Factors influencing the fatty acid determination in fats and oils using Fourier transform near‐infrared spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fourier transform near‐infrared (FT‐NIR) technology is matrix dependent and thus highly dependent on factors that influence the absorption spectra. Ignoring these factors during the development of FT‐NIR models will affect the accuracy and reliability of the classification of fats and oils and the determination of their fatty acid (FA) composition. Four factors were studied: the temperature at which samples are scanned, differences in FA chain length and number of double bonds, and the presence of non‐triacylglycerol components. The results showed that an increase in the recording temperature decreased the absorption peak intensity, but not the position. FT‐NIR spectral differences were linked to variations in molecular vibrations resulting from the number of carbon atoms or double bonds in the FA. The FT‐NIR method could clearly differentiate between chain lengths from 10:0 to 18:0 and numbers of double bonds from zero (18:0) to three (18:3). Contaminants in triacylglycerols altered the FT‐NIR spectra, resulting in increased errors in the FA content. An increased concentration of β‐sitosterol in triolein decreased or increased the observed contents of cis9‐18:1 and cis11‐18:1, respectively. An FT‐NIR model adjusted for the phytosterol content corrected this discrepancy. The revised FT‐NIR model was successfully used to provide the accurate FA compositions of commercial sunflower oils.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".