4.3 Article

Rapid screening of low-quality cooking oil by extractive electrospray ionization mass spectrometry

Journal

CHINESE JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 49, Issue 12, Pages 43-48

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjac.2021.09.003

Keywords

Extractive electrospray ionization; Rapid Screening; Low-quality Cooking Oil' Mass spectrometry

Funding

  1. National Natural Sci-ence Foundation of China (NSFC) [21505017]
  2. Science and Tech-nology Planning Project at the Ministry of Science and Technology of Jiangxi Province, China [20144BBB70008, 20161BBF60093]
  3. Research Fund of East China University of Technology [DHBK2017117]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study successfully established a method for rapid analysis of edible oils using EESI technology, capable of distinguishing different sources of oils, and successfully differentiated 20 brands of cooking oil and five types of illegal cooking oil samples.
Edible oils, an important raw material in food processing and the main sources for people to intake energy and nutrients in daily life, is too complex to rapid analyze due to its complicated chemical mixtures. Herein, methodology of direct analysis of crude extract of edible vegetable oil and illegal cooking oil using extractive electrospray ionization (EESI) was established. Fatty acids and other substances were directly identified, as well as differences of each kind of quality oil mass fingerprint were characterized in the positive and negative ion detection mode. Combined with principal component analysis (PCA), 20 different brands of cooking oil and five kinds of illegal cooking oil samples were successfully distinguished. Thus this method could distinguish sources of edible oil with high specificity, good accuracy, low false positives (similar to 0%) and rapid analysis (about 2 min), which was expected to be used for fast, effective high-throughput analysis of low-grade cooking oil.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available