Levels of aflatoxin M1 in milk, cheese consumed in Kuwait and occurrence of total aflatoxin in local and imported animal feed

Dashti, Basma; Al-Hamli, Sarah; Alomirah, Husam; Al‐Zenki, Sameer; Abbas, Ali Bu; Sawaya, W. N.

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.01.001

Cited by 108 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference in contamination levels between processed and raw milk samples was statistically significant, (P < 0.0001). Many other researchers have reported the occurrence of high levels of AFM1 in numerous countries that exceeded maximum allowed limits in milk [7] [17]- [22]. A more recent study in the Greater Addis Ababa reported a high incidence of AFM1 in milk where over 90% of the milk samples contained aflatoxin M1 levels exceeding the European Union limit of 0.05 μg/l [23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is the most common and toxic one and has been reported as the most powerful natural carcinogen in human and animals [5] [6]. Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) or milk toxin is a hydroxylated metabolite of aflatoxin B1 and is secreted in milk of dairy cattle after consumption of feed contaminated with aflatoxin B1 [7] [8]. Studies have shown that AFM1 could quickly appear (within 12 hour) after ingestion of AFB1 by lactating cows [9] and its concentration decreased gradually to under the limit of detection within 72 h after removal of AFB1 contaminated feeds [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aflatoxin M1 Contamination of Milk and Its Products in Bomet County, Kenya

Langat¹,

Tetsuhiro²,

Gonoi³

et al. 2016

AiM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) is a major carcinogenic compound that may be found in milk and dairy products resulting from ingestion of aflatoxin B1 by dairy animals. The study aimed at determining the level of aflatoxin M1 in milk and milk products from Bomet County. A total of 185 samples (150 raw milk and 35 processed milk and milk products) were randomly collected from milk collection sites and randomly selected milk kiosks respectively. The AFM1 was analyzed using a commercial ELISA kit (Ridascreen, aflatoxin M1 R-Biopharm, Product code, R5812, Darmstadt, Germany). Out of 185 samples investigated, 156 samples were positive for AFM1, an overall contamination rate of 84.32%. The samples with levels higher than the tolerance limit of 0.05 μg/l recommended by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) limits were 43.8% mainly contributed by the raw milk compared to processed milk (52.0% versus 8.6%). Processed milk had insignificant level of contamination with aflatoxin M1 (Median 0.00 (IQR: 0.00, 0.00 μg/l) with a minimum of 0.00 μg/l and a maximum of 0.69 μg/l. Raw milk showed significant contamination, median 0.09 (IQR: 0.00, 0.50) μg/l with a minimum of 0.00 μg/l and a maximum of 2.93 μg/l. Although there was no significant differences in AFM1 levels with study sites (P = 0.217); the median levels of aflatoxin M1 was high in sites 1, 3, and 7. The sites that had median aflatoxin M1 levels below the WHO/FAO acceptable limits of 0.05 μg/l were sites 2, 4 and 6. Due to high incidence of AFM1 contamination of milk and milk samples in Bomet County, there is need for regular monitoring and regulation of AFM1 contamination in milk and its products in the County. G. Langat et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aflatoxin M1 Contamination of Milk and Its Products in Bomet County, Kenya

Langat¹,

Tetsuhiro²,

Gonoi³

et al. 2016

AiM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, results on the level and incidence of AFM1 contamination are highly variable. Some authors found very low contamination levels and a great incidence of negative samples (Amer & Ibrahim, 2010;Dashti et al, 2009;Montagna et al, 2008;Er et al, 2010). On the contrary, other authors, who use the same analytical method and even analysed samples coming from the same country found a much larger incidence of positive samples and generally a much higher level of contamination (Tekinsen & Eken, 2008;Yapar et al, 2008;Ardic et al, 2009).…”

Section: Survey Studies From 2006 To Datementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, sample manipulation often involves the use of hazardous chemicals and laboratory equipment (centrifuge, evaporation systems, etc). As a typical example, the extraction protocol required before measuring the target toxin by means of the Ridascreen ELISA kit (R-Biopharm, Germany), which is the most widely used in AFM1 monitoring in cheese (Tekinsen & Eken, 2008;Colak, 2007;Dashti et al, 2009;Amer & Ibrahim, 2010;Sarimehmetoglu et al, 2004;Lopez et al, 2001;Virdis et al, 2008;Yapar et al, 2008;Ardic et al, 2009;Gurbay et al, 2006;Fallah et al, 2009), consists of the following procedures:…”

Section: Extraction Of Afm1 From Cheese Samples To Be Analysed By Rapmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the establishment of admissible limits for aflatoxin B1 in feed and of very severe MRLs in milk are judged to be sufficient to protect consumers from risk due to aflatoxin intake. On the other hand, specific maximum admissible levels for AFM1 in cheese have been set up in some countries and are summarised in Table 1 (Creppy, 2002;Italian Health Department, 2004;Dashti et al, 2009;Amer & Ibrahim, 2010;Sarımehmetoglu et al, 2004). The majority of countries which established a limit fixed it at 250 ng/kg, which corresponds to the assumption that cheese is made with milk which complies to regulations (i.e: contaminated at a level below 50 ng/kg) and that AFM1 concentration could rise up to 5-fold due to dehydration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation