Detection of shellfish toxins from scallops in Guangzhou seafood market

Abstract

Abstract:To evaluate scallop safety in the Guangzhou seafood market, contents of shellfish toxins in adductor muscle, mantle skirts, gills and visceral mass of scallops were examined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and mouse unit assay. The results showed that: paralytic shellfish poisoning contents were up to 37.44 mg/100 g by ELISA and 319.99 MU/100 g by mouse unit assay, which did not exceed the limits of national standards (80 mg/100g and 400 MU/100 g); the contents of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning were 142.04 mg/100g and 0.2 MU/100 g, which exceeded the national standard limits (60 mg/100g); neurotoxic shellfish poisoning was undetectable; the contents of amnesic shellfish poisoning reached 220.12 mg/100g (no limit value could be referred to) . In addition, these poisons were present mainly in visceral mass and gills rather than adductor muscle and mantle skirts, suggesting that these toxins accumulate in a tissue-specific manner.

Enzymes in Fish and Seafood Processing

“…Hence, commercially available ELISA kits have been successfully tested for the determination and quantification of antimicrobials (e.g., crystal violet, chloramphenicol, gentamicin, fluoroquinolone enrofloxacin, malachite green, metabolites of furaltadone and furazolidone) in fish from aquaculture, to assess illegal use of the compounds (Jester et al, 2014 ; Conti et al, 2015 ). These kits have also proved effective in the detection of toxins [e.g., paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), diarrhetic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, and amnesic shellfish] in shellfish and seafood (Garet et al, 2010 ; Huazhang et al, 2011 ; Eberhart et al, 2013 ; Turner and Goya, 2016 ) and pesticides in fish (Sapozhnikova et al, 2015 ). Still, when ELISA method was compared to a phosphatase 2A inhibition assay, the latter displayed more promising results as a screening tool for diarrhetic shellfish toxins, given the sensitivity and low level of false results (Eberhart et al, 2013 ).…”