This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No abstract

There has been a growing interest in vinegar, especially after the increasing reports about its beneficial health effects. Bioactive compounds of vinegar are associated with its antimicrobial, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antitumor, and anti-obesity types of activities. Quality of vinegar is related with the authenticity of the product besides the amounts of bioactive compounds in its composition. Addition of cheaper substitutes to higher quality vinegars and false labeling are some common authentication problems for this product. There are various examples of the use of targeted and untargeted methods in authentication studies for vinegars. Specific constituents and properties of vinegars such as molecular isotope ratios and individual volatile compounds were used to detect adulteration with targeted methods. On the other hand, untargeted methods, mostly in the form of the application of spectroscopic techniques, such as infrared and fluorescence spectroscopy in combination with chemometrics, provide an overall measurement. This review mainly focuses on adulteration types and elaborates on different targeted and nontargeted methods used to authenticate vinegars.

BACKGROUND Adulteration is defined as the intentional addition of a material that is not a part of the nature. In this study, a non‐conventional time domain nuclear magnetic resonance (TD‐NMR) pulse sequence: magic sandwich echo (MSE) was used to detect the adulteration of honey by glucose syrup (GS) and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accompanied with T1 and T2 relaxation times. Also, fast field cycling NMR (FFC‐NMR) relaxometry and multivariate analysis were performed to investigate the adulteration. RESULTS Higher maltose in GS and changing glucose to water ratio of HFCS gave high correlation with the crystal content values. In HFCS adulteration, two separate populations of protons having different T2 values were detected and T1 times were also used to determine GS adulteration. Addition of GS increased T1 while addition of HFCS increased T2, significantly. CONCLUSION The results showed that it is possible to differentiate the unadulterated and adulterated honey samples by using TD‐NMR relaxation times and crystal content values obtained by the MSE sequence. By FFC‐NMR relaxometry, not only GS addition but also the amount of GS was examined. The multivariate analysis technique of principal component analysis was able to distinguish the types of adulterants. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.

No abstract