| Literature DB >> 35622570 |
Francesca Ghilardelli1, Mario Barbato1, Antonio Gallo1.
Abstract
Mycotoxins should be monitored in order to properly evaluate corn silage safety quality. In the present study, corn silage samples (n = 115) were collected in a survey, characterized for concentrations of mycotoxins, and scanned by a NIR spectrometer. Random Forest classification models for NIR calibration were developed by applying different cut-offs to classify samples for concentration (i.e., μg/kg dry matter) or count (i.e., n) of (i) total detectable mycotoxins; (ii) regulated and emerging Fusarium toxins; (iii) emerging Fusarium toxins; (iv) Fumonisins and their metabolites; and (v) Penicillium toxins. An over- and under-sampling re-balancing technique was applied and performed 100 times. The best predictive model for total sum and count (i.e., accuracy mean ± standard deviation) was obtained by applying cut-offs of 10,000 µg/kg DM (i.e., 96.0 ± 2.7%) or 34 (i.e., 97.1 ± 1.8%), respectively. Regulated and emerging Fusarium mycotoxins achieved accuracies slightly less than 90%. For the Penicillium mycotoxin contamination category, an accuracy of 95.1 ± 2.8% was obtained by using a cut-off limit of 350 µg/kg DM as a total sum or 98.6 ± 1.3% for a cut-off limit of five as mycotoxin count. In conclusion, this work was a preliminary study to discriminate corn silage for high or low mycotoxin contamination by using NIR spectroscopy.Entities:
Keywords: emerging mycotoxins; forage; machine learning; random forest
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35622570 PMCID: PMC9146547 DOI: 10.3390/toxins14050323
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 5.075
Figure 1PCA results: (a) Hotelling’s T2 values and F-residuals plot were performed in principal component analysis to detect spectra outliers with an interval of confidence of 99%; (b) rotated loadings; and (c) rotated subject scores.
Chemical, biological, and fermentative traits (% DM) characterizing corn silages.
| Chemical and Biological Parameters (% DM) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Items | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|
| 34.34 | 2.38 |
|
| 5.78 | 0.13 |
|
| 8.26 | 0.44 |
|
| 2.94 | 0.09 |
|
| 37.24 | 1.27 |
|
| 24.74 | 0.92 |
|
| 3.00 | 0.16 |
|
| 1.02 | 0.13 |
|
| 0.74 | 0.09 |
|
| 50.64 | 1.80 |
|
| 31.54 | 2.77 |
|
| ||
|
|
| |
|
| 3.82 | 0.13 |
|
| 3.19 | 0.50 |
|
| 0.18 | 0.14 |
|
| 0.005 | 0.003 |
|
| 3.21 | 0.82 |
|
| 1.32 | 0.59 |
|
| 0.52 | 0.13 |
|
| 0.50 | 0.21 |
|
| 10.46 | 2.56 |
Descriptive statistics for sums (µg/kg DM) and counts (n) of Regulated and Emerging mycotoxins in corn silage in the original database.
| Items | Mean | Sd 3 | Skewness | Kurtosis | 25% | 50% | 75% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 5895.70 | 7252.46 | 2.08 | 4.37 | 1208.68 | 2643.24 | 7235.01 |
|
| 4781.04 | 6539.44 | 2.33 | 5.54 | 981.76 | 2077.46 | 5446.44 |
|
| 2453.83 | 3571.47 | 2.82 | 8.19 | 641.81 | 1187.43 | 2125.63 |
|
| 2181.59 | 3430.07 | 2.25 | 4.58 | 256.67 | 620.21 | 2476.63 |
|
| 177.74 | 221.88 | 2.25 | 6.44 | 30.66 | 67.67 | 243.14 |
|
| 26.20 | 6.42 | 0.44 | −0.07 | 21.50 | 26.00 | 30.50 |
|
| 15.33 | 3.61 | 0.51 | 1.67 | 13 | 16 | 17 |
|
| 7.02 | 1.73 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|
| 5.45 | 1.61 | −0.46 | −0.25 | 4 | 6 | 7 |
|
| 3.61 | 1.25 | 0.26 | −0.16 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
1 R&E-Fusarium toxins, Regulated and Emerging -Fusarium toxins: 2 E-Fusarium toxins, Emerging Fusarium toxins 3 Sd, Standard Deviation.
Near-infrared spectroscopy calibration parameters from the prediction set on the total sum (µg/kg DM) and count (n) of Mycotoxin class 1.
| TOTAL SUM of Mycotoxins | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25.7 ± 2.7 | 6.3 ± 2.7 | 35.6 ± 2.4 | 5.4 ± 2.4 | 42.9 ± 2.1 | 3.1 ± 2.1 |
|
| 4.6 ± 2.3 | 25.5 ± 2.3 | 1.3 ± 1.5 | 35.8 ± 1.5 | 0.4 ± 0.9 | 40.7 ± 0.9 |
|
| 82.2 ± 5.9% | 91.5 ± 3.5% | 96.0 ± 2.7% | |||
|
| 80.2 ± 8.5% | 86.9 ± 5.9% | 93.2 ± 4.6% | |||
|
| 81.3 ± 8.0% | 96.6 ± 4.0% | 99.2 ± 2.2% | |||
|
| (70.4 ± 6.9%), (90.6 ± 4.3%) | (83.1 ± 4.4%), (96.5 ± 2.2%) | (89.7 ± 3.7%), (98.8 ± 1.4%) | |||
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30.9 ± 2.4 | 5.1 ± 2.4 | 38.9 ± 1.7 | 4.2 ± 1.7 | 46.3 ±1.7 | 2.7 ±1.7 |
|
| 3.2 ± 2.2 | 28.9 ± 2.2 | 0.6 ± 1.1 | 38.4 ± 1.1 | 0.03 ± 0.3 | 44.0 ± 0.3 |
|
| 87.8 ± 4.4% | 94.2 ± 2.6% | 97.1 ± 1.8% | |||
|
| 85.7 ± 6.7% | 90.4 ± 3.9% | 94.6 ± 3.5% | |||
|
| 90.2 ± 6.7% | 98.5 ± 2.8% | 99.9 ± 0.7% | |||
|
| (77.8 ± 5.3%), (94.3 ± 3.0%) | (86.9 ± 3.4%), (98.1 ± 1.5%) | (91.5 ± 2.7%), (99.3 ± 0.7%) | |||
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
1 Class 1, class of samples lower than cut-off limits; Class 2, class of samples higher than cut-off limits 2 CI, Confidence Interval 95%.
Near-infrared spectroscopy calibration parameters from the prediction set on the sum (µg/kg DM) and count (n) of the Regulated and Emerging Fusarium-toxins class 1.
| SUM of R&E- | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17.4 ± 2.4 | 6.6 ± 2.4 | 25.2 ± 2.5 | 6.8 ± 2.5 | 29.89 ± 2.53 | 8.11 ± 2.53 |
|
| 5.1 ± 2.7 | 23.9 ± 2.7 | 3.7 ± 2.5 | 35.3 ± 2.5 | 2.86 ± 2.44 | 43.14 ± 2.44 |
|
| 77.9 ± 6.1% | 85.1 ± 4.8% | 86.9 ± 4.0% | |||
|
| 72.6 ± 10.0% | 78.6 ± 7.8% | 78.7 ± 6.7% | |||
|
| 82.4 ± 9.2% | 90.4 ± 6.5% | 93.8 ± 5.3% | |||
|
| (64.6 ± 6.8%), (88.0 ± 4.7%) | (74.8 ± 5.6%), (92.3 ± 3.5%) | (77.9 ± 4.7%), (93.2 ± 2.9%) | |||
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12.8 ± 2.0 | 5.2 ± 2.0 | 18.5 ± 2.4 | 7.49 ± 2.35 | 24.1 ± 2.5 | 7.9 ± 2.5 |
|
| 5.2 ± 2.7 | 15.8 ± 2.7 | 5.3 ± 2.7 | 25.67 ± 2.73 | 4.7 ± 2.7 | 33.3 ± 2.7 |
|
| 73.3 ± 7.7% | 77.5 ± 5.6% | 82.0 ± 4.9% | |||
|
| 71.2 ± 10.9% | 71.2 ± 9.1% | 75.4 ± 7.8% | |||
|
| 75.1 ± 12.9% | 82.8 ± 8.8% | 85.6 ± 7.2% | |||
|
| (57.0 ± 8.3%), (85.9 ± 5.8%) | (64.6 ± 6.2%), (87.4 ± 4.3%) | (71.1 ± 5.6%), (90.1 ± 3.8%) | |||
|
| 0.049 ± 0.091 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
1 Class 1, class of samples lower than cut-off limits; Class 2, class of samples higher than cut-off limits 2 R&E-Fusarium toxins, Regulated and Emerging -Fusarium toxins 3 CI, Confidence Interval 95%.
Near-infrared spectroscopy calibration parameters from the prediction set on the sum (µg/kg DM) and count (n) of Emerging Fusarium-toxins class 1.
| SUM of E- | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13.3 ± 2.3 | 6.67 ± 2.28 | 23.8 ± 2.7 | 8.3 ± 2.7 | 27.1 ± 2.8 | 8.0 ± 2.8 |
|
| 3.3 ± 1.9 | 33.66 ± 1.92 | 2.2 ± 1.8 | 56.8 ± 1.8 | 1.5 ± 1.7 | 63.6± 1.7 |
|
| 82.4 ± 5.2% | 88.5 ± 3.1% | 90.6 ± 3.1% | |||
|
| 66.7 ± 11.3% | 74.2 ± 8.5% | 77.3 ± 8.0% | |||
|
| 91.0 ± 5.2% | 96.2 ± 3.1% | 97.8 ± 2.7% | |||
|
| (70.2 ± 6.1%), (91.1 ± 3.7%) | (80.1 ± 3.8%), (94.1 ± 2.2%) | (83.2 ± 3.8%), (95.4 ± 2.2%) | |||
|
| 0.019 ± 0.046 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16.0 ± 2.2 | 7.0 ± 2.3 | 30.6 ± 2.9 | 8.4 ± 2.9 | 51.1 ± 2.2 | 3.9 ±2.2 |
|
| 5.2 ± 2.3 | 21.8 ± 2.3 | 2.26 ± 2.18 | 51.7 ± 2.2 | 0 | 76 |
|
| 75.7 ± 5.8% | 88.5 ± 3.8% | 97.0 ± 1.7% | |||
|
| 69.7 ± 9.9% | 78.4 ± 7.3% | 92.9 ± 4.0% | |||
|
| 80.9 ± 8.5% | 95.8 ± 4.0% | 100.0% | |||
|
| (61.6 ± 6.4%), (86.6 ± 4.5%) | (80.3 ± 4.5%), (94.1 ± 2.8%) | (92.6 ± 2.4%), (99.1 ± 0.9%) | |||
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
1 Class 1, class of samples lower than cut-off limits; Class 2, class of samples higher than cut-off limits 2 E-Fusarium toxins, Emerging Fusarium toxins 3 CI, Confidence Interval 95%.
Near-infrared spectroscopy calibration parameters from the prediction set on the sum (µg/kg DM) and count (n) of fumonisins mycotoxin class 1.
| SUM of Fumonisins | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13.5 ± 2.1 | 5.5 ± 2.1 | 27.1 ± 3.0 | 7.0 ± 3.0 | 34.8 ± 2.7 | 6.2 ± 2.7 |
|
| 5.2 ± 2.2 | 11.8 ± 2.2 | 4.9 ± 2.5 | 26.1 ± 2.5 | 2.9 ± 2.3 | 34.1 ± 2.3 |
|
| 70.5 ± 7.3% | 81.8 ± 5.2% | 88.3 ± 4.3% | |||
|
| 70.8 ± 11.1% | 79.6 ± 8.7% | 84.9 ± 6.6% | |||
|
| 69.3 ± 12.8% | 84.3 ± 8.0% | 92.2 ±6.3% | |||
|
| (52.8 ± 7.6%), (84.0 ± 5.7%) | (70.44 ± 6.0%), (90.1 ± 3.9%) | (79.2 ± 5.2%), (94.3 ± 3.0%) | |||
|
| 0.074 ± 0.121 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13.5 ± 2.1 | 4.5 ± 2.1 | 25.0 ± 2.1 | 6.0 ± 2.1 | 45.2 ± 2.9 | 5.8 ± 2.9 |
|
| 5.6 ± 2.0 | 9.4 ± 2.0 | 5.7 ± 2.6 | 21.3 ± 2.6 | 1.0 ± 1.4 | 43.0 ± 1.4 |
|
| 69.5 ± 7.8% | 79.8 ± 5.3% | 92.8 ± 3.3% | |||
|
| 75.2 ± 11.7% | 80.6 ± 6.8% | 88.7 ± 5.6% | |||
|
| 62.7 ± 13.5% | 78.9 ± 9.6% | 97.6 ± 3.1% | |||
|
| (51.3 ± 8.2%), (84.0 ± 5.9%) | (67.3 ± 5.9%), (89.0 ± 4.0%) | (85.8 ± 4.2%), (96.9 ± 2.2%) | |||
|
| 0.122 ± 0.153 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
1 Class 1, class of samples lower than cut-off limits; Class 2, class of samples higher than cut-off limits 2 CI, Confidence Interval 95%.
Near-infrared spectroscopy calibration parameters from the prediction set on the sum (µg/kg DM) and count (n) of Penicillium mycotoxin class 1.
| SUM of | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24.9 ± 2.4 | 7.1 ± 2.4 | 36.8 ± 2.1 | 4.2 ± 2.1 | 42.8 ± 2.3 | 4.3 ± 2.3 |
|
| 4.5 ± 2.7 | 24.5 ± 2.7 | 1.3 ± 1.8 | 35.7 ± 1.8 | 0.1 ± 0.7 | 41.9 ± 0.7 |
|
| 81.0 ± 5.8% | 92.9 ± 3.4% | 95.1 ± 2.8% | |||
|
| 77.9 ± 7.4% | 89.8 ± 5.2% | 91.0 ± 4.9% | |||
|
| 84.4 ± 9.2% | 96.4 ± 4.8% | 99.7 ± 1.6% | |||
|
| (69.1 ± 6.6%), (89.7 ± 4.4%) | (85.0 ± 4.4%), (97.3 ± 2.0%) | (88.5 ± 3.8%), (98.4 ± 1.5%) | |||
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24.0 ± 2.6 | 6.0 ± 2.6 | 42.5 ± 2.4 | 4.5 ± 2.4 | 56.4 ± 1.5 | 1.6 ± 1.5 |
|
| 5.2 ± 2.1 | 21.8 ± 2.1 | 0.9 ± 1.4 | 41.4 ± 1.4 | 0 | 52.0 ± 0 |
|
| 80.2 ± 5.3% | 94.0 ± 3.1% | 98.6 ± 1.3% | |||
|
| 79.9 ± 8.6% | 90.5 ± 5.0% | 97.3 ± 2.5% | |||
|
| 80.6 ±7.8% | 97.9 ± 3.3% | 100.00% | |||
|
| (67.7 ± 5.9%), (89.5 ± 4.0%) | (87.0 ± 4.0%), (97.7 ± 1.8%) | (94.3 ± 2.1%), (99.7 ± 0.5%) | |||
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |||
1 Class 1, class of samples lower than cut-off limits; Class 2, class of samples higher than cut-off limits 2 CI, Confidence Interval 95%.
Bibliographic information (i.e., source) published in the last three years regarding the use of NIR for predicting mycotoxin contaminations in different matrices.
| Feed Matrix | Target Mycotoxin | Wavelength | Statistical Model * | Results Obtained | Practical Application | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Fumonisin B1 and B2 | 900–1700 nm | PLS, SVM, and LPLS-S | R2 prediction = 0.71–0.91 | Pocket-sized NIR spectrometers controlled by a smartphone | [ |
| PCA, PLS-DA, and SVM-DA | Prediction accuracy = 86.3–88.2% | |||||
|
| Aflatoxin B1 | 400–2498 nm | MSA + PLS | Low-aflatoxin-level (≤35 μg/kg): | Monitoring aflatoxin B1 contamination in milled rice during postharvest storage | [ |
|
| Aflatoxin B1 | 900–1700 nm | PLS | R2 = 0.786–0.958 | Commercial application | [ |
|
| Fumonisin B1 and B2 | 400–2500 nm | PLS | FB1 R2 = 0.80 | Potential to support decision making regarding the use of feed ingredients and, consequently, to protect animal health | [ |
|
| Deoxynivalenol (cut off limit cut off 1250 µg/kg) | 10,000 cm−1–4000 cm−1 | PLS-DA | Sensitivity in cross-validation = 90.9% | Green technique to monitor DON contamination | [ |
|
| 1000–2500 nm | PLS-DA | Accuracy = 99.7% | Monitoring the safety of feed and food supply | [ | |
|
| Deoxynivalenol | PLS-DA and PC-LDA | Contamination level ≤ 450 μg kg−1 | Screening method to evaluate DON contamination to support decision making in industries | [ |
* PLS = Partial least squares; SVM = Support vector machine; LPLS-S = local PLS based on global PLS score; PCA = principal component analysis; PLS-DA = partial least squares discriminant analysis; SVM-DA = support vector machine discriminant analysis; MSA = modified simulated annealing; PC-LDA = Principal Component Analysis-Linear Discriminant Analysis.