Evaluating Methods for Aflatoxin B1 Monitoring in Selected Food Crops Within Decentralized Agricultural Systems.

IF 4 3区 医学 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Toxins Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.3390/toxins17010037
Haadia Tanveer, Hannah Glesener, Blake Su, Brooke Bolsinger, Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, Lee E Voth-Gaeddert
{"title":"Evaluating Methods for Aflatoxin B1 Monitoring in Selected Food Crops Within Decentralized Agricultural Systems.","authors":"Haadia Tanveer, Hannah Glesener, Blake Su, Brooke Bolsinger, Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, Lee E Voth-Gaeddert","doi":"10.3390/toxins17010037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) contamination of food crops pose severe public health risks, particularly in decentralized agricultural systems common in low-resource settings. Effective monitoring tools are critical for mitigating exposure, but their adoption is limited by barriers such as cost, infrastructure, and technical expertise. The objectives of this study were: (1) to evaluate common AFB1 detection methods, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and lateral-flow assays (LFA), validated via high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), focusing on their suitability for possible applications in decentralized, low-resource settings; and (2) to conduct a barriers-to-use assessment for commonly available AFB1 detection methods and their applicability in low-resource settings. Among four ELISA kits, the AgraQuant Aflatoxin B1 2/50 ELISA Kit demonstrated the highest accuracy and precision, reliably quantifying AFB1 in maize and tortillas across 5-150 ppb with minimal cross-reactivity. For LFA, a smartphone-based algorithm achieved a high presence/absence accuracy rate of 84% but struggled with concentration prediction. The barriers-to-use analysis highlighted the practicality of low-cost tools like moisture readers for field screening but underscored their qualitative limitations. Advanced methods like HPLC and LC-MS offer greater precision but remain impractical due to their high costs and infrastructure requirements, suggesting a potential role for adapted ELISA or LFA methods as confirmatory approaches. These findings support the development of multi-tiered frameworks integrating affordable field tools with regional or centralized confirmatory testing. Addressing systemic barriers through capacity building, partnerships, and improved logistics will enhance AFB1 monitoring in decentralized systems, protecting public health in vulnerable communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":23119,"journal":{"name":"Toxins","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769523/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxins","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins17010037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) contamination of food crops pose severe public health risks, particularly in decentralized agricultural systems common in low-resource settings. Effective monitoring tools are critical for mitigating exposure, but their adoption is limited by barriers such as cost, infrastructure, and technical expertise. The objectives of this study were: (1) to evaluate common AFB1 detection methods, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and lateral-flow assays (LFA), validated via high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), focusing on their suitability for possible applications in decentralized, low-resource settings; and (2) to conduct a barriers-to-use assessment for commonly available AFB1 detection methods and their applicability in low-resource settings. Among four ELISA kits, the AgraQuant Aflatoxin B1 2/50 ELISA Kit demonstrated the highest accuracy and precision, reliably quantifying AFB1 in maize and tortillas across 5-150 ppb with minimal cross-reactivity. For LFA, a smartphone-based algorithm achieved a high presence/absence accuracy rate of 84% but struggled with concentration prediction. The barriers-to-use analysis highlighted the practicality of low-cost tools like moisture readers for field screening but underscored their qualitative limitations. Advanced methods like HPLC and LC-MS offer greater precision but remain impractical due to their high costs and infrastructure requirements, suggesting a potential role for adapted ELISA or LFA methods as confirmatory approaches. These findings support the development of multi-tiered frameworks integrating affordable field tools with regional or centralized confirmatory testing. Addressing systemic barriers through capacity building, partnerships, and improved logistics will enhance AFB1 monitoring in decentralized systems, protecting public health in vulnerable communities.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分散农业系统中选定粮食作物黄曲霉毒素B1监测评价方法
粮食作物的黄曲霉毒素B1 (AFB1)污染构成严重的公共卫生风险,特别是在资源匮乏地区常见的分散农业系统中。有效的监测工具对于减少暴露至关重要,但它们的采用受到成本、基础设施和技术专长等障碍的限制。本研究的目的是:(1)评估常用的AFB1检测方法,包括酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)和侧流法(LFA),通过高效液相色谱法(HPLC)验证,重点关注它们在分散、低资源环境下可能应用的适用性;(2)对常用的AFB1检测方法及其在低资源环境中的适用性进行使用障碍评估。在4个ELISA试剂盒中,AgraQuant黄曲霉毒素B1 2/50 ELISA试剂盒具有最高的准确性和精密度,可在5-150 ppb范围内可靠地定量玉米和玉米饼中的AFB1,且交叉反应性最小。对于LFA,基于智能手机的算法实现了84%的存在/缺席准确率,但在浓度预测方面存在问题。使用障碍分析强调了低成本工具的实用性,如用于现场筛选的水分读取器,但也强调了它们在定性上的局限性。像HPLC和LC-MS这样的先进方法提供了更高的精度,但由于其高成本和基础设施要求,仍然不切实际,这表明ELISA或LFA方法作为验证方法的潜在作用。这些发现支持多层框架的开发,将负担得起的现场工具与区域或集中的验证性测试相结合。通过能力建设、伙伴关系和改善后勤来解决系统性障碍,将加强分散系统中的AFB1监测,保护脆弱社区的公共卫生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Toxins
Toxins TOXICOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
765
审稿时长
16.24 days
期刊介绍: Toxins (ISSN 2072-6651) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal which provides an advanced forum for studies related to toxins and toxinology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
期刊最新文献
Gut Epithelium of the Highly Toxic Ribbon Worm Cephalothrix cf. simula (Palaeonemertea, Nemertea) Contains Tetrodotoxin-Positive Bacterial Endosymbionts. Therapeutic Effects of Single and Combined Anti-Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) Drugs in a Rat Venom-Induced Consumption Coagulopathy (VICC) Model Using Yamakagashi (Rhabdophis tigrinus) Venom. Occurrence, Distribution Characteristics, Risk Assessment, and Climatic Drivers of Type B Trichothecenes and Their Transformation Products in Major Wheat-Producing Areas of China. Human Organoids and Organ-on-Chip for Biotoxin Assessment: Applications, Best Practices, and a Translational Roadmap. Early Use of Botulinum Toxin in Post-Stroke Spasticity Has the Potential to Prevent Post-Stroke Upper Limb Pain-A Secondary Analysis of the EUBoSS Randomised Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1