The effect of adulteration will most usually be evident in the corrupted density and/or viscosity from the original values.
But simply checking to see if either or both are within specification is not enough to reveal if the fuel was adulterated or not. Fuel fraud is becoming increasingly sophisticated as more measures are taken. Measuring the density and viscosity is relatively easy using off line equipment such as supplied by Kittiwake. Hence fraudulent suppliers will now take care to ensure that the adulterated fuel remains within specification and thus target fuels that are most vulnerable i.e. where the original density and viscosity are favourable to a significant adulteration and still remain in specification.
Specific gravity alone is not enough because if it becomes known that this is the sole test then frauds will be based on ensuring that the specific gravity remains within specification.
Neither is viscosity alone a safe test for the same reason.
However, the reason I mention the INtegrity method is because you are not looking for out of specification fuel but you are looking for a fuel whose specification has changed from when it was loaded at the terminal to when it is received.
Any discrepancy in either density or viscosity will alert you to make further investigations and suspect the fuel quality has in some way been compromised. You may then take samples and have them analysed by a laboratory - and usually any disputes are resoled only with reference to laboratory analysis.
The online sensor acts as a burglar alarm.
I have suggested the combined density and viscosity sensor options as being competitively priced, low/no maintenance/calibration and low skills.
However, as Ping Pong suggests there are other approaches.
Note the inline or in tank density and viscosity sensors will determine the density and kinematic viscosity at the reference temperatures for comparison with the values reported in the original analysis.