4.7 Article

Assessment of the Analytical Performance of Three Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Instruments (Benchtop, Handheld and Portable) through the Investigation of Coriander Seed Authenticity

Journal

FOODS
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10050956

Keywords

food authenticity; near-infrared spectroscopy; chemometrics; portable; handheld

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performance of three near-infrared spectroscopy instruments was compared for the investigation of coriander seed authenticity. Chemometric modeling and regression analysis were used to determine their predictive capabilities and quantitative tools. Results showed all instruments correctly predicted adulterated samples, with the iS50 performing better than the other two instruments in the best models.
The performance of three near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) instruments was compared through the investigation of coriander seed authenticity. The Thermo Fisher iS50 NIRS benchtop instrument, the portable Ocean Insights Flame-NIR and the Consumer Physics handheld SCiO device were assessed in conjunction with chemometric modelling in order to determine their predictive capabilities and use as quantitative tools through regression analysis. Two hundred authentic coriander seed samples and ninety adulterated samples were analysed on each device. Prediction models were developed and validated using SIMCA 15 chemometric software. All instruments correctly predicted 100% of the adulterated samples. The best models resulted in correct predictions of 100%, 98.5% and 95.6% for authentic coriander samples using spectra from the iS50, Flame-NIR and SCiO, respectively. The development of regression models highlighted the limitations of the Flame-NIR and SCiO for quantitative analysis, compared to the iS50. However, the results indicate their use as screening tools for on-site analysis of food, at various stages of the food supply chain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available