ArticleBiosensors2021
Reflectance Spectroscopy with Multivariate Methods for Non-Destructive Discrimination of Edible Oil Adulteration.
Article in Biosensors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- ATR-FTIR and FORS Fingerprints for Authentication of Commercial Sunflower Oils and Quantification of Their Oleic Acid.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cold-Pressed Walnut-Oil Adulteration with Edible Oils Detection Using Vis-NIR Spectroscopy.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Raman analysis of lipids in cells: Current applications and future prospects.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Review
- How can we sustainably assess the shelf life of EVOO? A systematic review on analytical strategies and food waste reduction.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Feasibility of Using a Cheap Colour Sensor to Detect Blends of Vegetable Oils in Avocado Oil.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Rapid and Low-Cost Quantification of Adulteration Content inMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The visible and near-infrared (Vis-NIR) reflectance spectroscopy was utilized for the rapid and nondestructive discrimination of edible oil adulteration. In total, 110 samples of sesame oil and rapeseed oil adulterated with soybean oil in different levels were produced to obtain the reflectance spectra of 350-2500 nm. A set of multivariant methods was applied to identify adulteration types and adulteration rates. In the qualitative analysis of adulteration type, the support vector machine (SVM) method yielded high overall accuracy with multiple spectra pretreatments. In the quantitative analysis of adulteration rate, the random forest (RF) combined with multivariate scattering correction (MSC) achieved the highest identification accuracy of adulteration rate with the full wavelengths of Vis-NIR spectra. The effective wavelengths of the Vis-NIR spectra were screened to improve the robustness of the multivariant methods. The analysis results suggested that the competitive adaptive reweighted sampling (CARS) was helpful for removing the redundant information from the spectral data and improving the prediction accuracy. The PLSR + MSC + CARS model achieved the best prediction performance in the two adulteration cases of sesame oil and rapeseed oil. The coefficient of determination (RPcv2) and the root mean square error (RMSEPcv) of the prediction set were 0.99656 and 0.01832 in sesame oil adulterated with soybean oil, and the RPcv2 and RMSEPcv were 0.99675 and 0.01685 in rapeseed oil adulterated with soybean oil, respectively. The Vis-NIR reflectance spectroscopy with the assistance of multivariant analysis can effectively discriminate the different adulteration rates of edible oils.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.