期刊
FOOD CONTROL
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 -出版社
ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108350
关键词
Amino acids; Gelatine; UHPLC-DAD; Forensic food model
资金
- Ministry of Higher Ed-ucation Malaysia [63900911-10205]
- Malaysia Halal Analysis Centre (MyHAC) of the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia
This study successfully authenticated gelatine sources using amino acid analysis combined with UHPLC-DAD technology, and quantified pig adulterants in various gelatines using multiple regression models. DA and PCA effectively classified different types of gelatine, while MLR model performed the best in quantification.
This study aims at authenticating gelatine sources using the incorporation of amino acid (AA) analysis via Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Diode-Array Detector (UHPLC-DAD) with forensic food models such as discriminant analysis (DA) and principal component analysis (PCA). The multiple linear regression (MLR), principal component regression (PCR) and partial least square regression (PLSR) were compared to select the best model to (1) quantify the porcine adulterant in non-porcine gelatines and (2) quantify porcine adulterant in fish and bovine gelatine. The method linearity was 37.5-1000 pmol/mu L with a determination coefficient (R-2) of 0.96-1.00 and a total recovery of 85%-111%. The training, testing and validation datasets were established by the AA of fish, bovine and porcine skin gelatines. The DA had successfully classified 100% fish, bovine and porcine gelatines while the PCA identified dominant AA in each gelatine sources. The discriminating model of non-porcine and porcine gelatines (NPPDM) and discriminating model of fish, bovine and porcine gelatines (FBPDM) had 100% correctly classified (1) non-porcine and porcine gelatines and (2) fish, bovine and porcine gelatines. Using the fish and bovine gelatin (PFBG) training dataset, the PCR model was ineffective in quantifying the porcine adulterant in non-porcine gelatines. The MLR was a better model than PCR to quantify porcine adulterant in non-porcine gelatines using porcine adulterant in fish gelatine (PFG) and porcine adulterant in bovine gelatine (PBG) training datasets due to its lower relative error range and average relative error than of the PCR. Likewise, the PCR model of the PFBG training dataset was ineffective to quantify the porcine adulterant, specifically in fish and bovine gelatine. In contrast, the MLR of PFG and PBG training datasets was the best model for quantifying porcine adulterant in fish and bovine gelatines, respectively. The MLR was ineffective to classify porcine gelatine in marshmallow using the PFG training dataset. However, the MLR had successfully quantified porcine gelatine in marshmallow using PFG and PBG training datasets. Since the training, testing and validation datasets were established by the fish, bovine and porcine skin gelatines, the NPPDM, FBPDM and MLR were best applied for these gelatines. This study anticipated that the regulatory bodies might adopt this approach to establish a standard of authentication of gelatine products.
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。
推荐
暂无数据