Paper · 2002 · Nōgyō shisetsu/Nougyou shisetsu

Non-destructive Prediction of Internal Quality of Heat-treated 'Irwin' Mango by Near Infrared Spectroscopy.

Rokhani Hasbullah; Tetsuya Tanabe; Munehiro Tanaka; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy in the range of 600-1000nm was studied for its ability to predict the internal quality attributes, such as moisture content, hardness, soluble solid content (SSC), acidity and pH, of the 'Irwin' mango (Mangifera indica Linn.) following heat treatment. A total of 63 samples were used for calibration models and 124 samples collected from 62 heat-treated mangos were used for prediction models using partial least squares regression (PLS) and principal component regression (PCR) methods. The results showed that models using the PLS method were better than those using the PCR method. There was an influence of the preprocessing spectra on the prediction performance of the models in which the second derivative of Savitzky-Golay method [D2log(1/R)] resulted in the best calibration models. The correlation coefficients and the SEPs for the prediction of the moisture content, hardness, SSC, acidity and pH of the heat treated mango were 0.94 (0.384), 0.87 (0.066), 0.94 (0.387), 0.80 (0.053) and 0.83 (0.141), respectively. The average SSC value in the stem-end was significantly higher than that in the blossom-end. The heat-treated mango had significantly higher moisture content, hardness, SSC and acidity levels and had lower pH levels compared to the untreated mango, showing the marked improvement of the fruit quality following the heat treatment due to a reduction in the decline of quality attributes.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PLS models predicted mango internal quality better than PCR models.

Outcome
bettere0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
PCR methode0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“models using the PLS method were better than those using the PCR method”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 545–616 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Second-derivative Savitzky–Golay preprocessing gave the best calibration models.

Outcome
calibration modelse0
Direction
beste0
Comparator
preprocessing spectrae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“preprocessing spectra on the prediction performance of the models in which the second derivative of Savitzky-Golay method [D2log(1/R)] resulted in the best calibration models”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–822 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NIR predicted mango moisture content with correlation 0.94 and SEP 0.384.

Outcome
moisture contente0
Value
0.94 (0.384)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The correlation coefficients and the SEPs for the prediction of the moisture content, hardness, SSC, acidity and pH of the heat treated mango were 0.94 (0.384), 0.87 (0.066), 0.94 (0.387), 0.80 (0.053) and 0.83 (0.141), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1056 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NIR predicted mango hardness with correlation 0.87 and SEP 0.066.

Outcome
hardnesse0
Value
0.87 (0.066)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The correlation coefficients and the SEPs for the prediction of the moisture content, hardness, SSC, acidity and pH of the heat treated mango were 0.94 (0.384), 0.87 (0.066), 0.94 (0.387), 0.80 (0.053) and 0.83 (0.141), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1056 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NIR predicted mango SSC with correlation 0.94 and SEP 0.387.

Outcome
SSCe0
Value
0.94 (0.387)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The correlation coefficients and the SEPs for the prediction of the moisture content, hardness, SSC, acidity and pH of the heat treated mango were 0.94 (0.384), 0.87 (0.066), 0.94 (0.387), 0.80 (0.053) and 0.83 (0.141), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1056 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NIR predicted mango acidity with correlation 0.80 and SEP 0.053.

Outcome
aciditye0
Value
0.80 (0.053)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The correlation coefficients and the SEPs for the prediction of the moisture content, hardness, SSC, acidity and pH of the heat treated mango were 0.94 (0.384), 0.87 (0.066), 0.94 (0.387), 0.80 (0.053) and 0.83 (0.141), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1056 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NIR predicted mango pH with correlation 0.83 and SEP 0.141.

Outcome
pHe0
Value
0.83 (0.141)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The correlation coefficients and the SEPs for the prediction of the moisture content, hardness, SSC, acidity and pH of the heat treated mango were 0.94 (0.384), 0.87 (0.066), 0.94 (0.387), 0.80 (0.053) and 0.83 (0.141), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1056 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Stem-end mango SSC was significantly higher than blossom-end SSC.

Organ / stage
stem-ende0
Outcome
SSC valuee0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
blossom-ende0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The average SSC value in the stem-end was significantly higher than that in the blossom-end”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1149 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Heat treatment significantly increased mango moisture content, hardness, SSC and acidity.

Treatment
heat-treatede0
Outcome
moisture content, hardness, SSC and acidity levelse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
untreated mangoe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The heat-treated mango had significantly higher moisture content, hardness, SSC and acidity levels and had lower pH levels compared to the untreated mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1151–1305 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Heat treatment significantly lowered mango pH.

Treatment
heat-treatede0
Outcome
pH levelse0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
untreated mangoe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The heat-treated mango had significantly higher moisture content, hardness, SSC and acidity levels and had lower pH levels compared to the untreated mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1151–1305 · show in text ↑
t0

“Mango”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76 · show in text ↑

heat · molecular: metabolites · Mangifera indica (mango)Results differ

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.