| Literature DB >> 36235173 |
Guowei Wu1, Dingling Zhuang2, Kit Wayne Chew3, Tau Chuan Ling2, Kuan Shiong Khoo4, Dong Van Quyen5,6, Shuying Feng7, Pau Loke Show1,8,9.
Abstract
With the rapid development of the economy and productivity, an increasing number of citizens are not only concerned about the nutritional value of algae as a potential new food resource but are also, in particular, paying more attention to the safety of its consumption. Many studies and reports pointed out that analyzing and solving seaweed food safety issues requires holistic and systematic consideration. The three main factors that have been found to affect the food safety of algal are physical, chemical, and microbiological hazards. At the same time, although food safety awareness among food producers and consumers has increased, foodborne diseases caused by algal food safety incidents occur frequently. It threatens the health and lives of consumers and may cause irreversible harm if treatment is not done promptly. A series of studies have also proved the idea that microbial contamination of algae is the main cause of this problem. Therefore, the rapid and efficient detection of toxic and pathogenic microbial contamination in algal products is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. At the same time, two other factors, such as physical and chemical hazards, cannot be ignored. Nowadays, the detection techniques are mainly focused on three major hazards in traditional methods. However, especially for food microorganisms, the use of traditional microbiological control techniques is time-consuming and has limitations in terms of accuracy. In recent years, these two evaluations of microbial foodborne pathogens monitoring in the farm-to-table chain have shown more importance, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, there are also many new developments in the monitoring of heavy metals, algal toxins, and other pollutants. In the future, algal food safety risk assessment will not only focus on convenient, rapid, low-cost and high-accuracy detection but also be connected with some novel technologies, such as the Internet of Things (artificial intelligence, machine learning), biosensor, and molecular biology, to reach the purpose of simultaneous detection.Entities:
Keywords: algal food; farm-to-table chain; food safety; foodborne diseases; microbial foodborne pathogens
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235173 PMCID: PMC9572256 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196633
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Classification and designation of common edible algae.
Figure 2Distribution of three types of radioactive substances accumulated in seven different species of algae in the Fukushima Shioyazaki nuclear accident [64].
The most common and most advanced technology for the detection of Iodine contaminants.
| Testing Item | Technology of | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iodine | ICP-MS/ICP-AES | High specificity and low detection limit | Pre-treatment is complicated, and the dilution sample easily leads to errors | [ |
| GC-ECD | Low detection limit | Consumable reagents are expensive | [ |
The most common and most advanced technology for the detection of heavy metal contaminants.
| Testing | Technology of | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arsenic | Electrospray mass spectrometry | Distinguish organic and inorganic arsenic | Intolerant to complex matrix and high salt | [ |
| LC-ICP-MS | High sensitivity, low detection limit, good precision, and wide linear range | Large volume and weight, high price, slow detection speed and high maintenance cost | [ | |
| Mercury | A simple and rapid detection kit | Simple, rapid, low-cost | Only be qualitative, not quantitative | [ |
The most common and most advanced technology for the detection of sulfur dioxide contaminants.
| Testing | Technology of | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sulfur dioxide | Miniaturized dielectric barrier discharge—molecular emission spectrometry | Good linear relationship, accurate detection results, low cost, compact detection equipment | Detection time is long, instrument is complex and expensive | [ |
| Liquid chromatography with pre-column derivatization | Short detection time, high sensitivity, and specificity | Consider using HPLC rather than LC | [ | |
| Electrospray mass spectrometry | Distinguish organic and inorganic arsenic | Intolerant to complex matrix and high salt | [ |
The most common and most advanced technology for the detection of algal toxins contaminants.
| Testing | Technology of | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algal toxins | Photochemical and biosensor | Smaller sample numbers and shorter response times | Pre-treatment complex, susceptible to environmental | [ |
| Fluorescence microsphere-based | Low cost, simple and low interference, and can detect a variety of toxins | Nonspecific fluorescence limits, sensitivity low sensitivity | [ | |
| Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) | High sensitivity, good detection limit, convenience, and effectiveness | Price Instruments are expensive and costly to maintain | [ | |
| Portable biosensor | Portable, rapid, and simple sample preparation | A short service life span | [ | |
| UPLC-MS/MS and 15 N isotope labelling | High analysis speed, high specificity, high sensitivity, high accuracy, high stability | Chromatographic column high pressure, easy to block | [ |