scholarly journals Method for the Determination of the Free Fatty Acids of Milk Fat

1963 ◽  
Vol 46 (12) ◽  
pp. 1342-1347 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.D. Bills ◽  
L.L. Khatri ◽  
E.A. Day
1958 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn R. Perrin ◽  
D. D. Perrin

An extraction-titration method is described for the determination of free fatty acids in small samples of fresh milk.Recoveries of fatty acids added to milk ranged from 63% for butyric acid to 97% for stearic acid. For a composite sample approximating milk fat in fatty acid composition the recovery was 83%.Interference from citric and lactic acids was not significant for reasonably fresh samples.The method gives a higher recovery of the lower molecular weight fatty acids than is possible by earlier methods.For titrating very dilute solutions of fatty acids α-naphtholphthalein was shown to be a more accurate indicator than phenolphthalein; it also provides a better defined endpoint.


Author(s):  
Oto Hanuš ◽  
Eva Samková ◽  
Jan Říha ◽  
Marcela Vyletělová Klimešová ◽  
Petr Roubal

Free fatty acids (FFAs) in fat are important indicator of raw milk quality. Result reliability of FFAs is important. Aim was to verify MIR–FT (mid infrared spectroscopy with Fourier’s transformations) method for its calibration to determine FFAs, time stability of MIR–FT FFA calibration and calibration levelling in laboratory networks. Reference (RE) milk samples (1 set = 8) were prepared according to CSN 57 0533 (FFAs in mmol.100g−1 of fat). MIR–FT instruments were: 1 LactoScope FTIR (DE); 2 Bentley FTS (BE); 2 MilkoScan FT 6000 (FO). 3 calibrations of MIR–FT (5) in 3 laboratories were performed. Bulk milk samples came from 4 herds and 2 breeds. These 4 samples were used for calibration in native and modified form. Modification increased FFAs by cca 100%. Calibration set had 8 samples. 1 between calibration interval was checked monthly by proficiency testing (PT). PT set had 10 samples. 5 samples were with native milk and 5 had modified fat content, lower and higher. Maximal value of difference variability for calibration quality validation is x (sd of difference MIR–FT and RE) plus 1.64 multiple of sd (on 95% level), 1.0613 mmol.100g−1. Mean validation correlation coefficient (r) between MIR–FT and RE results was 0.802 ± 0.082 (P < 0.001), from 0.666 to 0.945. Minimal value at calibration is x minus 1.64 multiple of sd (0.668). Correlations between MIR–FT results were higher by 8.4% (0.869 (P < 0.001) > 0.802). Example PT with 10 and 5 milk samples had similar results of r 0.887 and 0.953 (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05). There is possibility to construct a levelling programme for calibrated instruments. Some equation between PT reference and instrumental values could correct MIR–FT results for their better comparability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document