Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36500335›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Environmental Impact of Selected Methods for the Determination of Fatty Acids in Milk Samples.

Izabela Narloch, Grażyna Wejnerowska

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Izabela NarlochDepartment of Food Analysis and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Chemical Technology and Engineering, UTP University of Science and Technology, 3 Seminaryjna Street, 85-326 Bydgoszcz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9509-2267
Grażyna WejnerowskaDepartment of Food Analysis and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Chemical Technology and Engineering, UTP University of Science and Technology, 3 Seminaryjna Street, 85-326 Bydgoszcz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4223-0480
Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determination of the fatty acid profile in milk samples is one of the most important in food analysis. There are many methodologies for FA determination. The conventional procedure for determining the FA composition of milk is isolation of fat or indirect methylation, trans-methylation, extraction of fatty acids, and analysis by gas chromatography. In this study, eight methods based on alkaline methylation were compared for the analysis of fatty acids in cow's milk. The response factors (RF) for GC analysis using FID were calculated. For most acids, RFs were close to 1, with the exception of short-chain fatty acids (C4:0-C8:0). To facilitate the selection of the method for the determination of fatty acids in milk samples, the methods were assessed using the environmental assessment tools of the analytical procedure: the Analytical Eco-Scale, Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI), and Analytical Greenness for Sample Preparation (AGREEprep). The method based on direct milk methylation received the highest scores. Omitting the lipid separation step has an impact on reducing the quantity of used toxic chemicals and reagents, and produces a smaller amount of waste, a much higher throughput, and a reduced cost analysis.

Indexed as

Fatty AcidsMilkAnimalsCattleChromatography, GasEnvironmentFatty Acids, VolatileFemaleFatty AcidsFatty Acids, Volatileenvironmental assessment toolsfatty acidsgas chromatographygreennessmilk fat

Identifiers

PMID36500335
PMCPMC9740020
OpenAlexW4310177423

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.