Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30393308›Full record

ReviewMicromachines2018

Detecting Chemical Hazards in Foods Using Microfluidic Paper-Based Analytical Devices (μPADs): The Real-World Application.

Marti Z Hua, Shenmiao Li, Shuo Wang, Xiaonan Lu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Micromachines, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Current Trends of Food Analysis, Safety, and Packaging.International journal of food science · 2021
    Review
  10. Flow-induced choking of a compliant Hele-Shaw cell.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Marti Z HuaFood, Nutrition and Health Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. martihua@mail.ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3678-1956
Shenmiao LiFood, Nutrition and Health Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. shenmiao.ivy.li@gmail.com.
Shuo WangTianjin Key Laboratory of Food Science and Health, School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China. wangshuo@nankai.edu.cn.
Xiaonan LuFood, Nutrition and Health Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. xiaonan.lu@ubc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food safety remains one of the most important issues in most countries and the detection of food hazards plays a key role in the systematic approach to ensuring food safety. Rapid, easy-to-use and low-cost analytical tools are required to detect chemical hazards in foods. As a promising candidate, microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (μPADs) have been rarely applied to real food samples for testing chemical hazards, although numerous papers have been published in this field in the last decade. This review discusses the current status and concerns of the μPAD applications in the detection of chemical hazards in foods from the perspective of food scientists, mainly for an audience with a background in mechanical and chemical engineering who may have interests in exploring the potential of μPAD to address real-world food safety issues.

Indexed as

chemical hazardfood contaminationfood safetysample preparationμPADs

Identifiers

PMID30393308
PMCPMC6187612

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.