This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 27 October 2014, At: 03:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Comparativeand Applied Criminal JusticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcac20

Sensor technologies for anti-counterfeitingYun Wang a & Evangelyn C. Alocilja aa Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering ,Michigan State University , East Lansing , MI , 48824 , USAPublished online: 18 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Yun Wang & Evangelyn C. Alocilja (2012) Sensor technologies for anti-counterfeiting, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 36:4, 291-304,DOI: 10.1080/01924036.2012.726319

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2012.726319

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal JusticeVol. 36, No. 4, November 2012, 291–304

Sensor technologies for anti-counterfeiting

Yun Wang and Evangelyn C. Alocilja*

Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing,MI 48824, USA

Product counterfeiting has become an emerging brand-security issue for commodityconsumables. In recent years, innovative technologies have been introduced in responseto this important issue. Because of their sensitivity, convenience to management, andrelative rapid results, sensors have drawn attention for their application in the fightagainst counterfeiting. In this article, we provide an overview of the latest develop-ment in sensors that can be used for anti-counterfeiting purposes. We also focus onintroducing various innovative sensors that could be employed in smart packaging,including biosensors, nanosensors, and radio frequency identification (RFID) sensors.At the same time, the article discusses current and potential applications of the sensors,challenges of implementing them, and an outlook of sensors in packaging industry foranti-counterfeiting strategies.

Keywords: anti-counterfeiting; drug; food; sensors; fraud

1. Introduction

Safety issues have become important concerns to various industries, such as pharma-ceutical and food industries, especially those involving not only the harm caused bypoor-quality products but also the brand security issues caused by product counterfeiting.Counterfeiting has become an emerging brand-security issue for commodity consumables.The widespread availability of counterfeit products is astonishing. Nearly every industryfaces the threat of counterfeiting. The counterfeited products deprive manufacturers of rev-enue, harm brand integrity, and in some cases endanger the health and safety of consumers.In the past decade, counterfeiting has received increasing public awareness. The situationis getting severe due to the escalation of counterfeiting means along with sophisticatedtechnologies and driven by profit. Factors such as uneven wealth distribution, global trad-ing arrangements, and social and economic developments are also attributed to the morefrequent incidences of counterfeiting.

Development of packaging, with features of maintaining the safety of product, has beendriven by changes in consumer preferences, changes in supply chain due to the centraliza-tion of activities, and the globalization of markets (de Kruijf et al., 2002). Smart packaginghas been introduced in response to the requirement of enhanced safety and has become atrend in packaging. Although the introduction of sensors into packaging has occurred inresponse to heightened safety concerns, there has been little academic work that considersthe role of sensors in responding to counterfeiting. This review essay fills this gap.

*Corresponding author. Email: Alocilja@msu.edu

ISSN 0192-4036 print/ISSN 2157-6475 online© 2012 School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State Universityhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2012.726319http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

292 Y. Wang and E.C. Alocilja

Although counterfeit products are on the rise globally, including currency, documents,and electronics, this article emphasizes counterfeit drugs and food since they may harmthe health of consumers. They both have large market shares. The estimated size of thecounterfeit drug market ranges from $75 billion to $200 billion a year (Chu, 2010); thecounterfeit food industry is worth about $49 billion a year according to the World CustomsInstitute (Interland, 2011). In this article, we mainly introduce various innovative sensors(biosensors, nanosensors, and radio frequency identification (RFID) sensors) which couldbe employed in packaging, particularly drug and food packaging. The article discusses cur-rent and potential applications of sensors in packaging for anti-counterfeiting and presentsimplementation challenges.

1.1. Counterfeit drug

Counterfeit drug is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as:

one which is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to identity and/or source.Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeit products mayinclude products with correct ingredients, wrong ingredients, without active ingredients, withinsufficient quantity of active ingredient, or with fake packaging. (WHO, 1999)

Drug counterfeiting can be traced back to the fourth century BC (WHO, 1999), and theproblem has never disappeared. However, it has been brought to attention widely in thelast century. At the international level, the problem was first addressed in 1985 at theConference of Experts on the Rational Use of Drugs (WHO, 1999). An earlier estimate bythe International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA)indicated that counterfeit drugs took up to 7% of all drugs sold around the world, andthe value of the trade was more than $30 billion (Hileman, 2003). The sale of counterfeitdrug was estimated to be about 1% in the developed countries to over 10% in the devel-oping countries (Dowell, Maghirang, Fernandez, Newton, & Green, 2008; WHO, 2010).The regions with most counterfeits are those where regulatory and enforcement systemsfor medicines are very weak (Dowell et al., 2008). In many cases, counterfeit drugs arevery dangerous to public health. For example, they may be mixed with harmful ingre-dients. In another occasion, those which lack active ingredients or mixed with differentexcipients may result in treatment failure or even death (Lopes & Wolff, 2009; WHO,2010).

The problem of counterfeit medicines can be attributed to several factors (WHO, 2010).Firstly, consumers seek medicines that are sold cheaply and medicines that meet theirdemand, which are available from non-regulated outlets. These medicines are more likelyto be counterfeit. Secondly, counterfeit medicines are very lucrative and legislation hasnot been enacted to deter counterfeiting. Moreover, growth in international trade makesthe issue more complex because of more channels and dimension of the trade. At the sametime, there is no agreement on the definition of counterfeit drug, which makes it impossiblefor counterfeiters to be effectively punished (Bate & Attaran, 2010).

The issue has aroused international attention. The US Food and Drug Administration(FDA) created the Counterfeit Alert Network in 2004, which is a coalition of health pro-fessional and consumer groups (FDA, 2009). This network is built to disseminate theinformation of counterfeit drugs, prevent their distribution, and widely educate the pub-lic. In 2010, the Council of Europe and other world leaders drafted a treaty to criminalizethe manufacture and trade of counterfeit drugs and other medical products (MEDICRIME

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 293

Convention, 2010). However, counterfeiting of drugs is very complex. It will requireseveral strategies to control it and to protect public health.

1.2. Counterfeit food

There is a large market for food products as well. Since food products are consumed daily,the issue of counterfeit can be widespread. In most cases, counterfeit food is driven byeconomic or financial reasons (Spink & Moyer, 2011).

The sources of counterfeit products which threaten food safety are diverse, from thefood itself to the plant protection product such as pesticides (O’Driscoll, 2006). Thereare many types of counterfeit foods, but examples of commonly counterfeited food prod-ucts are nutraceuticals, coffee, baby formula, bottled water, soy sauce, and other sauces(Alocilja & Wang, 2009). Product substitution is one common form, where high-valuedcomponents are replaced with low-valued counterparts. For example, a more expensive redsnapper is replaced with a less expensive rockfish (FDA, 2011). Ingredient substitution isalso a very common form of counterfeiting. Mislabeling is another aspect where counter-feiters are attempting to make profit, especially with easy access to print and packagingtechniques (Jotcham, 2005). Some products are intentionally falsely labeled with fake ori-gin labels, expiration date, or method of growing. Low-quality versions of a highly pricedproduct are up-labeled to cheat the consumers. In some cases, such as to avoid import taxes,high-valued items are declared as lower valued. For food, especially, there are additionalfraud activities such as in the form of (1) transshipment: the transfer of cargo; (2) overtreat-ing: the addition of more water or ice to the products than the amount allowed; and (3) shortweighting: stating higher weights than actual weights (GAO, 2009; Spink & Moyer, 2011).

2. Anti-counterfeiting technologies

Strategies to fight counterfeiting may be done in three ways (Alocilja & Wang, 2009):(1) Interception: use law enforcement intelligence work and investigative strategies toidentify fake products, chains of production and distribution, and then build cases againstthe perpetrators; (2) Authentication: help consumers choose authentic goods by educatingthem regarding product authenticity features; and (3) Secure the supply chain: track goodsthrough the supply chain to prevent counterfeit goods from being introduced. Althoughthere exist various strategies for addressing counterfeiting, the focus of this article is thepotential use of sensors to overcome counterfeiting attempts in the supply chain.

2.1. Catalogs of anti-counterfeiting technologies

Anti-counterfeiting technologies are divided into three main catalogs: overt, covert, andforensic technologies. The overt technologies are those whose features are apparent andvisible to the consumer or overseer without requirements of additional devices to identifyspecific features. The covert technologies need simple devices to identify the covert fea-tures. The forensic technologies are those which require further analysis of samples andmay need specialized devices and skills (Jotcham, 2005).

Examples of overt technologies include optically variable coatings or inks, holographicfoils, tear tapes, thermochromic coatings or inks, perforations with unique shape and size,embossing, and watermarks (Jotcham, 2005). These technologies are characterized by theirvisible color change (e.g., inks), changes in image effects when the tapes are removed(e.g., tear tapes) or warmed (e.g., thermochromic inks), or special numbers embossed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

294 Y. Wang and E.C. Alocilja

into packages or labels (e.g., embossing) to provide features to be differentiated fromcounterfeits (Jotcham, 2005).

Covert technologies may contain microscopic particles, tiny planchettes or threads withmicrotext, labels with special print, holograms with microtext, and materials with spec-troscopic properties. Specific microtext (e.g., tiny planchettes) or other features (color,images, or patterns) are included for authenticating products. These features can be readby simple microscope or other portable instruments (Jotcham, 2005).

Forensic technologies involve taggants, which are detectable by using chemical meth-ods, infrared analysis, fluorescence, sensors, biosensors, and other appropriate techniques.DNA fragments are also used for anti-counterfeiting. Authentication is done by verifyingthe strands match where a strand of DNA is embedded in an ink or substrate in packages orlabels, and the complementary strand is contained in an authentication solution (Jotcham,2005).

Additionally, technologies such as RFID, which enable the tracking of products, arevery useful in anti-counterfeiting, since the sources of counterfeit can be monitored.Moreover, anti-counterfeiting technologies combined with packaging technologies, such assmart packaging technologies, will be very useful as well since packages play an importantrole in anti-counterfeiting.

2.2. Smart packaging

Protection, communication, convenience, and containment are the four basic functionsof packaging (Yam, Takhistov, & Miltz, 2005). Traditional packaging provides mechani-cal support, protection of products from external influences such as deteriorative effectson products, and certain convenience for handling, preserving, and consumer usage.Packaging also contains communication. Information, such as weight and sources, ispresented on packages. Information of product marking and information of traceability,tamper indication, and portion control are included for the purpose of communication.However, traditional packages mainly serve as passive barriers without interaction with theproduct and without monitoring product status. Although traditional packaging enables thefour basic functions mentioned above, it is not anymore sufficient due to the increasingcomplexity of the supply chain (Yam et al., 2005) and its consequences. There is a need forpackaging with enhanced functions.

Packaging technologies that offer enhanced functions are currently carried out to fulfillthe diverse demands that are tightly related to safety issues in pharmaceutical, food, andcosmetic industries. Smart packaging is a recent term used to designate technologies thatperform enhanced functions. These technologies are mainly divided into two categories:active packaging technologies and intelligent packaging technologies, with the functionsof protection and communication, respectively (Yam et al., 2005). There is an increasingmarket for smart packaging, which is boosted by the development of technologies andthe lowering cost of the technologies. It is projected that active and intelligent packagingdemand will reach $1.9 billion in 2013 in the United States (Anonymous, 2009).

In the late twentieth century, packaging innovation for active packaging was intro-duced by incorporating certain additives into packaging with the aim of maintaining andextending product shelf life (Coles, McDowell, & Kirwan, 2003; Day, 1989). The addi-tives were introduced within the packages, attached to the inside of packaging materials, orincorporated within the packaging materials (Kerry, O’Grady, & Hogan, 2006). The term“active” indicates the dynamic roles of packaging to interact with products and the environ-ment, not only to act as passive barriers as in traditional packaging. The active packaging

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 295

technologies include oxygen scavengers, carbon dioxide absorbers and emitters, moisturecontrol, anti-microbials, ethylene absorbers, and temperature control (Brody, Bugusu, Han,Sand, & Mchugh, 2008). These technologies have been applied in pharmaceutical and foodpackaging to delay oxidation and to control respiration rate, microbial growth, and moisturemigration (Brody et al., 2008).

The definition of intelligent packaging varies. Coles et al. (2003), Kerry et al. (2006),and Brody et al. (2008) use intelligent packaging and smart packaging interchangeably,while others define smart packaging as one that has capabilities for both active and intelli-gent packaging (Clarke, 2001; Yam et al., 2005). According to Yam et al. (2005), intelligentpackaging is defined as “a packaging system that is capable of carrying out intelligentfunctions to facilitate decision making to extend shelf life, enhance safety, improve quality,provide information, and warn about possible problems.” The intelligent functions include“detecting, sensing, recording, tracing, communicating, and applying scientific logic” (Yamet al., 2005). Another common definition of intelligent packaging considers the packagingas a system that monitors the condition of the product and gives information about thequality of the packaged product during transport and storage (Kerry et al., 2006).

No matter how it is defined, the main function of intelligent packaging is to communi-cate. This ability is unique to intelligent packaging (Yam et al., 2005). Intelligent packaginghas the capability of monitoring product, sensing the environment inside or outside thepackage, and communicating with consumers (Brody et al., Mchugh; Kerry et al., 2006;Yam et al., 2005). On the other hand, compared to active packaging, intelligent packagingmaterials have no effect on products, but are designed to convey information about thecondition of the product to the consumer. Pharmaceutical and food industries have nowembraced some intelligent packaging features in their products, such as tamper-evidencefeatures and quality-indication features. The breakage of packages, which may be due tocounterfeiting, can be indicated by a change in the composition of the air in the packageand the growth of microorganisms.

Indicators are commonly used in intelligent packaging. Indicators change characteris-tics, especially color when the status of the product (temperature, gas content, etc.) changes.Gas (Lee, Mills, & Lepre, 2004; Mills, 2005), freshness, and time/temperature are typi-cal indicators. The information from indicators can be conveyed to consumers. Most ofthe indicators show the information to consumers without the requirements of any equip-ment. They are made up of relatively simple components, and they provide easy-to-readinformation. Therefore, indicators can be easily adopted and manipulated.

According to their enhanced functions, intelligent packaging with improved abil-ity of communication (smart packaging) can be applied for anti-counterfeiting such astracing where the counterfeits are introduced and monitoring the integrity of a product.Concerns for product safety would drive the development of anti-counterfeiting technolo-gies. However, their use can be limited due to cost, safety issues of the technologiesthemselves, and legislation such as the strict regulations for food-contact materials inEurope (de Kruijf et al., 2002).

2.3. Sensors

Sensors, which consist of a receptor and a transducer, are capable of converting physicalor chemical stimulus to signals (e.g., electric signals), which can be read by an instrument.They are used for communication with different mechanisms and functions. Therefore,their application for anti-counterfeiting is promising, compared to indicators which are lim-ited in data storage and transfer, with limited capability of interaction with consumers. It is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

296 Y. Wang and E.C. Alocilja

hard to separate sensors and indicators since they have some common features. By defini-tion, indicators inform (visually) the existence of substances while the operation of sensorsconsists of the conversion of signals. In this article, we will focus on promising sensors inintelligent packaging for anti-counterfeiting, in terms of whether they have a data carrieror whether they have the ability to convert information to readable signals by instruments.

Sensors have been used in many areas, such as manufacturing, vehicles, medicine, andenvironment. Some chemical and physical sensors have been employed for pharmaceuti-cal and food packaging. For example, Pacquit et al. (2006) described a chemical sensorwhich detected the change in pH at the headspace when fish products spoiled. The sensorused a pH sensitive dye which responded to pH increase at the package headspace causedby volatile spoilage compounds. A reflectance colorimeter based on LEDs and photodi-ode was developed for real-time monitoring of the response. It was also reported that theresponse of the sensor correlated with bacterial growth (Pacquit et al., 2007). There areother sensor systems such as X-ray, metal detection equipment, and leak detection systemsfor quality assurance (Connolly, 2007). These sensor systems could detect contaminantsin medicines and food, or check the integrity of packaging which sometimes indicates thecounterfeits (Pacquit et al., 2007). Oxygen sensors could be used to indicate the spoilageof food and integrity of the package in modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), becauseoxygen is a main cause of most food spoilage through the enzyme-catalyzed reactions andgrowths of aerobic food-spoiling microorganisms (Mills, 2005).

2.4. Biosensors

Biosensor is defined as “a compact analytical device incorporating a biological or bio-logically derived sensing element either integrated within or intimately associated with aphysicochemical transducer” (Turner, 1996). It is promising in pharmaceutical and foodpackaging because of high biocompatibility, high sensitivity, and excellent biodegradabil-ity. It integrates biological components with electronic transducers to convert a biochemicalsignal into a quantifiable response (D’Souza, 2001). As it is termed, a biosensor mainlycontains two elements, a sensing material and a transducer. They can be directly or indi-rectly connected to each other. A change in a measurable property which is monitored bythe transducer in the environment near the transducer surface can be caused by the sensingmaterials and detection target at the surface of the transducer. The change is then con-verted into measurable signals by the transducer (Mikkelsen & Cortón, 2004). Biologicalsensing materials may include enzymes, antibodies, microorganisms, tissues, organelles,and DNA/RNA, which is the functional basis of a biosensor because of their biochem-ical activities (Turner, 1996; Zhang, Wright, & Yang, 2000). Depending on the sensingmaterial, the biosensor can be classified as enzyme sensor, immunosensor, nucleic acidprobe sensor, cell-based sensor, and tissue- or organelle-based sensor. Biosensors can alsobe classified based on transducing methods such as electrochemical biosensors, opticalbiosensors, and piezoelectric biosensors.

Growth of microorganisms is an indication of package breakage where counterfeitshappen. Identification and monitoring of pathogens is one of the major applications ofbiosensors in food packaging. Toxins and allergens are threats to the health of consumers.In pharmaceutical products, some counterfeit medicines may contain toxins and otherharmful substances. Therefore, rapid, sensitive, and specific detection methods to identifythe target pathogens, toxins, and allergens are needed not only for anti-counterfeiting butalso for ensuring safety. Biosensors can be employed to control the spread of the hazardsfrom production to retail and minimize the harm from counterfeit.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 297

Biosensors in the research stage, which have potential for application in anti-counterfeiting and prototypes of biosensor-based smart packages, have been reported. Luoet al. (2010) reported an electrospun biosensor based on capillary separation and conduc-tometric immunoassay. The biosensor could detect Escherichia coli O157:H7 at 61 colonyforming units per milliliter (cfu/ml) in 8 min. Wang et al. (2010) described a label-freeinterdigitated array (IDA), microelectrode-based immunosensor for E. coli O157:H7 detec-tion as well. Another immunosensor for E.coli O157:H7 developed by Radke and Alocilja(2005) employed interdigitated gold-electrode array. Liu, Chakrabartty, and Alocilja (2007)described an immunosensor on membrane pads with AND and OR logic gates, whichused conductance measurements for different pathogen concentrations. The change inconductance presented a log-linear response to pathogen concentration. These miniatur-ized biosensors have the potential to be inserted or embedded in packaging, althoughfurther consideration of safety is needed. Another example is an IDA microelectrodes fab-ricated by microlithographic techniques, consisting of pairs of microband array electrodesthat mesh with each other and the distance between finger electrodes is in the range ofmicro- or nanometer. The IDA microelectrodes were applied for the quantitative detectionof Salmonella typhimurium in pure culture and milk samples using impedance measure-ments (Yang, Li, Griffis, & Johnson, 2004). In addition, biosensors based on nucleic acidrecognition have been developed. A biosensor based on nanoporous silicon (NPS), whichwas functionalized with DNA probes specific to the insertion element gene of foodbornepathogen Salmonella enteritidis, was reported (Zhang & Alocilja 2008). Redox indicatorsand cyclic voltammetry were used to characterize the biosensor, which indicated that theDNA-based biosensor was specific and was sensitive to the target DNA. The detection limitof the biosensor was 1 ng/ml of DNA.

Hossain, Luckham, McFadden, and Brennan (2009) developed a reagentless, bioac-tive paper-based, solid-phase biosensor for the detection of acetylcholinesterase (AChE)inhibitors, including organophosphate pesticides. The sensor could detect the pesticides innM level with a detection time of around 5 min, which would be able to rapidly screen tracelevels of pesticides in food samples and be embedded into packages using printing technol-ogy. Valera et al. (2007) developed a label-free competitive impedimetric immunosensor todetect the pesticide atrazine. The detection was based on the competitive reaction betweenpesticide and the haptenized antibody immobilized on IDA microelectrodes. The concen-tration of atrazine was determined by the impedance signal obtained due to the bindingof the antibody to the coated antigen, where the signal was inversely correlated with theanalyte concentration.

Commercial efforts on biosensors for packaging have been reported. SIRATechnologies developed a bacterial detection system which was based on their barcodesystem. Antibodies were used as bioreceptor, which were immobilized on the barcode.Contamination of bacteria was reported by making the barcode unreadable when thepresence of bacteria covered the barcode (Yam et al., 2005). AgroMicron developed theNano Bioluminescence Detection Spray which could detect microbes such as Salmonellaand E. coli. The spray contained a luminescent protein that could bind to the surface ofthe microbes and emit a visible glow. The intensity of the glow indicates the level ofcontamination (Joseph & Morrison, 2006).

The introduction of biosensors into packaging for anti-counterfeiting is promising,especially in their ability to monitor changes in compounds when there is a breach in thepackaging. Biosensors can also be developed to detect wrong ingredients or modified mate-rials in products. Although the signal of some sensors is obtained using lab instruments,portable instruments could be employed to ensure easier usage and rapid screening in field

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

298 Y. Wang and E.C. Alocilja

conditions. Therefore, future research is needed to ensure the portability of biosensors inpackaging applications.

2.5. Nanosensors

Nanomaterials are discrete entities that have one or more dimensions of the order of100 nm or less. The characteristics of nanostructures depend on their size and shape.Nanostructures with optical, electronic, and catalytic properties have drawn the interest intheir use in biotechnological systems, diagnostic systems, and biological imaging (Busbee,Obare, & Murphy, 2003; Darbha, Rai, Singh, & Ray, 2008). There are numerous researchstudies on nanosensors either using nanosized transducers or using nanorods, nanowires,and nanoparticles as receptors or signal amplifiers.

Due to the high surface-to-volume ratio tics of nanostructures, they have been usedto enhance signal-to-noise ratios and reduce response time in sensor systems. One majorapplication is using the nanostructures to enhance the sensor signal either by increasingthe capture efficiency of the target molecules or by utilizing the optical and electricalproperties of the nanostructures to amplify the signal. Nanoparticles were employed indetection and diagnostic technology such as immunoblotting, immunochromatography,and flow cytometry to detect DNA, proteins, antibodies, glucose, and toxic metal ionsbased on their aggregation (Murphy et al., 2008). In many cases, signal can be gener-ated by the biological recognition without labels (Pei, Cheng, Wang, & Yang, 2001; Wang,Profitt, Pugia, & Suni, 2006), which is ideal for rapid detection. However, introductionof labels into the detection system for signal amplification could achieve higher sensi-tivity. Nanoparticles have been reported for both label-free detection and detection withlabels. Huang, Liu, and Yang (2006) developed a highly sensitive impedance immunosen-sor by using an amplification procedure which applied Au-colloid labeled antibodies for amulti-step amplification. The gold nanoparticle film deposited provided a highly active sur-face for the immunoreaction and enhanced the sensor signal. Immunosensing strips werereported to detect 102–107 cfu/ml of E. coli O157:H7, specifically when the signal wasamplified by 13-nm-diameter Au nanoparticles (AuNPs) and ferrocenedicarboxylic acid(FeDC) attached to the screen-printed carbon electrode (Lin et al., 2008). It showed 13-foldincrease in signal compared with traditional screen-printed carbon electrode. Besides metalnanomaterials (e.g., magnetic nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, and gold nanowires), poly-mer nanomaterials are commonly used in nanosensors. Electrically active 100 nm-diameterpolyaniline-coated magnetic nanoparticles have been used in the development of a direct-charge transfer biosensor for the detection of Bacillus anthracisendospores in contaminatedfood samples. The modified nanoparticles were used as an immunomagnetic concentratorof B. anthracis spores from lettuce, ground beef, and whole milk samples. The biosensorcould detect B. anthracis spores at concentrations as low as 4.2 × 102 spores/ml from thesamples in 16 min (Pal & Alocilja, 2009). Zhang, Huarng, and Alocilja (2010) and devel-oped a biosensor using nanotracers (NTs) for signal amplification. DNA of B. anthracis inthe concentration of 0.2 pg/ml could be detected.

Another application of nanotechnologies in sensors is to scale down transducers to thenanometer size, which makes them applicable in the detection of small molecules such aspathogens and toxins. The high sensitivity can be achieved by increasing the contributionthat immobilized biomolecules have on the measured electrical properties. For example, amembrane-based electrochemical nanobiosensor for the detection of E.coli was reportedby Cheng, Lau, Chow, and Toh (2011). The nanobiosensor was based on the blocking ofnanochannels of a nanoporous alumina-membrane modified electrode. The formation of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 299

immune complexes blocked diffusive mass transfer of a redox probe in the analysis solutionand reduced the Faradaic signal response of the biosensor. The nanobiosensor could detectthe target pathogen over a range of 10–106 cfu/ml.

The market for nanotechnologies has grown in recent years. For example, in the foodindustry, they constitute a value of US$410 million in 2006 (Yam et al., 2005). The twomajor applications of nanotechnology are for improving the barrier properties of packag-ing materials and reducing the use of valuable raw materials and reducing waste (Sozer &Kokini, 2009). Nanosensors also constitute a large portion of the value. Rapid and afford-able methods to determine changes in composition of fraudulent products and detectharmful substances are areas of application for nanosensors. For the implementation ofthe nanosensors, however, safety of the nanomaterials, convenience, cost, and environmen-tal conditions need further research. Safety consideration is a major concern. There mightbe unforeseen risks for using nanomaterials in pharmaceutical or food packaging (Sozer &Kokini, 2009). Research on effects of nanomaterials on the microbial flora present in themouth and gut of animals is needed, if the nanomaterials transfer from pharmaceutical orfood packaging to the product which is ingested. Additionally, when accumulated in soil,water, or plant life, nanomaterials may cause environmental issues. Furthermore, becauseonly studies following acute oral exposure to nanomaterials are available, it is hard to pre-dict the long-term effects of using them. Future research is necessary to reveal potentialeffects of chronic oral exposure combined with screening.

Research indicates that public perception will be crucial for the realization of techno-logical advances. Therefore, public attitudes should be taken into account at an early stageof technology development. Studies of public perception toward nanotechnologies showedthat public knowledge about nanotechnology is very limited, but products or technologieswith tangible benefits are viewed to be easier to market than those without obvious ben-efits (Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004; Siegrist, Cousin, Kastenholz, & Wiek, 2007). Figure 1shows a model developed by Siegrist et al. (2007) showing that perceived benefits andperceived risks influence willingness to buy (WTB) nanotechnology-based food products.Perceived benefits negatively influence perceived risks. Affect evoked by nanotechnologyproducts influences risks and benefits. Trust in the industry has an impact on the affect.In future implementation of nanosensors in packaging, the public perception is worthy ofconsideration.

2.6. RFID-based sensors

2.6.1. RFID for packaging

In recent years, RFID has been playing an increasingly important role in asset trackingand inventory management systems. RFID applications involve warehouse management,

Social trust

Affect

Benefit

Risk

WTB

Risk

Figure 1. Model explaining the willingness to buy (WTB) nanotechnology-based food products(Adopted from Siegrist et al., 2007).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

300 Y. Wang and E.C. Alocilja

transportation, and quality control in the supply chain’s back-end, on-shelf stock mon-itoring, theft control, and automatic retail checkout (Sarma, 2001). Large retailers andmanufacturers have implemented RFID technologies in their product. For example, Wal-Mart required its top suppliers to put RFID tags on goods in 2005 (Rockwellautomation,2004). Using RFID in pharmaceutical and food industries will be advantageous in speedand efficiency in stock rotation. It will result in better monitoring and tracking of prod-ucts in the supply chain. With RFID technology, improved on-shelf availability at retaillevel and enhanced forecast could be achieved (Brody et al., 2008). Moreover, employingRFID-based resource management systems to handle warehouse operating orders couldsave time and cost by retrieving and analyzing warehouse data (Brody et al., 2008).Intelligent packaging can embrace the RFID technology, which communicates with man-ufacturers, retailers, and consumers, and provides instructions for handling and storing ofproducts.

RFID systems include tags and readers. Tags consist of integrated circuits (ICs)attached to antennae to store data, while readers read tag data by wireless communications(Sarma, 2001). There are several classifications: active and passive according to powersource requirement. Active systems are powered by batteries, which are connected to apowered infrastructure or powered by energy stored in an integrated battery (Want, 2006).Passive systems draw power from the reader. RFID systems can also be classified into nearfield (13.56 MHz) and far field (915 MHz) systems. Near field and far field systems oper-ate on inductive and electromagnetic power mechanisms, respectively. The various RFIDsystems could be applied in different industries and for different purposes.

2.6.2. RFID-based sensors

In the pharmaceutical and food industries, there is an increasing demand for miniatur-ized sensors for monitoring product conditions. Wireless sensor systems can be appliedfor rapid, reliable, and convenient communication. Systems that integrate sensors and RFtechnology are promising for anti-counterfeiting. Passive RFID chemical and biologicalsensors have been reported (Potyrailo & Morris 2007; Potyrailo et al., 2009a; Potyrailo,Surman, & Morris 2009b). The antenna of an RFID tag was coated with a chemically sen-sitive film to become an RFID sensor for the detection of several vapors such as ethanol,methanol, acetonitrile, and water vapors. The changes generated by reactions between ana-lytes and the film influenced the complex impedance of the antenna coil. At the sametime, an RFID reader obtained the information in the microchip of the tag when the fre-quency response was out of the range for tag operation (Finkenzeller, 2003). The sensorcould detect parts-per-billion vapor in air. Further, the research progressed to construct a6 × 8 array of polymer-coated RFID sensors to study the combined effects of polymericplasticizers and annealing temperature. Because passive tags were used, the sensors couldrun at low cost. Future application of this study could include RFID-based sensors attachedto products to rapidly detect vapors and gases associated with fraud and/or spoilage. Yang,Chien, Wang, Chen, and Lee (2008) described a wetness sensor that transmitted the detec-tion signal through radio frequency (RF) waves from an RFID IC to a reader. The signalwas converted to a binary code when transmitted. The sensor consisted of an RFID IC anda sensor circuit fabricated using microelectromechanical system (MEMS) process. Thewidth of the RFID sensor was 2.7 cm, a size which enabled the attachment of the sensor toa product.

RFID sensors are attractive for anti-counterfeiting because of their ability to trackand sense at the same time, their convenience, and relatively low cost compared to other

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 301

wireless sensors. Currently, they still need multidisciplinary research effort for practicalapplications.

3. Conclusions

Anti-counterfeiting is an important issue due to the size of the product counterfeiting mar-ket and the detrimental effects of counterfeits. It is critical to consumer safety, health, andusage, as well as brand security and the economy. In recent years, smart packaging has beengreatly advanced, which includes active and intelligent packaging technologies to enhancethe function of packaging. Using sensors in pharmaceutical and food packaging is attrac-tive due to their capability of rapid and sensitive detection and ability of communication.During sensor development for anti-counterfeiting, safety, sensitivity, and cost are the mainconsiderations. Overall, the sensor technologies are promising anti-counterfeiting tools tohelp overcome fraud in food and pharmaceutical products.

AcknowledgmentThis study was funded by the Michigan State University Strategic Partnership Grant through theAnti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program (A-CAPPP).

Notes on contributorsMs. Yun Wang is a PhD student in the Nano-Biosensors Lab, Department of Biosystems andAgricultural Engineering, Michigan State University.

Dr. Evangelyn C. Alocilja is professor and program director of the Nano-Biosensors Lab, Departmentof Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

ReferencesAlocilja, E. C., & Wang, Y. (2009). NanoBio sensors and integrated microsystems for intelligent food

packaging. Symposium on Nanomaterials for Flexible Packaging, TAPPI, Columbus, OH.Anonymous. (2009). US active & intelligent packaging market. Retrieved from http://www.

reportlinker.comBate, R., & Attaran, A. (2010). A counterfeit drug treaty: Great idea, wrong implementation. Lancet,

376, 1446–1448.Brody, A. L., Bugusu, B., Han, J. H., Sand, C. K., & Mchugh, T. H. (2008). Innovative food packaging

solutions. Journal of Food and Science, 73, R107–R116.Busbee, B. D., Obare, S. O., & Murphy, C. J. (2003). An improved synthesis of high-aspect-ratio

gold nanorods. Advanced Materials, 15, 414–416.Cheng, M. S., Lau, S. H., Chow, V. T., & Toh, C. (2011). Membrane-based electrochemical

nanobiosensor for Escherichia coli detection and analysis of cells viability. EnvironmentalScience and Technology, 45, 6453–6459.

Chu, K. (2010). Growing problem of fake drugs hurting patients, companies. USA Today.Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-09-12-asia-counterfeit-drugs_N.htm

Clarke, R. (2001). Radio frequency identification: Smart or intelligent packaging? Journal ofPackaging Science and Technology & Japan, 10(5), 233–247.

Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits andtrust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395–405.

Coles, R., McDowell, D., & Kirwan, M. J. (2003). Food packaging technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress LLC.

Connolly, C. (2007). Sensor trends in processing and packaging of foods and pharmaceuticals.Sensor Review, 27, 103–108.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

302 Y. Wang and E.C. Alocilja

Darbha, G. K., Rai, U. S., Singh, A. K., & Ray, P. C. (2008). Gold-nanorod-based sensing ofsequence specific HIV-1 virus DNA by using hyper-Rayleigh scattering spectroscopy. Chemistry– A European Journal, 14, 3896–3903.

Day, B. P. F. (1989). Extension of shelf-life of chilled foods. European Food and Drink Review, 4,47–56.

de Kruijf, N., van Beest, M., Rijk, R., Sipilainen-Malm, T., Losada, P., & De Meulenaer, B. (2002).Active and intelligent packaging: Applications and regulatory aspects. Food Additives andContaminants, 19, 144–162.

Dowell, F. E., Maghirang, E. B., Fernandez, F. M., Newton, P. N., & Green, M. D. (2008). Detectingcounterfeit antimalarial tablets by near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of PharmaceuticalBiomedical Analysis, 48, 1011–1014.

D’Souza, S. F. (2001). Microbial biosensors. Biosensors Bioelectronics, 16(6), 337–353.FDA. (2009). Counterfeit alert network. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/

ucm170315.htmFDA. (2011). Seafood species substitution and ecomomic fraud. Retrieved from http://www.fda.

gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/Seafood/RegulatoryFishEncyclopediaRFE/ucm071528.htm

Finkenzeller, K. (2003). RFID handbook. Fundamentals and applications in contactless smart cardsand identification (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

GAO, U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Seafood fraud–FDA program changes andbetter collaboration among key federal agencies could improve detection and prevention. GAO-09-258. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/287425.pdf

Hileman, B. (2003). Counterfeit drugs. Chemical & Engineering News, 81, 36–43.Hossain, S. M. Z., Luckham, R. E., McFadden, M. J., & Brennan, J. D. (2009). Reagentless bidi-

rectional lateral flow bioactive paper sensors for detection of pesticides in beverage and foodsamples. Analytical Chemistry, 81, 9055–9064.

Huang, H., Liu, Z., & Yang, X. (2006). Application of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy formonitoring allergen–antibody reactions using gold nanoparticle-based biomolecular immobiliza-tion method. Analytical Biochemistry, 356, 208–214.

Interland, J. (2011). The fake-food detectives. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/07/the-fake-food-detectives.html

Joseph, T. & Morrison, M. (2006). Nanotechnology in agriculture and food. Retrieved from http://www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/nanotechnology%20in%20agriculture%20and%20food.pdf

Jotcham, R. B. (2005). Authentication, antitamper, and track-and-trace technology options to protectfoods. Journal of Food Protection, 68, 1314–1317.

Kerry, J. P., O’Grady, M. N., & Hogan, S. A. (2006). Past, current and potential utilisation of activeand intelligent packaging systems for meat and muscle-based products: A review. Meat Science,74, 113–130.

Lee, S. K., Mills, A., & Lepre, A. (2004). An intelligence ink for oxygen. Chemical Communications,(17), 1912–1913.

Lin, Y., Chen, S., Chuang, Y., Lu, Y., Shen, T. Y., Chang, C. A., & Lin, C. (2008). Disposable amper-ometric immunosensing strips fabricated by Au nanoparticles-modified screen-printed carbonelectrodes for the detection of foodborne pathogen Escherichia coli O157:H7. Biosensors andBioelectronics, 23, 1832–1837.

Liu, Y., Chakrabartty, S., & Alocilja, E. C. (2007). Fundamental building blocks for molecularbiowire based forward error-correcting biosensors. Nanotechnology, 18, 424017.

Lopes, M. B., & Wolff, J. (2009). Investigation into classification/sourcing of suspect counterfeitHeptodinTM tablets by near infrared chemical imaging. Analytica Chimica Acta, 633, 149–155.

Luo, Y., Nartker, S., Miller, H., Hochhalter, D., Wiederoder, M., Wiederoder, S., . . . Alocilja, E.C. (2010). Surface functionalization of electrospun nanofibers for detecting E. coli O157:H7 andBVDV cells in a direct-charge transfer biosensor. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 26, 1612–1617.

MEDICRIME Convention. (2010). MEDICRIME Convention. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/StandardSetting/MediCrime/international_conference_Basel_en.asp

Mikkelsen, R. S., & Cortón, E. (2004). Bioanalytical chemistry. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Mills, A. (2005). Oxygen indicators and intelligent inks for packaging food. Chemical Society

Reviews, 34, 1003–1011.Murphy, C. J., Gole, A. M., Hunyadi, S. E., Stone, J. W., Sisco, P. N., Alkilany, A., . . . Hankins, P.

(2008). Chemical sensing and imaging with metallic nanorods. Chemical Communications (5),544–557.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 303

O’Driscoll, C. (2006). Counterfeit plant protection – Fakes threaten food safety. Chemical Industries(21) 5–5.

Pacquit, A., Frisby, J., Diamond, D., Lau, K. T., Farrell, A., Quilty, B., & Diamond, D. (2007).Development of a smart packaging for the monitoring of fish spoilage. Food Chemistry, 102,466–470.

Pacquit, A., Lau, K. T., McLaughlin, H., Frisby, J., Quilty, B., & Diamond, D. (2006). Developmentof a volatile amine sensor for the monitoring of fish spoilage. Talanta, 69, 515–520.

Pal, S., & Alocilja, E. C. (2009). Electrically active polyaniline coated magnetic (EAPM)nanoparticle as novel transducer in biosensor for detection of Bacillus anthracis spores in foodsamples. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 24, 1437–1444.

Pei, R., Cheng, Z., Wang, E., & Yang, X. (2001). Amplification of antigen–antibody interactionsbased on biotin labeled protein–streptavidin network complex using impedance spectroscopy.Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 16, 355–361.

Potyrailo, R. A., & Morris, W. G. (2007). Multianalyte chemical identification and quantitation usinga single radio frequency identification sensor. Analytical Chemistry, 79, 45–51.

Potyrailo, R. A., Morris, W. G., Sivavec, T., Tomlinson, H. W., Klensmeden, S., & Lindh, K. (2009a).RFID sensors based on ubiquitous passive 13.56-MHz RFID tags and complex impedancedetection. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 9, 1318–1330.

Potyrailo, R. A., Surman, C., & Morris, W. G. (2009b). Combinatorial screening of polymeric sens-ing materials using RFID sensors: Combined effects of plasticizers and temperature. Journal ofCombinatorial Chemistry, 11, 598–603.

Radke, S. M., & Alocilja, E. C. (2005). A high density microelectrode array biosensor for detectionof E. coli O157:H7. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 20, 1662–1667.

Rockwellautomation. (2004). RFID in manufacturing. Retrieved from http://www.rockwellautomation.com/solutions/rfid/get/rfidwhite.pdf

Sarma, S. (2001). Radio frequency identification and the electronic product code. IEEE Micro, 21,50–54.

Siegrist, M., Cousin, M., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnologyfoods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459–466.

Sozer, N., & Kokini, J. L. (2009). Nanotechnology and its applications in the food sector. Trends inBiotechnology, 27, 82–89.

Spink, J., & Moyer, D. C. (2011). Defining the public health threat of food fraud. Journal of Foodand Science, 76, R157–R163.

Turner, A. P. F. (1996). Biosensors: Past, present and future. Retrieved from http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/health/researchareas/biosensorsdiagnostics/page18795.html

Valera, E., Ramón-Azcón, J., Rodríguez, Á., Castañer, L. M., Sánchez, F.-J., & Marco, M.-P. (2007).Impedimetric immunosensor for atrazine detection using interdigitated µ-electrodes (IDµE’s).Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 125, 526–537.

WHO. (1999). Counterfeit drugs: Guidelines for the development of measures to combat counterfeitdrugs. Geneva. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/WHO_EDM_QSM_99.1.pdf

WHO. (2010). Medicines: Counterfeit medicines. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs275/en/

Wang, J., Profitt, J. A., Pugia, M. J., & Suni, I. I. (2006). Au Nanoparticle conjugation for impedanceand capacitance signal amplification in biosensors. Analytical Chemistry, 78, 1769–1773.

Wang, Y., Wang, R., Li, Y., Srinivasan, B., Tung, S., Wang, H., . . . Griffis, C. L. (2010). Detectionof Escherichia coli O157:H7 using interdigitated array microelectrode-based immunosensor.Biological Engineering, 2, 49–62.

Want, R. (2006). An introduction to RFID technology. Pervasive Computing, IEEE, 5, 25–33.Yam, K. L., Takhistov, P. T., & Miltz, J. (2005). Intelligent packaging: Concepts and applications.

Journal of Food and Science, 70, R1–R10.Yang, C., Chien, J., Wang, B., Chen, P., & Lee, D. (2008). A flexible surface wetness sensor using a

RFID technique. Biomedical Microdevices, 10, 47–54.Yang, L., Li, Y., Griffis, C. L., & Johnson, M. G. (2004). Interdigitated microelectrode (IME)

impedance sensor for the detection of viable Salmonella typhimurium. Biosensors andBioelectronics, 19, 1139–1147.

Zhang, D., & Alocilja, E. C. (2008). Characterization of nanoporous silicon-based DNA biosensorfor the detection of Salmonella Enteritidis. IEEE Sensors Journal, 8, 775–780.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4

304 Y. Wang and E.C. Alocilja

Zhang, D., Huarng, M. C., & Alocilja, E. C. (2010). A multiplex nanoparticle-based bio-barcoded DNA sensor for the simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens. Biosensors andBioelectronics, 26, 1736–1742.

Zhang, S., Wright, G., & Yang, Y. (2000). Materials and techniques for electrochemical biosensordesign and construction. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 15, 273–282.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:38

27

Oct

ober

201

4