Application of PLS multivariate calibration for the determination of the hydroxyl group content in calcined silica by DRIFTS

2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 501-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Peussa ◽  
Satu H�rk�nen ◽  
Janne Puputti ◽  
Lauri Niinist�
1979 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1951-1962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinzo Yamashita ◽  
Katsumi Sando ◽  
Shinzo Kohjiya

The Analyst ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 95 (1126) ◽  
pp. 80 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. J. Norton ◽  
L. Turner ◽  
D. G. Salmon

The Analyst ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 128 (9) ◽  
pp. 1204-1207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcia C. Breitkreitz ◽  
Ivo M. Raimundo, Jr ◽  
Jarbas J. R. Rohwedder ◽  
Celio Pasquini ◽  
Heronides A. Dantas Filho ◽  
...  

1992 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 1685-1694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomas Isaksson ◽  
Charles E. Miller ◽  
Tormod Næs

In this work, the abilities of near-infrared diffuse reflectance (NIR) and transmittance (NIT) spectroscopy to noninvasively determine the protein, fat, and water contents of plastic-wrapped homogenized meat are evaluated. One hundred homogenized beef samples, ranging from 1 to 23% fat, wrapped in polyamide/polyethylene laminates, were used. Results of multivariate calibration and prediction for protein, fat, and water contents are presented. The optimal test set prediction errors (root mean square error of prediction, RMSEP), obtained with the use of the principal component regression method with NIR data, were 0.45, 0.29 and 0.50 weight % for protein, fat, and water, respectively, for plastic-wrapped meat (compared to 0.40, 0.28 and 0.45 wt % for unwrapped meat). The optimal prediction errors for the NIT method were 0.31, 0.52 and 0.42 wt % for protein, fat, and water, respectively, for plastic-wrapped meat samples (compared to 0.27, 0.38, and 0.37 wt % for unwrapped meat). We can conclude that the addition of the laminate only slightly reduced the abilities of the NIR and NIT method to predict protein, fat, and water contents in homogenized meat.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document