Literature DB >> 8504873

Perspectives on mycotoxin decontamination procedures.

D L Park1.   

Abstract

Unquestionably, prevention is the best method for controlling mycotoxin contamination. Should the contamination occur, however, the hazard associated with the toxin must be removed if the product is to be used for food or feed purposes. Decontamination procedures currently used are based on (a) physical, chemical, or biological removal, or (c) physical or chemical inactivation. Ammoniation of corn, peanuts, cottonseed, and meals to alter the toxic and carcinogenic effects of aflatoxin contamination has been the subject of intense research effort by scientists in various government agencies and universities worldwide. Engineers have devised workable systems of treatment of whole seeds, kernels, or meals; chemists have identified and characterized products formed from the reaction of aflatoxin B1 with ammonia with and without a meal matrix; biochemists have studied the biological effects of these compounds in model systems; and nutritionists have studied animal responses to rations containing ammoniated or non-ammoniated components. This review describes these studies as well as other potentially useful decontamination processes. The results of aflatoxin/ammonia decontamination research demonstrate the efficiency and safety of ammoniation as a practical solution to aflatoxin detoxification in foods and animal feeds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8504873     DOI: 10.1080/02652039309374129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Food Addit Contam        ISSN: 0265-203X


  7 in total

Review 1.  Inactivation of deoxynivalenol-contaminated cereal grains with sodium metabisulfite: a review of procedures and toxicological aspects.

Authors:  Sven Dänicke; Susanne Kersten; Hana Valenta; Gerhard Breves
Journal:  Mycotoxin Res       Date:  2012-09-15       Impact factor: 3.833

2.  Effect of high pressure ammoniation procedure on the detoxification of aflatoxins.

Authors:  M N Gomaa; A M Ayesh; M M Abdel Galil; K Naguib
Journal:  Mycotoxin Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.833

3.  In vitro evaluation of the capacity of zeolite and bentonite to adsorb aflatoxin B1 in simulated gastrointestinal fluids.

Authors:  N Q Thieu; H Pettersson
Journal:  Mycotoxin Res       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.833

4.  Humic substances failed to prevent the systemic absorption of deoxynivalenol (DON) and its adverse effects on piglets.

Authors:  Sven Dänicke; Hana Valenta; Susanne Kersten
Journal:  Mycotoxin Res       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 3.833

Review 5.  Antigenotoxic studies of different substances to reduce the DNA damage induced by aflatoxin B(1) and ochratoxin A.

Authors:  Eduardo Madrigal-Santillán; José A Morales-González; Nancy Vargas-Mendoza; Patricia Reyes-Ramírez; Sandra Cruz-Jaime; Teresa Sumaya-Martínez; Ricardo Pérez-Pastén; Eduardo Madrigal-Bujaidar
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2010-04-19       Impact factor: 4.546

Review 6.  Invited review: Remediation strategies for mycotoxin control in feed.

Authors:  Meng Liu; Ling Zhao; Guoxin Gong; Lei Zhang; Lei Shi; Jiefan Dai; Yanming Han; Yuanyuan Wu; Mahmoud Mohamed Khalil; Lvhui Sun
Journal:  J Anim Sci Biotechnol       Date:  2022-01-28

7.  Assessment of an application on a detoxification process of groundnut press cake for aflatoxins by ammoniation.

Authors:  Dieter Schrenk; Margherita Bignami; Laurent Bodin; James Kevin Chipman; Jesus Del Mazo; Bettina Grasl-Kraupp; Laurentius Ron Hoogenboom; Jean-Charles Leblanc; Carlo Stefano Nebbia; Elsa Nielsen; Evangelia Ntzani; Annette Petersen; Salomon Sand; Tanja Schwerdtle; Christiane Vleminckx; Heather Wallace; Martin Rose; Bruce Cottrill; Anne Katrine Lundebye; Manfred Metzler; Anna Christodoulidou; Christer Hogstrand
Journal:  EFSA J       Date:  2021-12-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.