| Literature DB >> 30065168 |
Shayla C Smithson1, Boluwatife D Fakayode2, Siera Henderson3, John Nguyen4, Sayo O Fakayode5.
Abstract
The intake of adulterated and unhealthy oils and trans-fats in the human diet has had negative health repercussions, including cardiovascular disease, causing millions of deaths annually. Sadly, a significant percentage of all consumable products including edible oils are neither screened nor monitored for quality control for various reasons. The prospective intake of adulterated oils and the associated health impacts on consumers is a significant public health safety concern, necessitating the need for quality assurance checks of edible oils. This study reports a simple, fast, sensitive, accurate, and low-cost chemometric approach to the purity analysis of highly refined peanut oils (HRPO) that were adulterated either with vegetable oil (VO), canola oil (CO), or almond oil (AO) for food quality assurance purposes. The Fourier transform infrared spectra of the pure oils and adulterated HRPO samples were measured and subjected to a partial-least-square (PLS) regression analysis. The obtained PLS regression figures-of-merit were incredible, with remarkable linearity (R² = 0.994191 or better). The results of the score plots of the PLS regressions illustrate pattern recognition of the adulterated HRPO samples. Importantly, the PLS regressions accurately determined percent compositions of adulterated HRPOs, with an overall root-mean-square-relative-percent-error of 5.53% and a limit-of-detection as low as 0.02% (wt/wt). The developed PLS regressions continued to predict the compositions of newly prepared adulterated HRPOs over a period of two months, with incredible accuracy without the need for re-calibration. The accuracy, sensitivity, and robustness of the protocol make it desirable and potentially adoptable by health departments and local enforcement agencies for fast screening and quality assurance of consumable products.Entities:
Keywords: food-analysis; food-quality-assurance; infrared-spectroscopy; partial-least-regression-analysis; peanut-oil; peanut-oil-adulteration
Year: 2018 PMID: 30065168 PMCID: PMC6112014 DOI: 10.3390/foods7080122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1FTIR spectra of pure highly refined peanut oil, vegetable oil (VO), canola oil (CO), and almond oil (AO).
Figure 2Cross section of FTIR spectra of the training set and calibration samples of: (A1,A2) highly refined (100%) peanut oil (HRPO) adulterated with vegetable oil, (B1,B2) HRPO adulterated with canola oil, (C1,C2) HRPO adulterated with almond oil.
Figure 3Summary of the partial least square (PLS) regression: (A1) regression coefficient of PLS versus wavenumber of HRPO adulterated with vegetable oil; (A2) regression coefficient of PLS versus wavenumber of HRPO adulterated with canola oil; (A3) regression coefficient of PLS versus wavenumber of HRPO adulterated with almond oil; (B1) score plot of PLS regression of HRPO adulterated with vegetable oil; (B2) score plot of PLS regression of HRPO adulterated with canola oil; (B3) score plot of PLS regression of HRPO adulterated with almond oil; (C1) plot of predicted versus actual composition of HRPO adulterated with vegetable oil; (C2) plot of predicted versus actual composition of HRPO adulterated with canola oil; (C3) plot of predicted versus actual composition of HRPO adulterated with almond oil.
Figures-of-merit of partial least squares (PLS) regression calibration curves.
| Wavenumber (cm−1) | Offset | Slope | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HRPO-VO | 2235–3300 | 0.572672 | 0.988415 | 0.994191 | 0.27% | 0.90 |
| HRPO-CO | 2235–3300 | 0.075944 | 0.998477 | 0.999238 | 0.02% | 0.05 |
| HRPO-AO | 400–4000 | 0.154691 | 0.996644 | 0.998321 | 0.02% | 0.07 |
R.
Figure 4Cross section of FTIR spectra of validation samples of the following: (A1,A2) HRPO adulterated with vegetable oil, (B1,B2) HRPO adulterated with canola oil, (C1,C2) HRPO adulterated with almond oil.
Validation conducted for highly refined peanut oil (HRPO) adulterated with vegetable oil (VO).
| Sample | % HRPO Predicted | Actual % HRPO | %RE | % VO Predicted | Actual % VO | %RE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | 90.8 | 89.1 | −1.95 | 9.2 | 10.9 | 15.9 |
| V2 | 85.6 | 85.1 | −0.58 | 14.4 | 14.9 | 3.30 |
| V3 | 82.5 | 82.4 | −0.07 | 17.5 | 17.6 | 0.33 |
| V4 | 77.8 | 79.1 | 1.63 | 22.2 | 20.9 | −6.19 |
| V5 | 72.0 | 74.0 | 2.62 | 28.0 | 26.0 | −7.45 |
| V6 | 69.2 | 69.8 | 0.88 | 30.8 | 30.2 | −2.02 |
| V7 | 63.8 | 64.4 | 1.04 | 36.3 | 35.6 | −1.88 |
| V8 | 61.1 | 60.4 | −1.12 | 38.9 | 39.6 | 1.72 |
| V9 | 56.5 | 57.7 | 1.98 | 43.5 | 42.3 | −2.69 |
| V10 | 56.0 | 54.4 | −2.90 | 44.0 | 45.6 | 3.47 |
| V11 | 52.2 | 51.6 | −1.06 | 47.8 | 48.4 | 1.13 |
| V12 | 49.3 | 48.4 | −1.96 | 50.7 | 51.6 | 1.84 |
| V13 | 46.2 | 45.1 | −2.51 | 53.8 | 54.9 | 2.06 |
| V14 | 43.0 | 42.7 | −0.87 | 57.0 | 57.3 | 0.65 |
| V15 | 38.6 | 39.7 | 2.53 | 61.4 | 60.3 | −1.66 |
| V16 | 37.0 | 37.8 | 1.94 | 63.0 | 62.2 | −1.18 |
| V17 | 34.5 | 35.8 | 3.67 | 65.5 | 64.2 | −2.04 |
| V18 | 31.4 | 32.8 | 4.29 | 68.6 | 67.2 | −2.09 |
| V19 | 27.7 | 29.7 | 6.76 | 72.3 | 70.3 | −2.85 |
| V20 | 27.2 | 27.2 | −0.23 | 72.8 | 72.8 | 0.09 |
| V21 | 22.9 | 23.5 | 2.51 | 77.1 | 76.5 | −0.77 |
| V22 | 19.6 | 20.8 | 5.79 | 80.4 | 79.2 | −1.52 |
| 2.77 | 4.37 | |||||
RE—relative error.
Validation conducted for highly refined peanut oil (HRPO) adulterated with canola oil (CO).
| Sample | % HPPO Predicted | Actual % HPPO | %RE | % CO Predicted | Actual % CO | %RE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | 89.8 | 87.9 | −2.07 | 10.2 | 12.1 | 15.1 |
| V2 | 84.0 | 84.3 | 0.37 | 16.0 | 15.7 | −2.01 |
| V3 | 80.2 | 82.7 | 2.96 | 19.8 | 17.3 | −14.1 |
| V4 | 77.9 | 77.2 | −0.91 | 22.1 | 22.8 | 3.08 |
| V5 | 71.0 | 74.0 | 4.03 | 29.0 | 26.0 | −11.5 |
| V6 | 68.7 | 70.8 | 3.00 | 31.3 | 29.2 | −7.29 |
| V7 | 63.7 | 64.3 | 1.04 | 36.3 | 35.7 | −1.88 |
| V8 | 60.5 | 61.1 | 0.88 | 39.5 | 38.9 | −1.38 |
| V9 | 55.5 | 58.0 | 4.36 | 44.5 | 42.0 | −6.03 |
| V10 | 54.6 | 56.0 | 2.45 | 45.4 | 44.0 | −3.12 |
| V11 | 51.5 | 51.2 | −0.68 | 48.5 | 48.8 | 0.71 |
| V12 | 49.4 | 48.4 | −2.09 | 50.6 | 51.6 | 1.96 |
| V13 | 46.2 | 46.4 | 0.38 | 53.8 | 53.6 | −0.33 |
| V14 | 46.3 | 43.5 | −6.45 | 53.7 | 56.5 | 4.97 |
| V15 | 40.0 | 41.0 | 2.31 | 60.0 | 59.0 | −1.61 |
| V16 | 37.7 | 38.5 | 1.98 | 62.3 | 61.5 | −1.24 |
| V17 | 33.8 | 36.9 | 8.47 | 66.2 | 63.1 | −4.96 |
| V18 | 32.8 | 34.4 | 4.64 | 67.2 | 65.6 | −2.43 |
| V19 | 29.6 | 31.5 | 5.89 | 70.4 | 68.5 | −2.70 |
| V20 | 26.3 | 28.6 | 8.07 | 73.7 | 71.4 | −3.23 |
| V21 | 26.0 | 25.0 | −3.96 | 74.0 | 75.0 | 1.32 |
| V22 | 20.8 | 20.9 | 0.66 | 79.2 | 79.1 | −0.17 |
| 5.51 | 5.87 |
Validation conducted for highly refined peanut oil (HRPO) adulterated with almond oil (AO).
| Sample | % HRPO Predicted | Actual % HRPO | %RE | % AO Predicted | Actual % AO | %RE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | 89.6 | 88.3 | −1.50 | 10.4 | 11.7 | 11.3 |
| V2 | 85.7 | 85.9 | 0.24 | 14.3 | 14.1 | −1.44 |
| V3 | 82.3 | 83.7 | 1.66 | 17.7 | 16.3 | −8.54 |
| V4 | 77.9 | 79.8 | 2.45 | 22.1 | 20.2 | −9.71 |
| V5 | 76.0 | 76.7 | 0.89 | 24.0 | 23.3 | −2.92 |
| V6 | 70.3 | 71.4 | 1.51 | 29.7 | 28.6 | −3.76 |
| V7 | 62.1 | 64.9 | 4.25 | 37.9 | 35.1 | −7.85 |
| V8 | 58.4 | 58.7 | 0.43 | 41.6 | 41.3 | −0.62 |
| V9 | 51.3 | 51.8 | 0.99 | 48.7 | 48.2 | −1.06 |
| V10 | 46.3 | 44.4 | −4.17 | 53.7 | 55.6 | 3.33 |
| V11 | 39.8 | 42.5 | 6.47 | 60.2 | 57.5 | −4.79 |
| V12 | 37.3 | 36.9 | −0.97 | 62.7 | 63.1 | 0.57 |
| V13 | 34.1 | 33.0 | −3.56 | 65.9 | 67.0 | 1.75 |
| V14 | 28.1 | 29.4 | 4.22 | 71.9 | 70.6 | −1.75 |
| V15 | 28.1 | 23.2 | −20.77 | 71.9 | 76.8 | 6.29 |
| V16 | 23.5 | 20.9 | −12.34 | 76.5 | 79.1 | 3.27 |
| V17 | 21.2 | 17.7 | −19.46 | 78.8 | 82.3 | 4.19 |
| V18 | 16.8 | 16.3 | −3.13 | 83.2 | 83.7 | 0.61 |
| V19 | 14.2 | 14.7 | 3.42 | 85.8 | 85.3 | −0.59 |
| V20 | 11.5 | 12.3 | 6.51 | 88.5 | 87.7 | −0.91 |
| V21 | 8.3 | 10.0 | 17.42 | 91.7 | 90.0 | −1.95 |
| 8.32 | 4.86 |