Recent advances in aflatoxin B1 detection based on nanotechnology and nanomaterials-A review

Xue, Zhaohui; Zhang, Yixia; Yu, Wancong; Zhang, Juncai; Wang, Junyu; Wan, Fang; Kim, Yonghun; Liu, Yudong; Kou, Xiaohong

doi:10.1016/j.aca.2019.04.032

Cited by 178 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 202 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, in comparison with most available immunoassay methods for comprehensive performance (Table 2), the detected performances of QD-FICA and QB-FICA were in accordance with the reported fluorescence immunochromatography in real samples or buffer solution [23,39]; TRFN-FICA had the best LOD and reached 125%-150% better sensitivity than the reported multiple time-resolved fluorescence immunochromatography assay [21,24]. Therefore, fluorescence immunochromatography assay, especially TRFN-FICA, possessed the obvious advantages of sensitivity, rapidity and cost-effectiveness for onsite screening of AFB 1 in grains [36,[40][41][42]. Furthermore, in order to verify and compare the reliability of FICAs, 60 grain samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) [34], TRFN-FICA, QB-FICA and QD-FICA.…”

Section: Application To Grain Samplessupporting

confidence: 81%

Comparative Study of Time-Resolved Fluorescent Nanobeads, Quantum Dot Nanobeads and Quantum Dots as Labels in Fluorescence Immunochromatography for Detection of Aflatoxin B1 in Grains

Wang

et al. 2020

Biomolecules

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Label selection is an essential procedure for improving the sensitivity of fluorescence immunochromatography assays (FICAs). Under optimum conditions, time-resolved fluorescent nanobeads (TRFN), quantum dots nanobeads (QB) and quantum dots (QD)-based immunochromatography assays (TRFN-FICA, QB-FICA and QD-FICA) were systematically and comprehensively compared for the quantitative detection of aflatoxin B 1 (AFB 1 ) in six grains (corn, soybeans, sorghum, wheat, rice and oat). All three FICAs can be applied as rapid, cost-effective and convenient qualitative tools for onsite screening of AFB 1 ; TRFN-FICA exhibits the best performance with the least immune reagent consumption, shortest immunoassay duration and lowest limit of detection (LOD). The LODs for TRFN-FICA, QB-FICA and QD-FICA are 0.04, 0.30 and 0.80 µg kg −1 in six grains, respectively. Recoveries range from 83.64% to 125.61% at fortified concentrations of LOD, 2LOD and 4LOD, with the coefficient of variation less than 10.0%. Analysis of 60 field grain samples by three FICAs is in accordance with that of LC-MS/MS, and TRFN-FICA obtained the best fit. In conclusion, TRFN-FICA is more suitable for quantitative detection of AFB 1 in grains when the above factors are taken into consideration.Biomolecules 2020, 10, 575 2 of 12 To better monitor the threat of AFB 1 contamination, various methods have been developed in the past few decades [9][10][11][12]. Although the results are reliable and accurate, instrumental techniques [13] need expensive equipment and complicated sample pretreatment. Biosensors based on the antibody immunoprobes such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [14] and fluorescence-linked immunosorbent assay (FLISA) [15,16] can achieve quantitative detection with good performance of specificity, sensitivity and simplicity, but the heterogeneous immunoassays require multiwashing procedures and long analysis times. To address the above issues, lateral flow immunochromatography assays have been considered as a promising method for onsite screening of mycotoxins [17][18][19]. Moreover, immunochromatography assays based on fluorescent markers (time-resolved fluorescent nanobeads (TRFN), quantum dot nanobeads (QB) and quantum dots (QD), etc.) have gradually become a popular research field in recent years for their advantages of sensitivity, accuracy, automated detection, shorter detection time, and so on [20][21][22]. Several fluorescence immunochromatography assays for highly sensitive detection of AFB 1 have been reported [20,21,[23][24][25].

show abstract

Section: Application To Grain Samplessupporting

confidence: 81%

Comparative Study of Time-Resolved Fluorescent Nanobeads, Quantum Dot Nanobeads and Quantum Dots as Labels in Fluorescence Immunochromatography for Detection of Aflatoxin B1 in Grains

Wang

et al. 2020

Biomolecules

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Metal nanoparticles (AuNPs or AgNPs) are usually used as fluorescence acceptors due to their high extinction coefficient and powerful quenching ability (Farka et al, 2017;Xue et al, 2019). Recently, Lu et al (2019) employed fluorescence switch-on aptasensors for the determination of AFB1 based FIGURE 1 | (A) Schematic illustration of the biosensor, including the following three parts: the bio-recognition element, the signal converter, and the signal measurement system.…”

Section: Fluorescent Aptasensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AFB1 production and pollution can occur during all processes along the food chain. Because AFB1 results in significant health and economic problems in many countries, AFB1 contamination is one of the most serious problems threatening food safety (Uludag et al, 2016;Xue et al, 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to exploit novel, low-cost, and fast on-site detection technology as well as miniaturized instruments for real-time monitoring of AFB1 and prevention of AFB1 contamination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, biosensors have been used in many fields, including pathogen (Khansili et al, 2018) toxin and pesticide residue (Shang et al, 2011) detection in food, bio-marker detection for medical diagnostics, detection in water (Han et al, 2013), and detection in the atmosphere. In recent years, the combination of biosensors and nanomaterials [quantum dots (QDs), carbon nanomaterials, noble metal nanoparticles, and magnetic nanoparticles] has attracted the attention of researchers (Farka et al, 2017;Xue et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Progress on Structured Biosensors for Monitoring Aflatoxin B1 From Biofilms: A Review

Wang

Yang

2020

Front. Microbiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aspergillus exists commonly in many crops and any process of crop growth, harvest, storage, and processing can be polluted by this fungus. Once it forms a biofilm, Aspergillus can produce many toxins, such as aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), ochratoxin, zearalenone, fumonisin, and patulin. Among these toxins, AFB1 possesses the highest toxicity and is labeled as a group I carcinogen in humans and animals. Consequently, the proper control of AFB1 produced from biofilms in food and feed has long been recognized. Moreover, many biosensors have been applied to monitor AFB1 in biofilms in food. Additionally, in recent years, novel molecular recognition elements and transducer elements have been introduced for the detection of AFB1. This review presents an outline of recent progress made in the development of biosensors capable of determining AFB1 in biofilms, such as aptasensors, immunosensors, and molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) biosensors. In addition, the current feasibility, shortcomings, and future challenges of AFB1 determination and analysis are addressed.

show abstract

“…Mycotoxins are toxic secondary metabolites produced by organisms of the fungi kingdom, which are recognized as “unavoidable natural contaminants” [1–3]. Aflatoxins (AFs) are derived by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus and listed as Group I carcinogens by the World Health Organization in 1993 [4–6]. In aflatoxins, the most ubiquitous and toxic is aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid determination of aflatoxin B1 by an automated immunomagnetic bead purification sample pretreatment method combined with high‐performance liquid chromatography

Zhang

Liu

et al. 2020

J of Separation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to establish an automated versatile sample preconcentration method based on the modified immunomagnetic beads, which was utilized to enrich for aflatoxin B1 from the matrices. The critical main parameters affecting the extraction efficiency, such as usage amount of immunomagnetic beads, reaction time, elution time, and blending way were investigated. Under the optimized conditions, the content of aflatoxin B1 was analyzed by high‐performance liquid chromatography, the mobile phase consists of water–acetonitrile–methanol (42:18:10, v/v/v), and fluorescence detection was performed with excitation and emission wavelengths at 360 and 440 nm, respectively. Moreover, the performance of preconcentration method was compared with the conventional method based on the immunoaffinity column. The accuracy of two clean‐up methods was within the error range. In addition, the stability and recyclability of the immunomagnetic beads was studied by recycling them five times. The results for the respective analysis in various samples demonstrated that the developed extraction platform provides a promising approach that is simple, rapid, sensitive, and easy to use.

show abstract

Recent advances in aflatoxin B1 detection based on nanotechnology and nanomaterials-A review

Cited by 178 publications

References 202 publications

Comparative Study of Time-Resolved Fluorescent Nanobeads, Quantum Dot Nanobeads and Quantum Dots as Labels in Fluorescence Immunochromatography for Detection of Aflatoxin B1 in Grains

Comparative Study of Time-Resolved Fluorescent Nanobeads, Quantum Dot Nanobeads and Quantum Dots as Labels in Fluorescence Immunochromatography for Detection of Aflatoxin B1 in Grains

Progress on Structured Biosensors for Monitoring Aflatoxin B1 From Biofilms: A Review

Rapid determination of aflatoxin B1 by an automated immunomagnetic bead purification sample pretreatment method combined with high‐performance liquid chromatography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About