Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
Monitoring, control, and prevention of occurrence of mycotoxins in agricultural raw
materials, food, and feed represent an important task related to quality and safety of the
technological production of food and feed and to human health. With increasing number
of mycotoxins of interest, there is an ongoing need for developing rapid and robust
analytical strategies for analysis of these hazardous compounds in a wide range of
matrices. Both instrumental (LC
MS-based techniques) and immunochemical methods
(ELISA, LFD, SRM, etc.) can ful
-
ll requirements for detectability, selectivity, and
throughput. These techniques ensure accurate and reliable data applicable for further
food/feed risk assessments. Both types of procedures have their advantages and
disadvantages. Generally speaking, the application of sophisticated UHPLC
MS/MS
instrumentation is a cutting-edge methodology for the simultaneous multimycotoxin
analysis in a wide range of matrices. Considering the sensitivity of MS coupled with
rapid and simple sample preparation of dilute-and-shoot or QuEChERS strategies, this
combination enables development of screening methods for rapid monitoring (several
minutes) of a wide range of contaminants. On the other hand, the noninvasive and easy-
to-handle methods such as immunoassays, dipsticks, and biosensors offer much less
costly but still suf
-
ciently accurate strategies, which are also able to determine
mycotoxins in a relatively short time. Moreover, these approaches can potentially be
used on-site in industrial or agricultural settings. In the case of MS-based techniques,
future trends and challenges can be seen in the incorporation of HR-MS instrumentation
into routine determination of mycotoxins and, in the case of immuno-based methods, in
the increase in the number of matrices and target mycotoxin combinations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
M.V. and L.V. acknowledge the support by an appointment to the Research
Participation Program at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition admin-
istered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency
agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. The authors wish to thank Timothy H. Begley and Jeanne I. Rader for
their helpful discussions and comments.
REFERENCES
1. Bennett, J.W.; Klich, M. Mycotoxins.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
2003
, 16, 497-516.
2. Murphy, P.A.; Hendrich, S.; Landgren, C.; Bryant, C.M. Food mycotoxins: an update.
J.
Food Sci.
2006
, 71, R51-R65.
3. Magan, N.; Aldred, D. Post-harvest control strategies: minimizing mycotoxins in the food
chain.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
2007
, 119, 131-139.
4. Rahmani, A.; Jinap, S.; Soleimany, F. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of mycotox-
ins.
Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.
2009
, 8, 202-251.
