Characterization of Bulgarian Rosehip Oil by GC-MS, UV-VIS Spectroscopy, Colorimetry, FTIR Spectroscopy, and 3D Excitation–Emission Fluorescence Spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the study of seven commercially available rosehip oils (Rosa canina L.) using GC-MS, colorimetry (CIELab), UV-VIS, FTIR, and 3D EEM fluorescence spectroscopy, including using a smartphone spectrometer. GC-MS revealed two groups of oil samples with different chemical constituents: ω-6-dominant with 45–51% α-linolenic acid (samples S1, S2, and S5–S7) and ω-3-dominant with 47–49% α-linolenic, 7.3–19.1% oleic, 1.9–2.8% palmitic, 1.0–1.8% stearic, and 0.1–0.72% arachidic acid (S3, S4). In S1 PUFA content was found to be ~75% with ω-6/ω-3 ≈ 2:1. Favorable lipid indices of AI 0.0197–0.0302, TI 0.0208–0.0304, and h/H 33.0–50.6 were observed. The highest h/H (50.55) was observed in S5 and the lowest TI (0.0208) in S3. FTIR showed characteristic lines at ~3021, 2929/2853, 1749, and ~1370 cm−1, and PCA yielded 60–80% variation and separated S1 from the rest of the samples, while the clusters grouped S5 and S6. The smartphone spectrometer also reproduced the individual differences in sample volumes ≤ 1 µL under 355–395 nm UV excitation. The non-destructive optical markers reflect the fatty acid profile and allow fast low-cost identification and quality control. An integrated control method including routine optical screening, periodic CG-MS verification, and chemometric models to trace oxidation and counterfeiting is suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".