Cargando…
Classification of Food Additives Using UV Spectroscopy and One-Dimensional Convolutional Neural Network
Food additives are utilized in countless food products available for sale. They enhance or obtain a specific flavor, extend the storage time, or obtain a desired texture. This paper presents an automatic classification system for five food additives based on their absorbance in the ultraviolet domai...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10490620/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37687972 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23177517 |
Sumario: | Food additives are utilized in countless food products available for sale. They enhance or obtain a specific flavor, extend the storage time, or obtain a desired texture. This paper presents an automatic classification system for five food additives based on their absorbance in the ultraviolet domain. Solutions with different concentrations were created by dissolving a measured additive mass into distilled water. The analyzed samples were either simple (one additive solution) or mixed (two additive solutions). The substances presented absorbance peaks between 190 nm and 360 nm. Each substance presents a certain number of absorbance peaks at specific wavelengths (e.g., acesulfame potassium presents an absorbance peak at 226 nm, whereas the peak associated with potassium sorbate is at 254 nm). Therefore, each additive has a distinctive spectrum that can be used for classification. The sample classification was performed using deep learning techniques. The samples were associated with numerical labels and divided into three datasets (training, validation, and testing). The best classification results were obtained using CNN (convolutional neural network) models. The classification of the 404 spectra with a CNN model with three convolutional layers obtained a mean testing accuracy of 92.38% ± 1.48%, whereas the mean validation accuracy was 93.43% ± 2.01%. |
---|