4.7 Article

Profiling versus fingerprinting analysis of sesquiterpene hydrocarbons for the geographical authentication of extra virgin olive oils

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 307, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125556

关键词

Fingerprinting; Geographical origin; Virgin olive oil; Sesquiterpene; Food authentication

资金

  1. European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Program (2014-2020) [635690]
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades (MICINN) from Spain through the Juan de la Cierva program [JCI-2012_13412]
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades (MICINN) from Spain through the Ramon y Cajal program [RYC-2017-23601]
  4. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte (MECD) from Spain through the FPU pre-doctoral program [FPU16/01744]
  5. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [635690] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The verification of the geographical origin of extra virgin (EVOO) and virgin olive oil (VOO) is crucial to protect consumers from misleading information. Despite the large number of studies performed, specific markers are still not available. The present study aims to evaluate sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (SHs) as markers of EVOO geographical origin and to compare the discrimination efficiency of targeted profiling and fingerprinting approaches. A prospective study was carried out on 82 EVOOs from seven countries, analyzed by Headspace Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS). Classification models were developed by Partial Least Square-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) and internally validated (leave 10%-out crossvalidation). The percentage of correct classification was higher for the fingerprinting (100%) than for the profiling approach (45.5-100%). These results confirm the suitability of SHs as EVOO geographical markers and establish the fingerprinting as the most efficient approach for the treatment of SH analytical data with this purpose up to date.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据