ReviewJournal of food science2026
Monitoring Biogenic Amines: Comparative Assessment of Detection Methods for Key Market Marine and Freshwater Species.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
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
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.