Back to all available

Monitoring fish freshness via biogenic amines: Comparative assessment of detection methods for key market marine and freshwater species

aquaculture-fisheries-and-fish-science
food-science-and-technology
marine-biology
aquatic-and-marine-chemistry
food-water-and-energy-nexus

Abstract

Freshness is a key quality and safety criterion in the fish industry. 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 and their limit of detection. Traditional chromatographic methods (HPLC/UPLC, GC, and capillary electrophoresis) with pre- or post-column derivatization offer the highest sensitivity, with detection limits down to the microgram range, but require extensive sample preparation and costly equipment. Spectroscopic techniques (UV/Vis, fluorescence, NIR, Raman/SERS, and NMR) enable noninvasive, partially non-destructive, and inline measurements but require sophisticated multivariate calibration and data analysis. 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. However, they currently fall short of chromatographic standards regarding robustness and selectivity. Finally, this 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. It also provides a list of all marine and freshwater fish species that have already been examined for their biogenic amine content.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].