| Literature DB >> 31842392 |
Danyi Huang1, Zhuang Bian1, Qinli Qiu1, Yinmao Wang1, Dongmei Fan1, Xiaochang Wang1.
Abstract
It is very difficult for humans to distinguish between two kinds of black tea obtained with similar processing technology. In this paper, an electronic tongue was used to discriminate samples of seven different grades of two types of Chinese Congou black tea. The type of black tea was identified by principal component analysis and discriminant analysis. The latter showed better results. The samples of the two types of black tea distributed on the two sides of the region graph were obtained from discriminant analysis, according to tea type. For grade discrimination, we determined grade prediction models for each tea type by partial least-squares analysis; the coefficients of determination of the prediction models were both above 0.95. Discriminant analysis separated each sample in region graph depending on its grade and displayed a classification accuracy of 98.20% by cross-validation. The back-propagation neural network showed that the grade prediction accuracy for all samples was 95.00%. Discriminant analysis could successfully distinguish tea types and grades. As a complement, the models of the biochemical components of tea and electronic tongue by support vector machine showed good prediction results. Therefore, the electronic tongue is a useful tool for Congou black tea classification.Entities:
Keywords: congou black tea; electronic tongue; grade; pattern recognition; type
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31842392 PMCID: PMC6943679 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24244549
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Main studies results of the use of the electronic tongue for tea analysis since 2000.
| Tea Sample | Type of Electronic Tongue | Research Goal | Pattern Recognition Method | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Korean green tea, British black tea | Potentiometry | Tea type identification | PCA/PCR/PLS | [ |
| Indian black tea | Impedance Spectroscopy | PCA | [ | |
| Swedish black tea and green tea | Voltammetry | MVDA/PCA | [ | |
| Chinese and Vietnamese black, green, red, and white tea | Voltammetry | SOM/PCA/HCA | [ | |
| Chinese green tea and black tea | Potentiometry | Tea grade identification | MVDA/PCA | [ |
| Chinese green tea | Potentiometry | KNN/ANN | [ | |
| Chinese green tea | Potentiometry | PCA | [ | |
| Indian black tea | Voltammetry | PCA/KNN | [ | |
| Chinese green tea and black tea | Potentiometry | Tea origin identification | MVDA/PCA | [ |
| Chinese Tieguanyin tea | Potentiometry | ANN/PCA/HCA | [ | |
| Indian black tea | Voltammetry | Tea quality analysis | PCA/LDA/BP-MLP | [ |
| Spanish andRussian black tea | Potentiometry | PLS | [ | |
| Chinese green tea | Potentiometry | Tea fraud identification | PCA/HCA/ANN | [ |
| Black tea from Kenya, India, Indonesia, China, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and etc. | Voltammetry | Tea biochemical content analysis | Si -CARS-PLS | [ |
| Indian black tea | Voltammetry | ANN//VVRKFA/SVR | [ |
PCA: principal component analysis; PCR: principal component regression; PLS: partial least-squares; MVDA: multivariate data analysis; SOM: self-organizing maps; HCA: hierarchical cluster analysis; KNN: K-nearest neighbors; ANN: artificial neural network; LDA: linear discrimination analysis; BP-MLP: back-propagation multilayer perceptron; Si-CARS-PLS: synergy interval partial least square combined with competitive adaptive reweighted sampling; VVRKFA: vector-valued regularized kernel function approximation; SVR: support vector regression.
Content of biochemical components in Dianhong (D) and Keemun (K) black teas.
| Grade | Water Extract (%) | Tea Polyphenols (%) | Amino Acids (%) | Caffeine (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS | 41.12 ± 1.26 a | 11.54 ± 0.35 de | 3.49 ± 0.06 fg | 2.72 ± 0.14 cde |
| D1 | 40.91 ± 1.01 a | 14.04 ± 1.19 a | 3.54 ± 0.05 fg | 2.14 ± 0.13 ef |
| D2 | 40.60 ± 1.97 ab | 13.70 ± 0.53 ab | 3.93 ± 0.06 abcd | 2.28 ± 0.48 def |
| D3 | 38.53 ± 0.59 de | 13.08 ± 0.43 abc | 3.90 ± 0.20 abcde | 3.65 ± 0.05 ab |
| D4 | 38.90 ± 0.72 cde | 13.41 ± 0.39 abc | 3.74 ± 0.15 cdef | 3.55 ± 0.04 ab |
| D5 | 38.13 ± 0.23 de | 14.07 ± 0.96 a | 3.68 ± 0.13 cdef | 3.18 ± 0.13 bc |
| D6 | 39.19 ± 1.06 bcd | 13.09 ± 1.14 abc | 3.65 ± 0.19 def | 3.15 ± 0.01 bc |
| KT | 39.85 ± 0.78 abcd | 12.40 ± 0.42 cd | 4.19 ± 0.26 a | 4.17 ± 0.01 a |
| KS | 40.23 ± 0.76 abc | 12.42 ± 0.68 bcd | 3.98 ± 0.17 abc | 3.95 ± 0.29 a |
| K1 | 39.20 ± 0.68 bcd | 13.03 ± 0.47 abc | 4.08 ± 0.12 ab | 2.39 ± 1.10 def |
| K2 | 40.99 ± 0.53 a | 13.21 ± 0.35 abc | 3.86 ± 0.19 bcde | 2.05 ± 0.12 f |
| K3 | 37.42 ± 0.20 e | 12.62 ± 0.89 bcd | 3.59 ± 0.21 ef | 3.80 ± 0.09 ab |
| K4 | 38.51 ± 0.47 de | 12.27 ± 0.32 cd | 3.27 ± 0.25 g | 3.60 ± 0.13 ab |
| K5 | 38.22 ± 0.74 de | 10.51 ± 0.08 e | 3.27 ± 0.12 g | 2.81 ± 0.26 cd |
Values are presented as the means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference.
Content of catechin monomers in the two types black tea (mg/g).
| Grade | GC | EGC | C | EC | EGCG | GCG | ECG | CG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS | 1.71 ± 0.10 d | 0.19 ± 0.00 f | 0.10 ± 0.01 fg | 0.77 ± 0.02 g | 3.27 ± 0.09 k | 0.11 ± 0.01 f | 3.67 ± 0.05 gh | 0.69 ± 0.04 a |
| D1 | 1.61 ± 0.02 de | 0.18 ± 0.01 f | 0.16 ± 0.02 ef | 0.96 ± 0.00 e | 3.69 ± 0.15 j | 0.12 ± 0.00 f | 4.42 ± 0.24 f | 0.55 ± 0.40 ab |
| D2 | 0.29 ± 0.04 i | 0.15 ± 0.01 f | 0.20 ± 0.00 e | 0.99 ± 0.01 e | 3.52 ± 0.04 jk | 0.10 ± 0.01 f | 4.48 ± 0.10 f | 0.07 ± 0.01 f |
| D3 | 1.25 ± 0.01 g | 0.38 ± 0.01 e | 0.37 ± 0.00 d | 1.81 ± 0.03 d | 4.46 ± 0.08 i | 0.15 ± 0.01 f | 6.27 ± 0.29 d | 0.12 ± 0.01 ef |
| D4 | 1.42 ± 0.02 f | 0.47 ± 0.02 de | 1.10 ± 0.00 c | 2.53 ± 0.02 c | 4.96 ± 0.04 h | 0.16 ± 0.00 f | 8.28 ± 0.24 c | 0.10 ± 0.01 ef |
| D5 | 1.29 ± 0.01 g | 0.63 ± 0.02 bc | 1.51 ± 0.03 b | 3.65 ± 0.09 b | 5.80 ± 0.09 g | 0.17 ± 0.00 f | 9.86 ± 0.05 b | 0.10 ± 0.00 ef |
| D6 | 1.22 ± 0.02 g | 0.70 ± 0.00 abc | 1.62 ± 0.01 a | 4.06 ± 0.15 a | 5.69 ± 0.01 g | 0.18 ± 0.02 f | 11.37 ± 0.22 a | 0.11 ± 0.01 ef |
| KT | 2.86 ± 0.01 a | 0.72 ± 0.01 ab | 0.14 ± 0.02 ef | 0.61 ± 0.01 h | 8.15 ± 0.28 de | 0.53 ± 0.05 a | 4.61 ± 0.26 f | 0.40 ± 0.00 bcd |
| KS | 2.29 ± 0.07 b | 0.70 ± 0.06 abc | 0.15 ± 0.01 ef | 0.77 ± 0.04 g | 8.92 ± 0.33 c | 0.49 ± 0.06 ab | 4.66 ± 0.41 f | 0.41 ± 0.07 bcd |
| K1 | 2.27 ± 0.05 b | 0.79 ± 0.02 a | 0.16 ± 0.01 ef | 1.00 ± 0.07 e | 9.96 ± 0.22 a | 0.49 ± 0.00 ab | 5.11 ± 0.15 e | 0.42 ± 0.01 bcd |
| K2 | 1.99 ± 0.02 c | 0.69 ± 0.01 abc | 0.11 ± 0.01 f | 0.90 ± 0.03 ef | 9.35 ± 0.07 b | 0.43 ± 0.02 bc | 4.57 ± 0.10 f | 0.45 ± 0.01 bc |
| K3 | 1.67 ± 0.06 d | 0.63 ± 0.12 bc | 0.04 ± 0.00 g | 0.82 ± 0.06 fg | 8.27 ± 0.12 d | 0.37 ± 0.06 cd | 3.75 ± 0.06 g | 0.26 ± 0.03 cdef |
| K4 | 1.51 ± 0.23 ef | 0.72 ± 0.26 ab | 0.09 ± 0.10 fg | 0.79 ± 0.13 fg | 7.90 ± 0.34 e | 0.33 ± 0.11 de | 3.33 ± 0.15 h | 0.32 ± 0.16 cde |
| K5 | 0.96 ± 0.04 h | 0.55 ± 0.02 cd | 0.12 ± 0.09 f | 0.73 ± 0.04 g | 6.72 ± 0.35 f | 0.27 ± 0.06 e | 2.62 ± 0.24 i | 0.21 ± 0.03 def |
Values are presented as the means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference.
Sensory evaluation of the two types black tea.
| Tea Sample | Appearance of Dry Tea | Liquid Color | Aroma | Taste | Infused Leave | Total Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS | 95.00 | 95.00 | 92.00 | 93.00 | 93.00 | 93.45 |
| D1 | 94.00 | 94.00 | 89.00 | 89.00 | 92.00 | 91.05 |
| D2 | 92.00 | 93.00 | 90.00 | 88.00 | 92.00 | 90.40 |
| D3 | 90.00 | 93.00 | 90.00 | 85.00 | 90.00 | 88.80 |
| D4 | 88.00 | 89.00 | 86.00 | 80.00 | 88.00 | 85.20 |
| D5 | 87.00 | 89.00 | 90.00 | 86.00 | 88.00 | 87.75 |
| D6 | 85.00 | 88.00 | 88.00 | 81.00 | 85.00 | 84.85 |
| KT | 98.00 | 95.00 | 96.00 | 85.00 | 93.00 | 92.80 |
| KS | 98.00 | 94.00 | 96.00 | 85.00 | 92.00 | 92.60 |
| K1 | 97.00 | 93.00 | 95.00 | 87.00 | 92.00 | 92.60 |
| K2 | 96.00 | 93.00 | 95.00 | 87.00 | 90.00 | 92.15 |
| K3 | 95.00 | 89.00 | 94.00 | 85.00 | 88.00 | 90.45 |
| K4 | 92.00 | 89.00 | 92.00 | 80.00 | 88.00 | 87.70 |
| K5 | 90.00 | 88.00 | 92.00 | 80.00 | 85.00 | 86.80 |
Figure 1Electronic tongue response for black tea. (a) Electronic tongue response value for Dianhong tea, DS grade; (b) Electronic tongue response value for Keemun tea, KT grade. ZZ, BA, BB, CA, GA, HA, and JB: electronic tongue sensors.
Figure 2Average response value of the electronic tongue for black tea. (a) Dianhong tea; (b) Keemun tea.
Characteristic values and contributions of principal components of black tea.
| Principal Components | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eigenvalue | 3.85 | 1.79 | 0.95 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| Contribution rate (%) | 54.96 | 25.52 | 13.54 | 3.63 | 1.87 | 0.30 | 0.18 |
| Cumulative contribution rate (%) | 54.96 | 80.48 | 94.02 | 97.65 | 99.52 | 99.82 | 100.00 |
Figure 3Scatter plots of principal component analysis (PCA) of electronic tongue data from the two types of black tea. (a) 2-D scatter plot; (b) 3-D scatter plot.
Figure 4Discriminant analysis (DA) region graph of black tea samples.
Discriminant analysis results for the two types of black tea.
| Tea Sample | Original Data | Cross Validation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Samples | Number of Mistakes | Accuracy% | Number of Samples | Number of Mistakes | Accuracy% | |
| DS | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D1 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D2 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D3 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D4 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 1 | 91.70 |
| D5 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 1 | 91.70 |
| D6 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| KT | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| KS | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| K1 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| K2 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| K3 | 12 | 1 | 91.70 | 12 | 1 | 91.70 |
| K4 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
| K5 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 | 12 | 0 | 100.00 |
Figure 5Partial least-squares (PLS) model diagram of two types of black tea. (a) Training set for Dianhong tea; (b) testing set for Dianhong tea; (c) training set for Keemun tea; (d) testing set for Keemun tea.
Comparison of predictive performance between the two types black tea.
| Tea samples | Training | Testing | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSEP | R2 | RMSEP | R2 | |
| Dianhong | 0.329 | 0.968 | 0.427 | 0.960 |
| Keemun | 0.346 | 0.964 | 0.445 | 0.954 |
R2: coefficient of determination; RMSEP: root-mean-square error prediction.
Back-propagation neural network results for the two types of black tea.
| Tea Sample | Training | Holding | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Samples | Number of Mistakes | Accuracy (%) | Number of Samples | Number of Mistakes | Accuracy (%) | |
| DS | 7 | 0 | 100.00 | 2 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D1 | 5 | 0 | 100.00 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D2 | 9 | 0 | 100.00 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D3 | 4 | 0 | 100.00 | 1 | 1 | 0.00 |
| D4 | 3 | 0 | 100.00 | 3 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D5 | 6 | 0 | 100.00 | 3 | 0 | 100.00 |
| D6 | 10 | 0 | 100.00 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 |
| KT | 5 | 0 | 100.00 | 2 | 0 | 100.00 |
| KS | 8 | 0 | 100.00 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 |
| K1 | 8 | 0 | 100.00 | 2 | 0 | 100.00 |
| K2 | 8 | 0 | 100.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| K3 | 8 | 0 | 100.00 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 |
| K4 | 10 | 0 | 100.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| K5 | 7 | 0 | 100.00 | 2 | 0 | 100.00 |
| Total | 98 | 0 | 100.00 | 20 | 1 | 95.00 |
Figure 6Electronic tongue quantitative prediction model parameters for tea polyphenols. (a) SVR result counter map; (b) SVR result 3D view; (c) training set regression predict by SVM; and (d) testing set regression predict by SVM; SVR: Support vector regression; SVM: support vector machine.
Support vector machine model parameters for biochemical components of black tea.
| Model | Training | Testing | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rc | RMSEC | Rp | RMSEP | |
| Water extract-electronic tongue | 0.9916 | 0.0008 | 0.7022 | 0.0241 |
| Tea polyphenols-electronic tongue | 0.9786 | 0.0015 | 0.9951 | 0.0006 |
| Amino acids-electronic tongue | 0.9816 | 0.0019 | 0.9546 | 0.0083 |
| Caffeine-electronic tongue | 0.9887 | 0.0013 | 0.8886 | 0.0159 |
| GC-electronic tongue | 0.9636 | 0.0027 | 0.8969 | 0.0085 |
| EGC-electronic tongue | 0.9721 | 0.0023 | 0.9856 | 0.0020 |
| C-electronic tongue | 0.9850 | 0.0018 | 0.9910 | 0.0005 |
| EC-electronic tongue | 0.9944 | 0.0006 | 0.9883 | 0.0006 |
| EGCG-electronic tongue | 0.9891 | 0.0011 | 0.9923 | 0.0011 |
| GCG-electronic tongue | 0.9830 | 0.0019 | 0.9884 | 0.0025 |
| ECG-electronic tongue | 0.9946 | 0.0005 | 0.9874 | 0.0007 |
| CG-electronic tongue | 0.9764 | 0.0034 | 0.9597 | 0.0044 |
Rc: correlation coefficient of the correction set; Rp: correlation coefficient of the prediction set; RMSEC: root-mean-square error of the correction set; RMSEP: root-mean-square error of the prediction set.