2012
DOI: 10.1039/c2cs35138b
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fingerprinting food: current technologies for the detection of food adulteration and contamination

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
211
0
4

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 372 publications
(215 citation statements)
references
References 309 publications
(342 reference statements)
0
211
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…However, these substances may already exist in regular vegetable cooking oils, long-term stored vegetable cooking oils, and the cooking oils just used in frying foods, causing false-positive results. Other fingerprintingbased techniques combined with chemometrics were investigated for authentication of vegetable oil adulteration [15,16]. After analyzing all of the oil identification methods mentioned above, they are either poor in specificity, low in sensitivity, time consuming, or require a laboratory and a highly trained technician, which may be unsuitable for rapid detection of adulterated oils on line or in field.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these substances may already exist in regular vegetable cooking oils, long-term stored vegetable cooking oils, and the cooking oils just used in frying foods, causing false-positive results. Other fingerprintingbased techniques combined with chemometrics were investigated for authentication of vegetable oil adulteration [15,16]. After analyzing all of the oil identification methods mentioned above, they are either poor in specificity, low in sensitivity, time consuming, or require a laboratory and a highly trained technician, which may be unsuitable for rapid detection of adulterated oils on line or in field.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15 There was found to be a mean correlation coefficient (estimated versus real concentration of cheaper oil) of over 0.80 and 0.97 and a mean square error of less than 1% and 0.007%, respectively. The lower LOD of adulteration during the external validation process was 0.6 and 1.4% w/w for ROO and ROPO, respectively, 25 which was better than that from NMR/ multivariate statistical analysis (5% w/w) or the synchronous uorescence method/partial least squares regression (2.6% w/w).…”
Section: Uv-vis Spectroscopymentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Some of the methods are contact, while others are used without a direct physical impact on the product. Limited sensitivity to small changes in the properties of the object [6] Obtaining of spectral information Suitable for internal defects…”
Section: Nondestructive Methods For Objective Assessment Of the Qualimentioning
confidence: 99%