Investigation and Discrimination of Ballpoint Pen Inks by Analytical Techniques and Chemometrics

Table 7

Comparison of discrimination for the current study and previously reported studies in the literature.

Serial. no. with references	Total no. of samples for ballpoint inks	Used instrument	Used methods	Analysis type	Conclusions
A [11]	33 (21 black, 12 blue ballpoint pen)	UV/Vis, thin layer chromatography, and FTIR	Destructive analysis	Destructive	100% for black, 98% for blue ink
B [16]	08 blue ballpoint pen	High-pressure liquid chromatography and FTIR	PCA and LDA	Destructive/nondestructive	97.9%
C [36]	21 blue ballpoint pen	LA-ICP-MS	MANOVA, Tukey’s HSD and T2 Hoteling	Destructive	100% discrimination in different brands and partial discrimination in same bands
D [10]	10 black ballpoint pen	Luminescence spectroscopy	Principal component analysis	Nondestructive	87% discrimination at 95% confidence interval
E [13]	41 blue ballpoint pen	Thin layer chromatography and image analysis	RGB Profiles	Destructive	92.8%
F [37]	57 blue ballpoint	UV/Vis and UV/Vis -NIR	Principal component analysis	Destructive and nondestructive	98.72% destructive; 99.46% nondestructive
G [3]	57 blue ballpoint	HPTLC and FTIR	Principal component analysis	Destructive and nondestructive	93.80% destructive; 99.69% nondestructive
H (current research)	55 (20 blue, 19 black, 8 red, and 6 green ballpoint pens)	UV/Vis and FTIR	PCA and cluster analysis	Destructive	99% blue ink, 100% black, red, and green inks

FTIR: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; UV/Vis: ultraviolet visible spectroscopy.