Validation of a lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid determination of aflatoxins in maize by solvent free extraction

Lattanzio, Veronica M.T.; Guarducci, Natascia; Powers, Stephen; Ciasca, Biancamaria; Pascale, Michelangelo; Holst, Christoph von

doi:10.1039/c7ay02249b

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This aspect has been underestimated in most publications regarding the development and application of new LFIAs. While one might think that this aspect should only concern manufacturers, it is undeniable that the researchers’ community can be a fundamental and ground-breaking support to draw up or to test validation protocols as shown by the interesting and pioneering studies of Lattanzio et al [ 277 , 278 , 279 , 280 , 281 ] and by a few other researchers [ 282 , 283 ]. In this regard, very recently, Bheemavarapu et al proposed a promising tool for the quality assessment of LFIA strips batches and to assure a robust validation of the test itself through an image processing-based algorithms to evaluate sample flow abnormalities or membrane irregularities [ 284 ].…”

Section: Evergreen and New Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Years of Lateral Flow Immunoassay Technique Applications: Trends, Challenges and Future Perspectives

Nardo

Chiarello

Cavalera

et al. 2021

Sensors

236

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Lateral Flow Immunoassay (LFIA) is by far one of the most successful analytical platforms to perform the on-site detection of target substances. LFIA can be considered as a sort of lab-in-a-hand and, together with other point-of-need tests, has represented a paradigm shift from sample-to-lab to lab-to-sample aiming to improve decision making and turnaround time. The features of LFIAs made them a very attractive tool in clinical diagnostic where they can improve patient care by enabling more prompt diagnosis and treatment decisions. The rapidity, simplicity, relative cost-effectiveness, and the possibility to be used by nonskilled personnel contributed to the wide acceptance of LFIAs. As a consequence, from the detection of molecules, organisms, and (bio)markers for clinical purposes, the LFIA application has been rapidly extended to other fields, including food and feed safety, veterinary medicine, environmental control, and many others. This review aims to provide readers with a 10-years overview of applications, outlining the trends for the main application fields and the relative compounded annual growth rates. Moreover, future perspectives and challenges are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Evergreen and New Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Years of Lateral Flow Immunoassay Technique Applications: Trends, Challenges and Future Perspectives

Nardo

Chiarello

Cavalera

et al. 2021

Sensors

236

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Variability in development time may lead to higher RSD r and RSD ip than expected when running under routine conditions. The RSD ip of the previously performed validation study was 29% [ 18 ] and, therefore, higher compared to the training course ( Table 3 ). However, obvious differences of the experimental design used, such as the inclusion of the between day and between matrix factors in the previous validation study, as additional error sources do not apply, since the RSDs for repeatability were quite different ( Table 3 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evaluation of Mycotoxin Screening Tests in a Verification Study Involving First Time Users

Lattanzio

Holst

Lippolis

et al. 2019

Toxins

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(AFB1) in maize and wheat using LFD and LC-HRMS, respectively. The results of analyses were used to calculate intermediate precision (RSDip, covering the inter-analyst variability in preparing the analytical samples and the precision under repeatability conditions) cut-off values and false suspect rates. RSDip ranged from 6.5% to 30% for DON, and from 16% to 33% for AFB1. The highest obtained variances were associated with the AFB1 analyses due to working with much lower mass fractions. The rate of false suspect results were lower than 0.1% for all tested methods. All methods showed a fit-for-purpose method performance profile, which allowed a clear distinction of samples containing the analytes at the screening target concentration (STC) from negative control samples. Moreover, the first time users obtained method performances similar to those obtained for validation studies previously performed on the screening methods included in the training course.

show abstract

“…From Table 3 , it is obvious that commercially available multiplex LFIAs are designed for detection of proteotoxins only. Commercially available LFIAs relying on a competitive immunoassay format for low molecular weight toxins detection are designed only for single-plex detection achieving LODs in the low to mid ng/mL range [ 66 , 67 ]. There is only one commercial LFIA (Scotia Rapid Test for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP), Scotia Rapid Testing Limited, Chester Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada) for detection of saxitoxin, which was evaluated for use in biosecurity application [ 68 ], whereas the majority of these LFIAs were validated for particular application in food analysis.…”

Section: Portable Immunoassay Techniques With Multiplexing Capabilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiplex Immunoassay Techniques for On-Site Detection of Security Sensitive Toxins

Pöhlmann

Elßner

2020

Toxins

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological toxins are a heterogeneous group of high molecular as well as low molecular weight toxins produced by living organisms. Due to their physical and logistical properties, biological toxins are very attractive to terrorists for use in acts of bioterrorism. Therefore, among the group of biological toxins, several are categorized as security relevant, e.g., botulinum neurotoxins, staphylococcal enterotoxins, abrin, ricin or saxitoxin. Additionally, several security sensitive toxins also play a major role in natural food poisoning outbreaks. For a prompt response to a potential bioterrorist attack using biological toxins, first responders need reliable, easy-to-use and highly sensitive methodologies for on-site detection of the causative agent. Therefore, the aim of this review is to present on-site immunoassay platforms for multiplex detection of biological toxins. Furthermore, we introduce several commercially available detection technologies specialized for mobile or on-site identification of security sensitive toxins.

show abstract

Validation of a lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid determination of aflatoxins in maize by solvent free extraction

Abstract: The analytical performances of a lateral flow immunoassay (AFLA-V AQUA™, Vicam a Waters Business) for the determination of aflatoxins in maize were evaluated according to Commission Regulation (EU) No. 519/2014.

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Ten Years of Lateral Flow Immunoassay Technique Applications: Trends, Challenges and Future Perspectives

Ten Years of Lateral Flow Immunoassay Technique Applications: Trends, Challenges and Future Perspectives

Evaluation of Mycotoxin Screening Tests in a Verification Study Involving First Time Users

Multiplex Immunoassay Techniques for On-Site Detection of Security Sensitive Toxins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About