Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26690169›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2015

Portable Nanoparticle-Based Sensors for Food Safety Assessment.

Gonca Bülbül, Akhtar Hayat, Silvana Andreescu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gonca BülbülDepartment of Chemistry and Biomolecular Science, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699-5810, USA. bulbulg@clarkson.edu.
Akhtar HayatInterdisciplinary Research Centre in Biomedical Materials, COMSAT Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Defence Road, Off Raiwind Road, Lahore 54000, Pakistan. akhtarhayat@ciitlahore.edu.pk.
Silvana AndreescuDepartment of Chemistry and Biomolecular Science, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699-5810, USA. eandrees@clarkson.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of nanotechnology-derived products in the development of sensors and analytical measurement methodologies has increased significantly over the past decade. Nano-based sensing approaches include the use of nanoparticles (NPs) and nanostructures to enhance sensitivity and selectivity, design new detection schemes, improve sample preparation and increase portability. This review summarizes recent advancements in the design and development of NP-based sensors for assessing food safety. The most common types of NPs used to fabricate sensors for detection of food contaminants are discussed. Selected examples of NP-based detection schemes with colorimetric and electrochemical detection are provided with focus on sensors for the detection of chemical and biological contaminants including pesticides, heavy metals, bacterial pathogens and natural toxins. Current trends in the development of low-cost portable NP-based technology for rapid assessment of food safety as well as challenges for practical implementation and future research directions are discussed.

Indexed as

BacteriaColorimetryElectrochemical TechniquesFood ContaminationFood SafetyGoldMetals, HeavyMycotoxinsNanoparticlesNanotechnologyPesticidesGoldMetals, HeavyMycotoxinsPesticidesdetectionfood contaminationnanoparticleportablesensortoxicity

Identifiers

PMID26690169
PMCPMC4721746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.