Electronic Nose as a Tool for Monitoring the Authenticity of Food. A Review
- PDF / 506,391 Bytes
- 17 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 95 Downloads / 206 Views
Electronic Nose as a Tool for Monitoring the Authenticity of Food. A Review Anna Gliszczyńska-Świgło 1 & Jarosław Chmielewski 1
Received: 22 July 2016 / Accepted: 28 November 2016 # The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Counterfeiting of food is recently one of the risks relevant for producers, distributors, retailers, consumers, and national governments from economic (price), health (allergens), and religious reasons. Flavour of several food products is one of the key attributes of their quality and authenticity. In the case of some foods, the aroma of a product is specific enough to discriminate an original product from its fraud or adulterated counterpart. Electronic nose (e-nose) is a rapid and powerful technique, which requires no special sample preparation to determine the aroma of a product. In the present review, the applications of different e-noses and chemometrics for determination of food authenticity including adulteration and confirmation of origin are discussed. E-noses of various configurations are a very promising tool for testing the authenticity of food products. Keywords Food authenticity . Food adulteration . Origin confirmation . Food aroma . Electronic nose . Chemometrics
Introduction Counterfeiting of food is one of the risks gaining recently more and more attention from producers, distributors, retailers, consumers, and national governments (Moore et al. 2012). In May 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created the term economically motivated adulteration * Anna Gliszczyńska-Świgło [email protected]; [email protected]
1
Faculty of Commodity Science, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland
(EMA) as a subcategory of food fraud. It was defined as B… the fraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substance in a product for the purpose of increasing the apparent value of the product or reducing the cost of its production (…). EMA includes dilution of products with increased quantities of an already-present substance to the extent that such dilution poses a known or possible health risk to consumers, as well as the addition or substitution of substances in order to mask dilution^ (Spink and Moyer 2011). Maximization of commercial profit is usually behind counterfeiting of food. Authenticity of food covers such aspects as adulteration, false or misleading origin or characterization of the product, and its mislabelling. The most common fraudulent procedure is partial or complete substitution of an authentic ingredient or material with a cheaper and easily available component (Hrbek et al. 2014). It leads to worse quality product usually without a substantial effect on human health. In the last years, however, the incidences of food fraud or adulteration seriously dangerous to human health took place. The most known examples are the following: (1) a mass poisoning of Chinese children in 2008 caused by melamine added to milk to overestim
Data Loading...
