DOCSLIB.ORG

Developments in Mycotoxin Analysis: an Update for 2019-2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developments in Mycotoxin Analysis: an Update for 2019-2020 Wageningen Academic World Mycotoxin Journal, 2021; 14 (1): 3-26 Publishers Developments in mycotoxin analysis: an update for 2019-2020 S.A. Tittlemier1*, J. Brunkhorst2, B. Cramer3, M.C. DeRosa4, V.M.T. Lattanzio5, R. Malone2, C. Maragos6, M. Stranska7 and M.W. Sumarah8 1Canadian Grain Commission, Grain Research Laboratory, 1404-303 Main St, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 3G8, Canada; 2Trilogy Analytical Laboratory, 870 Vossbrink Dr, Washington, MO 63090, USA; 3University of Münster, Institute of Food Chemistry, Corrensstr. 45, 48149 Münster, Germany; 4Department of Chemistry, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada; 5National Research Council of Italy, Institute of Sciences of Food Production, via Amendola 122/O, 70126 Bari, Italy; 6United States Department of Agriculture, ARS National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604, USA; 7Department of Food Analysis and Nutrition, Faculty of Food and Biochemical Technology, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technicka 5, Prague, 166 28, Czech Republic; 8Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, London Research and Development Centre, 1391 Sandford Street, London, ON, N5V 4T3, Canada; [email protected] Received: 18 November 2020 / Accepted: 16 December 2020 © 2021 Wageningen Academic Publishers OPEN ACCESS REVIEW ARTICLE Abstract This review summarises developments on the analysis of various matrices for mycotoxins published in the period from mid-2019 to mid-2020. Notable developments in all aspects of mycotoxin analysis, from sampling and quality assurance/ quality control of analytical results, to the various detection and quantitation technologies ranging from single mycotoxin biosensors to comprehensive instrumental methods are presented and discussed. Aside from sampling and quality control, discussion of this past year’s developments is organised by detection and quantitation technology and covers chromatography with targeted or non-targeted high resolution mass spectrometry, tandem mass spectrometry, detection other than mass spectrometry, biosensors, as well as assays that use alternatives to antibodies. This critical review aims to briefly present the most important recent developments and trends in mycotoxin determination as well as to address limitations of the presented methodologies. Keywords: sampling, multi-mycotoxin analysis, quality control, multiplex, biosensor, chromatography, mass spectrometry, aptamer, ELISA, molecularly imprinted polymer, high resolution mass spectrometry 1. Introduction and quantitation technologies available to the analyst. Our hope is that this reorganisation allows readers to more easily This article is the latest instalment in a series of annual access new information relevant to the analytical tools that reviews highlighting analytical method developments for they have at hand in order to improve their mycotoxin mycotoxin determination, continuing from the previous analyses. review covering the mid-2018 to mid-2019 period (Tittlemier et al., 2020a). As with the previous reviews Specific topics included in this review are sampling in this series, our primary purpose is to raise awareness (Section 2), quality control of mycotoxin analyses (Section of the developments and advances in analytical methods 3), chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry for mycotoxins published between mid-2019 to mid-2020. (MS/MS; Section 4), chromatography with targeted high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS; Section 5), Globally, this past year has been full of changes. Our annual chromatography with non-targeted HRMS (Section 6), review has also changed. We have reorganised the review chromatography with non-mass spectrometric (MS) into (mostly) new sections that try to cover all aspects of detection (Section 7), multiplex biosensors (Section 8), mycotoxin analysis, from sampling and quality assurance/ single mycotoxin or single mycotoxin family biosensors quality control of analytical results, to the various detection (Section 9), and assays using antibody analogues (Section ISSN 1875-0710 print, ISSN 1875-0796 online, DOI 10.3920/WMJ2020.2664 3 S.A. Tittlemier et al. 10). A list of commonly used abbreviations in the article monitoring as a more intensive sampling plan was needed is provided in the Appendix. to minimise the probability of accepting a non-compliant batch to less than 5%. With this reorganisation we have still tried to maintain the annual review as a discussion of the most novel and Fischer et al. (2019) examined the main contributing relevant advances in analytical methodology as selected by factors to variance in the analysis of aflatoxins (AFs) in the experts in the broad field of ‘mycotoxin analysis’. As with truckloads of bagged maize delivering to Kenyan mills. past years, this review is not meant to be an exhaustive list of They also estimated the number of samples that would publications on mycotoxin analytical methods, nor a list of provide sufficient power to their sampling plan to assess incremental improvements of more ‘mature’ methodology. AFs concentration in a truckload of bagged maize. For the Critical comments on the selected methods, their validation experimental design, at each of three different commercial parameters, or unique applications are included to guide mills in Kenya three trucks were selected and 10 bags of readers in assessing the impact of these developments. This maize were each sampled twice from each of the three review should therefore appeal to all readers. trucks. Sampling of maize was performed manually, and the specific trier used to sample grain from bags was described. 2. Sampling Unfortunately, the procedures for bag sampling, bag selection, and sub-sampling of maize were not described Research on sampling and sample processing published in the paper. Concentrations of AFs varied greatly between over the past year covers a wide range of topics ranging bags sampled, and ranged from less than the detection from modelling to evaluate the costs of sampling plans limit to 1,100 μg/kg. The distribution of AFs in samples (Focker et al., 2019), grinding and dividing grain samples taken from truckloads of bagged maize differed from the in preparation for analysis (Tittlemier et al., 2020b), and the distribution observed in bulk maize transported by truck characterisation of mycotoxin (and variance of mycotoxin in Texas, emphasising that mycotoxin distributions in analysis) in fields (Cowger et al., 2020), stored grain (Kerry commodities depend on the handling and history of a et al., 2019), and transported grain (Fischer et al., 2019). commodity lot. Variability of AF concentrations in maize between bags (61% of total variance) and variability of AF Focker et al. (2019) expanded upon their previous work and concentrations in maize within a bag (27%) were the top two used optimisation modelling to assess sampling plans for factors contributing to the variance of AFs concentration monitoring aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) in maize. They evaluated observed in the study, followed by variability due to analysis six different scenarios of AFB1 production and monitoring (6%). The authors stated that the low variance from the along the multi-stage maize supply chain from the Black analysis step does not indicate ‘low risk from testing’ but Sea maize growing region to processors in the Netherlands. that the variance from the analysis step can be mitigated The six scenarios were set with AFB1 production and by good quality control procedures, such as routine use of monitoring at certain points of a simplified maize supply reference materials and control charting. The experimental chain. Production of AFB1 in the field was limited to occur data were also used to estimate that a minimum of 20 at three concentrations (1, 4, and 10 μg/kg) and production bags per truck need to be sampled in order to have a false during shipping (100 μg/kg in 5% of the maize transported). positive rate of 5% and a false negative rate of 20%. The Monitoring points were limited to storage bins used after authors outlined the assumptions used in their work, and harvest, ship compartments for sea transport, barges for noted that the concentrations of AFs were relatively low in domestic transport, and processing plants. The assumptions the year of their study but did not elaborate on how higher of the model were constraining and do not reflect the wide concentrations may affect the factors contributing to total variety of conditions encountered in real life, but they are variance nor affect the minimum number of bags to be thoroughly described by the authors. The model also sampled. Despite this limitation, the study provides good included the need to replace non-compliant batches of insight into how risk from AFs in maize can be managed at maize (i.e. AFB1 concentrations at the end of the supply a commercial mill, and demonstrates that modifications to chain greater than an industry specification of 2.5 μg/kg) the Kenyan sampling recommendation decreases the risk to meet grain volumes required by the processors. The of mischaracterising the AFs content of maize. optimisation model minimised the total cost of monitoring and replacing batches of non-compliant grain. As expected, Tittlemier et al. (2020b) evaluated grinders and dividing model outputs for the six scenarios showed that the optimal equipment used in the preparation of whole oats for number of maize batches to analyse, and the optimal mycotoxin analysis. The analysis of hulls from naturally monitoring point in the supply chain, depended upon the infected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mycotoxins in Food and Feed: an Overview Joerg Stroka and Carlos Gonc¸Alves, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Geel Site, Geel, Belgium
    Mycotoxins in Food and Feed: An Overview Joerg Stroka and Carlos Gonc¸alves, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Geel Site, Geel, Belgium © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. General 1 Historical and Regulatory Background 3 Social and Economic Impact of Mycotoxins 3 The Different Mycotoxin Groups 4 The Aflatoxins 4 The Trichothecenes 6 The Ergot Alkaloids 7 Zearalenone 8 The Fumonisins and Moniliformin 8 The Alternaria Toxins 9 Ochratoxin A 10 Patulin 10 Beauvericin and the Enniatins 11 Gliotoxin and Mycotoxins With Lesser Frequency 11 Spoiled and Cured Food 12 Modified Mycotoxins 12 Analytical Techniques 13 Mycotoxin Prevention/Detoxification 15 References 15 Further Reading 19 Relevant Websites 19 Glossary Aptamer short single DNA or RNA oligonucleotides, whose 3-D structure can bind specific to other molecules. Aspergillus fungi filamentous fungi, whose spores are arranged similar to water trickles running out of an aspergil or ewer. Endocrine disruptor substance that interferes with the hormonal system. Immunoaffinity procedure using antibodies raised against a molecular structure with the aim to specifically enrich and/or purify the target molecule. Molecular imprinted polymer synthetic polymers used for molecular recognition Mycotoxin toxin produced by filamentous fungi. p53 tumor suppressor gene important regulatory gene in the initiation of cell apoptosis preventing a cell turning malignant. Penicillium fungi filamentous fungi, whose spore arrangement is remindful to strands of a brush. St. Antoniusfire Synonym for the disease ergotism, resulting in gangrene, burning sensations, hallucinations and ultimately loss of limbs and death. Turkey “X” disease disease in poultry that marked the research in mycotoxins and led to the discovery of aflatoxins in the 1960s.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxins of Fungi) [Biological-Origin Toxins]
    2: Mycotoxins (toxins of fungi) [Biological-origin toxins] MOULDS Aflatoxins Core data Syndrome name: aflatoxicosis Common sources: mycotoxins • Aspergillus flavus growing in carbohydrate-rich feeds: peanuts, grain, bread Animals affected: susceptibility: • poultry > mammals (dog>pig>cattle>sheep) Mode of action: suppresses messenger-RNA synthesis → inhibits protein synthesis Poisoning circumstances: • pre-harvest: drought & insect attack predisposes peanuts to A. flavus infection • post-harvest: high moisture content of grain or water damage in storage • distribution of aflatoxin not uniform in substrate Main effects: dose & time dependant – descending order on intensity: • generalised haemorrhage • acute liver necrosis • chronic liver damage with megalocytosis + fatty change Diagnosis: pathology + assay feed, stomach contents, liver Therapy: nil Prevention: • avoid predisposing environmental conditions • screen feed for contamination • add adsorbents to feed (bentonite) Syndrome name: aflatoxicosis Compounds: Aflatoxins are difuranocoumarins. The most common is aflatoxin B1. Other common aflatoxins are B2, G1, G2 & M1. [B = blue fluorescence under UV light, G = green fluorescence, M = milk (the site of its first isolation)] Sources: produced by the fungi growing in carbohydrate-rich substrates fungi: Aspergillus flavus, A. parasiticus, and A. nomius [and possibly some Penicillium spp.] produce the aflatoxins, A.flavus usually producing only B1 & B2 and A. parasiticus and A. nomius producing B1, B2, G1 & G2 (Cotty et al. 1994). As many as 20 species of Aspergillus including A. nidulans and species of Bipolaris, Chaetomium, Farrowia and Monocillium produce sterigmatocystin, a highly toxic intermediate in the aflatoxin B1 synthesis pathway (sources cited by Meronuck & Xie 1999). substrates: peanuts cotton seed grains (e.g. sorghum, maize) (water-damaged wheat [Blaney 1986, Blaney et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of OC Curves in Quality Control with an Example of Sampling for Mycotoxins
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte Open Archive TOULOUSE Archive Ouverte (OATAO) OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible. This is an author-deposited version published in : http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/ Eprints ID : 5523 To cite this version : Lyman, Geoffrey and Bourgeois, Florent and Littlemier, Sheryl Use of OC curves in quality control with an example of sampling for mycotoxins. (2011) In: 5th World Conference on Sampling and Blending - WCSB5, 25-28 oct. 2011, Santiago, Chile Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the repository administrator: [email protected] Geoffrey J. Lyman Materials Sampling & Consulting, Australia Florent S. Bourgeois Materials Sampling & Consulting Europe, France Sheryl Tittlemier Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission, Canada Use of OC curves in quality control with an example of sampling for mycotoxins ABSTRACT An ‘operating characteristics’ (OC) curve is a simple tool that has been in use in quality control for many years but does not seem to be widely applied in the particulate sampling field. The OC curve provides the probability that a lot of material will be deemed to meet a specification (will be found to have an assay that falls above (or below) a specified level, given the true assay of the lot). In the application considered herein, it provides the probability that a grain shipment will be accepted, given the true value of the assay for the lot.
    [Show full text]
  • 329 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 PK Gupta, Concepts And
    Index A Activated charcoal, 318 Abralin, 269 Active/facilitated transport, 29 Abric acid, 269 Active transport, 39, 53 Abrin, 269, 275 Acute toxicosis, 7 Absorption, 29–33, 302 Acyl glucuronides, 54 Absorption, distribution, metabolism Addictive drug, 303 (biotransformation) and elimination Addition/additive effect, 19 (ADME), 27, 38 Additive, 122 Abuse, 327 Additive effect, 20 Abused drugs, 156–159 Adenosine agonist, 58 Acaricide, 62 Adenosine antagonist, 58 Acceptable daily intake (ADI), 297 Adenosine triphosphate (ATP), 47, 53 Accidental, 75 Adjuvants, 14 ingestion, 144 Adrenaline, 184 poisoning, 10 β-Adrenergic blockers, 151 Accumulation, 17, 92 β-Adrenergic receptor, 151 Acepromazine, 145, 149, 152 α-Adrenergic receptor-blocking agents, 145 Acetaldehyde, 43, 74 Adrenergic receptor sites, 157 Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase, 139 Adulterants, 157 Acetaminophen, 55, 148 Adverse biological response, 52 Acetic acid, 64 Affinity, 18, 128 Acetohydroxyacid synthase, 62 Aflatoxicosis, 203–206 Acetone, 74 Aflatoxin 8, 9-epoxide, 223 Acetylation, 28, 42 Aflatoxins, 204 Acetylation products, 34 Agathic acid, 238 Acetylcholine (ACh), 58, 61, 64, 65, 169, 224 Agent Orange, 4 Acetylcholinesterase (AChE), 47, 61, 80 Agonist, 18, 19, 55, 194 inhibition, 60 β2-Agonist, 130 inhibitors, 47, 63 Agricultural chemicals, 61 5-Acetyl-2,3-dihydro-2-isopropenyl- Agrochemicals, 59, 64–67, 69 benzofuran, 239 Albendazole, 23 Acetyl ICA, 238 Albuterol, 130 ACh receptors, 69 Alcohol dehydrogenase, 139 Acid dissociation constant, 39 Alcohols, 121, 123–125, 134 Acids,
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Evaluation of Certain Contaminants in Food
    WHO FOOD Safety evaluation of ADDITIVES certain contaminants in SERIES: 63 food FAO JECFA MONOGRAPHS 8 Prepared by the Seventy-second meeting of the Joint FAO/ WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) DEOXYNIVALENOL (addendum) (pages 317 – 485) World Health Organization, Geneva, 2011 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2011 DEOXYNIVALENOL (addendum) First draft prepared by A.S. Bulder,1 M. DiNovi,2 K.A. Kpodo,3 J.-C. Leblanc,4 S. Resnik,5 G.S. Shephard,6 W. Slob,1 R. Walker7 and G. Wolterink1 1 Department of Substances and Integrated Risk Assessment, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands 2 Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States of America (USA) 3 Food Chemistry Division, CSIR-Food Research Institute, Accra, Ghana 4 Chemical Exposure and Quantitative Risk Assessment Unit, French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA), Maisons-Alfort, France 5 Tecnologia de Alimentos, Departamento de Industrias, Facultad de ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Ciudad Universitaria, Buenos Aires, Argentina 6 Programme on Mycotoxins and Experimental Carcinogenesis, Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa 7 Ash, Aldershot, Hampshire, England 1. Explanation............................................................................. 319 2. Biological data........................................................................ 319 2.1 Biochemical aspects......................................................... 319
    [Show full text]
  • Author's Copy
    Author’s copy provided for non-commercial and educational use only 1875-0710 No material published in World Mycotoxin Journal may be reproduced without first obtaining written permission from the publisher. The author may send or transmit individual copies of this PDF of the article, to colleagues upon their specific request provided no fee is charged, and further- provided that there is no systematic distribution of the manuscript, e.g. posting on a listserve, website or automated delivery. However posting the article on a secure network, not accessible to the public, is permitted. For other purposes, e.g. publication on his/her own website, the author must use an author-created version of his/her article, provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on the World Mycotoxin Journal website by referring to the DOI of the article. For additional information please visit www.WorldMycotoxinJournal.org. Editor-in-chief: Hans P. van Egmond, retired from RIKILT Wageningen UR, the Netherlands Section editors • -omics Jeffrey W. Cary, USDA, USA • feed, toxicology Johanna Fink-Gremmels, Utrecht University, the Netherlands • toxicology Isabelle P. Oswald, INRA, France • pre-harvest Alain Pittet, Nestlé Research Center, Switzerland • post-harvest Paola Battilani, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy Armando Venancio, Universidade do Minho, Portugal • analysis Michele Solfrizzo, Institute of Sciences of Food Production, Italy Franz Berthiller, BOKU, Austria • food, human health, analysis Gordon S. Shephard, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa • economy, regulatory issues Felicia Wu, Michigan State University, USA • industrial challenges and solutions Michele Suman, Barilla, Italy Editorial board Paula Alvito, National Institute of Health, Portugal; Diána Bánáti, ILSI Europe, Belgium; Lei Bao, Nestlé Food Safety Institute, China P.R.; Catherine Bessy, FAO, Italy; Deepak Bhatnagar, USDA, USA; Pedro A.
    [Show full text]
  • 3Rd Karlsruhe Nutrition Symposium European Research Towards Safer and Better Food Review and Transfer Congress Congress Centre, Karlsruhe, Germany
    Berichte der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Ernährung BFE-R--98-02 3rd Karlsruhe Nutrition Symposium European Research towards Safer and Better Food Review and Transfer Congress Congress Centre, Karlsruhe, Germany October 18-20, 1998 Proceedings Supplement Edited by V. Gaukel and W.E.L. Spieß Sponsored by: The European Commission European Federation of Food Science and Technology Bundesforschungsanstalt für Ernährung, Karlsruhe 1999 3rd Karlsruhe Nutrition Symposium: European Research towards Safer and Better Food Review and Transfer Congress, Congress Centre, Karlsruhe, Germany October 18-20, 1998 Technical assistance: A. Karl T. Storck Co-sponsored by: Verein der Freunde des Kältetechnischen Institutes e.V. The individual contributions in this publication and any liabilities arising from them remain the responsibility of the authors. First published 1999 Copyright © 1999 Bundesforschungsanstalt für Ernährung, Karlsruhe, Germany All rights reserved. Printed and bound by Druckerei Grässer, Karlsruhe, Germany ISSN 0933-5463 III Preface This supplement volume contains those manuscripts of papers presented as oral presentations or posters at the EU-Congress 'European Research towards Safer and Better Food' which had not been available at the time of printing of the congress proceedings volumes 1 and 2. With this supplement, all contributions - except for a few - are available in printed form, allowing to evaluate results achieved in the scientific segments Food, Nutrition and Well Being - Food Safety and Monitoring of Safety Aspects - Meat - Technological Methods to Improve Food Quality - Consumer Perception and Transfer Strategies supported by the EU-Framework Programmes. To facilitate access to the contributions, an author and a subject index were added. The present volume also contains some information about the congress as well as list of participants.
    [Show full text]