Comparison of diffuse reflectance fourier transform mid-infrared and near-infrared spectroscopy with grating-based near-infrared for the determination of fatty acids in forages
Calderon, F.J.; Reeves, J.B.; Foster, J.G.; Clapham, W.M.; Fedders, J.M.; Vigil, M.F.; Henry, W.B.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55(21): 8302-8309
Diffuse reflectance Fourier transform mid infrared (FTMIR) and near-infrared spectroscopy (FTNIR) were compared to scanning monochromator-grating-based near-infrared spectroscopy (SMNIR), for their ability to quantify fatty acids (FA) in forages. A total of 182 samples from thirteen different forage cultivars and three different harvest times were analyzed. Three calibration analyses were conducted for lauric (C12:0), myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0), palmitoleic (C16:1), oleic (C18:1), linoleic (C18:2), and alpha-linolenic (C18:3) acids. When all samples were used in a one-out partial least squares (PLS) calibration, the average R (2) were FTNIR (0.95) > SMNIR (0.94) > FTMIR (0.91). Constituents C18:2 and C16:0 had among the highest R (2) regardless of the spectroscopic method used. The FTNIR did better for C12:0, C14:0, and C18:3. The SMNIR did better for C16:0, C16:1, C18:0, C18:1, and C18:2. A second set of calibrations developed with half of the samples as the calibration set and the rest as the validation set showed that all the methods produce acceptable calibrations, with calibration R (2) above 0.9 for most constituents. However, the SMNIR had a better average calibration relative error than the FTNIR, which was slightly better than the FTMIR. A third set of calibration equations developed using 100 random PLS runs with the 182 samples split randomly also shows that the three spectral methods are satisfactory for predicting FA. It is not clear whether any of the spectral methods is distinctly better than another. Calibration R (2) and validation R (2) were higher for most FA with the SMNIR than the FTMIR and FTNIR.