Skip to main content

Table 1 Recent applications of rapid and non-destructive methods for in the quality and safety evaluation of Cacao

From: Emerging rapid and non-destructive techniques for quality and safety evaluation of cacao: recent advances, challenges, and future trends

Application

Quality Parameters

Data Analysis

Results

References

NIR-Hyperspectral imaging

Classification

PLS-DA, SVM

Prediction error:

3.8–23.1% (SVM) 4.4–34.4% (PLS-DA)

Cruz-Tirado et al. (2020)

Hyperspectral imaging

Classification, FI

PLSR

95% accuracy

Bayona et al. (2018)

Hyperspectral imaging

FI, TP, AA

PLSR

R2 = 0.5 (RMSEP = 0.27, RPD = 1.40) for FI

R2 = 0.7 (RMSEP = 34.1 mg ferulic acid g − 1, RPD = 1.77) for TP

R2 = 0.74 (60.0 mmol Trolog kg − 1, RPD = 1.91) for AA

Caporaso et al. (2018)

Hyperspectral imaging

FI

SVM

63.3%-90% accuracy

Sanchez et al. (2020)

Hyperspectral imaging

Classification

PCA, SVM, LDN, KNN

81.28%-89.10% accuracy

Saeidan et al. (2021)

Hyperspectral chemical imaging

Total fat content

PLSR

R2 = 0.84, external prediction error of 2.4% for single shelled; \({R}^{2}\)= 0.52, predection error 4.0% for in-shell beans

Caporaso et al. (2021)

Laser-induced backscattering imaging

Firmness and maturity

PLSR

R2 = 0.755 for 658 nm & R2 = 0.800 for 705 nm for chroma; 90%-95% classification accuracy

Lockman et al. (2019)

FT-NIR spectroscopy

Fermentation index, pH, and total polyphenol content

ANOVA, LSD

R2 ≥ 0.80 (FI and polyphenol) R2 < 0.80 (pH)

Sunoj et al. (2016)

FT-NIR spectroscopy

Total fat content

Multivariate Regression, Si-PLS, SVMR, Si-SVMR

RMSEP = 0.015 and Rpre = 0.9708

Teye and Huang (2015)

FT-NIR spectroscopy

Classification

LDA, SVM

100% classification accuracy

Teye et al. (2016)

FT-NIR spectroscopy

Total fungi count

PLS, Si-PLS,Si-GAPLS, ACO-PLS, CARS-PLS

0.951 ≤ Rpre ≤ 0.975 & 3.15 ≤ RPD ≤ 4.32

Kutsanedzie et al. (2018)

NIR Spectroscopy

Classification, Internal quality

ANOVA, PLSR

RMSE up to 0.99, \({{R}_{c}}^{2}\) up to 0.99 RMSE up to 1.19 \({{R}_{p}}^{2}\) up to 0.97 for whole and ground

Barbin et al. (2018)

NIR Spectroscopy

Internal quality

PCR, PLSR, MSC, DT, SNV, OSC

R2 = 0.86 RPD = 3.16 (Fat Content), \({R}^{2}\)=0.92 RPD = 3.43 (Moisture Content)

Hayati et al. (2020)

NIR Spectroscopy

Internal quality

PLSR

R2 = 0.67–0.89, relative error < 10.2%

Hashimoto et al. (2018)

NIR Spectroscopy

Internal quality

MPLSR, SNV, DT, PLS

R2 = 0.77 (theobromine, R2 = 0.74 (total sugar), R2 = 0.66 (total phenols), R2 = 0.88 (derivatives of epicatechin), R2 = 0.7 (fat), \({R}^{2}\)=0.64 (protein, R2 = 0.82 (husk content)

Hernández-Hernández et al. (2022)

NIR Spectroscopy

Fermentation Level

PCA

R2 = 0.975, Rpre = 0.935

Hue et al. (2014)

NIR Spectroscopy

Classification

CAFS, NBC, ECFS, MCFS

Average accuracy: 99.63% (NBC), 94.92% (ECFS), & 99.63% (MCFS)

Castro et al. (2022)

Artificial Neural Network

Fermentation index

Coefficient of determination, Bland–Altman plor, Passing-Bablok Regression analysis

No accuracy specified

Leon-Roque et al. (2016)

Machine Vision and Multiclass SVM Classifier

Classification based on fermentation degree

SVM

100% accuracy

Yro et al. (2018)

Digital Imaging

Classification based on morphology

MELS-SVM

99.705% accuracy

Lawi and Adhitya (2018)

Multiparametric fluorescence sensor

Anthocyanin, flavanol, chlorophyll and nitrogen balance

PCA, CA

Accuracy was not specified

Tee et al. (2018)

Electronic nose Systems

Fermentation degree

bootstrap forest, decision tree, boosted tree, ANN, naïve Bayes, k-nearest neighbors

Misclassification rate: 9.4% (bootstrap forest), 12.8% (ANN), 13.6% (boosted tree)

Tan et al. (2019)

Electronic Nose

Grading

ANOVA

RMSE ~ 1% (KDM), RMSE = 2.9%-9.3% (under different conditions)

Tan and Kerr (2019)

Electronic Nose

Grading

LDA, SVM, ANN

Overall accuracy: 99% (training dataset), 95% (external-validation dataset)

Hidayat et al. (2019)

Electronic Nose

Fermentation index

PCA

97.8% of the total variance

Flórez-Martinez et al. 2020

Electronic Nose

Classification

PCA

95% accuracy

Olunloyo et al. (2012)

NIR Spectroscopy & Electronic Tongue

Cocoa bean variety Classifications

Multivariate Analysis, PCA

83%-93% accuracy (single sensor)

100% accuracy (data fusion)

Teye et al. (2014a)

  1. ANOVA Analysis of variance, CA Cluster analysis, LSD Least significant difference, PCA Principal component analysis, PLSR Partial Least Square Regression, PLS-DA Partial Least Squares discriminant analysis, SVM Support Vector Machines, NIR Near-infrared, FT-NIR Fourier transform near infrared, Si-PLS Synergy interval Partial Least Squares, SVMR Support Vector Machine Regression, Si-SVMR Support Vector Machine Regression, RMSEP Root-Mean-Square Error of Prediction, MELS-SVM Multiclass Ensemble Least-Squares Support Vector Machine, PCR Principal Component Regression, Si-GAPLS Synergy interval-genetic algorithm-PLS, ACO-PLS Ant colony optimization – PLS, CARS-PLS Competitive-adaptive reweighted sampling-PLS, CAFS Covering array feature selection, NBC Naïve Bayes classifier, ECFS Eigenvector centrality feature selection, MCFS Multi-cluster feature selection, LDN Linear Discriminant Analyses, KNN K Nearest Neighbours \({{\varvec{R}}}^{2}\) coefficient of determination, FI Fermentation index, TP Total polyphenol, AA Antioxidant activity, RMSEP RMSE of cross-validation, RPD MSE of prediction, Rpre Correlation coefficient in prediction set, \({{{\varvec{R}}}_{{\varvec{c}}}}^{2}\) Coefficient of calibration, \({{{\varvec{R}}}_{{\varvec{p}}}}^{2}\) Coefficient of prediction, MPLSR Modified Partial Least Square Regression, SNV Standard Normal Variate, DT Detrending