ReviewFood science & nutrition2024
Advances and challenges in conventional and modern techniques for halal food authentication: A review.
Review in Food science & nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Metabolomics Approach in the Combination with Multivariate Data Analysis for the Identification of Non-Halal Meats: A Narrative Review.Food science of animal resources · 2025Review
- Detection of Adulterants in Powdered Foods Using Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Chemometrics: Recent Advances, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- An Exploratory Study on the Rapid Detection of Volatile Organic Compounds in Gardenia Fruit Using the Heracles NEO Ultra-Fast Gas Phase Electronic Nose.Metabolites · 2024Article
- Application of machine learning approach on halal meat authentication principle, challenges, and prospects: A review.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Advances and challenges in conventional and modern techniques for halal food authentication: A review.Food science & nutrition · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food is one of the most necessary needs since human civilization. For Muslims, it is mandatory to consume halal food. From a halal authentication perspective, adulteration of food products is an emerging challenge worldwide. The demand for halal food consumption has resulted in an ever-increasing need for halal product validity. In the market, there are several food products in which actual ingredients and their source are not mentioned on the label and cannot be observed by the naked eye. Commonly nonhalal items include pig derivatives like lard, pork, and gelatin derivatives, dead meats, alcohol, blood, and prohibited animals. Purposely, various conventional and modern methods offer precise approaches to ensure the halalness and wholesomeness of food products. Conventional methods are physiochemical (dielectric) and electrophoresis. At the same time, modern techniques include high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC), gas chromatography (GC), electronic nose (E-Nose), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy, and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. This review intends to give an extensive and updated overview of conventional and modern analytical methods for ensuring food halal authenticity.
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.