Susana A. Palma-Duran, David Morgan, Emilie Combet
{"title":"Quantification of Vitamin A in Edible Oils: Comparison of Portable Device iCheck Chroma3 to High-Performance Liquid Chromatography","authors":"Susana A. Palma-Duran, David Morgan, Emilie Combet","doi":"10.1007/s12161-024-02613-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Fortification of edible oil with vitamin A is a widely adopted intervention to minimize the effects of vitamin A deficiency in vulnerable groups and mitigate some of its deleterious consequences. Regulatory monitoring is an important prerequisite to ensure that the fortification program is implemented effectively. Standard laboratory analysis methods for vitamin A in oils to assess adequate addition levels remain expensive and time-consuming. Portable testing devices are relatively less expensive in terms of capital investment and cost per test. However, the reliability of results needs to be assured to ensure acceptability and confidence. This study compared a portable device to high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in terms of quantification of vitamin A in both spiked and commercially fortified oils. Nine oils (soybean, palm, cottonseed, rapeseed, corn, peanut, coconut, sunflower, and rice bran oils) were selected and spiked with retinyl palmitate at six different concentrations, and 112 commercially fortified oils were quantified for their vitamin A content using both methods. A good indicator of intra-day and inter-day repeatability (< 10% CV) was obtained for the measurement of vitamin A in the spiked oils for both methods, which denotes a high agreement between them. Vitamin A recoveries were 97–132% for HPLC and 74–127% for the portable device. A strong positive correlation, <i>r</i> = 0.88, is observed between the two methods for the quantification of vitamin A in the commercially fortified oils. The portable device provides a relatively low-cost, quick, and user-friendly alternative to HPLC.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":561,"journal":{"name":"Food Analytical Methods","volume":"17 6","pages":"847 - 854"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12161-024-02613-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Analytical Methods","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12161-024-02613-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Fortification of edible oil with vitamin A is a widely adopted intervention to minimize the effects of vitamin A deficiency in vulnerable groups and mitigate some of its deleterious consequences. Regulatory monitoring is an important prerequisite to ensure that the fortification program is implemented effectively. Standard laboratory analysis methods for vitamin A in oils to assess adequate addition levels remain expensive and time-consuming. Portable testing devices are relatively less expensive in terms of capital investment and cost per test. However, the reliability of results needs to be assured to ensure acceptability and confidence. This study compared a portable device to high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in terms of quantification of vitamin A in both spiked and commercially fortified oils. Nine oils (soybean, palm, cottonseed, rapeseed, corn, peanut, coconut, sunflower, and rice bran oils) were selected and spiked with retinyl palmitate at six different concentrations, and 112 commercially fortified oils were quantified for their vitamin A content using both methods. A good indicator of intra-day and inter-day repeatability (< 10% CV) was obtained for the measurement of vitamin A in the spiked oils for both methods, which denotes a high agreement between them. Vitamin A recoveries were 97–132% for HPLC and 74–127% for the portable device. A strong positive correlation, r = 0.88, is observed between the two methods for the quantification of vitamin A in the commercially fortified oils. The portable device provides a relatively low-cost, quick, and user-friendly alternative to HPLC.
在食用油中添加维生素 A 强化剂是一种广泛采用的干预措施,可最大限度地减少维生素 A 缺乏症对弱势群体的影响,并减轻其某些有害后果。监管监测是确保有效实施强化计划的重要前提。油类中维生素 A 的标准实验室分析方法用于评估适当的添加水平仍然既昂贵又耗时。就资本投资和每次检测的成本而言,便携式检测设备的成本相对较低。不过,需要确保结果的可靠性,以保证可接受性和可信度。本研究比较了便携式设备和高效液相色谱法 (HPLC) 对添加维生素 A 的油和市售强化油中维生素 A 的定量分析。研究人员选择了九种油(大豆油、棕榈油、棉籽油、菜籽油、玉米油、花生油、椰子油、葵花籽油和米糠油),在其中添加了六种不同浓度的棕榈酸视黄醇酯,并使用这两种方法对 112 种商业强化油的维生素 A 含量进行了定量。两种方法对添加油中维生素 A 的测定都获得了良好的日内和日间重复性指标(< 10% CV),表明它们之间具有很高的一致性。高效液相色谱法的维生素 A 回收率为 97-132%,便携式仪器的回收率为 74-127%。这两种方法对商业强化油中维生素 A 的定量具有很强的正相关性(r = 0.88)。便携式设备为高效液相色谱法提供了一种相对低成本、快速和用户友好的替代方法。
期刊介绍:
Food Analytical Methods publishes original articles, review articles, and notes on novel and/or state-of-the-art analytical methods or issues to be solved, as well as significant improvements or interesting applications to existing methods. These include analytical technology and methodology for food microbial contaminants, food chemistry and toxicology, food quality, food authenticity and food traceability. The journal covers fundamental and specific aspects of the development, optimization, and practical implementation in routine laboratories, and validation of food analytical methods for the monitoring of food safety and quality.