The intake of adulterated and unhealthy oils and trans-fats in the human diet has had negative health repercussions, including cardiovascular disease, causing millions of deaths annually. Sadly, a significant percentage of all consumable products including edible oils are neither screened nor monitored for quality control for various reasons. The prospective intake of adulterated oils and the associated health impacts on consumers is a significant public health safety concern, necessitating the need for quality assurance checks of edible oils. This study reports a simple, fast, sensitive, accurate, and low-cost chemometric approach to the purity analysis of highly refined peanut oils (HRPO) that were adulterated either with vegetable oil (VO), canola oil (CO), or almond oil (AO) for food quality assurance purposes. The Fourier transform infrared spectra of the pure oils and adulterated HRPO samples were measured and subjected to a partial-least-square (PLS) regression analysis. The obtained PLS regression figures-of-merit were incredible, with remarkable linearity (R2
= 0.994191 or better). The results of the score plots of the PLS regressions illustrate pattern recognition of the adulterated HRPO samples. Importantly, the PLS regressions accurately determined percent compositions of adulterated HRPOs, with an overall root-mean-square-relative-percent-error of 5.53% and a limit-of-detection as low as 0.02% (wt/wt
). The developed PLS regressions continued to predict the compositions of newly prepared adulterated HRPOs over a period of two months, with incredible accuracy without the need for re-calibration. The accuracy, sensitivity, and robustness of the protocol make it desirable and potentially adoptable by health departments and local enforcement agencies for fast screening and quality assurance of consumable products.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited