| Literature DB >> 25802523 |
Jie Yu Chen1, Han Zhang1, Jinkui Ma2, Tomohiro Tuchiya1, Yelian Miao3.
Abstract
This rapid method for determining the degree of degradation of frying rapeseed oils uses Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy combined with partial least-squares (PLS) regression. One hundred and fifty-six frying oil samples that degraded to different degrees by frying potatoes were scanned by an FTIR spectrometer using attenuated total reflectance (ATR). PLS regression with full cross validation was used for the prediction of acid value (AV) and total polar compounds (TPC) based on raw, first, and second derivative FTIR spectra (4000-650 cm(-1)). The precise calibration model based on the second derivative FTIR spectra shows that the coefficients of determination for calibration (R (2)) and standard errors of cross validation (SECV) were 0.99 and 0.16 mg KOH/g and 0.98 and 1.17% for AV and TPC, respectively. The accuracy of the calibration model, tested using the validation set, yielded standard errors of prediction (SEP) of 0.16 mg KOH/g and 1.10% for AV and TPC, respectively. Therefore, the degradation of frying oils can be accurately measured using FTIR spectroscopy combined with PLS regression.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25802523 PMCID: PMC4353439 DOI: 10.1155/2015/185367
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
Characteristics of reference data for calibration and validation sets.
| Calibration set ( | Validation set ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Range | SD | Mean | Range | SD | |
| AV (mg KOH g−1) | 2.82 | 0.09–8.37 | 2.06 | 2.80 | 0.09–7.47 | 2.02 |
| TPC (%) | 11.00 | 0.50–40.00 | 8.21 | 10.92 | 0.50–35.00 | 7.97 |
SD: standard deviation.
Figure 1FTIR spectra of canola (CO) and Kizakinonatane (KO) frying oil samples.
Figure 2FTIR spectra of the fresh and used canola oil.
PLS analysis results for predicting the AV and TPC values of frying oil samples.
|
|
| SEC | SECV |
| SEP | Bias | RPD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AV | Raw spectra | 5 | 0.99 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.99 | 0.22 | 0.03 | 9.2 |
| First derivative spectra | 5 | 0.99 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.99 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 13.0 | |
| Second derivative spectra | 6 | 0.99 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.99 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 12.7 | |
|
| |||||||||
| TPC | Raw spectra | 6 | 0.98 | 1.13 | 1.26 | 0.98 | 1.13 | 0.00 | 7.1 |
| First derivative spectra | 6 | 0.98 | 1.04 | 1.16 | 0.98 | 1.10 | −0.09 | 7.3 | |
| Second derivative spectra | 6 | 0.98 | 1.05 | 1.17 | 0.98 | 1.10 | −0.01 | 7.3 | |
F: number of factors; R 2: coefficient of determination; SEC: standard error of calibration; SECV: standard error of cross validation; SEP: standard error of prediction; bias: average of differences between reference value and NIR value; RPD: ratio of standard deviation of reference data in the validation set to SEP.
Figure 3Relationship between actual and IR-predicted AV values.
Figure 4Relationship between actual and IR-predicted TPC values.
Figure 5Regression coefficients of the PLS calibration model for AV based on the second derivative spectra.
Figure 6Regression coefficients of the PLS calibration model for TPC based on the second derivative spectra.