Mycotoxins Contamination in Rice: Analytical Methods, Occurrence and Detoxification Strategies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Mycotoxins
2.1. Emerging Mycotoxins
2.2. Masked Mycotoxins
2.3. Co-Occurrence
2.4. Mycotoxins-Producing Fungi
2.5. Factors Associated with Rice Contamination by Mycotoxins
2.6. Toxicity and Mechanisms of Action of Mycotoxins
2.7. Mycotoxins Legislation with Special Focus at EU Level
3. Analytical Methodologies to Determine Mycotoxins
3.1. Sampling
3.2. Extraction and Clean-Up Procedures
3.3. Analytical Methods
3.3.1. Immunochemical Methods
3.3.2. Chromatographic Techniques
3.4. Biosensors
4. Mycotoxin Contamination in Rice
5. Contamination Mitigation
6. Conclusions and Future Perspectives
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Khodaei, D.; Javanmardi, F.; Khaneghah, A.M. The global overview of the occurrence of mycotoxins in cereals: A three-year survey. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 39, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manizan, A.L.; Oplatowska-Stachowiak, M.; Piro-Metayer, I.; Campbell, K.; Koffi-Nevry, R.; Elliott, C.; Akaki, D.; Montet, D.; Brabet, C. Multi-mycotoxin determination in rice, maize and peanut products most consumed in Côte d’Ivoire by UHPLC-MS/MS. Food Control 2018, 87, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krska, R. Performance of modern sample preparation techniques in the analysis of Fusarium mycotoxins in cereals. J. Chromatogr. A 1998, 815, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, V.; Fernandes, J.; Cunha, S. Mycotoxins in cereals and related foodstuffs: A review on occurrence and recent methods of analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 36, 96–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, P.J.; Barros, N.; Santo, J.L.; Câmara, J.S. High-Throughput Analytical Strategy Based on Modified QuEChERS Extraction and Dispersive Solid-Phase Extraction Clean-up Followed by Liquid Chromatography-Triple-Quadrupole Tandem Mass Spectrometry for Quantification of Multiclass Mycotoxins in Cereals. Food Anal. Methods 2015, 8, 841–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2006, L364, 5–24. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/ (accessed on 21 July 2022).
- Ali, N. Aflatoxins in rice: Worldwide occurrence and public health perspectives. Toxicol. Rep. 2019, 6, 1188–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Wu, F. Global Burden of Aflatoxin-Induced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Risk Assessment. Environ. Health Perspect. 2010, 118, 818–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, N.J.; Bowers, E.; Hurburgh, C.; Wu, F. Potential economic losses to the US corn industry from aflatoxin contamination. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2016, 33, 540–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahdjoubi, C.K.; Arroyo-Manzanares, N.; Hamini-Kadar, N.; García-Campaña, A.M.; Mebrouk, K.; Gámiz-Gracia, L. Multi-Mycotoxin Occurrence and Exposure Assessment Approach in Foodstuffs from Algeria. Toxins 2020, 12, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, J.W.; Klich, M. Mycotoxins. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 16, 497–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Y.; Wang, Q.; Huang, J.; Chen, Z.; Liu, S.; Wang, X.; Wang, F. Mycotoxin contamination and presence of mycobiota in rice sold for human consumption in China. Food Control 2019, 98, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azam, S.; Ahmed, S.; Islam, M.N.; Maitra, P.; Islam, M.M.; Yu, D. Critical Assessment of Mycotoxins in Beverages and Their Control Measures. Toxins 2021, 13, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marin, S.; Ramos, A.J.; Cano-Sancho, G.; Sanchis, V. Mycotoxins: Occurrence, toxicology, and exposure assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 60, 218–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.J.; Ryu, D. Advances in Mycotoxin Research: Public Health Perspectives. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80, T2970–T2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossi, F.; Gallo, A.; Bertuzzi, T. Emerging mycotoxins in the food chain. Mediterr. J. Nutr. Metab. 2020, 13, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, S.C.; Pena, A.L.S.; de Matos Lino, C. Mycotoxins & Their Implications in Food Safety; Future Science Ltd.: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Liuzzi, V.C.; Mirabelli, V.; Cimmarusti, M.T.; Haidukowski, M.; Leslie, J.F.; Logrieco, A.F.; Caliandro, R.; Fanelli, F.; Mulè, G. Enniatin and Beauvericin Biosynthesis in Fusarium Species: Production Profiles and Structural Determinant Prediction. Toxins 2017, 9, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berthiller, F.; Crews, C.; Dall’Asta, C.; De Saeger, S.; Haesaert, G.; Karlovsky, P.; Oswald, I.P.; Seefelder, W.; Speijers, G.; Stroka, J. Masked mycotoxins: A review. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013, 57, 165–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.; Banerjee, K. A Review: Sample Preparation and Chromatographic Technologies for Detection of Aflatoxins in Foods. Toxins 2020, 12, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, A.; Gkrillas, J.L.A.; Dorne, C.J.L.; Dall’Asta, R.C.; Palumbo, R.; Lima, N.R.; Battilani, P.; Venâncio, A.; Giorni, V.P. Pre- and Postharvest Strategies to Minimize Mycotoxin Contamination in the Rice Food Chain. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 441–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prandini, A.; Sigolo, S.; Filippi, L.; Battilani, P.; Piva, G. Review of predictive models for Fusarium head blight and related mycotoxin contamination in wheat. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 927–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leggieri, M.C.; Mazzoni, M.; Battilani, P. Machine Learning for Predicting Mycotoxin Occurrence in Maize. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 661132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, D.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V.; Marín, S. Predicting mycotoxins in foods: A review. Food Microbiol. 2009, 26, 757–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marín, S.; Freire, L.; Femenias, A.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Use of predictive modelling as tool for prevention of fungal spoilage at different points of the food chain. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 41, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, N.; Keller, N.P. Mycotoxins in Conversation With Bacteria and Fungi. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Do, T.H.; Tran, S.; Le, C.D.; Nguyen, H.-B.T.; Le, P.-T.T.; Le, T.D.; Thai-Nguyen, H.-T. Dietary exposure and health risk characterization of aflatoxin B1, ochratoxin A, fumonisin B1, and zearalenone in food from different provinces in Northern Vietnam. Food Control 2020, 112, 107108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruadrew, S.; Craft, J.; Aidoo, K. Occurrence of toxigenic Aspergillus spp. and aflatoxins in selected food commodities of Asian origin sourced in the West of Scotland. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 55, 653–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savi, G.D.; Piacentini, K.C.; Rocha, L.O.; Carnielli-Queiroz, L.; Furtado, B.G.; Scussel, R.; Zanoni, E.T.; Machado-De-Ávila, R.A.; Corrêa, B.; Angioletto, E. Incidence of toxigenic fungi and zearalenone in rice grains from Brazil. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 270, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zoreky, N.S.; Saleh, F.A. Limited survey on aflatoxin contamination in rice. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019, 26, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraga, H.; Guimarães, N.; Santos, J.A. Future Changes in Rice Bioclimatic Growing Conditions in Portugal. Agronomy 2019, 9, 674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis; Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ostry, V.; Malir, F.; Toman, J.; Grosse, Y. Mycotoxins as human carcinogens—the IARC Monographs classification. Mycotoxin Res. 2017, 33, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IARC. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog Risks Hum. 2010, 93, 9–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawla, P.; Sunkara, T.; Muralidharan, P.; Raj, J.P. Update in global trends and aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma. Contemp. Oncol. 2018, 22, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mantle, P. Risk assessment and the importance of ochratoxins. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegradation 2002, 50, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jettanajit, A.; Nhujak, T. Determination of Mycotoxins in Brown Rice Using QuEChERS Sample Preparation and UHPLC–MS-MS. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2016, 54, 720–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soriano, J.; González, L.; Catalá, A. Mechanism of action of sphingolipids and their metabolites in the toxicity of fumonisin B1. Prog. Lipid Res. 2005, 44, 345–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussein, H.S.; Brasel, J.M. Toxicity, metabolism, and impact of mycotoxins on humans and animals. Toxicology 2001, 167, 101–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zain, M.E. Impact of mycotoxins on humans and animals. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2011, 15, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobrova, P.; Adam, V.; Vasatkova, A.; Beklova, M.; Zeman, L.; Kizek, R. Deoxynivalenol and its toxicity. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2010, 3, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zmudzki, J.; Wiśniewska-Dmytrow, H. Limits and regulations for mycotoxins in food and feed. Pol. J. Veter. Sci. 2004, 7, 211–216. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 165/2010 of 26 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs as regards aflatoxins. Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, L50, 8–12. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:050:0008:0012:EN:PDF (accessed on 21 July 2022).
- European Commission. Commission Recommedation of 27 March 2013 on the presence of T-2 and HT-2 toxin in cereals and cereal products. Off. J. Eur. Union 2013, L91, 12–15. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:091:0012:0015:EN:PDF (accessed on 21 July 2022).
- FAO. Worldwide Regulations for mycotoxins in food and feed 2003. Food Nutr. Pap. 2022, 81. Available online: https://www.fooddiagnostics.dk/seekings/uploads/Worldwide_mycotoxin_regulations_in_food_and_feed_2003.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
- Ward, M.; Clever, J. China Releases Standard for Maximum Levels of Mycotoxins in Foods. 2018. Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/china-china-releases-standard-maximum-levels-mycotoxins-foods (accessed on 22 July 2022).
- Maximum Permitted Levels of Mycotoxins in Food: EU vs. USA|Download Table. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Maximum-permitted-levels-of-mycotoxins-in-food-EU-vs-USA_tbl1_324479616 (accessed on 22 July 2022).
- FDA. Guidance for Industry: Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious Substances in Human Food and Animal Feed. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-action-levels-poisonous-or-deleterious-substances-human-food-and-animal-feed (accessed on 22 July 2022).
- FDA. Guidance for Industry and FDA: Advisory Levels for Deoxynivalenol (DON) in Finished Wheat Products for Human Consumption and Grains and Grain By-Products Used for Animal Feed. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-and-fda-advisory-levels-deoxynivalenol-don-finished-wheat-products-human (accessed on 22 July 2022).
- FDA. Guidance for Industry: Fumonisin Levels in Human Foods and Animal Feeds. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-fumonisin-levels-human-foods-and-animal-feeds (accessed on 22 July 2022).
- Romer Labs. Mycotoxin Regulations for Food and Feed in Japan. September 2016. p. 2016. Available online: https://www.romerlabs.com/en/knowledge-center/knowledge-library/articles/news/worldwide-mycotoxin-regulations/ (accessed on 22 July 2022).
- Government of Canada Health Canada’s Maximum Levels for Various Chemical Contaminants in Foods. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/chemical-contaminants/maximum-levels-chemical-contaminants-foods.html (accessed on 10 May 2021).
- Shephard, G.S. Current Status of Mycotoxin Analysis: A Critical Review. J. AOAC Int. 2016, 99, 842–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 401/2006 of 23 February 2006 Laying down the Methods of Sampling and Analysis for the Official Control of the Levels of Mycotoxins in Foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2006, 70, 12–34. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R0401&from=en (accessed on 21 July 2022).
- Cigić, I.K.; Prosen, H. An Overview of Conventional and Emerging Analytical Methods for the Determination of Mycotoxins. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 62–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshannaq, A.; Yu, J.-H. Occurrence, Toxicity, and Analysis of Major Mycotoxins in Food. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo, J.M.S. Micotoxinas-Alimentos-pdf. Available online: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/64817491/micotoxinas-alimentos-pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
- Singh, J.; Mehta, A. Rapid and sensitive detection of mycotoxins by advanced and emerging analytical methods: A review. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 2183–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şenyuva, H.Z.; Gilbert, J. Immunoaffinity column clean-up techniques in food analysis: A review. J. Chromatogr. B 2010, 878, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sospedra, I.; Blesa, J.; Soriano, J.; Mañes, J. Use of the modified quick easy cheap effective rugged and safe sample preparation approach for the simultaneous analysis of type A- and B-trichothecenes in wheat flour. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 1437–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juan, C.; Moltó, J.; Lino, C.; Mañes, J. Determination of ochratoxin A in organic and non-organic cereals and cereal products from Spain and Portugal. Food Chem. 2008, 107, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soleimany, F.; Jinap, S.; Faridah, A.; Khatib, A. A UPLC–MS/MS for simultaneous determination of aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, zearalenone, DON, fumonisins, T-2 toxin and HT-2 toxin, in cereals. Food Control 2012, 25, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suárez-Bonnet, E.; Carvajal, M.; Méndez-Ramírez, I.; Castillo-Urueta, P.; Cortés-Eslava, J.; Gómez-Arroyo, S.; Melero-Vara, J.M. Aflatoxin (B1, B2, G1, and G2) Contamination in Rice of Mexico and Spain, from Local Sources or Imported. J. Food Sci. 2013, 78, T1822–T1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koesukwiwat, U.; Sanguankaew, K.; Leepipatpiboon, N. Evaluation of a modified QuEChERS method for analysis of mycotoxins in rice. Food Chem. 2014, 153, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazari, F.; Sulyok, M.; Yazdanpanah, H.; Kobarfard, F.; Krska, R. A survey of mycotoxins in domestic rice in Iran by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2014, 24, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, M.; Si, W.; Jiang, K.; Nie, D.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, Z.; De Saeger, S.; Han, Z. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes as solid-phase extraction sorbents for simultaneous determination of type A trichothecenes in maize, wheat and rice by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1423, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, S.Z.; Asi, M.R.; Hanif, U.; Zuber, M.; Jinap, S. The presence of aflatoxins and ochratoxin A in rice and rice products; and evaluation of dietary intake. Food Chem. 2016, 210, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Taher, F.; Cappozzo, J.; Zweigenbaum, J.; Lee, H.J.; Jackson, L.; Ryu, D. Detection and quantitation of mycotoxins in infant cereals in the U.S. market by LC-MS/MS using a stable isotope dilution assay. Food Control 2017, 72, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Yang, X.; Zhao, X.; Bai, B.; Yao, C.; Liu, N.; Wang, J.; Zhou, C. Vortex-assisted dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for the analysis of major Aspergillus and Penicillium mycotoxins in rice wine by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Food Control 2017, 73, 862–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katsurayama, A.M.; Martins, L.M.; Iamanaka, B.T.; Fungaro, M.H.P.; Silva, J.J.; Frisvad, J.C.; Pitt, J.I.; Taniwaki, M.H. Occurrence of Aspergillus section Flavi and aflatoxins in Brazilian rice: From field to market. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 266, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, N.W.; Bramhmbhatt, H.; Szabo-Vezse, M.; Poma, A.; Coker, R.; Piletsky, S.A. Analytical methods for determination of mycotoxins: An update (2009–2014). Anal. Chim. Acta 2015, 901, 12–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, S.; Xu, L.; Kuang, H.; Xiao, J.; Xu, C. Immunoassays for rapid mycotoxin detection: State of the art. Analyst 2020, 145, 7088–7102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mateus, A.R.S.; Barros, S.; Pena, A.; Silva, A.S. Mycotoxins in Pistachios (Pistacia vera L.): Methods for Determination, Occurrence, Decontamination. Toxins 2021, 13, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baeyens, W.R.G.; Schulman, S.G.; Calokerinos, A.C.; Zhao, Y.; García Campaña, A.M.; Nakashima, K.; De Keukeleire, D. Chemiluminescence-based detection: Principles and analytical applications in flowing streams and in immunoassays. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 1998, 17, 941–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shim, W.-B.; Mun, H.; Joung, H.-A.; Ofori, J.A.; Chung, D.-H.; Kim, M.-G. Chemiluminescence competitive aptamer assay for the detection of aflatoxin B1 in corn samples. Food Control 2014, 36, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krska, R.; Schubert-Ullrich, P.; Molinelli, A.; Sulyok, M.; Macdonald, S.; Crews, C. Mycotoxin analysis: An update. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2008, 25, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, S.; Cai, Z.; Feng, L.; Pan, H.; Wang, Z. Simultaneous determination of multi-component mycotoxin contaminants in foods and feeds by ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1143, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manetta, A.C. Aflatoxins: Their Measure and Analysis; Department of Food and Feed Science, University of Teramo: Teramo, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kok, W. Derivatization reactions for the determination of aflatoxins by liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. J. Chromatogr. B Biomed. Sci. Appl. 1994, 659, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carballo, D.; Moltó, J.; Berrada, H.; Ferrer, E. Presence of mycotoxins in ready-to-eat food and subsequent risk assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 121, 558–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortiz, J.; Van Camp, J.; Mestdagh, F.; Donoso, S.; De Meulenaer, B. Mycotoxin co-occurrence in rice, oat flakes and wheat noodles used as staple foods in Ecuador. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2013, 30, 2165–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartók, T.; Tölgyesi, L.; Szekeres, A.; Varga, M.; Bartha, R.; Szécsi, A.; Bartók, M.; Mesterházy, Á. Detection and characterization of twenty-eight isomers of fumonisin B1 (FB1) mycotoxin in a solid rice culture infected with Fusarium verticillioides by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization time-of-flight and ion t. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2010, 24, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zachariasova, M.; Cajka, T.; Godula, M.; Malachova, A.; Veprikova, Z.; Hajslova, J. Analysis of multiple mycotoxins in beer employing (ultra)-high-resolution mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2010, 24, 3357–3367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, H.; Takino, M.; Sugita-Konishi, Y.; Tanaka, T. Development of a liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometric method for the simultaneous determination of trichothecenes, zearalenone and aflatoxins in foodstuffs. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2006, 20, 1422–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bittner, A.; Cramer, B.; Harrer, H.; Humpf, H.-U. Structure elucidation and in vitro cytotoxicity of ochratoxin α amide, a new degradation product of ochratoxin A. Mycotoxin Res. 2015, 31, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warth, B.; Sulyok, M.; Fruhmann, P.; Berthiller, F.; Schuhmacher, R.; Hametner, C.; Adam, G.; Fröhlich, J.; Krska, R. Assessment of human deoxynivalenol exposure using an LC–MS/MS based biomarker method. Toxicol. Lett. 2012, 211, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niessen, W.M.A. Trace quantitative analysis by mass spectrometry Robert K. Boyd, Cecilia Basic, Robert A. Bethem, authors. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2009, 20, R4–R6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Types of MS/MS Systems and Their Key Characteristics: SHIMADZU (Shimadzu Corporation). Available online: https://www.shimadzu.com/an/service-support/technical-support/analysis-basics/fundamental/key_characteristics.html#section5 (accessed on 22 July 2022).
- Jabbour, R.; Snyder, A. 14-Mass spectrometry-based proteomics techniques for biological identification. In Biological Identification; US Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA, 2014; pp. 370–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evtugyn, G.; Subjakova, V.; Melikishvili, S.; Hianik, T. Affinity Biosensors for Detection of Mycotoxins in Food. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2018, 85, 263–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janik, E.; Niemcewicz, M.; Podogrocki, M.; Ceremuga, M.; Gorniak, L.; Stela, M.; Bijak, M. The Existing Methods and Novel Approaches in Mycotoxins’ Detection. Molecules 2021, 26, 3981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715 of 30 September 2019 laying down rules for the functioning of the information management system for official controls and its system components (´the IMSOC Regulation’). Off. J. Eur. Union 2019, L261, 37–96. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R1715&rid=3 (accessed on 21 July 2022).
- How does RASFF Work. Available online: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/rasff-food-and-feed-safety-alerts/how-does-rasff-work_en (accessed on 21 July 2022).
- RASFF Window—Search. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/screen/search?event=searchResultList (accessed on 21 July 2022).
- Trucksess, M.; Abbas, H.; Weaver, C.; Shier, W. Distribution of aflatoxins in shelling and milling fractions of naturally contaminated rice. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2011, 28, 1076–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matumba, L.; Namaumbo, S.; Ngoma, T.; Meleke, N.; De Boevre, M.; Logrieco, A.F.; De Saeger, S. Five keys to prevention and control of mycotoxins in grains: A proposal. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 30, 100562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, C.A.F.; Bovo, F.; Humberto, C.; Vincenzi, A.; Ravindranadha, K. Recent Trends in Microbiological Decontamination of Aflatoxins in Foodstuffs. In Aflatoxins - Recent Advances and Future Prospects; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daou, R.; Joubrane, K.; Maroun, R.G.; Khabbaz, L.R.; Ismail, A.; El Khoury, A. Mycotoxins: Factors influencing production and control strategies. AIMS Agric. Food 2021, 6, 416–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahato, D.K.; Lee, K.E.; Kamle, M.; Devi, S.; Dewangan, K.N.; Kumar, P.; Kang, S.G. Aflatoxins in Food and Feed: An Overview on Prevalence, Detection and Control Strategies. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sipos, P.; Peles, F.; Brassó, D.; Béri, B.; Pusztahelyi, T.; Pócsi, I.; Győri, Z. Physical and Chemical Methods for Reduction in Aflatoxin Content of Feed and Food. Toxins 2021, 13, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashemi, M.; Ehsani, A.; Hassani, A.; Afshari, A.; Aminzare, M.; Sahranavard, T.; Azimzadeh, Z. Phytochemical, Antibacterial, Antifungal and Antioxidant Properties of Agastache foeniculum Essential Oil. J. Chem. Health Risks 2017, 7, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razzaghi-Abyaneh, M. Aflatoxins—Recent Advances and Future Prospects; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, J.; Zhong, S.; Schwarz, P.; Chen, B.; Rao, J. Physical properties, antifungal and mycotoxin inhibitory activities of five essential oil nanoemulsions: Impact of oil compositions and processing parameters. Food Chem. 2019, 291, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, F.; Hua, H.; Selvaraj, J.N.; Yuan, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, L.; Liu, Y. Degradation of fumonisin B1 by cinnamon essential oil. Food Control 2014, 38, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponzilacqua, B.; Rottinghaus, G.; Landers, B.; Oliveira, C. Effects of medicinal herb and Brazilian traditional plant extracts on in vitro mycotoxin decontamination. Food Control 2019, 100, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alizadeh, A.M.; Golzan, S.A.; Mahdavi, A.; Dakhili, S.; Torki, Z.; Hosseini, H. Recent advances on the efficacy of essential oils on mycotoxin secretion and their mode of action. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 4726–4751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, S.; Singh, V.K.; Dwivedy, A.K.; Chaudhari, A.K.; Upadhyay, N.; Singh, A.; Saha, A.K.; Chaudhury, S.R.; Prakash, B.; Dubey, N.K. Assessment of chemically characterised Myristica fragrans essential oil against fungi contaminating stored scented rice and its mode of action as novel aflatoxin inhibitor. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 34, 1611–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, S.; Singh, V.K.; Dwivedy, A.K.; Chaudhari, A.K.; Upadhyay, N.; Singh, A.; Deepika; Dubey, N.K. Antimicrobial activity, antiaflatoxigenic potential and in situ efficacy of novel formulation comprising of Apium graveolens essential oil and its major component. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2019, 160, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mycotoxins | Maize Unprocessed (µg/kg) | Cereals for Direct Human Consumption (µg/kg) | Baby Foods for Infants and Young Children (µg/kg) | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|
AFB1 | 5 | 2 | 0.1 | [6] |
Sum of AFB1, B2, G1 and G2 | 10 | 4 | - | [6] |
OTA | 5 | 3 | 0.5 | [6] |
DON | 1750 | 750 * | 200 | [6] |
ZEA | 200 | 200 | 20 | [6] |
T-2 and HT-2 toxin | 200 (indicative TDI level) | 100 | 15 | [44] |
Fumonisins | 2000 | 1000 ** | 200 | [6] |
Type of Sample | Mycotoxins Analyzed | Extraction Method | Extraction Conditions | Number of Samples | Sampling Period | Levels of Contamination (μg/kg) | Conclusions of the Study | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organic Rice | OTA | Extraction with MSPD | Sample was blended with the solid phase C8 (2.5 g/1.5 g) until achieving a homogeneous mixture. The mixture was eluted through a column (100 mm × 9 mm i.d. glass column with a coarse frit) using MeOH: FA (99:1, v/v). The eluate was concentrated using a N2 steam, filtered and then centrifuged. | 9 | April 2005–November 2005 | Mean: 2.57 ± 3.43 Range: 2.10–7.60 | OTA was present in 4 out of the 9 samples. | [61] |
Rice | AFs | SPE | Solvent: ACN: H2O: acetic acid (79:20:1 v/v/v). The supernatant was centrifuged, and a purification step was conducted, diluting the final extract with ACN:water:acetic acid (20:79:1). After a second purification by filtration, the final sample was injected into the UHPLC-MS/MS. | 40 | January–March 2010 | 0.15–4.42 (10/40 samples) | 80% of the cereal samples were contaminated with at least one mycotoxin; 4% of the samples exceeded the EU regulatory levels for AFs and OTA (4 and 5 μg/kg respectively) | [62] |
OTA | 0.2–4.34 (6/40 samples) | |||||||
ZEA | 1.5–51.1 (5/40 samples) | |||||||
DON | 6.15–34.92 (8/40 samples) | |||||||
FB1 | 12.59–33.25 (3/40 samples) | |||||||
FB2 | 12.36–31.19 (3/40 samples) | |||||||
T2 | 5.88–55.35 (3/40 samples) | |||||||
HT-2 | 48.18 (1 sample) | |||||||
Jasmine Rice | AFs | Immunoaffinity columns | Sample extract: MeOH:H20 (60:40 v/v) and NaCl. The sample was diluted in distilled water and filtered. IAC: The column was buffered with PBS at a flow rate of 5 mL/min. The sample was then eluted using MeOH and distilled water, at a flow rate of 2 mL/min, and collected in an amber glass vial. | - | - | Mean: 11.4 of total aflatoxins (in the absence of Aspergillus) | 1/3 of the analyzed samples exceeded the levels of AFs tolerated in the EU. | [28] |
Rice | AFB1 | Immunoaffinity column | Sample extract: MeOH:H20 (80:20 v/v) and NaCl. After filtration, the extract was diluted in phosphate buffered saline (PBS), ad filtered again. IAC: The column was buffered with PBS and then the filtered sample was eluted through the column with ACN at a flow rate of 5 mL/min. The column was washed twice with distilled water and air-dried. After that, the eluate was dried and derivatized, and an aliquot was used for the HPLC analysis. | 67 | - | <LOD–91.7 | Most of the analyzed samples exceeded the levels of AFB1 and AFs (2 and 4 μg/kg, respectively) tolerated in cereals in the European Community | [63] |
AFB2 | <LOD–12.1 | |||||||
AFG1 | <LOD–78.7 | |||||||
AFG2 | <LOD–31.0 | |||||||
AFs | <LOD–138.6 | |||||||
Rice | Total mycotoxins | QuEChERS | Extraction step: Solvent: ACN:HOAc (99:1 v/v) Salts: mixture of anhydrous MgSO4, NaCl, (CH2COONa)2·2H2O and C6H6Na2O7·1.5H2O (4:1:1:0.5). After being vortexed and centrifuged, the supernatant was collected in a PTFE tube for the purification step, containing anhydrous magnesium sulfate and a C18 sorbent (This process is imperative toreduce the quantity of lipids and eliminate the excess of water, simplifying the evaporation). After centrifugation, the supernatant was evaporated and reconstituted in MeOH:H2O (70:30 v/v). After filtration, the extract was collected into a LC vial. | 24 | 2013 | ND | The target mycotoxins were not detected in any of the samples. | [4] |
Rice | AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, AFG2, OTA, DON, ZEA, FB1, FB2, HT2, T2 | d-SPE, QuEChERS | Extraction step: Solvent: water + 10% FA in ACN Salts: mixture of anhydrous MgSO4, NaCl, tri-Na and di-Na Purification step (d-SPE) ACN extract + MgSO4 + C18 + Al-N + PSA. After centrifugation, the extract was evaporated to dryness under a N2 steam, and reconstituted using mobile phase A:B (1:1 v/v). The samples were then filtered and collected in a vial for injection. | 20 | - | ZEA was detected in 2 rice samples and AFB1 was detected in 6 rice samples | The contamination levels were below the EU limits for typical foods and feeds. | [64] |
Rice | AFB1 | SPE | The samples were extracted with 20 mL ACN/water/glacial acetic acid (79:20:1, v/v/v. Aliquots of 500 μL extracts were transferred into glass vials containing an equal volume of ACN/water/acetic acid (20:79:1, v/v/v). | 65 | April 2010–April 2011 | <LOQ–30.83 | All the samples were contaminated with at least one mycotoxin. 3 rice samples exceeded the limit established in EU and Iran for AFB1 (5 μg/kg); ZEA was detected in 19 out of 65 samples in high levels. | [65] |
AFB2 | 0.6–1.26 | |||||||
FB1 | 54.48–176.58 | |||||||
OTA | 0.65–11.54 | |||||||
ZEA | 4.95–215.46 | |||||||
Rice | T-2 toxin | SPE using multi - walled carbon nanotubes as sorbents | The samples were macerated using 10 mL of ACN/water (84:16, v/v) and then ultrasonicated. After centrifugation, the supernatant was collected and dried using nitrogen gas. The residues were reconstituted in ACN/water (20:80, v/v) and then diluted with water. This solution was passed through the multi-walled carbon nanotubes sorbents. The cartridges were eluted with MeOH containing 1% FA, and the eluate was evaporated using nitrogen gas. The residues were re-dissolved in ACN/water containing ammonium acetate (30:70, v/v), filtered and collected in a vial for injection. | 10 | - | 6.13 (1/10 samples) | EFSA has established a TDI of 100 μg/kg body weight for the total of T-2 and HT-2 toxins | [66] |
HT-2 toxin | 11.81 (1/10 samples) | |||||||
White rice | AFB1 | SPE, Immunoaffinity columns | AFs: Solvent: ACN:water (90:10 v/v) After filtration, the supernatant was diluted with deionized water. IAC: the dilute filtrate was eluted at a flow rate of 3–4 drops/s using HPLC grade MeOH and washed with water. After evaporation under a nitrogen stream, a mixture of ACN:water (1:9 v/v) was added to the vials. OTA: Solvent: ACN:water (90:10 v/v) After filtration, the sample was mixed in PBS and filtered using a glass microfiber. After filtration, 10 mL of filtrate were mixed with acetic acid and passed through the IAC. IAC: The sample was eluted with MeOH and collected in a vial. | 34 | August 2012–March 2013 | 7.70 ± 0.89 | 25% of the samples of brown rice were above the maximum permitted level at EU for AFB1, and 32% for total AFs. 19% of the samples of rice and rice products were found positive and 14% were found above the EU maximum content for OTA (5 μg/kg) | [67] |
AFs | 11.9 ± 1.20 | |||||||
OTA | 8.50 ± 0.60 | |||||||
Brown rice | AFB1 | 28 | 8.91 ± 1.20 | |||||
AFs | 12.4 ± 0.98 | |||||||
OTA | 7.84 ± 0.90 | |||||||
Rice flour | AFB1 | 30 | 3.51 ± 1.20 | |||||
AFs | 5.20 ± 0.82 | |||||||
OTA | 4.91 ± 1.53 | |||||||
Sweet puffed Rice balls | AFB1 | 22 | 2.90 ± 0.85 | |||||
AFs | 4.30 ± 1.25 | |||||||
OTA | 3.87 ± 0.75 | |||||||
Rice cookies | AFB1 | 28 | 3.18 ± 0.40 | |||||
AFT | 5.40 ± 0.92 | |||||||
OTA | 3.18 ± 0.60 | |||||||
Rice sweets | AFB1 | 21 | 4.10 ± 1.30 | |||||
AFT | 5.70 ± 0.80 | |||||||
OTA | 5.10 | |||||||
Rice noodles | AFB1 | 20 | 3.60 ± 0.85 | |||||
AFT | 3.60 ± 0.85 | |||||||
OTA | ND | |||||||
Rice bread | AFB1 | 25 | 2.40 ± 0.43 | |||||
AFT | 2.40 ± 0.43 | |||||||
OTA | ND | |||||||
Brown rice | AFT | QuEChERS | Extraction step: Solvent: water and HOAc in ACN (10% v/v) Salts: mixture of anhydrous MgSO4, NaCl, (CH2COONa)2·2H2O and C6H6Na2O7·1.5H2O Centrifugation in order to separate the aqueous phase from the organic phase and then collection of the supernatant for the Purification step: C18 silica sorbent, anhydrous magnesium sulfate, PSA and silica. After centrifugation, the supernatant was collected into a vial. After evaporating the remaining ACN and reconstituting in water with a 1:1 (v/v) ratio of 0.1% (v/v) FA:MeOH, the sample was filtered and collected in the UHPLC-MS/MS vial | 14 | - | N.D | 6 samples were contaminated with one or more mycotoxins. The levels determined were below the maximum limits of EU regulation. | [37] |
OTA | N.D | |||||||
DON | N.D | |||||||
FB1 | 2.49–5.41 | |||||||
FB2 | 4.33 | |||||||
Infant cereals based on rice | AFB1 | SPE | Solvent: ACN:water: FA (80:19.9:0.1 v/v/v) After centrifugation, the supernatant was transferred into an HPLC vial and a [13C] labelled working solution was added. | 20 | March 2012–June 2012 | 1/20 (5.9) | 1 sample exceeded the EU limit for AFB1. | [68] |
AFB2 | 4/20 (1.1–5.0) | |||||||
AFG1 | ND | |||||||
AFG2 | ND | |||||||
DON | 7/20 (1.4–55.0) | |||||||
HT-2 toxin | ND | |||||||
T-2 toxin | 3/20 (1.1–3.6) | |||||||
FB1 | ND | |||||||
FB2 | ND | |||||||
OTA | 2/20 (1.3–1.4) | |||||||
ZEN | 1/20 (9.0) | |||||||
Rice wine | OTA | VADLLME (Vortex-assisted dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction) | After centrifugation, the sample pH was adjusted to 4.0–4.3 using 4M NaOH or HCL solutions. Extraction solvent: dichloromethane Dispersive solvent: ACN The mixture was vortexed. After centrifugation, the sediment phase was evaporated to dryness using a nitrogen stream at 50 °C. The residues were reconstituted in a MeOH/water solution (50:50, v/v) and filtrated through a nylon filter membrane. | 8 | 2016 | 0.20 μg/L (1/8 sample) | The contamination levels did not exceed the maximum residue limit set by EU (2 μg/L) | [69] |
AFs | ND | |||||||
Brown rice | AFB1 | Immunoaffinity column | Sample extract: MeOH:Water (80:20, v/v) with NaCl. After filtration, the solution was diluted in phosphate buffered saline (PBS). IAC: The solution was applied to the IAC at a flow rate of 2–3 mL/min. The column was washed with distilled water, and the sample was eluted with MeOH and diluted with milli Q water | 187 | - | <LOD–0.069 | Less than 14% of the rice samples were contaminated with aflatoxins, but two of the market samples were well above the maximum tolerable limit. | [70] |
AFB2 | <LOD | |||||||
AFG1 | <LOD | |||||||
AFG2 | <LOD | |||||||
AFs | <LOD–0.069 | |||||||
Red rice | AFB1 | <LOD–63.32 | ||||||
AFB2 | <LOD–8.591 | |||||||
AFG1 | <LOD | |||||||
AFG2 | <LOD | |||||||
AFs | <LOD–70.91 | |||||||
Rice | AFs | IAC | Sample extract: Sodium chloride and LC grade MeOH 70%. After filtration, the mixture was diluted in PBS and then filtered again. IAC: elution of the sample with 100% LC grade MeOH and LC grade water | 100 | 2017 | 4,9 (1 sample) | The level is above the legislated levels. | [29] |
DON ZEA | Stable isotope dilution assay | Solvent: ACN:water:FA (80:19.9:0.1 v/v/v). After centrifugation, the supernatant was resuspended in a mobile phase composed by 70% of water:MeOH:acetic acid (94:5:1, v/v/v) and 30% of water:MeOH:acetic acid (2:97:1, v/v/v). | ND (0/100 samples) 15/100 samples (90,56–126,31) | ZEA levels were higher in 36% of the samples, than the current maximum limit established by Brazilian and European regulation | ||||
Rice | AFB1 | QuEChERS | Extraction step: Solvent: ACN Salts: mixture of MgSO4 and NaCl. Centrifugation in order to separate the aqueous phase from the organic phase and then collection of the top organic phase for the Purification step: C18 silica sorbent and magnesium sulfate After centrifugation, the supernatant was collected into a vial. After evaporating the remaining ACN and adding MeOH, the sample was filtered and collected in a new vial. | 47 | April 2013 | Mean: 3.9 (<LOQ–14) | Most samples were contaminated with more than one mycotoxin (8 different mycotoxins were detected in 2 rice samples). Contamination levels higher than the EU limit for AFB1 were found in 42% of rice samples and for Aft in 32% of the same samples. OTA levels were also higher than the regulated from the EU. | [2] |
AFG1 | Mean: 3.3 (<LOQ–17) | |||||||
AFs | Mean: 5.8 (<LOQ–33) | |||||||
OTA | Mean: 6.3 (<LOQ–15) | |||||||
FB1+FB2 | Mean: 6.0 (2.7–13) | |||||||
ZEA | Mean: 6.6 (<LOQ–7.5) | |||||||
Ready to eat rice | DON | QuEChERS | Extraction step: Solvent: ACN Salts: mixture of MgSO4 and NaCl. Purification step: Anhydrous MgSO4 and a C18 silica sorbent. After centrifugation, the extract was filtered using a syringe nylon filter, into the LC-MS/MS vial; For GS-MS/MS the supernatant was evaporated to dryness using a nitrogen flow. | 38 | September 2016–December 2016 | 0.29 | All levels were in accordance with the EU legislation | [71] |
HT-2 toxin | 3.47 | |||||||
T-2 toxin | 0.52 | |||||||
ZEA | 0.13 | |||||||
AFG2 | 0.17 | |||||||
Polished rice Unhusked rice | AFB1 | QuEChERS | Extraction step: Solvent: ACN aqueous solution (95:5, v:v) Salts: anhydrous magnesium sulfate and sodium chloride. Purification step: After vortex and centrifugation, the supernatant was collected and filtered into the LC-MS/MS vial | 78 22 | 2 samples (0.003–0.14) N.D. | The levels of AFB1 were lower than the regulation limit in EU (2 μg/kg) | [12] | |
Polished rice Unhusked rice | AFB1 | QuEChERS | Extraction step: Solvent: ACN aqueous solution (95:5, v:v) Salts: anhydrous magnesium sulfate and sodium chloride. Purification step: After vortex and centrifugation, the supernatant was collected and filtered into the LC-MS/MS vial | 78 22 | - | 2 samples (0.003–0.14) N.D. | The levels of AFB1 were lower than the regulation limit in EU (2 μg/kg) | [12] |
Rice | AFB1 | QuEChERS | Extraction step: Solvent: ACN containing 1% acetic acid Salts: mixture of anhydrous magnesium sulfate and sodium chloride. Purification step: Anhydrous magnesium sulfate and a C18 sorbent. After vortex and centrifugation, the supernatant was collected and filtered into the LC-MS/MS vial | 144 (bulk sample > 0.5 kg) | October 2016–September 2017 | 13/144 samples (ND–93 μg/kg) | The levels of AFB1 were lower than the regulation limit in Vietname (5 μg/kg), but higher than the EU limits (2 μg/kg) | [27] |
FB1 | 3/144 samples (ND–675) | |||||||
OTA | ND | |||||||
ZEA | ND |
Mycotoxins Analyzed | Analytical Technique | Conditions | Analytical Column | LOD and LOQ (μg/kg) | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OTA | LC-FD | Mobile phase: MeOH- FA 0.1M (70:30 v/v) Flow rate: 0.7 mL/min λExcit max: 333 nm and λEmis max: 460 nm | C18 column (150 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) | LOD: 0.05; LOQ: 0.19 | [61] |
AFT (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1 and AFG2) | LC - MS/MS | Mobile phase: A - MeOH; B - water with 0.1% acetic acid; Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 30 °C; Injection volume: 10–0 μL; Flow: 0.25 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Capillary potential: 3 kV; Nebulizing, desolvation and cone gas: nitrogen; Desolvation gas temperature: 400 °C Source temperature: 120 °C; | C18 column (2.1 × 50 mm, 1.9 μm) | LOD: 0.01–25; LOQ: 0.02–40 | [62] |
OTA | |||||
ZEA | |||||
DON | |||||
FB1 | |||||
FB2 | |||||
T2 toxin | |||||
HT-2 toxin | |||||
Aft (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1 and AFG2) | Fluorescence detector | HPLC-FD Mobile phase: MeOH: Water [40:60 v/v] adjusted with 350 μl of 4 M nitric acid and 119 mg of potassium bromide per 1 L of mobile phase. Column temperature: 40 °C; Injection volume: 100 μL; Flow: 1 mL/min; λExcit max = 362 nm, and λEmis max = 426 nm (for AFB1 and AFB2) and λEmis max = 256 nm for AFG1 and AFG2) | Inertsil ODS-3V C18 column (4.6 × 150 mm, 5 μm) | [28] | |
Aft (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1 and AFG2) | Fluorescence detector | HPLC-FD: Mobile phase: Water:ACN:MeOH [65:15:20 v/v/v] degassed for 30 min using vacuum filtration Column temperature: 20 °C; Injection volume: 20 μL; Flow: 1.0 mL/min; λExcit max = 360 nm, and λEmis max = 450 nm | Reverse phase C18 column (4.6 mm × 250 mm, 5 μm) | LOD: 0.4–0.6; LOQ: 1.2–1.9 | [63] |
Total mycotoxins (AF, OTA, T-2 and HT-2 toxins, DON, ZEA, FB1) | LC-ESI-MS/MS | Mobile phase: H2O:MeOH 9:1 with 5 mM ammonium acetate; Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 30 °C; Injection volume: 20 μL; Flow: 0.3 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Ionization mode: Positive; Capillary potential: 2.9 kV; Nebulizing, desolvation and cone gas: nitrogen; Collision gas: argon Cone gas flow: 80 L/h Flow of desolvation gas: 650 L/h; Desolvation gas temperature: 350 °C; Source temperature: 140 °C; | Silica-based reversed-phase C18 Atlantis T3 (150 mm × 2.1 mm × 5 μm) | LOD: 0.11–59.9; LOQ: 0.37–199 | [4] |
AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, AFG2, OTA, DON, ZEA, FB1, FB2, HT2, T2 | UHPLC-MS/MS (micromass quattro premier XE triple- quadrupole mass spectrometer) | Mobile phase: A - 0.5% FA in 5 mM aqueous ammonium formate; B - ACN:MeOH (1:1, v/v) Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 40 °C; Injection volume: 5 μL; Flow: 0.25 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Ionization mode: Positive (except for ZEA) | C18 column (1.7 μm, 100 × 2.1 mm), with a pre-column (1.7 μm, 5 × 2.1 mm) | LOD: 0.5–15; LOQ: 1.7–50 | [64] |
AFB1 | HPLC - ESI - MS/ MS | Column temperature: 25 °C; Nebulizing, desolvation and cone gas: nitrogen; Source temperature: 550 °C | C18 column (5 μm, 30 × 2 mm) | LOD: 0.03–2.5; LOQ: 0.3 | [65] |
AFB2 | LOD: 0.03–2.5; LOQ: 0.6 | ||||
FB1 | LOD: 0.03–2.5; LOQ: 7 | ||||
OTA | LOD: 0.03–2.5 LOQ: 0,6 | ||||
ZEN | LOD: 0.03–2.5; LOQ: 2 | ||||
T-2 toxin | UHPLC-MS/MS | Mobile phase: A - Water with 5 mmol/L ammonium acetate; B - MeOH Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 40 °C; Injection volume: 5 μL; Flow: 0.4 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Ionization mode: Positive; Flow of desolvation gas: 1000 L/h; Flow of cone gas: 30 L/h Desolvation gas temperature: 500 °C Source temperature: 150 °C; | C18 column (100 × 3.0 mm, 2.7 μm) | LOD: 0.01; LOQ: 0.02 | [66] |
HT-2 toxin | LOD: 0.03; LOQ: 0.10 | ||||
Aflatoxins | HPLC-FD | Mobile phase: ACN:MeOH:water [20:20:60 v/v/v] Flow rate: 1 mL/min λExcit max: 360 nm and λEmis max: 440 nm | C18 (4.6 × 250 mm, 5 μm) | AFB1: LOD 0.04; LOQ 0.20; AFB2: LOD 0.10; LOQ 0.30; AFG1: 0.04; LOQ 0.20 AFG2 LOD 0.10; LOQ 0.30 | [67] |
OTA | Mobile phase: ACN:water:acetic acid [47:51:2 v/v/v] Flow rate: 1 mL/min λExcit max = 333 nm and λEmis max = 460 nm | LOD: 0.06; LOQ: 0.18 | |||
Aft (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, AFG2) | HPLC - ESI - MS/ MS | Mobile phase: A - 0.5% (v/v) FA in water containing 5 mM ammonium formate; B - MeOH Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 40 °C; Injection volume: 10 μL; Flow: 0.3 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Ionization mode: Negative and Positive Collision energy: 25 eV Cell accelerator voltage: 3V Capillary voltage: 3 kV; Nozzle voltage: 1000V Gas flow: 16 L/min; Gas temperature: 150 °C | C18 column (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.8 μm) | LOD: 0.27–0.39; LOQ: 0.82–1.2 | [37] |
OTA | LOD: 0.47; LOQ: 1.5 | ||||
DON | LOD: 5.0; LOQ: 15 | ||||
FB1, FB2 | LOD: 0.48; LOQ: 1.5 | ||||
AFB1 | HPLC - ESI - MS/ MS | Mobile phase: A - 0.1% FA in water; B - 0.1% FA in MeOH, both containing 5 mM ammonium formate; Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 35 °C; Flow: 0.3 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Ionization mode: Positive Flow of desolvation gas: 10 L/min; Desolvation gas temperature: 300 °C Nebulizer: 45 psi Sheath gas temperature: 350 °C Flow rate: 11 L/min Capillary voltage: 3500 V; nozzle voltage: 0 V | C18 column (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.8 μm) | LOD: 0.1; LOQ: 0.5 | [68] |
AFB2 | LOD: 0.5; LOQ: 1.0 | ||||
AFG1 | LOD: 0.1; LOQ: 0.5 | ||||
AFG2 | LOD: 0.5; LOQ: 1.0 | ||||
DON | LOD:10.0; LOQ: 50.0 | ||||
HT-2 toxin | LOD: 1.0; LOQ: 5.0 | ||||
T-2 toxin | LOD: 0.05; LOQ: 0.1 | ||||
FB1 | LOD: 5.0; LOQ: 10.0 | ||||
FB2 | LOD: 1.0; LOQ: 5.0 | ||||
OTA | LOD: 0.1; LOQ: 0.5 | ||||
ZEA | N.D. | ||||
AFB1 | HPLC - MS/MS | Mobile phase: A - MeOH; B - water with 0.1% FA Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 40 °C; Injection volume: 5 μL; Flow: 0.3 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Ionization mode: Positive Capillary potential: 4.0 kV; Vaporizer temperature: 300 °C Capillary temperature: 350 °C | C18 column (100 × 3.0 mm, 2.7 μm) | LOD: 0.05; LOQ: 0.1 | [69] |
AFB2 | LOD: 0.05; LOQ: 0.1 | ||||
AFG1 | LOD: 0.1; LOQ: 0.2 | ||||
AFG2 | LOD: 0.05; LOQ: 0.1 | ||||
OTA | LOD: 0.05; LOQ: 0.1 | ||||
AFB1 | HPLC-FD | Mobile phase: water:ACN:MeOH (6:2:3, v/v/v), containing KBr and nitric acid Elution: Gradient; Injection volume: 20 μL; Flow: 1 mL/min; λExcit max = 362 nm and λEmis max = 455 nm (for AFG1 and AFG2) and 425 (for AFB1 and AFB2) | C18 column (4.6 × 150 mm, 5 μm) | LOD: 0.016; LOQ: 0.054 | [70] |
AFB2 | LOD: 0.012; LOQ: 0.039 | ||||
AFG1 | LOD: 0.011; LOQ: 0.038 | ||||
AFG2 | LOD: 0.004; LOQ: 0.012 | ||||
DON | LC-MS/MS | Mobile phase: water:MeOH:ACN (600:200:200, v/v/v) was added to119 mg potassium bromide and 47.6 μL nitric acid Elution: Gradient; Flow: 1 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Ionization mode: Positive Capillary temperature: 208 °C; Vaporizer temperature: 338 °C; Spray voltage: 4500 V; Sheath gas pressure: 60 bar | RP - C18 column (4.6 × 150 mm, 5 μm) | LOD: 0.005; LOQ:0.025 | [29] |
ZEA | LOD: 0.01; LOQ: 0.025 | ||||
AFB1 | UHPLC-MS/MS | Mobile phase: A – 0.1% FA in water; B - MEOH:ACN (1:1 v/v) Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 40 °C; Injection volume: 1 μL; Flow: 0.4 mL/min; Electrospray ionization (ESI); Ionization mode: Positive and negative Capillary potential: 1.5 kV; Flow of desolvation gas: 1000 L/h; Desolvation gas temperature: 500 °C; Source temperature: 150 °C; | C18 column (1.6 μm, 2.1 × 100 mm) | LOD: 0.05; LOQ: 0.25 | [2] |
AFG1 | LOD: 0.12 LOQ: 0.25 | ||||
Aft (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1 and AFG2) | - | ||||
OTA | LOD: 0.25; LOQ: 0.62 | ||||
FB1 + FB2 | LOD: 0.5; LOQ: 1 | ||||
ZEA | LOD: 2.5; LOQ: 5 | ||||
DON | LC-MS/MS | Mobile phase: A - MeOH (5mM ammonium formate and 0.1% FA); B - water (5mM ammonium formate 0.1% FA; Elution: Gradient; Column temperature: 25 °C; Injection volume: 20 μL; Flow: 0.25 mL/min; | Reverse analytical column C18 (3 μm, 150 × 2 mm ID) and a guard column C18 (4 × 2 mm ID, 3 μm) | LOD: 0.04–1.5; LOQ: 0.13–5 | [80] |
HT-2 toxin | |||||
T-2 toxin | |||||
ZEA | |||||
AFG2 | |||||
AFB1 | LC- MS/MS | Mobile phase: A - aqueous FA solution with ammonium formate; B - ACN Elution: Gradient; Injection volume: 5 μL; Ionization: electrospray ionization (ESI) | ShimadzuShim-pack XR-ODS III column | LOD: 0.03 LOQ: 0.5 | [12] |
AFB1 | LC - MS/MS | Mobile phase: A - MeOH; B- ammonium acetate 10 mM Elution: Gradient; ESI mode: positive (for AFB1 and FB1) and negative (for OTA and ZEA) Ionization: electrospray ionization (ESI) | C18 column (4.6 × 150 mm, 2.7 μm) | LOD: 0.1 LOQ: 0.3 | [12] |
FB1 | |||||
OTA | |||||
ZEA | |||||
FB1 | RP-HPLC/ESI-TOFMS | Mobile phase: A – water containing 0.1% (v/v) formic acid; B - MeCN containing 0.1% (v/v) formic acid Flow: 0.2 mL min−1 Column Temperature: 40 °C Elution: Gradient Injection Volume: 1 μL ESI mode: positive ESI parameters: drying gas (N2) flow and temperature, 10.0 L min−1 and 350 °C; nebulizer gas (N2) pressure, 20 psi; capillary voltage, 3500 V; TOFMS parameters: fragmentor voltage, 170 V; skimmer potential: 70 V; OCT 1 RF Vpp: 250 V | ODS H80 (250 mm × 2.1 mm, 4 μm) | - | [81] |
FB1 | RP-HPLC/ESIITMS | Mobile phase: A – water containing 0.1% (v/v) formic acid; B - MeCN containing 0.1% (v/v) formic acid Flow: 0.2 mL min−1 Column Temperature: 40 °C Elution: Gradient Injection Volume: 1 μL ESI mode: positive ESI parameters: spray chamber temperature, 55 °C; drying gas (N2) pressure and temperature, 20 psi and 350 °C, respectively; nebulizer gas (N2) pressure, 60 psi; needle voltage, 4000 V; spray shield voltage, 600 V; general parameters: maximum scan times, 2.71; mscans averaged, 3; data rate, 0.37 Hz; multipier offset, 0; Ionization control parameters: target TIC, 100%; maximum ion time, 500,000 ms MS2 parameters: capillary voltage, 139 V; RF loading, 75%; isolation window, 3 m/z; high mass ejection factor, 100%; waveform type, resonant; excitation storage level, 196.4 m/z; excitation amplitude, 2.83 V; excitation time, 10 ms; RF, modulate; number of frequencies, 1. | ODS H80 (250 mm × 2.1 mm, 4 μm) | - | [81] |
AFB1 | UHPLC/TOFMS | Mobile phase: A - water/ methanol/acetic acid 94:5:1 (v/v/v); B - methanol/water/acetic acid 97:2:1 (v/v/v) Flow rate: 0.2 mL·min−1 ESI mode: positive MS parameters: capillary voltage 6000 V, nebuliser pressure 2 bars, dry gas temperature 200 °C and dry gas flow 7 L min−1 | C18 column (1.8 µm, 2.1 × 100 mm) | LOD:1 LOQ: 2 | [82] |
AFB2 | LOD: 2 LOQ: 3 | ||||
AFB2 | LOD: 1 LOQ:1 | ||||
AFG2 | LOD: 1 LOQ: 3 | ||||
OTA | LOD: 9 LOQ: 18 | ||||
DON | LOD: 24 LOQ: 48 | ||||
FB1 | LOD: 16 LOQ: 32 | ||||
HT — 2 Toxin | LOD: 20 LOQ: 41 | ||||
T-2 Toxin | LOD: 2 LOQ: 5 | ||||
ZEA | LOD: 39 LOQ: 77 | ||||
AFB1 | UHPLC/TOFMS | Mobile phase: A - water/ methanol/acetic acid 94:5:1 (v/v/v); B - methanol/water/acetic acid 97:2:1 (v/v/v) Flow rate: 0.2 mL·min−1 ESI mode: positive MS parameters: capillary voltage 6000 V, nebuliser pressure 2 bars, dry gas temperature 200 °C and dry gas flow 7 L min−1 | C18 column (1.8 µm, 2.1 × 100 mm) | LOD: 4 LOQ: 8 | [82] |
AFB2 | LOD: 4 LOQ: 9 | ||||
AFG1 | LOD: 7 LOQ: 14 | ||||
AFG2 | LOD: 3 LOQ: 5 | ||||
OTA | LOD: 8 LOQ: 17 | ||||
DON | LOD: 29 LOQ: 59 | ||||
FB1 | LOD: 10 LOQ: 19 | ||||
HT -2 Toxin | LOD: 7 LOQ: 15 | ||||
T-2 Toxin | LOD: 6 LOQ: 11 | ||||
ZEA | LOD: 22 LOQ: 45 |
Strengths | Limitations | |
---|---|---|
TQ MS | Highest sensitivity (MRM) Wide dynamic range of detection Lower cost | Low mass resolution |
Q-TOF MS | High mass resolution Wide mass range Medium dynamic range of detection High sensitivity | Low sensitivity than TQ MS MRM mode |
Orbitrap MS | High mass resolving power (up to 200,000) Increased space- charge capacity at higher masses due to the independence of trapping potential and larger trapping volume (in contrast to FTICR and quadrupole traps) High mass accuracy (1–2 ppm) High dynamic range (around 5000) | Expensive |
Date | Country | Origin Country | Product | Mycotoxin | Levels (µg/kg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
22/02/2019 | Italy | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 4.3 |
22/02/2019 | Belgium | Italy | Organic brown rice | OTA | 14.1 |
01/03/2019 | Belgium | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 6.8 |
01/03/2019 | Italy | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 19.9 |
AFs | 21.6 | ||||
22/03/2019 | Austria | Germany | Organic brown rice | AFB1 | 7.1 |
22/05/2019 | France | Italy | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 4.49 |
02/08/2019 | Germany | Netherlands | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 3.60 |
05/09/2019 | Poland | Myanmar | Parboiled brown rice | AFB1 | 4.09 |
24/10/2019 | Portugal | Myanmar | Rice | AFB1 | 19 |
28/11/2019 | Switzerland | Sri Lanka | Roasted red rice flour | AFB1 | 15.6 |
AFs | 19 | ||||
18/12/2019 | Switzerland | Sri Lanka | Roasted red rice flour | AFB1 | 6.8 |
AFs | 8.2 | ||||
27/02/2020 | Switzerland | Sri Lanka | Parboiled rice | AFB1 | 3.4 |
15/06/2020 | Sweden | Cambodia | Organic brown rice | AFB1 | 20.6 |
03/07/2020 | Greece | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 5.6 |
AFs | 5.6 | ||||
07/07/2020 | Greece | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 6.3 |
AFs | 6.3 | ||||
07/07/2020 | Greece | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 6.0 |
AFs | 6.0 | ||||
31/07/2020 | Poland | Pakistan | Long grain brown rice | AFB1 | 6.54 |
AFs | 6.54 | ||||
21/08/2020 | Greece | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 4.6 |
AFs | 4.6 | ||||
21/08/2020 | Switzerland | United Kingdom | Basmati rice | OTA | 8.3 |
01/09/2020 | Switzerland | Sri Lanka | Red rice | AFB1 | 8.9 |
AFs | 11 | ||||
OTA | 10.3 | ||||
15/10/2020 | Germany | India | Basmati rice | OTA | 6.23 |
20/10/2020 | Germany | Pakistan | Organic brown basmati rice | AFB1 | 14.3 |
AFs | 15.4 | ||||
02/12/2020 | Netherlands | India | Brown basmati rice | AFB1 | 24 |
AFs | 27 | ||||
05/01/2021 | Spain | Pakistan | White rice | AFB1 | 2.2–3.1 |
21/01/2021 | Spain | Pakistan | White rice | AFB1 | 3 |
22/01/2021 | Greece | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 3.1 |
28/01/2021 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Organic brown basmati rice | OTA | 11.2 |
04/03/2021 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Organic brown basmati rice | AFB1 | 9.1 |
17/03/2021 | Germany | Netherlands | Basmati rice | OTA | 5.26 |
27/04/2021 | Germany | Netherlands | Rice flour | AFB1 | 5.7 ± 2.5 |
27/05/2021 | Germany | India | Basmati rice | OTA | 4.94 ± 0.41 |
06/08/2021 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Brown rice | AFB1 | 44 |
AFs | 49 | ||||
10/08/2021 | Belgium | Pakistan | Broken rice | AFB1 | 8.6 |
27/08/2021 | Belgium | Pakistan | White broken rice | AFB1 | 8.6 |
14/12/2021 | Switzerland | Sri Lanka | Rice | AFB1 | 6.3 ± 1.07 |
AFs | 6.59 ± 1.32 | ||||
16/12/2021 | Germany | Pakistan | Basmati Rice | AFB1 | 3.96 ± 1.60 |
06/01/2022 | Belgium | Pakistan | Rice bran | AFB1 | 4.15 |
07/02/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Basmati Rice | AFB1 | 13 |
AFs | 15 | ||||
14/02/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Golden sun basmati rice | AFB1 | 5 |
17/02/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 4.2 |
17/02/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 7 |
22/02/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 7 |
22/02/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Basmati rice | OTA | 12 |
23/02/2022 | Netherlands | India | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 4.2 |
23/02/2022 | Netherlands | India | Basmati rice | OTA | 6.8 |
AFB1 | 3.1 | ||||
25/02/2022 | Netherlands | India | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 3.2 |
25/02/2022 | Netherlands | India | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 3.4 |
28/02/2022 | Belgium | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 5.3 |
AFs | 6.5 | ||||
02/03/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 7.3 |
10/03/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice (husked rice) | AFB1 | 11 |
AFs | 11 | ||||
10/03/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 9.7 |
AFs | 9.7 | ||||
11/03/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice (husked rice) | AFB1 | 4.7 |
11/03/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice (husked rice) | AFB1 | 14 |
AFs | 14 | ||||
14/03/2022 | Italy | India | Basmati rice | AFs | 4.9 ± 2.0 |
14/03/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super kernel basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 5.6 |
15/03/2022 | Italy | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 4.6 ± 2.0 |
15/03/2022 | Italy | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 7.2 ± 3.2 * |
AFS | 7.9 ± 3.2 * | ||||
24/03/2022 | Greece | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 10.7 ± 2.1 |
AFs | 10.7 ± 2.1 | ||||
29/03/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 10 |
AFs | 10 | ||||
29/03/2022 | Cyprus | India | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 5.82 |
31/03/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 12 |
AFs | 13 | ||||
07/04/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 24 |
AFs | 26 | ||||
07/04/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 15 |
AFs | 16 | ||||
07/04/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 19 |
AFs | 20 | ||||
13/04/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice (husked rice) | AFB1 | 18 |
AFs | 20 | ||||
15/04/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super kernel basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 8 |
15/04/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 5.1 |
19/04/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 11 |
27/04/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 9.1 |
AFs | 9.1 | ||||
03/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 6.8 |
03/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super kernel basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 7.2 |
04/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 8.5 |
AFs | 8.5 | ||||
12/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Basmati brown rice (husked rice) | AFB1 | 11 |
AFs | 11 | ||||
12/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice (husked rice) | AFB1 | 5.1 |
12/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice (husked rice) | AFB1 | 4.7 |
12/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice (husked rice) | AFB1 | 48 |
AFs | 53 | ||||
12/05/2022 | Ireland | India | Basmati rice | OTA | 6.3 ± 0.2 |
18/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 23 |
AFs | 25 | ||||
20/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Husked brown rice | AFB1 | 8.2 |
AFs | 8.2 | ||||
20/05/2022 | Cyprus | India | Basmati rice | OTA | 16.5 |
27/05/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Super basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 7.1 |
01/06/2022 | Spain | Pakistan | Basmati rice | AFB1 | 5.6 ± 24.2% |
AFs | 5.6 ± 24.2% | ||||
20/06/2022 | Slovenia | Pakistan | Basmati brown rice | AFB1 | 13.2 ± 2 |
AFs | 14 ± 2 | ||||
30/06/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 7.1 |
01/07/2022 | Netherlands | Pakistan | Rice | AFB1 | 4.7 |
04/07/2022 | Netherlands | India | Rice | OTA | 6.4 |
06/07/2022 | Netherlands | India | Rice | OTA | 9.2 |
Physical Decontamination | Chemical Decontamination | Biological Decontamination | |
---|---|---|---|
Examples | Sorting Sieve cleaning Density segregation Washing De-hulling Steeping Extrusion cooking Steam heating Infrared heating Microwave heating Radio frequency heating Irradiation Cold plasma Photocatalytic detoxification | Organic acids Hydrochloric acid Ammonium hydroxide Hydrogen peroxide Sodium bisulphite Chlorinating agents Ozone Formaldehyde Natural substances such as herbs, spices, and their extracts | Bacteria Yeasts Mold Algae |
Advantages | Effective against some mycotoxins Low change in food properties Does not involve usage of chemicals | Effective against some mycotoxins Affordable | Effective against some mycotoxins Inexpensive Environment friendly Does not involve usage of chemicals |
Disadvantages | Impractical Might be limited to large-scale industries with sophisticated equipment Time-consuming Expensive In case of thermal treatment possible changes in color and food quality | Possible health effects Formation of toxic byproducts Enhancing bioavailability of masked mycotoxins Time consuming Environmentally toxic | Time consuming Impractical More effective in controlled laboratory settings |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Santos, A.R.; Carreiró, F.; Freitas, A.; Barros, S.; Brites, C.; Ramos, F.; Sanches Silva, A. Mycotoxins Contamination in Rice: Analytical Methods, Occurrence and Detoxification Strategies. Toxins 2022, 14, 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14090647
Santos AR, Carreiró F, Freitas A, Barros S, Brites C, Ramos F, Sanches Silva A. Mycotoxins Contamination in Rice: Analytical Methods, Occurrence and Detoxification Strategies. Toxins. 2022; 14(9):647. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14090647
Chicago/Turabian StyleSantos, Ana Rita, Filipa Carreiró, Andreia Freitas, Sílvia Barros, Carla Brites, Fernando Ramos, and Ana Sanches Silva. 2022. "Mycotoxins Contamination in Rice: Analytical Methods, Occurrence and Detoxification Strategies" Toxins 14, no. 9: 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14090647