Limits...
Authentication of beef versus horse meat using 60 MHz 1H NMR spectroscopy.

Jakes W, Gerdova A, Defernez M, Watson AD, McCallum C, Limer E, Colquhoun IJ, Williamson DC, Kemsley EK - Food Chem (2014)

Bottom Line: Principal component analysis gave a two-dimensional "authentic" beef region (p=0.001) against which further spectra could be compared.The outcomes indicated that storing samples by freezing does not adversely affect the analysis.We conclude that 60 MHz (1)H NMR represents a feasible high-throughput approach for screening raw meat.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Analytical Sciences Unit, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UA, UK.

Show MeSH
First versus second principal component plots of: (a) the entire Training Set data (black disks = beef, squares = horse (containing ‘x’ for Lab 1, open for Lab 2)); (b) Test Set 1, (c) Test Set 2, beef, (d) Test Set 2, horse. On all plots, an ellipse is shown indicating the line of constant Mahalanobis distance (D2 = 13.82) from the beef group centre.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4308633&req=5

f0025: First versus second principal component plots of: (a) the entire Training Set data (black disks = beef, squares = horse (containing ‘x’ for Lab 1, open for Lab 2)); (b) Test Set 1, (c) Test Set 2, beef, (d) Test Set 2, horse. On all plots, an ellipse is shown indicating the line of constant Mahalanobis distance (D2 = 13.82) from the beef group centre.

Mentions: From these results, we concluded that any effects due to differences between the Labs (arising from extraction procedures, researchers, instrumentation, etc.) were insignificant compared with the variance due to species. Thus the Training Set data from both Labs were combined and used to develop a single authentication model. PCA was applied to this pooled dataset. The scores on the first two axes are shown in Fig. 5(a). Plotting the horse data from each Lab with different symbols confirms that there is no systematic difference between labs to be seen (note there is too much overlap of points to illustrate this clearly for the beef samples). The loading vectors (data not shown) are highly similar to those from the Training Set data treated separately, as might be expected.


Authentication of beef versus horse meat using 60 MHz 1H NMR spectroscopy.

Jakes W, Gerdova A, Defernez M, Watson AD, McCallum C, Limer E, Colquhoun IJ, Williamson DC, Kemsley EK - Food Chem (2014)

First versus second principal component plots of: (a) the entire Training Set data (black disks = beef, squares = horse (containing ‘x’ for Lab 1, open for Lab 2)); (b) Test Set 1, (c) Test Set 2, beef, (d) Test Set 2, horse. On all plots, an ellipse is shown indicating the line of constant Mahalanobis distance (D2 = 13.82) from the beef group centre.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4308633&req=5

f0025: First versus second principal component plots of: (a) the entire Training Set data (black disks = beef, squares = horse (containing ‘x’ for Lab 1, open for Lab 2)); (b) Test Set 1, (c) Test Set 2, beef, (d) Test Set 2, horse. On all plots, an ellipse is shown indicating the line of constant Mahalanobis distance (D2 = 13.82) from the beef group centre.
Mentions: From these results, we concluded that any effects due to differences between the Labs (arising from extraction procedures, researchers, instrumentation, etc.) were insignificant compared with the variance due to species. Thus the Training Set data from both Labs were combined and used to develop a single authentication model. PCA was applied to this pooled dataset. The scores on the first two axes are shown in Fig. 5(a). Plotting the horse data from each Lab with different symbols confirms that there is no systematic difference between labs to be seen (note there is too much overlap of points to illustrate this clearly for the beef samples). The loading vectors (data not shown) are highly similar to those from the Training Set data treated separately, as might be expected.

Bottom Line: Principal component analysis gave a two-dimensional "authentic" beef region (p=0.001) against which further spectra could be compared.The outcomes indicated that storing samples by freezing does not adversely affect the analysis.We conclude that 60 MHz (1)H NMR represents a feasible high-throughput approach for screening raw meat.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Analytical Sciences Unit, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UA, UK.

Show MeSH