Prevalence and distribution of aflatoxin contamination in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Mali, West Africa

Abstract

1 groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Mali, West Africa 2 3 ABSTRACT 13 Groundnut is a major source of livelihood for the rural poor in Mali. However, the crop is 14 prone to pre-and post-harvest aflatoxin contamination caused by Aspergillus flavus and A. 15 parasiticus. Therefore, to minimize health related hazards from exposure to aflatoxin 16 contaminated food, information on the prevalence and distribution of aflatoxins (AFB1) in 17 the groundnut value chain in Mali is needed for timely interventions. To this end, a study was 18 undertaken in three districts (Kayes, Kita and Kolokani) to assess aflatoxin contamination in 19 the field and storage. Ninety pod samples in each district were collected from fields (30 20 villages/district and 3 samples/village) during 2009 and 2010. Pre-harvest contamination was 21 estimated at harvest, whereas samples for post-harvest contamination were collected from 22 granaries of the same farmers at a monthly interval for 3 months. The villages in each district 23 were categorized into safe, acceptable, moderate risk and high risk areas based on pre-harvest 24 AFB1 levels. Kayes recorded more pod samples (77%) within 20 µg/kg of pre-harvest 25 aflatoxins followed by Kolokani (55.6%) and Kita (45.6%) based on 2009 and 2010 mean 26 values. Toxin concentrations at harvest were comparatively less in Kayes during both years. 27 Further, Kayes had more villages under safe and acceptable limits when compared to 28 Kolokani and Kita. Overall, 46 out of 90 villages in the three districts had acceptable pre-29 harvest toxin limits. Further, 12 villages in Kolokani were in the high risk category. An 30 increase in toxin levels was noticed with period of storage during both years. Comparatively, 31 toxin levels after storage were least in Kayes during 2009. Kayes also recorded less AFB1 32 levels in 2010 after Kita. Our results indicate that Kayes is relatively safe over Kita and 33 Kolokani in pre-harvest aflatoxin contamination. The reasons for district-wide variations in 34 pre-harvest contamination; and the reasons for post-harvest flare up of the problem are 35 discussed. Further, proper storage of pods at farmers' granaries in Mali is suggested to 36 overcome the problem from reaching alarming levels. 37 38

On-Farm Demonstrations with a Set of Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) Proved Cost-Effective in Reducing Pre-Harvest Aflatoxin Contamination in Groundnut

“…Of different mycotoxins, aflatoxins are very important, and are frequent contaminants of food crops, importantly, groundnut during pre-and post-harvest stages [1][2][3]. Aflatoxins are mainly produced by Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus.…”

Advancements in molecular marker development and their applications in the management of biotic stresses in peanuts

“…flavus and A. parasiticus infect peanut seeds and produce aflatoxins, which are harmful to both domestic animals and humans (Waliyar et al, 2015;Singh et al, 2015a,b;Liu et al, 2014). The progress in peanut breeding for resistance to aflatoxin is slow due to the lack of a cost-effective method for resistance identification in breeding materials or segregating progeny (Lei et al, 2006).…”

The Aflatoxin QuicktestTM—A Practical Tool for Ensuring Safety in Agricultural Produce

“…Screening to detect aflatoxin contamination often relies on fluorescence and has been achieved by reference standards using thin layer chromatography, adsorption on minicolumns [11], high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) or liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS) [12,13]. Unfortunately, many developing countries lack the infrastructure necessary to comply with such regulations even though they often recognise the problem [14]. For example, aflatoxin has been identified as a threat to human health in Timor-Leste [15], and yet some of their agricultural produce could not be marketed in recent years for lack of compliance.…”

“…Specific antibodies to aflatoxins have provided an alternative means to conduct ELISA immunoassays [16], which can accurately measure the levels of contamination in grains and nuts. ELISA technologies are more affordable than instrumental analysis such as HPLCfluorescence or LC-MS, but require a level of analytical skills that may not be found in many developing countries, where the aflatoxin problem is most prevalent [14,17]. Based on the same immunoassays principles, lateral flow devices (LFD) employing gold nanoparticles have been recently developed [18][19][20] to be used as rapid methods for screening aflatoxins in food commodities.…”