Detection of Borax and Formaldehyde in Chicken and Beef Sold in Traditional Markets of Maros District
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: Chicken and beef are Indonesia's most widely consumed animal proteins, readily available in traditional and modern markets. However, chicken meat is prone to spoilage and rapid deterioration. According to Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 28 of 2004 on food safety, quality, and nutrition, food additives are substances incorporated into food to modify its properties or form, intended to be safe for consumption without adverse effects. However, using hazardous additives can cause the spoilage of body tissues. Borax and Formaldehyde Acid, prohibited as food preservatives, are still frequently used in food products, posing significant health risks to consumers. Materials and Methods: Qualitative testing for borax and formaldehyde was conducted using a rapid test kit, a practical and efficient method for quick results. Samples were collected using a simple random sampling technique from chicken and beef sold by vendors in traditional markets across Maros Regency. Qualitative tests determined the presence or absence of borax and formaldehyde, while quantitative analysis involved comparing the color change in samples to a color chart provided with the test kit. Results: Testing revealed that 100% of the chicken and beef samples were negative for borax and formaldehyde, indicated by no color change on curcumin paper for borax tests or in samples for formaldehyde tests. The awareness of chicken and beef vendors in Maros Regency's traditional markets regarding food safety significantly contributes to compliance with regulations. Conclusion: Through the Maros Regional Technical Implementation Unit (UPTD) Animal Health Center, the Maros Regency Government oversees food safety, particularly for chicken and beef, in line with Law No. 18 of 2012, which mandates integrated food safety measures across the food supply chain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".