May Tzuc4, A Bassam4.
Abstract
In this work, 10 chemometric models based on Raman spectroscopy were constructed to predict the physicochemical properties of honey produced in the state of Campeche, Mexico. The properties of honey studied were pH, moisture, total soluble solids (TSS), free acidity, lactonic acidity, total acidity, electrical conductivity, Redox potential, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), and ash content. These proprieties were obtained according to the methods described by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Codex Alimentarius, and the International Honey Commission. For the construction of the chemometric models, 189 honey samples were collected and analyzed in triplicate using Raman spectroscopy to generate the matrix data [X], which were correlated with each of the physicochemical properties [Y]. The predictive capacity of each model was determined by cross validation and external validation, using the statistical parameters: standard error of calibration (SEC), standard error of prediction (SEP), coefficient of determination of cross-validation (R2cal), coefficient of determination for external validation (R2val), and Student's t-test. The statistical results indicated that the chemometric models satisfactorily predict the humidity, TSS, free acidity, lactonic acidity, total acidity, and Redox potential. However, the models for electric conductivity and pH presented an acceptable prediction capacity but not adequate to supply the conventional processes, while the models for predicting ash content and HMF were not satisfactory. The developed models represent a low-cost tool to analyze the quality of honey, and contribute significantly to increasing the honey distribution and subsequently the economy of the region.Entities:
Keywords: PLS regression models; Raman spectroscopy; honey; physicochemical parameters; quality control
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31766131 PMCID: PMC6891675 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24224091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Raman spectral footprints of the honey collected in the various locations of Campeche.
Results obtained for the different physical and chemical parameters of honey from the municipalities of the state of Campeche.
| Property | Mean ± σ | Minimum | Maximum | Mean ± σ | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| pH | 4.01 ± 0.23 | 3.66 | 5.11 | 4.08 ± 0.17 | 3.80 | 4.77 |
| Free acidity | 21.16 ± 5.03 | 8.12 | 32.53 | 19.79 ± 3.03 | 15.52 | 25.51 |
| Lactonic acidity | 2.96 ± 1.001 | 1.23 | 5.78 | 2.77 ± 0.84 | 1.47 | 4.27 |
| Total acidity | 24.17 ± 5.44 | 11.55 | 36.78 | 22.51 ± 3.31 | 18.25 | 28.67 |
| Electric conductivity | 0.58 ± 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.69 | 0.61 ± 0.05 | 0.49 | 0.68 |
| Redox potential | 181.94 ± 13.91 | 133.1 | 207.2 | 173.54 ± 8.87 | 161.6 | 198.1 |
| Moisture | 14.98 ± 1.42 | 11.81 | 17.66 | 12.21 ± 2.27 | 12.29 | 16.66 |
| TSS | 85.02 ± 1.41 | 82.37 | 88.19 | 85.79 ± 1.09 | 83.34 | 87.71 |
| Ash content | 0.14 ± 0.06 | 0.018 | 0.42 | 0.143 ± 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.21 |
| HMF | 2.87 ± 1.33 | 1.27 | 5.89 | 2.31 ± 0.75 | 1.46 | 4.35 |
|
|
| |||||
| pH | 3.95 ± 0.16 | 3.49 | 4.18 | 3.97 ± 0.14 | 3.64 | 4.25 |
| Free acidity | 17.03 ± 3.52 | 12.39 | 26.1 | 21.22 ± 4.19 | 8.01 | 28.53 |
| Lactonic acidity | 2.51 ± 0.68 | 1.47 | 4.15 | 3.09 ± 1.08 | 1.23 | 5.78 |
| Total acidity | 19.53 ± 3.81 | 14.17 | 29.65 | 24.32 ± 4.41 | 11.45 | 31.34 |
| Electric conductivity | 0.48 ± 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.69 | 0.57 ± 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.69 |
| Redox potential | 177.49 ± 9.89 | 151.3 | 204.2 | 186.23 ± 8.41 | 170.1 | 207.4 |
| Moisture | 15.25 ± 3.11 | 12.76 | 24.6 | 15.02 ± 1.53 | 11.81 | 17.66 |
| TSS | 84.74 ± 3.11 | 75.42 | 87.24 | 84.98 ± 1.53 | 82.34 | 88.19 |
| Ash content | 0.13 ± 0.018 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.14 ± 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.88 |
| HMF | 2.12 ± 0.46 | 1.52 | 3.53 | 2.98 ± 1.43 | 1.27 | 5.89 |
|
|
| |||||
| pH | 3.78 ± 0.18 | 3.55 | 4.23 | 3.85 ± 0.17 | 3.62 | 4.31 |
| Free acidity | 22.81 ± 4.26 | 11.9 | 32.5 | 22.72 ± 5.11 | 13.5 | 31.5 |
| Lactonic acidity | 3.59 ± 0.78 | 2.37 | 5.98 | 3.51 ± 0.62 | 1.78 | 4.37 |
| Total acidity | 26.41 ± 4.47 | 17.01 | 38.28 | 26.23 ± 5.13 | 17.07 | 35.59 |
| Electric conductivity | 0.54 ± 0.11 | 0.36 | 0.69 | 0.58 ± 0.12 | 0.35 | 0.755 |
| Redox potential | 189.03 ± 11.39 | 165.4 | 202.6 | 172.52 ± 9.38 | 146.1 | 185.8 |
| Moisture | 16.9 ± 3.11 | 13.32 | 25.81 | 15.16 ± 0.88 | 13.65 | 16.89 |
| TSS | 83.01 ± 3.11 | 74.2 | 86.36 | 84.83 ± 0.88 | 83.11 | 86.35 |
| Ash content | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.068 | 0.18 |
| HMF | 3.34 ± 1.32 | 1.57 | 6.39 | 2.34 ± 1.44 | 1.57 | 4.89 |
|
|
| |||||
| pH | 4.09 ± 0.09 | 3.91 | 4.21 | 4.34 ± 0.42 | 3.51 | 5.2 |
| Free acidity | 17.78 ± 3.06 | 16.85 | 22.5 | 16.64 ± 6.95 | 6.5 | 35.1 |
| Lactonic acidity | 5.14 ± 2.48 | 3.19 | 9.45 | 3.44 ± 0.91 | 1.67 | 5.92 |
| Total acidity | 22.93 ± 5.41 | 21.07 | 31.95 | 20.08 ± 6.82 | 10.41 | 37.77 |
| Electric conductivity | 0.61 ± 0.056 | 0.51 | 0.659 | 0.59 ± 0.08 | 0.44 | 0.71 |
| Redox potential | 177.49 ± 14.34 | 167.5 | 202.1 | 153.93 ± 22.21 | 105.6 | 198.2 |
| Moisture | 17.09 ± 3.19 | 15.17 | 22.67 | 14.72 ± 1.23 | 12.43 | 17.4 |
| TSS | 82.85 ± 3.16 | 77.33 | 85.45 | 85.27 ± 1.23 | 82.6 | 87.57 |
| Ash content | 0.13 ± 0.015 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.21 |
| HMF | 2.89 ± 0.265 | 2.39 | 3.27 | 3.18 ± 0.95 | 1.56 | 5.78 |
Figure 2Chemometric models to predict: (a) pH; (b) free acidity; (c) lactonic acidity; (d) total acidity.
Values of the statistical parameters obtained in cross-validation and external validation to determine the capacity predictability of each chemometric model.
| Properties | Units | Calibration | SEC | R2cal | Validation | SEP | R2val |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | - | 5 | 0.86 | 0.92 | 4 | 0.18 | 0.743 |
| Free acidity | meq kg−1 | 6 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 6 | 1.47 | 0.935 |
| Lactonic acidity | meq kg−1 | 6 | 0.37 | 0.94 | 7 | 0.41 | 0.911 |
| Total acidity | Meq kg−1 | 6 | 1.08 | 0.98 | 4 | 1.23 | 0.897 |
| Electrical conductivity | mS cm−1 | 6 | 0.46 | 0.87 | 4 | 0.85 | 0.79 |
| Redox potential |
| 7 | 1.06 | 0.99 | 8 | 1.48 | 0.95 |
| Moisture | % | 6 | 0.42 | 0.98 | 9 | 0.52 | 0.95 |
| TSS | % | 6 | 0.58 | 0.92 | 6 | 1.32 | 0.87 |
| Ash content | % | 6 | 1.21 | 0.78 | 6 | 2.54 | 0.21 |
| HMF | mg kg−1 | 7 | 0.76 | 0.82 | 8 | 1.73 | 0.63 |
Figure 3Chemometric models to predict: (a) electrical conductivity; (b) Redox potential; (c) moisture; (d) TSS.
Figure 4Regression models in the Raman region obtained to predict physical and chemical properties of honey from the state of Campeche.
Figure 5Honey producing communities in the state of Campeche.
Figure 6Schematic diagram of the development and evaluation process of the 10 chemometric models for the estimation of physicochemical properties of honey produced in the region of Campeche, Mexico.