Occurrence of Aflatoxin M1 in Dairy Products

Anfossi, Laura; Baggiani, Claudio; Giovannoli, Cristina; Giraudi, Gianfranco

doi:10.5772/22724

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1993) classified AFM 1 as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). For this reason, many countries have set limits for AFM 1 in milk, cheese, and baby food (e.g., 500 ng/kg) (Anfossi, Baggiani, Giovannoli, & Giraudi, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of aflatoxin M1 and M2 in commercial dairy products using high-performance liquid chromatography with a fluorescence detector

Lee

2015

Food Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of aflatoxin M1 and M2 in commercial dairy products using high-performance liquid chromatography with a fluorescence detector

Lee

2015

Food Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…50 ng/kg) (Commission Regulation EU No 165/2010). Aflatoxin is a toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic mycotoxin produced by the fungal species Aspergillus, typically contaminating a wide range of agricultural products including grains, meat and dairy products (Anfossi et al, 2011). Aflatoxin exists in four major forms: B1, B2, G1 and G2 with AFB1 being the most common and most toxic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dairy cow model to assess aflatoxin transmission from feed into milk – Evaluating efficacy of the mycotoxin binder Mycosorb®

Moran¹,

Kettunen²,

Yiannikouris³

et al. 2013

J. appl. anim. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dairy cow model was established to measure the transmission of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) into milk. Four Ayrshire mid-lactation dairy cows (ranging 590 -650 kg body weight and averaging 4.5 years of age) were used in a crossover experimental design in which each cow acted as its own control and was subjected to four dietary treatments administered as six 12-day feeding periods followed by a 7-day washout period. Periods I -VI comprised a 7 d of adaptation followed by 5 d of sampling. Period VII was a 7-d washout with sampling in the final two days. From each morning's milking, yield was recorded and sampled for AFM1 analysis by HPLC. Treatments included a negative control, contamination with AFB1 (5 µg of AFB1/ kg feed), AFB1 + Mycosorb ® (MTB) 10 g/cow/d, and AFB1 + MTB 50 g/cow/d. In response to the negative control, AFM1 concentrations in milk remained below the limit of detection (<5 ng/kg), whereas cows fed the AFB1-contaminated feed had milk AFM1 concentrations ranging from 110 to 230 ng/kg. At the end of the washout period, AFM1 was again undetectable. The dairy cow model was also used to test the efficacy of the yeast-cell-wall-based mycotoxin binder Mycosorb ® (MTB) in reducing secretion of AFM1 into milk by cows fed the same AFB1-contaminated diet. When supplemented at 50 g/head/day, MTB significantly reduced (P < 0.05) AFM1 secretion into milk with no adverse effects on milk production. The dairy cow model is a sensitive tool for measuring aflatoxin transmission to milk and mycotoxin binder efficacy at 5 µg of AFB1/kg feed. As it is common for on-farm AFB1 concentrations to exceed 5 µg/kg, more research may be warranted to determine the effectiveness of the model at higher AFB1 concentrations.

show abstract

“…Gold nanoparticles are often preferred (Seydack, 2005;Anfossi et al, 2011), but other materials such as colloidal carbon (Blažková et al, 2009(Blažková et al, , 2010(Blažková et al, , 2011Koets et al, 2006;Lönnberg et al, 2008;Noguera et al, 2011;OKeeffe et al, 2003), latex particles (Campbell et al, 2007) or quantum dots (Zou et al, 2010) and enzymes (Mirasoli et al, 2012) are also employed. In a survey performed by Gordon and Michel (2008) for sensitivities of labels that are used in lateral flow assays, carbon nanoparticles were ranked above gold and latex nanoparticles.…”

Section: Immunochromatographic Assay Principlementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Even though ELISA certainly is one of the most widespread and popular kind of immunoassays, immunochromatographic assays are better suited for on-site rapid applications. The large number of scientific publications in the diagnostic (Andreo et al, 2006;Mens et al, 2008), medical (Lin et al, 2008;Omidfar et al, 2012;Yang et al, 2011), veterinary (Noguera et al, 2011), drug of abuse (Gandhi et al, 2009), environmental (Blažková et al, 2009;Kim et al, 2003;Zhou et al, 2010), and food safety areas (Anfossi et al, 2011;Aldus et al, 2003;Tang et al, 2009;Zhang et al, 2011;Zhou et al, 2009), well illustrates the prominent position that immunochromatographic methods have attained in the analytical field as portable point-ofcare devices in recent years (Posthuma-Trumpie et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Development of an immunochromatographic assay based on carbon nanoparticles for the determination of the phytoregulator forchlorfenuron

Suárez-Pantaleón

Wichers

Abad‐Somovilla

et al. 2013

Biosensors and Bioelectronics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occurrence of Aflatoxin M1 in Dairy Products

Cited by 19 publications

References 57 publications

Analysis of aflatoxin M1 and M2 in commercial dairy products using high-performance liquid chromatography with a fluorescence detector

Analysis of aflatoxin M1 and M2 in commercial dairy products using high-performance liquid chromatography with a fluorescence detector

A dairy cow model to assess aflatoxin transmission from feed into milk – Evaluating efficacy of the mycotoxin binder Mycosorb®

Development of an immunochromatographic assay based on carbon nanoparticles for the determination of the phytoregulator forchlorfenuron

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About