4.7 Article

Fluorescence quenching by competitive absorption between solid foods: Rapid and non-destructive determination of maize flour adulterated in turmeric powder

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 375, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131887

Keywords

Fluorescence quenching; Competitive absorption; Turmeric; Maize; Adulteration; Front-face synchronous fluorescence; spectroscopy (FFSFS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Competitive absorption between maize flour and turmeric powder was observed through front-face synchronous fluorescence spectroscopy and fluorescence titration, with prediction models constructed using partial least square regression showing high accuracy and validation results. The limit of detection for maize flour was approximately 9%, and most relative errors for test samples were within -20% to 20%.
Fluorescence quenching induced by competitive absorption between different components of solid foods was observed for the first time. By using front-face synchronous fluorescence spectroscopy (FFSFS) and fluorescence titration, competitive absorption between maize flour and turmeric powder was proven to occur between phenolic acids in maize flour and curcumin in turmeric powder. FFSFS was applied for the rapid and nondestructive determination of maize flour adulterated in turmeric powder. Prediction models were constructed by partial least square (PLS) regression based on unfolded total synchronous fluorescence spectra, and were validated by five-fold cross-validation and external validation, with the determination coefficient of prediction (Rp2) greater than 0.95, root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) < 6%, relative error of prediction (REP) < 15% and residual predictive deviation (RPD) greater than 5. The limit of detection (LOD) of maize flour was approximately 9%. In addition, most relative errors for test samples were from -20% to 20%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available