In relation to beef samples, ground beef exhibited fluorescence ranges of 9 A.U., 20 A.U., 40 A.U., and 9 A.U. in the DAPI, FITC, TRITC, and Cy5 channels, respectively, while whole beef displayed ranges of 9 A.U., 19 A.U., 38 A.U., and 16 A.U (Figure ). Here, the higher fluorescence variation observed within the TRITC channel was noted as a potential hinderance to its use. Comparatively, ground chicken offered fluorescence ranges of 7 A.U., 34 A.U., 15 A.U., and 11 A.U. in the four respective channels, while whole chicken exhibited ranges of 8 A.U., 27 A.U., 39 A.U., and 17 A.U (Figure ). Accordingly, the FITC and TRITC channels were identified as wavelengths at which higher variation is present. Collectively, DAPI offered limited fluorescence variation with each target food product, yielding confidence towards its applicability within sensing. Cy5 offered similarly low variation with meat products. While moderate variation was observed within TRITC and FITC channels, contextualizing the effect such variation would have on biosensing proved difficult given that the presented fluorescence intensities were quantified as arbitrary units. Thus, their value was limited to relative comparisons between channels and over time. To better understand how these background food intensities compare to what is emitted by fluorescently labelled biomolecules, we sought to assess the visibility of such agents when imaged against these products.