Open Access
Review
Table 5
Comparison of direct and indirect method of 3-MCPD esters and glycidol esters analysis.
| Direct methods | Indirect methods | |
| Pros | No chemical reaction | Standards available |
| Individual quantification of species | Good sensitivity | |
| Cons | Standards not available (60–70 different species) | Reactivity of the analytes (glycidol and 3-MCPD) |
| Expensive tools: HPLC/MS/MS or HPLC/TOF/MS | Global quantification of glycidyl esters and 3-MCPD | |
| Purification step needed | esters | |
| Papers | Masukawa et al., (2010) | Divinová et al., |
| Masukawa et al., (2011) | (2004) | |
| AOCS Cd 28–10(1) | Weißhaar, (2008) | |
| Haines et al., (2011) | DGF C-VI 18 (2010)(2) | |
| Dubois et al., (2011) | Hrncirik et al., (2011) | |
| Dubois et al., (2012) | Kuhlmann, (2011) | |
| Moravcova et al., (2012) | Ermacora et al., (2012) | |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.