ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2022
How Chemometrics Can Fight Milk Adulteration.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- New Developments and Future Challenges of Non-Destructive Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Sensors in the Cheese Industry.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Quality Analysis and Detection of Adulterants and Contaminations in Milk/Milk Powder by Raman Spectroscopy.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Review
- Rapid analysis technologies with chemometrics for food authenticity field: A review.Current research in food science · 2024Review
- Recent Advances in the Determination of Milk Adulterants and Contaminants by Mid-Infrared Spectroscopy.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Application of ATR-FTIR Incorporated with Multivariate Data Analysis for Discrimination and Quantification of Urea as an Adulterant in UHT Milk.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Implementation of Chemometrics and Other Techniques as Means of Authenticity and Traceability to Detect Adulteration in Foods for the Protection of Human Health.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adulteration and fraud are amongst the wrong practices followed nowadays due to the attitude of some people to gain more money or their tendency to mislead consumers. Obviously, the industry follows stringent controls and methodologies in order to protect consumers as well as the origin of the food products, and investment in these technologies is highly critical. In this context, chemometric techniques proved to be very efficient in detecting and even quantifying the number of substances used as adulterants. The extraction of relevant information from different kinds of data is a crucial feature to achieve this aim. However, these techniques are not always used properly. In fact, training is important along with investment in these technologies in order to cope effectively and not only reduce fraud but also advertise the geographical origin of the various food and drink products. The aim of this paper is to present an overview of the different chemometric techniques (from clustering to classification and regression applied to several analytical data) along with spectroscopy, chromatography, electrochemical sensors, and other on-site detection devices in the battle against milk adulteration. Moreover, the steps which should be followed to develop a chemometric model to face adulteration issues are carefully presented with the required critical discussion.
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.