Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-023-01965-x

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A feasibility quantification study of capsaicin content in chili powder

for rapid evaluation using near‑infrared reflectance spectroscopy
Bowen Jing1 · Wensheng Song2 · Xin Gao1 · Ke He1 · Qinming Sun1 · Xiuying Tang1

Received: 27 January 2023 / Accepted: 7 May 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Capsaicin, a unique alkaloid mainly found in pepper (Capsicum spp.), is in high demand in the food, chemical, and medical
fields. Near-infrared (NIR) reflectance spectroscopy at 940–1660 nm was implemented in this study to determine the capsaicin
content in dried chili pepper powder. The quantitative calibration models between the spectral data and the measured capsai-
cin content were built by partial least square regression (PLSR) and extreme learning machine regression (ELM). Different
preprocessing methods were used to process the spectral data, and successive projection algorithm (SPA) and uninformative
variables elimination (UVE) were used to select characteristic wavelengths. The PLSR model with the full wavelengths
pretreated by the first derivative yielded optimum results with a root mean squared error for the prediction set (RMSEP) of
1.0338 g/kg and a correlation coefficient (Rp) of 0.9003 and residual prediction deviation of 2.25. It demonstrated that NIR
spectroscopy could be used as an objective tool for the rapid and accurate quantitative determination of capsaicin content.

Keywords Chili powder · Capsaicin content · Near-infrared spectroscopy · Characteristic selection · Partial least squares
regression · Extreme learning machine regression

Introduction step, achieving rapid and accurate detection of capsaicin

Capsaicin has been widely used in condiments because of
its unique spicy taste [1, 2]. In addition, capsaicin can also
act as a pain reliever, improve exercise performance, and
lower blood lipids by stimulating its receptor transient recep-
tor, potential vanilloid subfamily member 1 (TRPV1) [3, 4].
Therefore, it is also in significant demand in pharmaceutical
processing [5, 6]. According to GIR (Global Info Research)
research, global capsaicin revenue was approximately $8
million in 2021 and is expected to reach $11 million by
2028. Although capsaicin can be synthesized chemically,
it is complex and costly to operate [7] and cannot meet the
actual production demand. At present, chili peppers are still
the most critical source of capsaicin, so it is necessary to
increase the extraction rate of capsaicin to meet the demand
of the industry for capsaicin. Therefore, as a pre-extraction
* Xiuying Tang
txying@cau.edu.cn
1
China Agricultural University, College of Engineering, 17
Qinghua East Road, Haidian 100083, Beijing, China
2
Xinjiang Tianjiao Hong’an Agricultural Science
and Technology Co. LTD., Shihezi, Xinjiang, China
content is of great significance.
In recent years, the prediction of capsaicin content in chili
peppers has become the focus of scholarly research. In 1912,
Wilbur Scoville proposed the organoleptic test method to
detect capsaicin content in chili peppers, which was easy to
operate but the crude and subjective judgment led to inac-
curate and poorly reproducible results. Based on the UV
absorption of the sample solution at different wavelengths
and the excellent solubility of capsaicin in organic solvents,
the spectrophotometric approach is utilized to quantify the
total capsaicin concentration in the sample [8, 9]. Although
the influence of pigments in chili peppers can be eliminated
to some extent by calculating the absorbance of solutions at
different wavelengths, it is required that the capsaicin con-
tent calculated at two wavelengths should not exceed 10%.
Therefore, there will be repeated measurement problems
in the application, even when there are many impurities,
the results can be unusable due to the large gap between
the calculated results. It is, however, prone to mistakes and
has limited repeatability due to unstable absorption. On the
other hand, high-performance liquid chromatography has
been applied to the quantitative analysis of capsaicin since
the late 1970s because of its high separation, sensitivity,

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

and accuracy [10–13]. Although liquid chromatography
provides more precise results, the procedure is complex and
time-consuming. Furthermore, the organic extraction sol-
vents utilized before detecting chili pepper samples are toxic
and should only be used by trained personnel. Therefore,
exploring a rapid and accurate method for the quantitative
determination of capsaicin that may be employed in practical
applications is critical.
Due to its technical advantages, such as no pretreatment,
simultaneous multi-component determination, fast analysis,
and no contamination, NIR spectroscopy has been widely
used in food [14–16] and crop [17, 18] quality testing. How-
ever, there were fewer studies on pepper quality analysis
because of the practical application limitations. Penchaiya
[19] used near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy to deter-
mine the soluble solids content and hardness of sweet pep-
per fruit and combined it with partial least squares (PLS)
calibration to develop an optimal model. Lim [20] launched
a spectral detection device for Korean red pepper powder
to achieve a relatively accurate prediction. Rahman [21]
achieved hyperspectral-based detection of capsaicin con-
tent in green peppers. Although the above methods achieved
fairly good detection accuracy, they have drawbacks such as
complicated spectroscopic equipment operation procedures
and high hyperspectral imaging detection costs, which are
challenging to industrialize. The importance of these meth-
odologies lies in the fact that they serve as a foundation for
future research. Therefore, this study will explore the fea-
sibility of NIR spectroscopy as a rapid detection technique
for the accurate measurement of capsaicin content in chili
pepper powder based on the above research.
In this study, the predictive ability of NIR spectroscopy
for capsaicin content in peppers was evaluated. The follow-
ing research focuses were proposed: (1) to build a NIR spec-
troscopy detecting system and explore its spectral feasibil-
ity; (2) to compare the detection performance of the ELM
model and PLSR model for capsaicin content; (3) to analyze
the effect of different processing methods on the prediction
performance of the model; (4) to select the characteristic
wavelengths linked to the analysis of capsaicin content and
measure the accuracy of prediction models using only those
selected wavelengths.
Materials and methods
Preparation of chili powder samples
and determination of capsaicin content
The 88 pepper samples were obtained from XinJiang Long-
Ping Hong'An Bio-Tech Co (Shihezi City, Xinjiang, China).
Wash the samples with water and cut them into small pieces.
They were dried in an electric thermostatic oven at 55 ℃ to
13
B. Jing et al.
reach a moisture content of 13%. After collecting the sam-
ples, chili peppers were crushed to powder form by a plant
specimen crusher and passed through a 60 mesh graded
sieve. Since capsaicin in peppers is mainly concentrated in
the placenta and pulp [22, 23], the peppers are ground whole
without deseeding.
The standard capsaicin synthesis was dissolved in
methanol and then diluted to 1 mg/ml. The standard stor-
age solution was aspirated at 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 ml,
respectively, and a fixed volume using methanol to 25 ml
was injected into the HPLC column to establish the linear
regression equation of capsaicin.
The crushed sample was weighed 20.0 ± 1.0 g, dissolved
in 150 ml of 95% ethanol (analytically pure), and then made
into an extract by the Soxhlet extractor for chromatographic
analysis. The analysis was performed on an InertsilODS-3 V
column (5 μm, 4.6*250 mm). The mobile phase consisted
of acetonitrile solution/ultrapure water containing 0.5% ace-
tic acid (50/50 V/V) and was pumped at a rate of 1.0 ml/
min, and the volume of the sample injected was 10 µl. The
fluorescence detector was set at an excitation wavelength of
280 nm and an emission wavelength of 325 nm [24].
Spectral data acquisition
A self-built NIR reflectance spectroscopy system col-
lected the reflectance spectra of each chili pepper sample as
shown in Fig. 1. The spectral acquisition was performed
in a dark box connected to a computer, and a spectrometer
(USB2000+, Ocean Optics Inc., USA) was used to collect
the spectral data of each sample. The spectrometer measured
wavelengths from 940 to 1660 nm, with 128 data points.
Two 35 W halogen lamps were used as light sources and
placed above the samples. Before collecting the spectral
data, the lamps were heated for 30 min to stabilize the light.
The sample was put 15 mm away from the fiber, and the
spectrum data of each sample was acquired at three sepa-
rate places, with the average of three replicate measurements
being used to determine the final spectral data for the pepper.
Fig. 1  Structure of visible and near-infrared reflectance spectrum
acquisition device
A feasibility quantification study of capsaicin content in chili powder for rapid evaluation…

Spectral data preprocessing and classification problems in NIR detection [28–30]. All
statistical analyses were performed in MatLab R2020a
In addition to the chemical information of capsaicin, the (Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
collected spectra contain other useless information and
noise, such as electrical noise, sample background, and stray Selection of characteristic wavelengths
light. In order to obtain an accurate and reliable spectral
calibration model, it is necessary to eliminate extraneous NIR spectroscopy is a technique for predicting the content
information and noise from the spectral data. In this study, and composition of substances from information based on
Savitzky–Glay smoothing (S–G smoothing), first derivative the structure and content of X–H groups. However, the spec-
and 2nd derivative, standard normal transform (SNV), and tra contain not only information about the quality of the
multiple scattering correction (MSC) were used as the pre- object to be measured but also multicollinearity and redun-
processing methods for the spectra. dant information between successive wavelengths, which
can result in massive calculation and slow calculation speed
Multivariable data analysis [31, 32]. Therefore, this study uses successive projections
algorithm (SPA) and uninformative variables elimination
Partial least squares (UVE) to extract the characteristic wavelengths related to
the basic properties of capsaicin from the whole waveband
To ensure the stability and accuracy of the test results, it is to simplify the model.
also necessary to create and develop model detection algo- SPA eliminates redundant information and multicollin-
rithms with high stability to build accurate models for quan- earity in spectral data by finding groups of variables in the
titative analysis of capsaicin. Partial least squares regression data matrix that contains the minimum amount of redundant
(PLSR) analysis is the most widely used method in NIR spec- information. The UVE calculates the stability of each vari-
tral modeling [25]. Two data matrices, X and Y, are decom- able by inputting a random noise equal to the variable and
posed and calculated to obtain their score matrix and load screens for variables with high stability, eliminating those
matrix. Then linear regression is performed. In contrast to tra- not relevant to the detection information.
ditional regression models, PLSR can analyze the relationship
between a data matrix X with strong covariance and multiple
variable matrices Y. It can apply to problems with a small Model evaluation metrics
number of samples but a relatively large number of variables.
The model performance of the quantitative model of cap-
Extreme learning machine saicin content is evaluated by the correlation coefficient (R),
root mean square error (RMSE), and relative analysis error
PLSR is based on the assumption that the target spectral sys- (RPD). The calculation of these parameters is calculated by
tem is linearly additive. Nevertheless, the spectral variables the following equations.
and concentrations are somewhat nonlinear, and component ∑N � ��
interactions and instrument noise exacerbate the nonlinearity
�
i=1
̂
y i − ̂
y yi − ȳ
problem. Therefore, nonlinear algorithms can easily play a R= �
�2 � (1)
potential role in improving the reliability and reproducibility ∑N � �2
i=1 ŷ i − ŷ yi − ̄
y
of NIR spectral predictions [26]. Thus, the nonlinear algo-
rithm Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) is also compared
in this study.
�
∑N � �2
ŷ i − yi (2)
The limit learning machine is a new single-hidden layer RMSE = i=1

feedforward neural network learning algorithm proposed by n−1

Huang [27]. The single hidden layer feedforward network
weights are measured analytically by randomly generat- RPD = SD∕RMSEP (3)
ing the connection weights between the input layer and the
where ̂yi is the spectral prediction of capsaicin content, yi
hidden layer and the threshold values of the neurons in the
is the HPLC measurement of capsaicin content, N is the
hidden layer. During the training phase, only the number of
number of samples, SD is the standard deviation of capsaicin
neurons in the hidden layer needs to be set; no other param-
content measurement in the validation set, and RMSEP is
eter selection is required. It has greater generalization capa-
the root mean square error of the validation set.
bility, runs faster than gradient-based learning algorithms,
As shown in Table 1, R represented the correlation
and avoids many parameters and local minimum choices It
between predicted capsaicin content and measured content
has demonstrated good performance in quantitative analysis

13

Table 1  Evaluation indicators Evaluation Function
for quantitative models indicators
R Evaluation of the degree of correlation between the predicted and true values Approaching 1
of the model
RMSE Evaluation of deviations between the predicted and true values of the model Approaching 0
RPD Evaluation of the effectiveness of the model predictions
and was used to evaluate the detectability of different mod-
els. RMSE is used to measure the prediction error of the
model validation set and calibration set. The closer the cor-
relation coefficients (R) to 1, the closer the root mean square
error values (RMSE) to 0, and the more accurate the model
prediction is. The RPD is the ratio of the standard deviation
of the validation set to RMSEP, a measure of regression
model validity and overall predictability. If the RPD value is
more than 2, it means that the model prediction is effective,
and when the RPD value is less than 1.5, the established
model cannot be applied to the prediction of the index to be
measured [33, 34].
Results and discussion
Reference measurement of capsaicin content
In this study, the samples were classified by the concen-
tration gradient method to ensure that the spectral infor-
mation of the entire sample was evenly distributed in the
two sample spaces. The 88 samples were divided into the
calibration and validation sets in a 3:1 ratio. The range
and the distribution of capsaicin of these samples are
shown in Table 2. As indicated in Table 2, capsaicin con-
tent range and average content of calibration set sample
were 0.0451–11.9155 g/kg and 2.7950 g/kg, respectively,
and corresponding values of prediction set sample were
0.1851–9.5835 g/kg and 2.7343 g/kg, respectively. The
range of the reference measurements in the prediction
set was covered by the range in the calibration set. The
standard deviations of the calibration and prediction sets
were very similar, which means that the distribution of
Table 2  Reference measurement Data set Number of
of capsaicin content of chili samples
pepper samples in data sets
Total set 88
Calibration set 66
Validation set 22
The statistics showed the capsaicin content of the chili pepper samples in the calibration and validation sets
13
B. Jing et al.
Optimal range
>2
the reference data in the calibration and prediction sets is
almost equally distributed, avoiding bias in the distribution
of the two sets.
Spectrum analysis
The spectral data of 940–1660 nm were selected for mod-
eling. The reflection spectra curve of pepper powder with
varying capsaicin concentrations showed comparable ten-
dencies, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The reflection curves of
the spectrum showed a decreasing trend at 940–1205 nm
and an increasing trend at 1205–1310 nm. The reflec-
tion curves decreased after reaching the maximum value
until they leveled off after 1500 nm. As molecular vibra-
tion spectra, NIR spectra originate from the absorption
of X–H bonds, and the spectra produced by different
hydrogen-containing groups differ in the intensity and
position of absorption peaks. In this study, chili powder
had evident absorption peaks at 1000 nm, 1205 nm and
1480 nm, which could be caused by the second vibration
of N–H bonds and the secondary overtone of the C–H
stretching vibration and the first overtone of the O–H
stretching vibration, respectively [21, 35, 36]. In addition,
there were differences in the reflectance curves of sam-
ples with different capsaicin concentrations, especially
at 1100–1350 nm. This may be due to the differences in
capsaicin content of the chili pepper samples [37]. Fur-
thermore, it can be seen that the trends of all the spectral
curves in Fig. 3 were consistent. The result indicated that
there were no anomalous samples, so all data were used
for further processing.
Range of capsaicin (g/kg) Mean (g/kg) Standard
deviation (g/
kg)
0.0451–11.9155 2.7950 2.4315
0.0451–11.9155 2.8152 2.4639
0.1851–9.5835 2.7343 2.3305
A feasibility quantification study of capsaicin content in chili powder for rapid evaluation…

Fig. 2  Result of reflectance

intensity of chili powder sam-
ples with different capsaicin
contents in the spectral range of
940–1660 nm

Fig. 3  Spectral curves of the original spectrum after pretreatment. spectrum after standard normal variable processing; e spectral curve
a Row spectrum, b spectrum obtained by Savitzky–Glay smoothing obtained by first derivative; f spectral curve obtained by second deriv-
pretreatment; c spectrum after multiplicative scatter correction; d ative

13
 B. Jing et al.

Prediction of capsaicin content based on the whole
spectral with different quantitative models
ELM and PLSR algorithms were used to build prediction
models under the collected sample spectra and their corre-
sponding capsaicin contents. The specific prediction results
based on different preprocessing methods are shown in
Tables 3 and 4.
In this study, the "sigmoidal" function is chosen as the
kernel function of the network and the sample spectrum
is used as input. For the number of neurons, the most
appropriate number should be chosen to avoid “underfit-
ting” with too few neurons or “overfitting” with too many
neurons. In this study, the initial number of neurons was
set to 5 and gradually increased to 50 to develop and test
the ELM model according to the sample size. Repeat the
experiment 100 times on the ELM model under each neu-
ron. Divide the 100 models obtained under each neuron
into a group, and calculate the number of models with
Rc and Rp greater than 0.8 and RMSEC greater than 1.2
RMSEP according to the model evaluation indicators
introduced in Chapter 2.6. The neuron with the highest fre-
quency was taken as the optimal number of neurons. The
model with the highest correlation coefficient under that
neuron was taken as the optimal model. The ideal number
of neurons and prediction outcomes for each preprocessing
model based on the same analysis were shown in Table 3.
From the prediction results of ELM model in Table 3,
it can be seen that the optimal number of neurons for
the original spectrum was 23, with an Rp of 0.8054, an
RMSEP of 1.4565 g/kg, and RPD of 1.60. After various
preprocessing methods, the performance of the model has
been improved. Among them, the optimum prediction
model is the spectral model processed by the first deriva-
tive, since the higher RPD than the first derivative with
Savitzky-Golay, with the number of neurons selected for
the model is 35, Rp of 0.8371, RMSEP of 1.3694 g/kg,
and RPD of 1.70.

Table 3  The prediction results The number of prin- Preprocessing Correction set Validation set RPD
with five evaluation parameters cipal components
of the ELM model using RC RMSEC (g/kg) RP RMSEP (g/kg)
different preprocessing methods
23 Raw 0.8129 1.4350 0.8054 1.4565 1.60
24 SG 0.8276 1.3831 0.8193 1.5796 1.48
35 1st 0.8505 1.2961 0.8371 1.3694 1.70
13 1st + SG 0.8503 1.2967 0.8412 1.4279 1.63
35 2nd 0.8192 1.4132 0.8178 2.0139 1.16
47 2nd + SG 0.8430 1.3254 0.8237 1.7838 1.31
25 MSC 0.8249 1.3928 0.8217 1.5298 1.52
35 SNV 0.8442 1.3206 0.8367 1.6127 1.45

Raw spectral data without any preprocessing method; SG Savitzky–Golay;1st the first derivative; 2nd the
second derivative; SNV standard normal variate; MSC multiplicative scatter correction; Rc correlation coef-
ficient in calibration set; RMSEC root mean squared error of calibration set; Rp correlation coefficient in
prediction set; RMSEP root mean squared error in prediction set; RPD relative percent deviation

Table 4  The prediction The number of prin- Preprocessing Correction set Validation set RPD
results with five evaluation cipal components
parameters of the PLSR model RC RMSEC (g/kg) RP RMSEP (g/kg)
using different preprocessing
methods. 10 Raw 0.8284 1.3800 0.8275 1.3295 1.75
10 SG 0.8223 14,019 0.8230 1.3479 1.73
11 1st 0.9090 1.0270 0.9003 1.0338 2.25
11 1st + SG 0.8976 1.0862 0.8993 1.0423 2.24
6 2nd 0.8555 1.2764 0.8109 1.3673 1.70
6 2nd + SG 0.8307 1.3719 0.8274 1.3132 1.77
9 MSC 0.8086 1.4495 0.7801 1.4979 1.56
9 SNV 0.8087 1.4494 0.7804 1.4973 1.56

Raw spectral data without any preprocessing method; SG Savitzky–Golay; 1st the first derivative; 2nd the
second derivative; SNV standard normal variate; MSC multiplicative scatter correction; Rc correlation coef-
ficient in calibration set; RMSEC root mean squared error of calibration set; Rp correlation coefficient in
prediction set; RMSEP root mean squared error in prediction set; RPD relative percent deviation

13
A feasibility quantification study of capsaicin content in chili powder for rapid evaluation…
The PLSR model results in Table 4 indicated that the
original spectra have a certain prediction effect without
using the pretreatment method, similar to the ELM results.
The model accuracy is higher than SNV and MSC, with
Rc of 0.8284, RMSEC of 1.3800 g/kg, and Rp of 0.8275
RMSEP of 1.3295 g/kg. And the RPD value was 1.75, indi-
cating that the model can be used for quantitative analysis.
Also, the prediction of the spectral model after preprocess-
ing has different degrees of variation.
As shown in Table 4, the prediction results of the PLSR
model using SG smoothing decreased compared to the origi-
nal spectrum. The model prediction improved after the first
derivative, first derivative-SG, second-order derivative, and
second-order derivative-SG methods were processed. The
optimum prediction model was the PLSR model using the
first derivative with Rp of 0.9003, RMSEP of 1.0338 g/kg,
and RPD of 2.25.
It can be seen that after the smoothing process of the
PLSR model, the accuracy of the final model has been
reduced, probably because the smoothing process led to a
decrease in signal sharpness to produce distortion.
SNV (standard normal variate transform) can eliminate
the effects of solid particle size and surface scattering on
the diffuse reflectance spectrum. MSC (multiplicative scatter
correction) has similar effects to SNV, which can eliminate
scattering effects from particle inhomogeneity and parti-
cle size. As seen in Table 4, the spectra after the SNV and
MSC treatments did not improve in precision, although the
principal component fraction was reduced. It may be due
to the slight difference in granularity between the samples
after the two-step sample processing of crushing and siev-
ing. Although the pretreatment reduced the scattering of the
granular pepper samples, it did not retain enough effective
information, leading to decreased prediction accuracy [38,
39]. And both showed similar prediction performance, which
may be related to the fact that Fig. 3c and d have similar
wave peaks and trends.
However, the accuracy of the derivative-processed PLSR
model is better than that of the original spectrum. The spec-
tral model with the first derivative preprocessing has the
highest accuracy, similar to the ELM model. The spectral
model with the second derivative has lower accuracy but is
still higher than the original spectrum. The first and second
derivatives significantly improve the prediction accuracy
of the model. Among them, the optimum prediction was
obtained using the first derivative as the preprocessed model
with Rc of 0.9090, Rp of 0.9003, RMSEC of 1.0270 g/kg,
RMSEP of 1.0338 g/kg, and RPD of 2.25. This may be
since, after the first derivative processing, the profile vari-
ation with higher clarity than the original spectrum was
obtained, as shown in Fig. 3e, where the peak of the spec-
tral curve with fluctuations is more pronounced compared
to the original spectrum (Fig. 3a). The second derivative has
a narrower spectral curve peak width than the first deriva-
tive, producing more peaks. Still, the peak height decreases
significantly, resulting in a decrease in discrimination. Some
pseudo-harmonic peaks are generated, introducing extrane-
ous noise and lowering the signal-to-noise ratio, resulting in
a reduction of model accuracy.
The overall comparison reveals that the PLSR model out-
performs the ELM in terms of overall prediction, therefore,
subsequent studies will be conducted on the basis of the
PLSR model.
Prediction of capsaicin content based
on characteristic wavelengths with PLSR
To simplify the model, the SPA and UVE algorithms were
used to filter the raw and preprocessed spectra. During the
SPA screening process, no restrictions on the selection of
wavelengths are set, and the optimal combination of wave-
lengths is selected based on the minimum root mean square
error of prediction. The aim was to screen the pepper powder
spectral data for the most relevant wavelengths to capsaicin
content. In the screening process of the UVE method, the
principal component number with the smallest root mean
square error of prediction was selected as the optimal princi-
pal component number. The aim was to remove information
from the spectral data that is not relevant to the detection
of capsaicin content. Finally, the PLSR models were built
from the characteristic wavelength spectral data obtained
by the two methods. The detailed model results were shown
in Table 5.
The optimum model under SPA screening is the SG-SPA-
PLSR model due to the overfitting of the model built after
SPA screening of the 1st derivative spectra. The optimal
performance results of the PLSR model based on the char-
acteristic variables screened by SPA were 0.8183 and 0.8169
for Rc and Rp, respectively, corresponding to RMSEC and
RMSEP of 1.4163 g/kg and 1.3839 g/kg. As shown in Fig. 4
and Table 6, the number of input spectral variables has been
reduced from 128 to 22 for the full spectrum, simplifying the
model and increasing computation speed. The 22 selected
wavelengths are spread over the entire band range, with a
greater concentration in the band at 1150–1350 nm, which
may be strongly related to the second overtone region of the
carbon bond [35, 37, 40].
The optimum model under UVE screening is the SNV-
UVE-PLSR model, with an Rp of 0.8698, an RMSEP of
1.1815 g/kg, and RPD of 1.97. The number of input spectral
variables has been reduced from 128 to 44 for the full spec-
trum as shown in the Fig. 5 and Table 6. In comparison to
the characteristic wavelengths obtained by the SPA, there is
also a significant aggregation at 1500 nm, which is mainly
related to the vibration of N–H [21]. Although the number of
13
 B. Jing et al.

Table 5  Performance Selection Preprocessing Variables Correction set Validation set RPD
comparison of PLSR models methods number
of SPA and UVE screening RC RMSEC (g/kg) RP RMSEP (g/kg)
characteristic variables with
different preprocessing methods SPA Raw 23 0.7918 1.5048 0.7979 1.5025 1.55
SG 22 0.8183 1.4163 0.8169 1.3839 1.68
1st 10 0.8349 1.3564 0.8858 1.0980 2.12
1st + SG 20 0.8123 1.4372 0.8117 1.4242 1.64
2nd 8 0.5197 2.1073 0.6872 1.7941 1.30
2nd + SG 6 0.5418 2.0838 0.7127 1.6883 1.38
MSC 9 0.7770 1.5510 0.7648 1.5312 1.52
SNV 18 0.8194 1.4122 0.8015 1.4060 1.66
UVE Raw 51 0.8027 1.4695 0.7710 1.5159 1.54
SG 46 0.7849 1.5268 0.7841 1.4921 1.56
1st 20 0.7934 1.4500 0.7858 1.5677 1.49
1st + SG 17 0.5932 1.9840 0.5650 1.9276 1.21
2nd 8 0.6583 1.8558 0.6161 1.9195 1.21
2nd + SG 14 0.6875 1.7955 0.6576 1.7773 1.31
MSC 50 0.7921 1.5038 0.7856 1.4812 1.57
SNV 44 0.8811 1.1652 0.8698 1.1815 1.97

SPA successive projections algorithm; UVE uninformative variables elimination; Raw spectral data with-
out any preprocessing method; SG Savitzky–Golay;1st the first derivative; 2nd the second derivative; SNV
standard normal variate; MSC multiplicative scatter correction; Rc correlation coefficient in calibration set;
RMSEC root mean squared error of calibration set; Rp correlation coefficient in prediction set; RMSEP root
mean squared error in prediction set; RPD relative percent deviation

Table 6  Optimal wavelengths selected for the capsaicin content by

successive projections algorithm (SPA) and uninformative variables
elimination (UVE)

Selection Vari- Wavelength (nm)

methods ables
number

SPA 22 939.3, 951.0, 980.1, 1020.8, 1084.5, 1159.3,

Fig. 4  The characteristic wavelengths of capsaicin selected by SPA
variables after screening is higher than SG-SPA, it is accept-
able due to the improved performance of the model.
Selection of optimal prediction model
PLSR outperformed ELM in the modeling effect based on
the above model results. This may be because the relation-
ship between capsaicin content and spectral information
approximately obeys the Lambert–Beer law and is more
suitable for linear modeling. The performance of PLSR
1182.3, 1205.2, 1228.0, 1256.5, 1290.6,
1307.6, 1324.6, 1341.6, 1364.2, 1414.8,
1437.3, 1465.3, 1510.0, 1548.9, 1576.7,
1659.5
UVE 44 939.3, 951.0, 956.8, 980.1, 1020.8, 1026.6,
1032.4, 1038.2, 1078.7, 1084.5, 1090.3,
1096.0, 1101.8, 1153.6, 1313.3, 1319.0,
1324.6, 1330.3, 1352.9, 1358.5, 1364.2,
1369.8, 1375.5, 1386.7, 1426.1, 1442.9,
1448.5, 1470.9, 1476.5, 1482.1, 1487.7,
1493.2, 1498.8, 1504.4, 1510.0, 1515.5,
1532.2, 1537.8, 1548.9, 1554.5, 1560.0,
1565.6, 1571.1, 1626.4
models with different preprocessing and wavelength screen-
ing algorithms were compared using multiple evaluation
metrics of RMSEC, RMSEP and RPD. Among the numer-
ous preprocessing methods, the first derivative is probably
the optimum preprocessing method that can significantly
improve the model accuracy. Although SPA and UVE could
remove the spectral multicollinearity and irrelevant wave-
length to capsaicin content and achieve data reduction, the

13
A feasibility quantification study of capsaicin content in chili powder for rapid evaluation…

Fig. 5  The characteristic wavelengths of capsaicin selected by UVE

Table 7  Comparison results Number of Preprocessing Correction set Validation set RPD
of regression models for the wavelengths
capsaicin content prediction RC RMSEC (g/kg) RP RMSEP (g/kg)

Full spectra 128 1st 0.9090 1.0270 0.9003 1.0338 2.25

SPA 22 SG 0.8183 1.4163 0.8169 1.3839 1.68
UVE 44 SNV 0.8811 1.1652 0.8698 1.1815 1.97

SPA successive projections algorithm; UVE uninformative variables elimination; SG Savitzky–Golay;

1st the first derivative; SNV standard normal variate; Rc correlation coefficient in calibration set; RMSEC
root mean squared error of calibration set; Rp correlation coefficient in prediction set; RMSEP root mean
squared error in prediction set; RPD relative percent deviation

prediction results were less accurate than the full spectrum

model as shown in Table 7. Ultimately, the first derivative-
PLSR model in the full wavelength spectral range was
implemented to predict the capsaicin content in chili pep-
per powder, with Rc of 0.9090, Rp of 0.9003, RMSEP of
1.027 g/kg, RMSEC of 1.0338 g/kg, and RPD of 2.25, and
the scatter plot of the prediction results were shown in Fig. 6.

Conclusion

The overall results demonstrate that NIR spectroscopy ena-

bles the determination of capsaicin content in chili powder,
and compared to conventional HPLC and UV detection, it
can greatly reduce professional handling and detection time.
The full-band spectral prediction models based on PLSR
and ELM were developed, and the PLSR model obtained Fig. 6  Scatter distribution of reference measurements and predictions
using the quantitative model. The model of the total content of capsa-
better prediction results by comparing the evaluation metrics icin was constructed under partial least square (PLS) + first derivative
between the models. The feature bands relevant to capsaicin (1st). The results indicated an excellent fitting degree between actual
detection were subsequently screened using SPA and UVE, and predicted values

13

and the corresponding PLSR models were developed. Satis-
factory predictions were obtained while reducing the model-
ling variables, providing some reference for the development
of subsequent multispectral detection methods. By compar-
ing the prediction models based on full wavelength and char-
acteristic wavelength, the full wavelength PLSR model pro-
cessed by first derivative obtained the best prediction effect.
The optimal performance of the model was achieved with
Rp of 0.9003, RMSEP of 1.0338 g/kg, and RPD of 2.25.
This study provides valuable data and a theoretical basis for
the industrial application of capsaicin content determination
based on NIR spectroscopy.
Acknowledgements This study was funded by the Beijing Natural Sci-
ence Foundation under Grant No. 6202020.
Data Availability The authors of this article confirm that the data sup-
porting the study are available within the article.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of in-
terest.
References
1. E. Alvarez-Parrilla, L.A. de la Rosa, R. Amarowicz, F. Shahidi,
J. Agric. Food Chem. 59(1), 163–173 (2011)
2. J. Lillywhite, S. Tso, Agronomy-Basel 11(10), 11 (2021)
3. H. Knotkova, M. Pappagallo, A. Szallasi, Clin. J. Pain 24(2),
142–154 (2008)
4. S.L. Volpe, ACSMS Health Fit. J. 24(3), 31–32 (2020)
5. S.K. Sharma, A.S. Vij, M. Sharma, Eur. J. Pharmacol. 720(1–3),
55–62 (2013)
6. X.J. Luo, J. Peng, Y.J. Li, Eur. J. Pharmacol. 650(1), 1–7 (2011)
7. M.D. Reyes-Escogido, E.G. Gonzalez-Mondragon, E. Vazquez-
Tzompantzi, Molecules 16(2), 1253–1270 (2011)
8. C.B. Davis, C.E. Markey, M.A. Busch, K.W. Busch, J. Agric. Food
Chem. 55(15), 5925–5933 (2007)
9. N. Maula, Muhaimin, Millasari, In:3rd International Seminar
on Chemical Education (ISCE) - Trends, Applications, Changes
in Chemical Education for the 40 Industrial Revolution: Sep 17
2019; Yogyakarta, INDONESIA. (2020)
10. S.H. Choi, B.S. Suh, E. Kozukue, N. Kozukue, C.E. Levin, M.
Friedman, J. Agric. Food Chem. 54(24), 9024–9031 (2006)
11. Z.A. Al Othman, Y.B.H. Ahmed, M.A. Habila, A.A. Ghafar, Mol-
ecules 16(10), 8919–8929 (2011)
12. J.D. Batchelor, B.T. Jones, J. Chem. Educ. 77(2), 266–267 (2000)
13. G.H. Chiang, J. Food Sci. 51(2), 499–503 (1986)
14. C. Jianrong, T. Mingjie, L. Qiang, Z. Jiewen, C. Quansheng, Food
Sci. 30(04), 250–253 (2009)
15. X. Huirong, C. Xiaowei, Y. Yibin, Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach.
41(12), 126–129 (2010)
16. X.Y. Xu, W.G. Xie, C. Xiang, et al. Food Meas. (2023).
13
B. Jing et al.
17. Y. He, X.L. Li, X.F. Deng, J. Food Eng. 79(4), 1238–1242 (2007)
18. H. Ning, J. Wang, H. Jiang, Q. Chen, Spectrochim Acta A 280,
121545 (2022)
19. P. Penchaiya, E. Bobelyn, B.E. Verlinden, B.M. Nicolai, W. Saeys,
J. Food Eng. 94(3–4), 267–273 (2009)
20. J. Lim, C. Mo, S.H. Noh, S. Kang, K. Lee, M.S. Kim, In: Confer-
ence on Sensing for Agriculture and Food Quality and Safety IV:
Apr 24–25 2012; Baltimore, MD. (2012).
21. A. Rahman, H. Lee, M.S. Kim, B.K. Cho, Food Anal. Methods
11(11), 3042–3052 (2018)
22. O. Cisneros-Pineda, L.W. Torres-Tapia, L.C. Gutierrez-Pacheco,
F. Contreras-Martin, T. Gonzalez-Estrada, S.R. Peraza-Sanchez,
Food Chem. 104(4), 1755–1760 (2007)
23. R. Ananthan, K. Subhash, T. Longvah, Food Chem. 238, 51–57
(2018)
24. GB/T 21266–2007, Determination of capsaicin-like substances in
chili peppers and chili pepper products and method of expressing
spiciness [S]
25. S. Wold, M. Sjostrom, L. Eriksson, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst.
58(2), 109–130 (2001)
26. M. Zareef, Q.S. Chen, M.M. Hassan, M. Arslan, M.M. Hashim,
W. Ahmad, F.Y.H. Kutsanedzie, A.A. Agyekum, Food Eng. Rev.
12(2), 173–190 (2020)
27. G.B. Huang, Q.Y. Zhu, C.K. Siew, Neurocomputing 70(1–3),
489–501 (2006)
28. C.H. Li, L.L. Li, Y. Wu, M. Lu, Y. Yang, L. Li, J. Spectrosc. 2018,
1–7 (2018)
29. Q. Ouyang, Q.S. Chen, J.W. Zhao, H. Lin, Food Bioprocess Tech-
nol. 6(9), 2486–2493 (2013)
30. X.H. Bian, S.J. Li, M.R. Fan, Y.G. Guo, N. Chang, J.J. Wang,
Anal. Methods 8(23), 4674–4679 (2016)
31. M.M. Qiao, Y. Xu, G.Y. Xia, Y. Su, B. Lu, X.J. Gao, H.F. Fan,
Food Chem. 366, 130559 (2022)
32. B. Lu, X.F. Wang, N.H. Liu, K. He, K. Wu, H.L. Li, X.Y. Tang,
Spectrochim. Acta Part A 239, 118455 (2020)
33. R. Karoui, A.M. Mouazen, E. Dufour, L. Pillonel, E. Schaller, J.
De Baerdemaeker, J.O. Bosset, Int. Dairy J. 16(10), 1211–1217
(2006)
34. H. Sun, L. Zhang, Z.H. Rao, H.Y. Ji, Spectrosc. Lett. 53(10),
751–762 (2020)
35. W. Yin, C. Zhang, H. Zhu, Y. Zhao, Y. He, PLoS ONE 12,
e0180534 (2017)
36. J. Jiang, H. Cen, C. Zhang, X. Lyu, H. Weng, H. Xu, Y. He, Post-
harv. Biol. Technol. 146, 147–154 (2018)
37. T.S. Park, Y.M. Bae, M.J. Sim, D.E. Kim, S.I. Cho, Providence
Rhode Island June 29 - July 2 2008. (2008).
38. F. Liu, Y. He, G. Sun, J. Agric. Food Chem. 57, 4520 (2009)
39. S.N. Jha, P. Jaiswal, K. Narsaiah, M. Gupta, R. Bhardwaj, A.K.
Singh, Sci. Hortic.-Amsterdam 138, 171 (2012)
40. X. Lü, J. Jiang, J. Yang, J. Zhejiang Univ. 45(6), 760–766 (2019)
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.