GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Jun 21, 2017 | Blogs, Food / Beverage | 0 comments
A recent study published by the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI), pointed out, in a study of 109 people tested, that skin prick tests are not 100 percent reliable. In the study, participants were subjected to oral food challenges prior to skin testing in which 50 percent of individuals had no reaction. It was also discovered that blood tests were not full-proof even though they measure the presence of IgE antibodies to specific foods. These results are not surprising given that 50 to 60 percent of tests result in false-positives.
This occurs for several reasons:
It would seem, therefore, that more reliable tests are needed which brings me back to the lab. Today, blood tests are commonly interpreted using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) despite a high incidence of false-positives. ELISA is affordable, straightforward, and provides effective testing results when used in conjunction with a person’s medical history. However mass spectrometry is more effective in detecting allergens due to its sensitivity, ability to correspond to unique allergen peptides, and its multi-allergen capabilities. Yes, mass spec is more expensive, but because of their versatility and sensitivity, you get a swift ROI while reducing those pesky false positives. You can learn more about Mass Spectrometry Myths in one of my previous posts.
Want to learn more about mass spectrometry and food allergen testing? Visit our Allergen page or read previous blog posts.
Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is emerging as one of the most concerning ultrashort-chain PFAS in Europe’s food supply – particularly in cereals, a staple consumed daily by millions. A report from PAN Europe reveals a widespread and largely unmonitored contamination trend that raises serious questions about food safety, regulatory blind spots, and future monitoring strategies.
PFAS analysis is complex, but expert guidance doesn’t have to be. In this episode of our ‘Ask the PFAS expert series’, we’re joined by Michael Scherer, Application Lead for Food and Environmental, to answer the most pressing questions in PFAS analysis. From why LC-MS/MS systems are the gold standard for analyzing diverse PFAS compounds, to which EU methods deliver reliable results for drinking water, and to practical steps to prevent contamination, Michael shares actionable insights to help laboratories achieve accuracy, consistency, and confidence in their workflows.
During an LC-MS/MS experiment, traditional fragmentation techniques like collision-induced dissociation (CID) have long been the gold standard. Electron-activated dissociation (EAD) is emerging as a transformative tool that enhances structural elucidation, particularly for complex or labile metabolites.
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network