4.7 Article

Quantitative detection of purine from food products with different water activities using needle-based surface-enhanced Raman scattering sensors

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 418, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.136011

关键词

Pluggable surface-enhanced Raman scattering; (SERS) probe; Free purines; Water activity; Gels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a non-destructive pluggable sensor for effective detection of food substances by considering the actual solute concentration and different water activities (Aw) in the environment. The impact of Aw on purine detection and its deviation corrections are investigated, and the reliability of the proposed method is validated through purine recoveries from three food products. The results show that the proposed non-destructive pluggable sensor performs better when Aw is considered. Thus, rectifying deviations based on Aw can significantly help monitor food quality.
Typically, for accurate quantitative tests of molecules, considering the actual solute concentration in the environment with different water activities (Aws) is essential. Accordingly, for effective detection of food substances, this paper proposes a non-destructive pluggable sensor to capture and monitor four free purines based on surfaceenhanced Raman scattering characteristics such as sensitivity, uniformity, repeatability, and stability. In particular, we investigate the impact of Aw on the evaluation of purine detection and its deviation corrections. Furthermore, the recoveries of purine from three food products, including fish (Aw: 0.99), ham (Aw: 0.91), and bacon (Aw: 0.73), are subsequently explored to validate the reliability of the proposed method. The results indicate that the proposed non-destructive pluggable sensor performs better when the Aw is considered. Therefore, this strategy for achieving more reliable quantitative detection by rectifying deviations based on the Aw can significantly help monitor food quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据