ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Chemical Sensors for Farm-to-Table Monitoring of Fruit Quality.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Soluble Solids in White Strawberries: A Comparative Analysis of Vis-NIR and NIR Spectroscopy.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Proposal of a New System for Essential Oil Classification Based on Low-Cost Gas Sensor and Machine Learning Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Assembled Reduced Graphene Oxide/Tungsten Diselenide/Pd Heterojunction with Matching Energy Bands for Quick Banana Ripeness Detection.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Ambient Parameter Monitoring in Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Supply Chains Using Internet of Things-Enabled Sensor and Communication Technology.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Sensors and Instruments for Brix Measurement: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Application of Chemical Sensors and Olfactometry Method in Ecological Audits of Degraded Areas.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Farm-to-table operations produce, transport, and deliver produce to consumers in very different ways than conventional, corporate-scale agriculture operations. As a result, the time it takes to get a freshly picked fruit to the consumer is relatively short and the expectations of the consumer for freshness and quality are high. Since many of these operations involve small farms and small businesses, resources to deploy sensors and instruments for monitoring quality are scarce compared to larger operations. Within stringent power, cost, and size constraints, this article analyzes chemical sensor technologies suitable for monitoring fruit quality from the point of harvest to consumption in farm-to-table operations. Approaches to measuring sweetness (sugar content), acidity (pH), and ethylene gas are emphasized. Not surprisingly, many instruments developed for laboratory use or larger-scale operations are not suitable for farm-to-table operations. However, there are many opportunities still available to adapt pH, sugar, and ethylene sensing to the unique needs of localized farm-to-table operations that can help these operations survive and expand well into the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.