| Literature DB >> 33238638 |
Abdul Rohman1,2, Mohd Al'Ikhsan B Ghazali3, Anjar Windarsih4, Sugeng Riyanto2, Farahwahida Mohd Yusof3, Shuhaimi Mustafa5.
Abstract
Currently, the authentication analysis of edible fats and oils is an emerging issue not only by producers but also by food industries, regulators, and consumers. The adulteration of high quality and expensive edible fats and oils as well as food products containing fats and oils with lower ones are typically motivated by economic reasons. Some analytical methods have been used for authentication analysis of food products, but some of them are complex in sampling preparation and involving sophisticated instruments. Therefore, simple and reliable methods are proposed and developed for these authentication purposes. This review highlighted the comprehensive reports on the application of infrared spectroscopy combined with chemometrics for authentication of fats and oils. New findings of this review included (1) FTIR spectroscopy combined with chemometrics, which has been used to authenticate fats and oils; (2) due to as fingerprint analytical tools, FTIR spectra have emerged as the most reported analytical techniques applied for authentication analysis of fats and oils; (3) the use of chemometrics as analytical data treatment is a must to extract the information from FTIR spectra to be understandable data. Next, the combination of FTIR spectroscopy with chemometrics must be proposed, developed, and standardized for authentication and assuring the quality of fats and oils.Entities:
Keywords: FTIR spectroscopy; authentication analysis; edible fats and oils; multivariate data analysis; vibrational spectroscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33238638 PMCID: PMC7700317 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25225485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
The application of FTIR spectroscopy combined with chemometrics for authentication analysis of oils.
| Adulterated Fats and Oils | Adulterants | Wavenumbers (1/λ) Region | Spectral Treatment | Chemometrics Techniques | Remarks | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) | Corn oil (CO) and sunflower oil (SFO) | 3027–3000, 1076–860, and 790–698 cm−1 for CO and 3012–3000 cm−1 for SFO | Derivatization | DA for classification and PLS for quantification | Classification of authentic EVOO (extra virgin olive oil) and adulterated EVOO with CO and SFO was successfully performed using DA with no misclassification reported. PLS using normal spectra resulted high value of R2 (>0.99) with RMSEC of 0.404% and RMSEP of 1.13%, whereas the presence of SFO could be quantified using PLS employing first derivative spectra with R2 more than 0.99 and low value of RMSEC (0.035%) and RMSEP (2.02%). | [ |
| Soybean oil (SB) and sunflower (SF) oil | 3035–670 cm−1 | Mean centering | PLS for quantification and PLS-DA for classification | PLS could predict the concentration of SB and SF in EVOO with high R2 of calibration (0.991), RMSEC of 0.57 and high R2 of prediction (0.997), and RMSEP of 0.41. Chemometrics of PLS-DA could classify EVOO and adulterated EVOO with SB and SF accurately. | [ | |
| Canola oil (CaO) | 3028–2985 and 1200–987 cm−1 | No spectral treatment | PLS for quantification and DA for classification | PLS could be used for quantitative analysis of CaO in EVOO with high R2 value (>0.99) and low RMSEC value (0.108). DA completely separated between authentic EVOO and adulterated EVOO with CaO with no misclassification. | [ | |
| Grapeseed oil (GSO) and walnut oil (WO) | 3018–3002 and 1200–1000 cm−1 for GSO and 3029–2954 and 1125–667 cm−1 for WO | No spectral treatment | DA for classification and PLS for quantification | DA perfectly classified between authentic EVOO and adulterated EVOO with GSO and WO with no misclassification reported. PLS using normal spectra resulted high value of R2 both calibration (0.999) and validation (0.994) model with low value of RMSEC (0.38%) and RMSEP (1.32%) for quantification of GSO, whereas PLS using normal spectra could be used for quantification of WO with R2 of calibration and validation more than 0.99 and low value of RMSEC (0.101%) and RMSEP (0.934%). | [ | |
| Virgin coconut oil (VCO) | Corn oil (CO) and sunflower oil (SFO) | 3028–2983, 2947–1887, and 1685–868 cm−1, (VCO mixed with CO) and combined wavenumbers of 3030–2980 and 1300–1000 cm−1 (VCO mixed with SFO) | Derivatization | PLSR for quantification and DA for classification | DA could classify VCO and VCO adulterated with CO and SFO without any misclassification reported (accuracy level 100%). PLSR at wavenumbers of 858–705, 943–863, 1392–983, and 3027–2983 cm−1 was used for quantification of CO in VCO resulting in R2 of 0.999, RMSEC of 0.866%, and RMSEP of 0.990%. SFO in VCO was quantified using wavenumbers of 1685–686, 2946–1887, and 3027–2983 cm−1 resulting in R2 of 0.999, RMSEC of 0.374%, and RMSEP of 1.06%. | [ |
| Grape seed oil (GSO) and soybean oil (SO) | Combined wavenumbers of 1200–900 and 3027–2985 (GSO in VCO) and 200–1000 and 3025–2995 cm−1 (SO in VCO) | Mean centering and derivatization | PLSR and PCR for quantification and DA for classification | DA was successfully used for classification of VCO and VCO added with adulterants of GSO and SO. PLSR at these wavenumbers could quantify the levels of adulterants (SO and GSO) with R2 of 0.994–0.998, RMSEC of 0.007–0.268%, and RMSEP of 1.32–1.70%. | [ | |
| Canola oil (CaO) | Wavenumbers of 1200–900 and 3027–2985 cm−1 | Derivatization | PLSR and PCR for quantification and DA for classification | DA was able to discriminate VCO and that adulterated with CaO. PLSR using normal spectra was preferred more than PCR for quantification of CaO in VCO with R2 of 0.998 and 0.996 in calibration and validation models, RMSEC of 0.392%, and RMSEP of 2.57%. | [ | |
| Quantification of VCO in binary mixture with palm oil (PO) | Combined wavenumbers of 1120–1105 and 965–960 cm−1 | Normal spectra | PLSR and PCR | PLSR was able to quantify VCO with R2 and RMSEC values were of 0.9996 and 0.494, respectively. | [ | |
| Analysis of palm oil as VCO’s adulterant | Combined wavenumbers of 3010–3000, 1660–1650, and 1120–1105 cm−1 | Derivatization | PLSR and DA | PLSR showed good relationship between actual and FTIR-predicted values of PO with R2 of 0.999 and standard error of calibration of 0.533. The value of R2 during cross validation was 0.996, and standard error of prediction was 0.953. DA using 7 PCs was able to classify pure VCO and that adulterated with PO. | [ | |
| Palm kernel oil (PKO) | Whole IR region (4000–650 cm−1) | No spectral treatment | PLSR and DA | PLSR could quantify PKO using 10 PCs with detection limit of 1%. DA could classify VCO and VCO mixed with other vegetable oils (walnut, extra virgin olive, soybean, sunflower, grapeseed, sesame, canola, and corn oils). | [ | |
| Lard (LD) | Combined wavenumbers of 3020–3000 cm−1 and 1120–1000 cm−1 | No spectral treatment | PLSR and DA | PLSR could predict LD contents in VCO with R2 of 0.9990. DA can classify VCO and that adulterated with LD with an accuracy level of 100%. | [ | |
| Red fruit oil (RFO) | Sunflower oil (SFO) and palm oil (PO) | 1200–1000 cm−1 (SFO in RFO), 1780–1680 cm−1 (PO in RFO) | Savitzky–Golay derivatives | PCA, PLSR | PCA is successfully used to identify PO and SFO as adulterants in RFO. PLSR using normal FTIR spectra at optimized wavenumbers could quantify oil adulterants (PO and SFO) in RFO with R2 > 0.99, RMSEC of 1.0011 (PO), and R2 of 0.9956 and RMSEC of 1.4187% (SFO). | [ |
| Corn oil (CO) and soybean oil (SO) | Combined frequency region of 1800–1600 and 1200–800 cm−1 | No spectral treatment (using normal spectra) | PLSR | The R2 value of 0.999 and RMSEC of 0.987% ( | [ | |
| Corn oil (CO) and soybean oil (SO) in ternary mixture with RFO | 4000–650 cm−1 | Derivatization | PLSR | The simultaneous analysis was successfully performed with R2 values obtained for the relationship between actual and FTIR predicted values of RFO, CO, and SO were 0.9863, 0.9276, and 0.9693, respectively. RMSEC values obtained were 1.59, 1.72, and 1.60% ( | [ | |
| Avocado oil (AVO) | Soybean oil (SO) and corn oil (CO) | 1427–779 cm−1 (SO in AVO) and combined wavenumbers of 1477–721, 1728–1685, and 3035–2881 cm−1 (CO in AO) | Smoothing and derivation treatment | PLSR | FTIR normal spectra using PLSR were suitable for the quantification of SO in AO having R2 of 0.9994, RMSEC of 0.86%, and RMSEP of 0.88%. Meanwhile, R2 of 0.9994, RMSEC of 0.87%, and RMSEP of 0.52% were obtained for quantitative analysis of CO in AVO. | [ |
| Grape seed oil (GSO) and sesame oil (SeO) | Combined wavenumbers of 1006–902,1191–1091, and 1755–1654 cm−1 (GO in AVO) and 4000–650 cm−1 (SeO in binary mixture with AVO) | 1st and 2nd derivatives | PLSR | FTIR spectra using PLSR could predict the levels of adulterants providing R2 of 0.9994 with low RMSEC of 0.86% (GSO in AVO); meanwhile, R2 of 0.9997 with RMSEC 0.73% | [ | |
| Black seed cumin oil or | Grape seed oil (GSO) | Combined wavenumbers of 1114–1074, 1734–1382, and 3005–3030 cm−1 | PLSR | PLSR using these wavenumbers could quantify GSO in NSO with R2 for the relationship between actual and FTIR predicted values of 0.981. RMSEC and RMSECV values were of 2.34% ( | [ | |
| Walnut oil (WO) and sunflower oil (SFO) | 4000–650 cm−1 (quantification), 3009–721 cm−1 (classification) | Derivatization | PLSR, PCA | PLSR at the whole region (4000–650 cm−1) is well suited for quantitative analysis of NSO in the binary mixture with WO and SFO. PCA using wavenumbers of 3009–721 cm−1 is successfully used for classification of NSO and NSO adulterated with SFO and WO. | [ | |
| Pure ghee | Pig body fat (PBF) | Combined 1/λ of 3030–2785, 1786–1680, and 1490–919 cm−1 (SIMCA) and at 3030–2785 cm−1 (PLS) | No spectral treatment (using normal spectra) | Quantification using PLS and classification with SIMCA and PCA | PLS could quantify PBF in pure ghee with R2 of 0.998 and RMSEC of 1.48%. SIMCA could classify pure and adulterated ghee with accuracy levels of >90%. | [ |
| Cod liver oil | canola (CaO), corn (CO), soybean (SO), and walnut oils (WO) | Combined 1/λ 1112–1083, 1277–1197, and 1460–1450 cm−1 (CaO), 1480–1375 and 2870–2820 (CO), 1113–1099, 1273–1211, and 3031–3002 (SO), 1117–1083 and 1257–1211 cm−1 (WO) | Normal FTIR spectra, no spectral treatment | PLS for quantification, LDA for discrimination using the same wavenumbers regions | PLS with FTIR normal spectra is successfully used for quantitative analysis of oil adulterants with R2 > 0.99 and RMSEC in the range of 0.04–0.82% ( | [ |
| Grape seed oil (GSO) | Soybean oil (SO) | The combined region of 1147–1127, 1127–1106, and 802–650 cm−1 | Normal FTIR spectra, no spectral treatment | PCA and SIMCA (for classification), PLSR (for quantification) | SIMCA provided an excellent classification for pure GSO and GSO adulterated with SO with classification limits of <5%. Quantification of SO in GSO with PLSR resulted inR2 of >0.99. RMSEC values 0.59–2.09%, RMSECV of 0.92–5.60. | [ |
| Pumpkin seed oil (PSO) | Sesame oil (SeO) and Rice Bran oil (RBO) | 3100–2750 and 1500–663 cm−1 | Derivative spectra | PLSR | PSO in ternary mixtures with RBO and SEO could be predicted with R2 > 0.99 along with RMSEC value of 0.0054% and RMSEP of 0.0179% | [ |
| Pumpkin seed oil | Palm oil | Combined regions 3100–2750 and1500–663 cm−1 | 1st derivative spectra | PLSR and DA | R2 values obtained for correlation between actual versus predicted levels of PO were 0.9967 and 0.9906 in calibration and validation models. RMSEC and RMSEP were 0.0080 and 0.0152%. DA could classify two groups. | [ |
| Mustard oil (MO) | Argemone oil (AO) | 3050–2750 and 1800–500 cm−1 | Derivative spectra | PCA and LDA (for classification), PCR and PLSR (for quantification) | PCA could make discrimination of MO from AO. DA could classify between MO and MO adulterated with AO. PLSR using the first derivative at 1800–500 cm−1 provided low value of RPE of 0.033% and RMSEP of 0.2% vol/vol, R2 of >0.999. The lowest detected percentage of AO in MO was 1% | [ |
| Butter | Solid fraction of palm oil | 3873–690 cm−1 | Normal spectra | PLS | Detection limit 3% palm oil in butter and limit of quantification of 9.8%. | [ |
| Chicken fat (CF) | 1200–1000 cm−1 | Normal spectra | PLS | The levels of CF could be predicted with PLS with R2 of 0.98. RMSEC and RMSECV using 6 PCs were 2.08 and 4.33% | [ | |
| Beef fat (BF) | 1500–1000 cm−1 | Normal spectra | PLS | BF in butter could be quantified with PLS with R2, RMSEC of 0.999 and 0.89% ( | [ | |
| Margarine (MR) | 1400–800 cm−1 | Normal spectra | PCA, SIMCA, PLSDA, PLSR | PCA made clustering of butter and MR. SIMCA could classify samples according to its group (authentic butter, MR, and butter adulterated with MR at 1–30%. PLS-DA could classify among groups with accuracy of 100%. PLS-R model (R2 = 0.84, RMSEP = 16.54%) was developed for quantification of MR in butter. | [ | |
| Vegetable butter (3.8–40%) and of mashed potatoes (13–36%) | 4000–2400 and 2300–600 cm−1 | Second derivative | CA, PCA, LDA, SVM | PCA- LDA and SVM models using 2nd derivative spectra gave good classification according to its classes with accuracy of 97.22 and 100%, respectively. | [ |
RPE = relative prediction error; SVM = support vector machines (SVMs).
Figure 1The analytical procedure for analysis of meat-based food products using FTIR spectroscopy method.
The application of FTIR spectroscopy combined with chemometrics for authentication analysis of fats in meat-based food products.
| Adulterated Meat/Food Products | Meat Adulterants | Wavenumbers (1/λ) Region | Extraction and Sampling Handling Technique | Spectral Treatment and Chemometrics | Remarks | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beef/meatball | Pork | 1200–1000 cm−1 | Soxhlet using hexane as an extraction solvent and fats extracted subjected to ATR | PLSR | PLSR using selected fingerprint regions of 1200–1000 cm−1 could predict pork fat (lard) extracted from meatball with R2 for the relationship between actual lard and FTIR-predicted lard was 0.999 with RMSEC of 0.442. | [ |
| Beef/meatball | Pork | 1200–1000 cm−1 | Soxhlet using hexane as an extraction solvent and fats extracted subjected to ATR | PCA and PLSR | FTIR normal spectra were a fast technique for classification and quantification of lard extracted from pork in meatball. PCA is successful for the classification of samples containing pork and beef meatballs. PLSR could predict lard (lipid fraction obtained from meatballs containing pork) with R2 of 0.997 and standard error of calibration of 0.04%. | [ |
| Beef/meatball | Pork through analysis of meatball broth | 1018–1284 cm−1 (PLSR) and 1200–1000 cm−1 (PCA) | Meatball broth was taken and added with hexane to be subjected with LLC and fats obtained scanned using HATR | PLSR, PCA | Lard (pork fat) extracted from could be quantified with R2 and RMSEC values of 0.9975 and 1.34% ( | [ |
| Beef/Meatball | Rat meat | 1000–750 cm−1 | Soxhlet using hexane as an extraction solvent. The fats obtained were subjected to HATR | PLSR, PCA | Rat meat could be quantified using PLSR resulting R2 for the relationship between actual values and FTIR-predicted values of 0.993 with RMSEC of 1.79%. PCA was successfully used for the classification of rat meat meatball and beef meatball. | [ |
| Beef and chicken sausages | Pork | 4000–400 cm−1 | Ham sausage samples were grinded followed by preparation of KBr pellets. | Spectra were subjected to smoothing derivatives SNV. Classification using PLSDA | SNV can improve the classification accuracy of PLSDA. PLS-DA could classify halal (containing no pork) and non-halal (containing pork) sausages with sensitivity and specificity of 0.913 and 0.929 for PLSDA with SNV spectra, respectively. | [ |
| Beef sausages | Rat meat | 1800–750 cm−1 | Sausages were extracted using three extraction methods namely, Bligh and Dyer, Folch, and Soxhlet. The lipids obtained were subjected to HATR | Spectra were subjected to mean centering and derivatization followed by PLSR | PCA using FTIR normal spectra could classify rat meat and beef lipids extracted by three extraction methods. For quantification of lipids extracted from beef meat sausages, R2 and RMSEC during PLS using Bligh and Dyer, Folch, and Soxhlet method were 0.945 and 2.73%; 0.991 and 1.73%; 0.992 and 1.69%, respectively. The values of R2 and RMSEP in validation were 0.458 and 18.90% (Folch) and 0.983 and 4.21% (Soxhlet). | [ |
| Beef meatballs | Dog meat (DM) | Combined wavenumbers of 1782–1623 and 1485–659 cm−1 | Lipids were extracted using Folch method and subjected to HATR measurement | FTIR spectra was subjected to detrending treatment followed by PLSR | DM in beef meatballs could be quantified by lipids extracted using PLSR. The values of R2 for correlation between the actual value of DM and FTIR predicted value was 0.993 in calibration model and 0.995 in validation model. RMSEC and RMSECV were 1.63 and 2.68%. | [ |
| Beef meatballs | Dog meat (DM) | Combined wavenumbers of 1700–700 cm−1 | The lipid fractions were extracted using Bligh–Dyer and Folch methods and then subjected to HATR. | No spectral treatment. Quantification was performed using PLSR and classification with PCA | PCA was capable of identifying and classifying DM in beef meatball. The values of R2, RMSEC, and RMSEP of lipids extracted using Folch higher than those of Bligh–Dyer. | [ |
| Beef meat | Wild boar meat (WBM) | 1250–1000 cm−1 (PLSR and PCA) | Lipids were extracted using Soxhlet method employing hexane as extracting solvent, and the obtained lipids were subjected to HATR | No spectral treatment. Quantification was performed using PLSR and classification with PCA | PLSR for the relationship between actual value of WBM and FTIR predicted value had equation of: predicted value = 0.9749 x actual value +1.4658 with R2 of 0.988 and RMSEC of 2.0%. PCA was successfully applied for the classification of wild boar meatball and beef meatball. | [ |
| Buffalo skin | Rambak cracker containing Pig skin (PS) | 1200–1000 cm−1 (PLSR and PCA) | Rambak crackers were extracted using Soxhlet method using hexane as extracting solvent, and the obtained lipids were subjected to HATR | No spectral treatment. Quantification was performed using PLSR and classification with PCA | The relationship between actual and predicted values of PS in rambak has R2 of 0.96, RMSEC of 2.56, and RMSEP of 1.10. The PCA models successfully classify types of buffalo skin, pig skin, and commercial rambak crackers. | [ |
| Cow skin | Lard extracted from Rambak cracker containing pig skin (PS) | 1200–1000 cm−1 | Rambak crackers were extracted using Soxhlet method with hexane followed by FTIR spectra measurement | No spectral treatment. Quantification was performed using PLSR and classification with PCA | The relationship between actual value of lard extracted from PS in crackers and FTIR predicted value has R2 value of 0.946 with low errors in calibration and validation models. PCA can be successfully used for classification of rambak crackers with and without PS | [ |
| Beef jerky | Pork | 1500–600 cm−1 | Jerky samples were sliced and ground into powder followed by FTIR spectra measurement | Classification using LDA, SIMCA, and SVM | Chemometrics of LDA demonstrated the best model for classification of beef jerky and pork jerky precisely and accurately without misclassification | [ |