4.7 Review

Gelatin controversies in food, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products: Authentication methods, current status, and future challenges

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION
卷 58, 期 9, 页码 1495-1511

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2016.1264361

关键词

Gelatin source authentication; protein- and nucleic acid-based techniques; biomarkers; multiplex platforms; pharmaceutical and personal care products

资金

  1. University of Malaya [GC001A-14SBS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gelatin is a highly purified animal protein of pig, cow, and fish origins and is extensively used in food, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. However, the acceptability of gelatin products greatly depends on the animal sources of the gelatin. Porcine and bovine gelatins have attractive features but limited acceptance because of religious prohibitions and potential zoonotic threats, whereas fish gelatin is welcomed in all religions and cultures. Thus, source authentication is a must for gelatin products but it is greatly challenging due to the breakdown of both protein and DNA biomarkers in processed gelatins. Therefore, several methods have been proposed for gelatin identification, but a comprehensive and systematic document that includes all of the techniques does not exist. This up-to-date review addresses this research gap and presents, in an accessible format, the major gelatin source authentication techniques, which are primarily nucleic acid and protein based. Instead of presenting these methods in paragraph form which needs much attention in reading, the major methods are schematically depicted, and their comparative features are tabulated. Future technologies are forecasted, and challenges are outlined. Overall, this review paper has the merit to serve as a reference guide for the production and application of gelatin in academia and industry and will act as a platform for the development of improved methods for gelatin authentication.

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