4.7 Article

Pattern Recognition Approach for the Screening of Potential Adulteration of Traditional and Bourbon Barrel-Aged Maple Syrups by Spectral Fingerprinting and Classical Methods

Journal

FOODS
Volume 11, Issue 15, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11152211

Keywords

maple syrups; adulteration; FT-IR; Raman; GC-MS; bourbon barrel aged

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to generate predictive models based on mid-infrared and Raman spectral fingerprints to characterize unique compositional traits of traditional and bourbon barrel-aged maple syrups, allowing for fast product authentication and detection of potential ingredient tampering.
This study aims to generate predictive models based on mid-infrared and Raman spectral fingerprints to characterize unique compositional traits of traditional and bourbon barrel (BBL)-aged maple syrups, allowing for fast product authentication and detection of potential ingredient tampering. Traditional (n = 23) and BBL-aged (n = 17) maple syrup samples were provided by a local maple syrup farm, purchased from local grocery stores in Columbus, Ohio, and an online vendor. A portable FT-IR spectrometer with a triple-reflection diamond ATR and a compact benchtop Raman system (1064 nm laser) were used for spectra collection. Samples were characterized by chromatography (HPLC and GC-MS), refractometry, and Folin-Ciocalteu methods. We found the incidence of adulteration in 15% (6 out of 40) of samples that exhibited unusual sugar and/or volatile profiles. The unique spectral patterns combined with soft independent modeling of class analogy (SIMCA) identified all adulterated samples, providing a non-destructive and fast authentication of BBL and regular maple syrups and discriminated potential maple syrup adulterants. Both systems, combined with partial least squares regression (PLSR), showed good predictions for the total degrees Brix and sucrose contents of all samples.

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