Cost‐Effective Sampling and Analysis for Mycotoxins in a Cereal Batch

Abstract

The presence of hazards (e.g., contaminants, pathogens) in food/feed, water, plants, or animals can lead to major economic losses related to human and animal health or the rejection of batches of food or feed. Monitoring these hazards is important but can lead to high costs.This study aimed to find the most cost-effective sampling and analysis (S&A) plan in the cases of the mycotoxins deoxynivalenol (DON) in a wheat batch and aflatoxins (AFB 1 ) in a maize batch. An optimization model was constructed, maximizing the number of correct decisions for accepting/rejecting a batch of cereals, with a budget as major constraint. The decision variables were the choice of the analytical method: instrumental method (e.g., liquid chromatography combined with mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)), enzyme-linked-immunoassay (ELISA), or lateral flow devices (LFD), the number of incremental samples collected from the batch, and the number of aliquots analyzed. S&A plans using ELISA showed to be slightly more cost effective than S&A plans using the other two analytical methods. However, for DON in wheat, the difference between the optimal S&A plans using the three different analytical methods was minimal. For AFB 1 in maize, the cost effectiveness of the S&A plan using instrumental methods or ELISA were comparable whereas the S&A plan considering onsite detection with LFDs was least cost effective. In case of nonofficial controls, which do not have to follow official regulations for sampling and analysis, onsite detection with ELISA for both AFB 1 in maize and DON in wheat, or with LFDs for DON in wheat, could provide cost-effective alternatives.

Financial losses for Dutch stakeholders during the 2013 aflatoxin incident in Maize in Europe

“…In addition, since the 2013 aflatoxin incident, up until early 2019, compound feed producers test one batch of feed that contains maize as ingredient per week for the presence of aflatoxins; the frequency is now lowered to once a month (SecureFeed, 2020 ). Given that there are 40 plants producing feed for dairy cattle in the Netherlands and aflatoxin testing costs of a batch are between 300 and 1100 € when 20 or 100 samples are collected, respectively (Focker et al 2019 ), this would lead to an extra 624,000 to 2,288,000 € per year for the feed industry, when one batch per week per location is tested.…”

Tutorial: design and fabrication of nanoparticle-based lateral-flow immunoassays

“…As aforementioned, LFAs are used in a variety of applications with samples that present extremely different composition and characteristics (Table 1). 27 For example, clinical samples can be whole blood, 28,29 plasma, 30,31 serum, [32][33][34] sweat, 35,36 urine, 37,38 stool, 39,40 saliva, 41,42 cerebrospinal fluid 43,44 and nasal swabs, 45,46 while food matrices could be juices, 47,48 cereals, 49,50 meat, 51,52 vegetables, 53 and environmental (mostly water and soil) samples. [54][55][56][57] Although the sample pad provides a means to control the properties of the sample solution (see the following section), some complex matrixes may require pre-treatment before an aliquot can be added into the LFA strip.…”

Incentives to Stimulate European Wheat Farmers to Adapt Their Fusarium Species Mycotoxin Management

“…Implementing the incentive "paid extra" requires the testing of mycotoxin concentrations in wheat. This testing is paired with extra costs for either the farmer or the stakeholder implementing the incentive [28]. A change in management can be paired with higher costs for the farmer and, therefore, the risk premium related to "paid extra" should be sufficient so farmers will actually change their management under this incentive.…”