ArticleJournal of AOAC International2025
Use of a Spectrophotometric Method for the Detection of Adulterants in Commercial Fulvic Acid Products.
Article in Journal of AOAC International, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous products manufactured from non-humic sources have flooded the market claiming to be fulvic acids. The challenge is finding an easy method to distinguish between products containing genuine fulvic fractions and those containing adulterants. UV spectrophotometry has been widely used to study the fulvic fraction extracted from humic substances, with multiple metrics derived from UV absorption spectra developed and implemented by researchers.
objectiveLeverage ten indices that are characteristic features of the UV spectra of hydrophobic fulvic acids to differentiate products containing authentic fulvic fractions from those containing adulterants.
methodsFulvic fractions were diluted to 5 ppm carbon and UV spectra were obtained. Spectra were normalized and analyzed to calculate 10 different indices. The percent difference between the index values of the product and the corresponding index values for the Suwannee River fulvic acid (SRFA) and Pahokee peat fulvic acid (PPFA) standards were calculated. An equally weighted average for all 10 indices was calculated and a 70% cutoff value was used for the average percent error as a screening tool to distinguish products containing fulvic fractions from adulterants.
resultsFifty-four test samples were analyzed, with nine samples being analyzed by two different laboratories using the established method. Fourteen of the 25 commercial products studied were found to contain fulvic fractions. Increased metal ion concentration within the investigated range did not impact the average percent error calculated, nor did varying the total organic carbon concentrations of the test portions within the range of 1-10 ppm.
conclusionThe method investigated could be a suitable screening tool for most commercial products and is capable of accurately distinguishing products that contain fulvic fractions. HIGHLIGHTS: The method accurately found all 11 fulvic fractions isolated from known humic substances as fulvic, and all 11 test samples prepared from non-humified materials as non-fulvic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.