“…Relatively speaking, the clustering effect of taste sensor data was better. The clustering trend of PCA models based on data fusion was also unsatisfactory ( Chen et al, 2015 ) | | B | Palm oil | HPLC-UV, HPLC-CAD | Both can provide sample information in a non-selective manner, and the fingerprint can serve as a complete analytical data | Using PCA to visualize samples of HPLC-CAD and HPLC-UV, two outliers were found in HPLC-CAD, while there were no outliers in HPLC-UV | ( Obisesan et al, 2017 ) |
| D | Saffron | NIR, MIR | Both are easy to operate, fast, and environmentally friendly, but they are selective, so in order to overcome their shortcomings, chemometrics is needed | NIR-PCA showed two trends in the distribution of saffron samples, and MIR-PCA showed no significant distribution trend compared to NIR | ( Amirvaresi et al, 2021 ) |
PLSR | D | Olive oil | NIR, MIR | – | NIR: R 2 = 0.896, RMSEP = 7.09; MIR: R 2 = 0.966, RMSEP = 4.04; LLF: R 2 = 0.975, RMSEP = 3.44; HLF: R 2 = 0.988, RMSEP = 2.86 (Best) | ( Li et al, 2019 ) |
| E | Ziziphus jujuba | NIR, MIR | – | NIR: R 2 = 0.9312, RPD = 2.82 MIR: R 2 = 0.8951, RPD = 2.28 LLF: R 2 = 0.9475, RPD = 2.10 MLF: R 2 = 0.9621, RPD = 2.44 (Best) | ( Arslan et al, 2019 ) |
| E | Cottonseed | NIR, GC–MS | NIR is high-throughput, simple and low-cost | R 2 cal > 0.7 | ( Zhuang et al, 2023 ) |
SVR | E | Yuezhou Longjing tea | NIR, HPLC | NIR has the advantages of non-destructive testing, fast testing speed, and high efficiency | Sensory quality: RPD(PLSR) = 1.888,RPD (RF) = 2.033, RPD(SVR) = 2.485 (Best); Catechins: RPD(PLSR) = 1.857, RPD(SVR) = 2.088, RPD(RF) = 2.584 (Best); Caffeine: RPD(PLSR) = 2.076, RPD(SVR) = 2.799, RPD(RF) = 2.873 (Best) | ( Jia et al, 2022 ) |
| E | Ginkgo biloba leaf extract | NIR, HPLC ... |
…”