Sampling, sample preparation, and sampling plans for foodstuffs for mycotoxin analysis

Campbell, A. D.; Whitaker, T. B.; Pohland, Albert E; Dickens, J. W.; Park, D. L.

doi:10.1351/pac198658020305

Cited by 59 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even when using accepted sample selection, sample preparation and analytical procedures (Nesheim 1979;Campbell et al 1986; Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990), there are uncertainties associated with each of the above steps of the mycotoxin test procedure (Whitaker et al 1974). Because of these uncertainties, the true mycotoxin concentration in the lot cannot be determined with 100% certainty by measuring the mycotoxin concentration in a test sample taken from the lot.…”

Section: Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since it is not practical to extract the mycotoxin from a large test sample, the test sample is comminuted in a mill and the mycotoxin is extracted from a small analytical subsample taken from the comminuted test sample. If the commodity is a granular product such as shelled corn, it is essential that the entire test sample be comminuted in a suitable mill before an analytical subsample is removed from the test sample Campbell et al 1986). Removing a subsample of whole seed from the test sample before the comminuting process is simply a sample size reduction process and eliminates the benefits associated with the larger size sample of granular product.…”

Section: Sample Preparation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sampling Foods for Mycotoxins

2006

Food Additives and Contaminants

Self Cite

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is difficult to obtain precise and accurate estimates of the true mycotoxin concentration of a bulk lot when using a mycotoxin-sampling plan that measures the concentration in only a small portion of the bulk lot. A mycotoxin-sampling plan is defined by a mycotoxin test procedure and a defined accept/reject limit. A mycotoxin test procedure is a complicated process and generally consists of several steps: (1) a sample of a given size is taken from the lot, (2) the sample is ground (comminuted) in a mill to reduce its particle size, (3) a subsample is removed from the comminuted sample, and (4) the mycotoxin is extracted from the comminuted subsample and quantified. Even when using accepted test procedures, there is uncertainty associated with each step of the mycotoxin test procedure. Because of this variability, the true mycotoxin concentration in the lot cannot be determined with 100% certainty by measuring the mycotoxin concentration in a sample taken from the lot. The variability for each step of the mycotoxin test procedure, as measured by the variance statistic, is shown to increase with mycotoxin concentration. Sampling is usually the largest source of variability associated with the mycotoxin test procedure. Sampling variability is large because a small percentage of kernels are contaminated and the level of contamination on a single seed can be very large. Methods to reduce sampling, sample preparation and analytical variability are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample Preparation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sampling Foods for Mycotoxins

2006

Food Additives and Contaminants

Self Cite

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is rare for an agent to be evenly distributed in environmental media. For example, the distribution of aflatoxins in grains is very uneven due to variable patterns of mold growth; the sampling procedure used often results in a greater than 100% coefficient of variation (11). Thus, extrapolation from data on grain contamination to an individual's exposure is imprecise.…”

Section: Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers and Mechanistic Approaches in Environmental Epidemiology

Links

Kensler

Groopman

1995

Annu. Rev. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental epidemiological research involves the identification of relation ships between previous exposures to putative causative agents and subsequent biological effects with study populations. Such relationships are often hard to fully characterize because of difficulties in accurately quantifying exposure, dose, and effect. Biomarkers are indicators, residing in biological systems or samples, of exposure, dose, effect, or susceptibility. Biomarkers of exposure indicate the presence of previous exposure to an environmental agent; a bio marker of dose bears a quantitative relationship to previous exposure or dose; these include exogenous substances, interactive products, or interactions that change the status of the target molecule. Biomarkers of effect indicate the presence and magnitude of a biological response to exposure to an environ mental agent; these include endogenous components, or measures of the func tional capacity or state of the system. Biomarkers of susceptibility indicate an elevated sensitivity to the effects of an environmental agent; these include the presence or absence of an endogenous component, or abnonnal functional responses to an administered challenge. The development of molecular bio markers for environmental agents is based upon specific knowledge of metab olism, interactive product fonnation, and general mechanisms of action. The validation of any biomarker-effect link requires parallel experimental animal and human epidemiological studies.

show abstract

“…This problem is compounded by the unequal distribution of the mold metabolite, aflatoxin, within a lot of grain. For example, in many peanut lots only one peanut in 10000 may contain aflatoxin, but the level within a single peanut may be up to several hundred micrograms (CAMPBELL et al 1986); thus, contamination of an entire shipment will occur once it has been blended, ground, and processed. It is for these reasons that the accurate measurement of human consumption of aflatoxin through sampling foodstuffs is difficult.…”

Section: Occurrencementioning

confidence: 99%