ArticleFood chemistry: X2026
Comparative analysis of official analytical methods for tocopheryl esters for food additive quality control.
Article in Food chemistry: X, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tocopheryl esters are widely used as nutritional fortifiers and antioxidant additives, making accurate quantification essential for regulatory compliance and quality control. However, official analytical methods differ among jurisdictions, which can cause method-dependent variability. Here, the official procedures for d-α-tocopheryl acetate, dl-α-tocopheryl acetate, and d-α-tocopheryl succinate prescribed in Korea, China, and Japan were reproduced and validated according to ICH Q2(R1). Although all methods met the criteria, sensitivity, recovery, and precision differed by analytical principle (GC-FID, HPLC-PDA, and titration). Recoveries ranged from 86.34 to 114.86% (GC-FID), 94.13-99.75% (HPLC-PDA), and 99.86-100.45% (titration), with intra-day RSD below 2.6% for all methods. Measurement uncertainty, estimated using ISO GUM and Eurachem approaches with a coverage factor k = 2, yielded expanded uncertainties (U) of 4.87-10.39%, revealing method-specific contributions from calibration, sample preparation, and repeatability. The discrepancies were linked to methodological design, underscoring the value of comparative evaluation in food additive analysis.
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.