Detection of Flavor Adulterated Pu&#39;er Tea by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Shuxian Wang; Hang Xiao; Zhenfa Yang; Mingshun Jiang; Qingmei Sui; Dejun Feng

doi:10.3788/LOP57.233005

Journals >Laser & Optoelectronics Progress >Volume 57 >Issue 23 >Page 233005 > Article

Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
Vol. 57, Issue 23, 233005 (2020)

Detection of Flavor Adulterated Pu'er Tea by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Shuxian Wang¹, Hang Xiao², Zhenfa Yang², Mingshun Jiang², Qingmei Sui², and Dejun Feng^1、*

Author Affiliations

¹School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237, China

²School of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250061, China

show less

DOI: 10.3788/LOP57.233005 Cite this Article Set citation alerts

Shuxian Wang, Hang Xiao, Zhenfa Yang, Mingshun Jiang, Qingmei Sui, Dejun Feng. Detection of Flavor Adulterated Pu'er Tea by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2020, 57(23): 233005 Copy Citation Text

show less

Fig. 1. Original near-infrared spectra of Pu'er tea samples

Download full size

Fig. 2. Near-infrared spectra of three flavors and pure Pu'er tea

Download full size

Fig. 3. Fitting curves of test sets of three flavors. (a) Coumarin; (b) vanillin; (c) ethyl maltol

Download full size

Fig. 4. Determination coefficients of test set obtained by five repeated measurements for three flavors

Download full size

Number of samples		10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	20
Flavor adulterationconcentration /(mg·g^-1)	Coumarin	0.2	0.6	0.4	0.2	0.4	0.8	0.6	0.8	1.0
	Vanillin	0.4	0.2	0.6	0.4	0.8	0.2	0.8	1.0	0.6
	Ethyl maltol	0.6	0.4	0.2	0.8	0.2	0.4	1.0	0.6	0.8

Table 1. Flavor adulteration concentration and sample number

Flavor	Preprocessing method	PCs	$R_{c}^{2}$	RMSEC	$R_{p}^{2}$	RMSEP
	Original method	5	0.5645	0.2119	0.5138	0.2363
	MSC	7	0.7129	0.1729	0.7048	0.1878
Coumarin	1^st Der	4	0.7180	0.1700	0.7973	0.1529
	2^nd Der	6	0.7733	0.1729	0.7989	0.1461
	MSC+1^st Der	4	0.7136	0.1713	0.7912	0.1562
	MSC+2^nd Der	6	0.7661	0.1555	0.7989	0.1466
	Original method	5	0.6715	0.1835	0.6759	0.1823
	MSC	7	0.6749	0.1839	0.7350	0.1678
Vanillin	1^st Der	3	0.6807	0.1808	0.6839	0.1816
	2^nd Der	3	0.6728	0.1831	0.6678	0.1851
	MSC+1^st Der	3	0.6795	0.1812	0.6858	0.1809
	MSC+2^nd Der	3	0.6740	0.1827	0.6680	0.1848
	Original method	5	0.5522	0.2145	0.5353	0.2229
	MSC	8	0.6287	0.1976	0.6938	0.1800
Ethyl maltol	1^st Der	4	0.6414	0.1922	0.6926	0.1778
	2^nd Der	3	0.6221	0.1968	0.6748	0.1825
	MSC+1^st Der	3	0.6278	0.1953	0.6528	0.1887
	MSC+2^nd Der	3	0.6196	0.1975	0.6718	0.1834

Table 2. PLS processing results with different preprocessing methods

Download Citation

Set citation alerts for the article

Tools

Set citation alerts for the article

Save the article for my favorites

Paper Information