An Interlaboratory Comparison Study of Regulated and Emerging Mycotoxins Using Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry: Challenges and Future Directions of Routine Multi-Mycotoxin Analysis including Emerging Mycotoxins

Abstract

The present interlaboratory comparison study involved nine laboratories located throughout the world that tested for 24 regulated and non-regulated mycotoxins by applying their in-house LC-MS/MS multi-toxin method to 10 individual lots of 4 matrix commodities, including complex chicken and swine feed, soy and corn gluten. In total, more than 6000 data points were collected and analyzed statistically by calculating a consensus value in combination with a target standard deviation following a modified Horwitz equation. The performance of each participant was evaluated by a z-score assessment with a satisfying range of ± 2, leading to an overall success rate of 70% for all tested compounds. Equal performance for both regulated and emerging mycotoxins indicates that participating routine laboratories have successfully expanded their analytical portfolio in view of potentially new regulations. In addition, the study design proved to be fit for the purpose of providing future certified reference materials, which surpass current analyte matrix combinations and exceed the typical scope of the regulatory framework.

Developments in mycotoxin analysis: an update for 2021-22

“…A big benefit of the study is emphasising the need for matrixbased CRMs for a broad range of mycotoxins, as well as on production of [ 13 C]-labelled standards for emerging mycotoxins. The data demonstrated significant benefits for laboratories that applied internal standards for analysis of regulated mycotoxins, suggesting this as the most effective way to compensate for matrix effects (Steiner et al, 2022).…”

“…Another study of Steiner et al (2022) devoted to quality assurance in multi-mycotoxin analysis provides an interlaboratory comparison, and identifies new challenges and future directions of routine analysis of multiple mycotoxins, including the emerging ones. This study involved altogether 24 mycotoxins: NIV, DON, deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside (DON-3G), 3-acetyldeoxynivalenol (3-ADON), 3-acetyl-deoxynivalenol (15-ADON), HT-2, T-2, ZEN, OTA, ochratoxin B (OTB), fumonisin B 1 (FB 1 ), fumonisin B 2 (FB 2 ), fumonisin B 3 (FB 3 ), aflatoxin B 1 (AFB 1 ), aflatoxin B 2 (AFB 2 ), aflatoxin G 1 (AFG 1 ), aflatoxin G 2 (AFG 2 ), enniatin A, enniatin A1, enniatin B, enniatin B1, beauvericin (BEA), alternariol (AOH), moniliformin (MON), four matrix commodities (complex chicken and swine feed, soy, and maize gluten), and nine laboratories located in USA, China, and Europe.…”

Recent advances in immunoassay-based mycotoxin analysis and toxicogenomic technologies

“…It is worth noting that the golden standard of validations and certified reference materials are necessary for the process of method validation. Besides, interlaboratory studies and comparisons could assist in identifying possible analytical issues with mycotoxin analysis [ 76 ].…”

Introduction to This Special Issue of Toxins: Reduction and Control of Mycotoxins along Entire Food and Feed Chain

“…In order to provide accurate and reliable data, all laboratories involved in the control of mycotoxins participate in the interlaboratory ring trials. A study published by Steiner et al [ 11 ] summarizes the outcome of one voluntary interlaboratory study focused not only on regulated mycotoxins but also so-called emerging mycotoxins recommended for monitoring.…”