Rapid detection of neutralising acid adulterants in raw milk using a milk component analyser and chemometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focused on the development of a method for the rapid detection of acid-neutralising adulterants in raw milk using a milk composition analyser. Qualitative analysis for the discrimination of different acid-neutralising acid adulterants in raw milk and quantification of NaSCN in adulterated raw milk were conducted, combined with chemometrics. The results showed that the milk component analyser combined with principal component analysis (PCA) could judge whether raw milk samples were adulterated but cannot identify the types of adulterated substances. Although partial least squares discrimination analysis (PLS-DA) can distinguish some adulterated raw milk samples, the accuracy rate was only 56.3%; the random forest (RF) model could recognise most adulterated raw milk samples with an accuracy rate of 97.5% and the F1-score was 0.9638. In the prediction model of NaSCN adulteration concentration in raw milk constructed by RF, the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.9889, and the root means square error (RMSE) was 3.28 × 10−4, suggesting a high prediction performance of the model. The effectiveness of the method for the detection of real samples in practical production was also proved. Based on the above results, it could conclude that the milk component analyser, combined with chemometrics, effectively distinguished acid-neutralising adulterants in raw milk. These findings provide a reference for the rapid detection of adulterants and the quality control of raw milk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".