4.7 Article

Evaluation of the adulteration of camel milk by non-camel milk using multispectral image, fluorescence and infrared spectroscopy

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2023.122932

Keywords

Milk; Chemometrics; Adulteration; Fluorescence; Infrared; Multispectral

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the potential of three spectroscopic techniques (MIR, fluorescence, and MSI) to detect the adulteration level in camel milk with goat, cow, and ewe milks. The results showed that fluorescence spectroscopy was the most accurate technique, with R2p ranging from 0.63 to 0.96 and an accuracy ranging from 67% to 83%. However, no technique allowed the construction of robust PLSR and PLSDA models for the simultaneous prediction of contamination of camel milk by the three milks.
In the present study, the focus was to evaluate the potential of three spectroscopic techniques (Mid Infrared -MIR-, fluorescence, and multispectral imaging-MSI-) to check the level of adulteration in camel milk with goat, cow, and ewe milks. Camel milk was adulterated with goat, ewe, and cow milks, respectively, at 6 different levels viz. 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, and 15%. After preprocessing the data with standard normal variate (SNV), multiplicative scattering correction (MSC), and normalization (area under spectrum = 1), partial least squares regression (PLSR) and partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLSDA) were used to predict the adulteration level and their belonging group, respectively. The PLSR and PLSDA models, validated using external data, highlighted that fluorescence spectroscopy was the most accurate technique giving a R2p ranging between 0.63 and 0.96 and an accuracy ranging between 67 and 83%. However, no technique has allowed the construction of robust PLSR and PLSDA models for the simultaneous prediction of contamination of camel milk by the three milks.

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