Food Safety
search
Ask Food Safety AI
cart
facebook twitter linkedin instagram youtube
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Food Safety
  • NEWS
    • Latest News
    • Sponsored Insights
    • Sponsored White Papers
  • PRODUCTS
  • TOPICS
    • Contamination Control
    • Food Types
    • Management
    • Process Control
    • Regulatory
    • Sanitation
    • Supply Chain
    • Testing and Analysis
  • PODCAST
  • EXCLUSIVES
    • Food Safety Five Newsreel
    • eBooks
    • FSM Distinguished Service Award
    • Interactive Product Spotlights
    • Videos
  • BUYER'S GUIDE
  • MORE
    • NEWSLETTERS >
      • Archive Issues
      • Subscribe to eNews
    • Store
    • ASK FSM AI
  • WEBINARS
  • FOOD SAFETY SUMMIT
  • EMAG
    • eMagazine
    • Archive Issues
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Contact
    • Advertise
  • SIGN UP!
Testing & AnalysisAllergen Testing

Selecting a Suitable Food Allergen Detection Method

June 1, 2009

Undeclared traces of allergenic substances in food may cause problems for allergic individuals as they are inadvertently exposed to the offending substance. To improve consumer safety, labeling of the eight major allergens became mandatory within the U.S. in 2006. These so-called “Big Eight” include tree nuts, peanuts, soy, eggs, milk, fish, wheat and shellfish.

To comply with allergen labeling laws and to protect their own reputation and business, food producers need analytical methods to monitor the presence of allergens during production and to avoid cross-contamination in production lines. How can food producers effectively select and implement a detection method from the range of methods available? In this article, the most widely used methods available at present and upcoming ones are described, and the pros and cons of the various methods are analyzed to facilitate the selection procedure.

Immunological Screening Methods
Immunological methods are most widely used to detect allergenic products at trace levels (i.e., a low mg/kg range) in foods. These methods are based on the binding of an allergenic protein by specific antibodies. Immunological methods are available in different formats, with the more conventional formats being enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and strip tests. Over the past few decades, many ELISAs and strip tests for the detection of different allergens have been developed and have become commercially available. More recently, research has focused on multiple-allergen detection (i.e., the development of methods in which several allergens or allergenic compounds can be detected simultaneously). These assays are usually developed on biosensors and microsphere-based flow cytometric systems. It is anticipated that within the next few years, these assays will also become commercially available. With the introduction of these types of assays, routine screening of products for the presence of the “Big Eight” will become possible.

Strip tests
Strip tests (Figure 1) are based on the formation of complexes between anti-allergen antibody-coated colored beads with allergenic proteins in the sample and anti-allergen antibodies on the test strip. These complexes give rise to a colored test line on the strip, indicating a positive (i.e., allergen-containing) sample. In a similar way, a colored control band is formed, indicating that the test has been carried out correctly.

Credit: Monique Bremer

Strip tests are very easy to use, inexpensive, rapid (analysis time of a few minutes), do not require instrumentation and can therefore be used in the field. Today, most available strip tests are only qualitative; however, it is anticipated that in the near future, more and more suppliers will deliver simple handheld readers with which semi-quantitative results can be obtained. With strip tests, only single samples can be analyzed for the detection of a single allergen at one time.

ELISAs
ELISAs are carried out in multiple-well strips or 96-well microtiter plates. The proteins of the allergenic compound are detected by a specific enzyme-labeled antibody and visualized by an enzymatic reaction that leads to the formation of a colored product (Figure 2). The color is read in a microplate-compatible spectrophotometer. The concentration of the allergenic compound in the sample can be determined from a calibration curve constructed by analyzing standards. To carry out an ELISA, trained laboratory personnel, standard laboratory equipment and a microtiter plate spectrophotometer are necessary. Using an ELISA, more samples (i.e., 48 or 96 including standards) can be analyzed simultaneously for a single allergen. The analysis time ranges from 30 minutes for fast ELISAs to three hours for standard ELISAs. At present, ELISAs are the most widely applied methods for detecting allergens by food processors and food control authorities.

     Credit: Monique Bremer

Biosensors
In food analysis, biosensors and, in particular, surface plasmon resonance (SPR)-based biosensors have become increasingly accepted tools. SPR detection is based on changes in the refractive index at the surface of a sensor chip, caused by the binding of an analyte to an immobilized ligand. For detection of high molecular-weight compounds such as allergens, specific antibodies are usually immobilized on the chip surface (Figure 3). The binding of allergens in the sample is followed in real time, and from the change in the signal, the concentration in the sample can be calculated from a calibration curve.

     Credit: Monique Bremer

The majority of new biosensors are aimed at high-throughput and multi-analyte measurements. The major advantages of these systems are their short assay time (minutes), their high degree of automation that reduces labor time, the option to simultaneously detect several analytes and label-free detection. A major disadvantage of the majority of these systems is the relatively high price of both the machines and chips. Furthermore, only a single sample can be tested at one time, and trained laboratory personnel are needed. A few biosensor immunoassays for the detection of allergens have been developed by research groups and are described in the literature. It is expected that within the next few years, allergen test kits will become commercially available and will come to be applied in food control agencies.

Microsphere-based flow cytometric systems
These assays are based on the flow cytometry detection of sets of differently colored micron-size beads (Figure 4). To each color-coded set of beads, antibodies against different allergenic compounds can be coupled. Specific, fluorescently labeled, second antibodies are used to visualize the binding of allergens to the beads. For analysis, different bead sets (to detect different allergens) are added simultaneously to a sample in a microtiter well. The beads are drawn up into a fluidic tube that causes the microspheres to line up in single file before they pass through the detection chamber. In this chamber, one laser identifies each bead and categorizes it into the appropriate bead set (based on which allergen is detected), while another laser scans the beads for the quantity of fluorescently labeled antibodies per bead (and determines the concentration of the detected allergen). In this way, multiple allergens can be detected simultaneously in a sample. The advantages of these types of assays are their very short analysis time (seconds), simultaneous detection of multiple allergens, small sample volume and relatively low-priced machines (compared with biosensors). However, labor times are comparable to those of ELISAs.

     Credit: Monique Bremer

Selecting a Detection Method
When selecting a suitable detection method, the following criteria should be considered: availability of laboratory personnel and standard laboratory equipment, number of samples, number of allergens to be detected, frequency of testing, need for short analysis time, need for quantitative results, ease of use, degree of automation and the resulting costs. In Figure 5, a simplified selection scheme is presented.

     Credit: Monique Bremer

When a company doesn’t have trained lab personnel or equipment, the only tests that employees can perform by themselves are strip tests. When a high number of samples are required to be analyzed for only a single allergen, ELISA is the best option as the necessary equipment is relatively inexpensive. When multiple allergens need to be quantitatively analyzed in a few samples and when the results need to be obtained within an hour (e.g., before accepting incoming materials at receiving docks), biosensors are the method of choice. When a qualitative result is sufficient (i.e., “present at concentrations above the detection limit”), strip tests are an inexpensive and rapid alternative (no expensive machines needed). When there is no need for an especially short analysis time, microsphere-based methods are a better choice as the price of the necessary equipment is generally much lower than that of biosensors.

Before an immunological assay can be implemented, it is necessary to check whether the method is suitable for the matrix (or matrices) in which it will be used. This is important as the applied antibodies may cross-react with food-matrix components, leading to false-positive test results. Furthermore, food processing may affect the detection of allergenic proteins by antibodies as the structure and integrity of the target proteins and the recognition/binding by the antibody may be altered due to processing. In general, the kit supplier can provide validation data and is generally willing to validate the method in the required matrices or after processing. Otherwise, in-house validation for specificity and recovery is necessary. Samples suspected to contain allergens can be confirmed by using a mass spectrometry (MS) method. Using MS, parts of the unique amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined, and the protein can unambiguously be identified. MS, however, is labor-intensive, requires expensive equipment and materials and is not suitable for routine analysis.

In summary, there are several different immunological screening methods available for allergen testing and each has its advantages and disadvantages. The choice for a particular method should be based on the specific circumstances at the testing location (e.g., number of samples, number of allergens to be tested and required analysis time). The simple selection scheme presented can be used as a guide to select a suitable method. It is important that before implementation, the method is tested in the appropriate matrices after the applied production processes.

Monique Bremer, Ph.D., is a scientist in the Biomolecular Detection group of RIKILT-Institute of Food Safety, Wageningen UR The Netherlands. RIKILT-Institute of Food Safety is an independent, Dutch scientific organization that carries out research into the safety and quality of Dutch food. An expert in protein detection and identification, Dr. Bremer develops assays for the detection of allergens, processed animal proteins and growth hormone abuse. She is a member of the European Committee for Standardization Working Group CEN/TC 275/WG 12 Food Allergens.
>Author(s): Monique Bremer, Ph.D.

Looking for quick answers on food safety topics?
Try Ask FSM, our new smart AI search tool.
Ask FSM →

Share This Story

Recommended Content

JOIN TODAY
to unlock your recommendations.

Already have an account? Sign In

  • people holding baby chicks

    Serovar Differences Matter: Utility of Deep Serotyping in Broiler Production and Processing

    This article discusses the significance of Salmonella in...
    Food Type
    By: Nikki Shariat Ph.D.
  • woman washing hands

    Building a Culture of Hygiene in the Food Processing Plant

    Everyone entering a food processing facility needs to...
    Management
    By: Richard F. Stier, M.S.
  • graphical representation of earth over dirt

    Climate Change and Emerging Risks to Food Safety: Building Climate Resilience

    This article examines the multifaceted threats to food...
    Risk Assessment
    By: Maria Cristina Tirado Ph.D., D.V.M. and Shamini Albert Raj M.A.
Manage My Account
  • eMagazine Subscription
  • Subscribe to Newsletters
  • Manage My Preferences
  • Website Registration
  • Subscription Customer Service

More Videos

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content is a special paid section where industry companies provide high quality, objective, non-commercial content around topics of interest to the Food Safety Magazine audience. All Sponsored Content is supplied by the advertising company and any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily reflect the views of Food Safety Magazine or its parent company, BNP Media. Interested in participating in our Sponsored Content section? Contact your local rep!

close
  • Top view portrait of two factory workers standing by conveyor belt during quality inspection at food production, copy space
    Sponsored byFlexXray

    Foreign Material By the Numbers: What the 2026 Benchmark Report Reveals

  • a conveyorized industrial metal detector system that appears to resemble a Loma Systems IQ4 Metal Detector setup with an integrated conveyor belt and control panel for food or package inspection.
    Sponsored byMettler Toledo

    Beyond Detection: How to Avoid Physical Contamination in Food Through a Smarter Inspection Strategy

  • The image displays a bottling plant production line, commonly used in the beverage industry for filling and packaging soft drinks.
    Sponsored byBIOIONIX

    Sustainability with ROI: A Beverage Producer Case Study in Water Savings

Popular Stories

FSIS and FDA sharing Listeria info

USDA-FSIS to Roll Out Listeria Environmental Sampling Program Nationwide at RTE Facilities

Dr. Heidi Overton speaking at Senate hearing

In Senate Hearing, FDA Commissioner Nominee Says Lack of Resources Will Challenge GRAS Reform

simple UK flag

UK FSA Board Decides to Advance Sweeping Food System Regulatory Reforms

allergens ebook

Events

September 29, 2026

How to Talk to Your Board of Directors About Food Safety

Live: September 29, 2026 at 11:00 am EDT: Attend this webinar to learn how to position food safety as a material enterprise risk with measurable financial, operational, and reputational impacts relevant to Board-level decision-making.

September 30, 2026

Beyond Compliance: Building a Culture of Food Safety with GFSI's 2026 Framework

Live: September 30, 2026 at 2:00 pm EDT: Attend this webinar to evaluate best practices for monitoring regulatory changes and protecting market access.

October 6, 2026

Advances in Environmental Monitoring Science and Strategy

Live: October 6, 2026 at 2:00 pm EDT: This webinar will cover how environmental monitoring science and EMP strategies support sanitation verification and the safe production of food.

View All

Products

Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

See More Products

Related Articles

  • Romer Labs and ifp Achieve Breakthrough in Food Allergen Detection

    See More
  • Development of a Detection Method for Listeria spp. in Food and Environmental Samples on the Atlas™ System

    See More
  • PolySkope.png

    PolySkope Labs Applies for Regulatory Approval for World’s First Comprehensive Multiplex Detection Method in Food Safety

    See More

Related Products

See More Products
  • 1119053595.jpg

    Food Safety for the 21st Century: Managing HACCP and Food Safety throughout the Global Supply Chain, 2E

  • 9781498721776.jpg

    Handbook of Food Processing: Food Safety, Quality, and Manufacturing Processes

  • 1444333348.jpg

    Handbook of Food Safety Engineering

See More Products

Events

View AllSubmit An Event
  • May 28, 2026

    Advanced Sanitation Strategies for Allergen Risk Reduction in Food Processing

    On Demand: From this webinar, attendees will learn why validation and verification are necessary for allergen control, and how analytical tools can support allergen management programs.
View AllSubmit An Event

Related Directories

  • Advanced Food Diagnostics

    Advanced Food Diagnostics (AFD) provides microbiological testing, rapid pathogen detection, and mycotoxin and allergen analysis for the food and dairy industries. Our solutions include rapid coliform testing plates (16-hour results), Compact Dry, ELISA and lateral flow kits, plus Riverlabs laboratory supplies, supporting food safety, quality control, and regulatory compliance.
  • Romer Labs

    Romer Labs is a global leader in innovative diagnostic solutions for food and feed safety. With a focus on mycotoxins, food allergens, GMOs, and microbial contaminants, we strive to meet the ever-changing demands of our customers. Furthermore, we operate a global network of 6 ISO accredited laboratories.
×

Never miss the latest news and trends driving the food safety industry

Newsletters | Website | FSM Features Collection

JOIN TODAY!
  • RESOURCES
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Directories
    • Store
    • Want More
  • SIGN UP TODAY
    • Create Account
    • eMagazine
    • Newsletters
    • Customer Service
    • Manage Preferences
  • SERVICES
    • Marketing Services
    • Reprints
    • Market Research
    • List Rental
    • Survey/Respondent Access
  • STAY CONNECTED
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X (Twitter)
  • PRIVACY
    • PRIVACY POLICY
    • TERMS & CONDITIONS
    • DO NOT SELL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
    • PRIVACY REQUEST
    • ACCESSIBILITY

Copyright ©2026. All Rights Reserved BNP Media, Inc. and BNP Media II, LLC.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing