Use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to screen for aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, and deoxynivalenol in dry pet foods

Abstract

The objective of this study was to perform a market survey on dry pet foods using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect total aflatoxins (AFs), ochratoxin A (OTA), and deoxynivalenol (DON). Pet food products (n = 58) marketed for dogs, cats, birds, and rabbits were tested in duplicate with ELISA, and results above the limit of quantitation were confirmed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). OTA was detected in one product (rabbit food) and AFs were detected in two products (one dog treat and one bird treat). In contrast, DON was detected in the majority (74%) of products tested. Bird and rabbit products were the most affected by DON, with levels above 0.5 μg/g in 50 and 80% of samples, respectively. One rabbit sample tested positive for both OTA and DON. Overall, the findings of this study revealed a low incidence of AFs and OTA in commercial pet food. Although DON was detected in numerous products, the levels were well below those associated with acute toxic effects.

Alimentary Risk of Mycotoxins for Humans and Animals

“…The problem may be chronic exposure to mycotoxins and their modified forms. The results of the research by Okuma et al [107] revealed a low prevalence of AF and OTA in commercial pet foods. Although DON has been detected in many trials, its levels were well below those likely to cause acute toxic effects.…”

Improved Sample Selection and Preparation Methods for Sampling Plans Used to Facilitate Rapid and Reliable Estimation of Aflatoxin in Chicken Feed

“…One disadvantage of ELISAs is susceptibility to matrix effects, causing the reported analyte level to be falsely elevated or depressed. We used an ELISA method designed to be resistant to matrix interferences and which was previously validated to test disparate sample types, such as pet food [44], sorghum [45], maize [46], nuts, spices and many others [47]. Lack of requirement for sample clean-up and specialized equipment, skilled personnel for quantification by ELISA together with improved upstream sample handling procedures described herein, combined with high throughput (42 samples per run), guarantee rapid and reliable estimation of aflatoxin in complex and amorphous matrices such as animal feed.…”

Application of DNA‐fueled molecular machines in food safety testing

“…Consequently, food safety testing is necessary, usually achieved using chromatography, spectroscopy‐based technologies, and biotechnologies. Chromatography includes gas chromatography (Giri et al., 2015; Huertas‐Pérez et al., 2018; Omeje et al., 2021), high‐performance liquid chromatography (Esteki et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022), thin‐layer chromatography, and immunoaffinity chromatography (Carvalho et al., 2012; Castegnaro et al., 2006; Santos & Vargas, 2002); spectroscopy‐based technologies include Raman spectroscopy (Kashif et al., 2021; Li & Church, 2014; Neng et al., 2020; Nilghaz et al., 2022), infrared spectroscopy (Jiménez‐Carvelo et al., 2021; Levasseur‐Garcia, 2018; Qu et al., 2015), fluorescence spectroscopy (Ahmad et al., 2017; Bartolic et al., 2022; Fan & Su, 2022); biotechnologies including enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (Lin et al., 2021; Okuma et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2022), PCR technology (Hunt et al., 2018), and biochips. However, the development of the abovementioned food safety testing technologies is largely limited by the dependence on complicated pretreatment of samples, a low limit of detection (LOD), large errors in testing results due to insensitivity to reactions, and a relatively long reaction period.…”