Literature DB >> 11922084

Effect of processing on aflatoxin.

Douglas L Park1.   

Abstract

Naturally occurring toxicant contamination of foods with mycotoxins is unavoidable and unpredictable and poses a unique challenge to food safety. Aflatoxins are toxic mold metabolites produced by toxigenic strains of Aspergillus species. Primary commodities susceptible to aflatoxin contamination include corn, peanuts and cottonseed and animal-derived foods such as milk when the animal is fed aflatoxin-contaminated feed. Risks associated with aflatoxin-contaminated foods can be reduced through the use of specific processing and decontamination procedures. Factors, which influence the effectiveness of a specific process or procedure, include the chemical stability of the mycotoxin(s), nature of the process, type and interaction with the food/feed matrix and interaction with multiple mycotoxins if present. Practical decontamination procedures must: 1) inactivate, destroy, or remove the toxin, 2) not produce or leave toxic residues in the food/feed, 3) retain the nutritive value of the food/feed, 4) not alter the acceptability or the technological properties of the product, and, if possible, 5) destroy fungal spores. For aflatoxins, multiple processing and/or decontamination schemes have been successful in reducing aflatoxin concentrations to acceptable levels. Physical cleaning and separation procedures, where the mold-damaged kernel/seed/nut is removed from the intact commodity, can result in 40-80% reduction in aflatoxins levels. Processes such as dry and wet milling result in the distribution of aflatoxin residues into less utilized fractions of the commodity. The ammoniation of aflatoxin-contaminated commodities has altered the concentrations as well as toxic and carcinogenic effects of aflatoxin by greater than 99%. Nonbiological materials such as selected anticaking agents covalently bind aflatoxins from aqueous suspensions, diminish aflatoxin uptake by animals, prevent acute aflatoxicosis, and decrease aflatoxin residues in milk. Ultimately, the best processing or decontamination process is one that is approved by regulatory agencies, cost-effective, and reduces the mycotoxin concentration to acceptable levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11922084     DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0629-4_17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol        ISSN: 0065-2598            Impact factor:   2.622


  16 in total

1.  Biological reduction of aflatoxin B1 in yogurt by probiotic strains of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus.

Authors:  Fatemeh Mosallaie; Hossein Jooyandeh; Mohammad Hojjati; Ali Fazlara
Journal:  Food Sci Biotechnol       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 2.391

2.  A study on the aflatoxin M1 rate and seasonal variation in pasteurized cow milk from northwestern Iran.

Authors:  Fereshteh Ansari; Hadi Pourjafar; Lane Christensen
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in conventional and organic milk offered for sale in Italy.

Authors:  Sara Armorini; Alberto Altafini; Anna Zaghini; Paola Roncada
Journal:  Mycotoxin Res       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 3.833

Review 4.  Costs and efficacy of public health interventions to reduce aflatoxin-induced human disease.

Authors:  P Khlangwiset; F Wu
Journal:  Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess       Date:  2010-07

5.  Workgroup report: public health strategies for reducing aflatoxin exposure in developing countries.

Authors:  Heather Strosnider; Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner; Marianne Banziger; Ramesh V Bhat; Robert Breiman; Marie-Noel Brune; Kevin DeCock; Abby Dilley; John Groopman; Kerstin Hell; Sara H Henry; Daniel Jeffers; Curtis Jolly; Pauline Jolly; Gilbert N Kibata; Lauren Lewis; Xiumei Liu; George Luber; Leslie McCoy; Patience Mensah; Marina Miraglia; Ambrose Misore; Henry Njapau; Choon-Nam Ong; Mary T K Onsongo; Samuel W Page; Douglas Park; Manish Patel; Timothy Phillips; Maya Pineiro; Jenny Pronczuk; Helen Schurz Rogers; Carol Rubin; Myrna Sabino; Arthur Schaafsma; Gordon Shephard; Joerg Stroka; Christopher Wild; Jonathan T Williams; David Wilson
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 6.  Mycotoxin Contamination in the EU Feed Supply Chain: A Focus on Cereal Byproducts.

Authors:  Luciano Pinotti; Matteo Ottoboni; Carlotta Giromini; Vittorio Dell'Orto; Federica Cheli
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 4.546

Review 7.  Aflatoxins: A Global Concern for Food Safety, Human Health and Their Management.

Authors:  Pradeep Kumar; Dipendra K Mahato; Madhu Kamle; Tapan K Mohanta; Sang G Kang
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 5.640

8.  Low-cost grain sorting technologies to reduce mycotoxin contamination in maize and groundnut.

Authors:  Meriem Aoun; William Stafstrom; Paige Priest; John Fuchs; Gary L Windham; W Paul Williams; Rebecca J Nelson
Journal:  Food Control       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 5.548

9.  Aflatoxin M1 in Pasteurized Milk in Babol city, Mazandaran Province, Iran.

Authors:  Saa Sefidgar; M Mirzae; M Assmar; Sr Naddaf
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 1.429

10.  Effect of Ozone Treatment on Deoxynivalenol and Wheat Quality.

Authors:  Li Wang; Huili Shao; Xiaohu Luo; Ren Wang; Yongfu Li; Yanan Li; Yingpeng Luo; Zhengxing Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.