Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42053354›Full record

ReviewJournal of food science2026

Monitoring Biogenic Amines: Comparative Assessment of Detection Methods for Key Market Marine and Freshwater Species.

Lasse Petersen

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of food science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Lasse PetersenBio and Food Technology, Faculty of Energy and Life Science, Flensburg University of Applied Sciences, Flensburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3233-6243

Funding

Interreg Deutschland-Danmark
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biogenic amines, primarily histamine, cadaverine, and putrescine, are important indicators of microbial spoilage and potential health risks. This review summarizes established and novel analytical methods for quantitatively determining biogenic amines in fish and fish products, along with their limits of detection in these complex matrices. Traditional chromatographic methods (HPLC/UPLC, GC, and capillary electrophoresis) with pre- or postcolumn derivatization offer the highest sensitivity, with detection limits down to the microgram range. Spectroscopic techniques (UV/Vis, fluorescence, NIR, Raman/SERS, and NMR) enable noninvasive, partially nondestructive, and inline measurements. Enzymatic, aptamer-based, and molecular imprinting sensors, as well as immunoassay-based methods (e.g., ELISA and immunosensor approaches), are advantageous for their speed, ease of use, and portability. Moreover, the review discusses the opportunities and limitations of these methods in terms of sensitivity, selectivity, and suitability for determining biogenic amines in the most market-relevant species of marine and freshwater fish, while also providing a unique list of all marine and freshwater fish species that have already been examined for their biogenic amine content, thereby providing references for efficient and suitable detection methods in fish.

Indexed as

Biogenic AminesFishesFish ProductsSeafoodAnimalsCadaverineChromatography, High Pressure LiquidElectrophoresis, CapillaryFood ContaminationFresh WaterBiogenic AminesCadaverine

Identifiers

PMID42053354
PMCPMC13127245

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.