Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38459927›Full record

ReviewAnalytical chemistry2024

3D Printing Technology: Role in Safeguarding Food Security.

Danielle Jaye S Agron, Woo Soo Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Danielle Jaye S AgronAdditive Manufacturing Laboratory, School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. V3T 0N1, Canada.
Woo Soo KimAdditive Manufacturing Laboratory, School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. V3T 0N1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0319-7489

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rising threats to food security include several factors, such as population growth, low agricultural investment, and poor distribution systems. Consequently, food insecurity results from a confluence of issues, including diseases, processing limitations, and distribution deficiencies. Food insecurity usually occurs in vulnerable areas where certain technologies and traditional food safety testing are not a viable solution for foodborne disease detection. In this regard, 3D printing technologies and 3D printed sensors open the platform to produce portable, accurate, and low-cost sensors that address the gaps and challenges in food security. In this paper, we discuss the perspective role of 3D printed sensors in food security in terms of food safety and food quality monitoring to provide reliable access to nutritious, affordable food. In each section, we highlight the advantages of 3D printing technology in terms of cost-effectiveness, accuracy, accessibility, and reproducibility compared to traditional manufacturing methodologies. Recent developments in robotic technologies for mechanization, such as food handling with soft grippers, are also discussed. Lastly, we delve into the applications of advanced 3D printing technologies in agricultural monitoring, particularly the future of plant wearables, environmental sensing, and overall plant health monitoring.

Indexed as

Food HandlingPrinting, Three-DimensionalCosts and Cost AnalysisFoodReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID38459927
PMCPMC10955516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.