| Literature DB >> 35563939 |
Zhifang Zhao1,2, Qianqian Wang1,2,3, Xiangjun Xu1,2,3, Feng Chen4, Geer Teng1,2,3, Kai Wei1,2, Guoyan Chen1,2, Yu Cai5, Lianbo Guo4.
Abstract
As a popular food, Chinese yam (CY) powder is widely used for healthy and commercial purposes. Detecting adulteration of CY powder has become essential. In this work, chemometric methods combined with laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) were developed for identification and quantification of CY powder adulteration. Pure powders (CY, rhizome of winged yam (RY) and cassava (CS)) and adulterated powders (CY adulterated with CS) were pressed into pellets to obtain LIBS spectra for identification and quantification experiments, respectively. After variable number optimization by principal component analysis and random forest (RF), the best model random forest-support vector machine (RF-SVM) decreased 48.57% of the input variables and improved the accuracy to 100% in identification. Following the better feature extraction method RF, the Gaussian process regression (GPR) method performed the best in the prediction of the adulteration rate, with a correlation coefficient of prediction (Rp2) of 0.9570 and a root-mean-square error of prediction (RMSEP) of 7.6243%. Besides, the variable importance of metal elements analyzed by RF revealed that Na and K were significant due to the high metabolic activity and maximum metal content of CY powder, respectively. These results demonstrated that chemometric methods combined with LIBS can identify and quantify CY powder adulteration accurately.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese yam powder adulteration; Gaussian process regression; identification and quantification; laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy; random forest-support vector machine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35563939 PMCID: PMC9104410 DOI: 10.3390/foods11091216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the LIBS setup (PC: personal computer; DDG: digital delay generator).
The details of sample preparation.
| Experiment Type | Sample Type | Preparation Method | Quantity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualitative | Training set and test set | Pure CY | 3 |
| Pure CS | 3 | ||
| Pure RY | 3 | ||
| Quantitative | Calibration set | 0%, 5%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 35%, 45%, 50%, 60%, 65%, 75%, 80%, 90%, 95%, 100% | 45 |
| Validation set | 10%, 25%, 40%, 55%, 70%, 85% | 18 |
Figure 2The details of data processing (CY: Chinese yam; PCA: principal component analysis; RF: random forest; kNN: k-nearestneighbor; DT: decision tree; NB: naïve bayes; SVM: support vector machine; PLSR: partial least-square regression; EML: ensemble machine learning; LR: linear regression; GPR: Gaussian process regression).
Figure 3The LIBS spectra of CY, CS and RY samples.
Characteristic lines used for CY powder adulteration analysis.
| Element | Wavelength (nm) | Element | Wavelength (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-N | 386.19, 387.14, 388.34 | K | 404.41, 766.49, 769.90 |
| C | 247.86 | Na | 285.28, 589.00, 589.60, 819.48 |
| H | 656.29 | Mg | 279.55, 279.80, 280.27, 517.27, 518.36 |
| O | 777.19, 777.42, 777.54 | Al | 396.15 |
| Ca | 422.67, 442.54, 443.50, 443.57, 445.48, 445.59, 445.66, 558.88, 610.27, 612.22, 616.22, 643.91, 646.26, 649.38 | ||
Figure 4The visualization of raw features for CY, CS and RY.
Figure 5The optimization process of feature number for PCA and RF.
Figure 6The CY powder identification results of different models, (a) PCA feature extraction, and (b) RF feature extraction (DT: decision tree; NB: naïve bayes; SVM: support vector machine).
The significance sequence of 18 features in the RF-SVM model.
| Sequence Number | Element Line (nm) | Sequence Number | Element Line (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Na 589.00 * | 10 | Ca 443.50 |
| 2 | Na 589.60 | 11 | Ca 643.91 |
| 3 | K 769.90 * | 12 | K 404.41 |
| 4 | Mg 518.36 * | 13 | Ca 646.26 |
| 5 | Ca 616.22 * | 14 | Ca 445.48 |
| 6 | Al 396.15 * | 15 | O 777.54 |
| 7 | Mg 279.80 | 16 | O 777.19 |
| 8 | Ca 612.22 | 17 | Na 285.28 |
| 9 | Ca 610.27 | 18 | O 777.42 |
Note: * means the line appearing first in the same metal element.
The significance sequence of the 13 optimized features.
| Sequence Number | Element Line (nm) | Sequence Number | Element Line (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Na 589.60 | 8 | Ca 643.91 |
| 2 | Na 589.00 # | 9 | K 766.50 |
| 3 | Na 819.48 | 10 | Ca 558.88 |
| 4 | K 404.41 | 11 | Ca 610.27 |
| 5 | K 769.90 # | 12 | Ca 612.22 |
| 6 | Al 396.15 # | 13 | Ca 422.67 |
| 7 | Ca 616.22 # |
Note: # means the metal element line with * in the Table 3.
Figure 7The spectra intensities of four elements in adulterants with different gradients.
The results of different models for adulterant quantification.
| Models | Rc2 | RMSEC (%) | Rp2 | RMSEP (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EML | 0.9820 | 6.0730 | 0.9280 | 9.9885 |
| LR | 0.9451 | 10.4186 | 0.9541 | 8.2852 |
| GPR | 0.9892 | 4.6878 | 0.9570 | 7.6243 |
Figure 8The prediction result of GPR model.