Detection of Aflatoxins in Different Matrices and Food-Chain Positions

Abstract

Aflatoxins, produced mainly by filamentous fungi Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, are one of the most carcinogenic compounds that have adverse health effects on both humans and animals consuming contaminated food and feed, respectively. Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and aflatoxin B2 (AFB2) as well as aflatoxin G1(AFG1) and aflatoxin G2 (AFG2) occur in the contaminated foods and feed. In the case of dairy ruminants, after the consumption of feed contaminated with aflatoxins, aflatoxin metabolites [aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) and aflatoxin M2 (AFM2)] may appear in milk. Because of the health risk and the official maximum limits of aflatoxins, there is a need for application of fast and accurate testing methods. At present, there are several analytical methods applied in practice for determination of aflatoxins. The aim of this review is to provide a guide that summarizes worldwide aflatoxin regulations and analytical methods for determination of aflatoxins in different food and feed matrices, that helps in the decision to choose the most appropriate method that meets the practical requirements of fast and sensitive control of their contamination. Analytical options are outlined from the simplest and fastest methods with the smallest instrument requirements, through separation methods, to the latest hyphenated techniques.

Worldwide aflatoxin contamination of agricultural products and foods: From occurrence to control

“…The choice of extraction and clean‐up method to a large extent depends on the type of matrix, the detection techniques to be used, and the level of contamination of the food samples. Currently, the following extraction and clean‐up techniques are widely used: liquid–liquid extraction (LLE), liquid–solid extraction (LSE), Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe (QuEChERS), ultrasonic extraction, pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), solid‐phase extraction (SPE), immunoaffinity chromatography (IAC), microwave‐assisted extraction (MAE), solid‐phase microextraction (SPME), matrix solid‐phase dispersion (MSPD), and Mycosep multifunctional clean‐up (MFC; De Saeger, 2011; Miklós et al., 2020; Reiter et al., 2009; Sirhan et al., 2014).…”

“…Although in some matrices, the natural fluorescence of aflatoxins B1 and G1 need to be enhanced through postcolumn derivatization to increase sensitivity (Kok et al., 1986). This is in most cases done using trifluoroacetic acid and potassium bromide (KBr) as reagents (Miklós et al., 2020).…”

“…It has been used to quantify aflatoxin in different food matrices (Trucksess et al., 1984). TLC's sensitivity combined with its simplicity, cost‐effectiveness, and capacity to detect multiple toxins in a single test made it a widely used technique for the screening and quantification of aflatoxin, especially in developing countries (Marutoiu et al., 2004; Miklós et al., 2020; Stroka & Anklam, 2000). Aiko and Mehta (2016) used TLC and HPLC techniques to detect aflatoxin B1 and citrinin in medicinal herbs and spices in India.…”

Fate of Deoxynivalenol in Different Corn Cultivars: From Grains to Bread

“…The evolution of repeatability and reproducibility values are linked with the performance of the validated method. However, the procedure followed for reducing the sample size and the amount of sample size during analysis could affect mycotoxins' levels or create uncertainties in the developed method [23]. Therefore, the representative sample must be ensured during analysis for mycotoxins.…”

Anti-Fungal and Anti-Aflatoxigenic Properties of Organs of Cannabis sativa L.: Relation to Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacities

“…Separation was done on a C18 column (5 µm particle size; 250 mm × 4.6 mm; Supleco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) tted with a HS C18, Supelguard Discovery precolumn (5 µm particle size, 20 mm × 4 mm; Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) at a constant temperature of 40°C. The mobile phase consisted of water:methanol:nitric acid 4 M (55:45:0.35 v:v:v) in which 119 mg/L KBr was added extemporaneously (Miklos et al, 2020). The ow rate was 0.8 mL/min.…”