4.7 Article

Characterization and authentication of a novel vegetable source of omega-3 fatty acids, sacha inchi (Plukenetia volubilis L.) oil

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 134, 期 2, 页码 1173-1180

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.02.143

关键词

FT-IR spectroscopy; omega-3; Sacha inchi oil; Pattern recognition analysis; Adulteration

资金

  1. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Consumption of omega-3 fatty acids (omega-3's), whether from fish oils, flax or supplements, can protect against cardiovascular disease. Finding plant-based sources of the essential omega-3's could provide a sustainable, renewable and inexpensive source of omega-3's, compared to fish oils. Our objective was to develop a rapid test to characterize and detect adulteration in sacha inchi oils, a Peruvian seed containing higher levels of omega-3's in comparison to other oleaginous seeds. A temperature-controlled ZnSe ATR mid-infrared benchtop and diamond ATR mid-infrared portable handheld spectrometers were used to characterize sacha inchi oil and evaluate its oxidative stability compared to commercial oils. A soft independent model of class analogy (SIMCA) and partial least squares regression (PLSR) analyzed the spectral data. Fatty acid profiles showed that sacha inchi oil (44% linolenic acid) had levels of PUFA similar to those of flax oils. PLSR showed good correlation coefficients (R-2 > 0.9) between reference tests and spectra from infrared devices, allowing for rapid determination of fatty acid composition and prediction of oxidative stability. Oils formed distinct clusters, allowing the evaluation of commercial sacha inchi oils from Peruvian markets and showed some prevalence of adulteration. Determining oil adulteration and quality parameters, by using the ATR-MIR portable handheld spectrometer, allowed for portability and ease-of-use, making it a great alternative to traditional testing methods. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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