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

IF 3.9 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":3.9000,"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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信