Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Advancement in the field of analytical food-chemistry has explored various experimental techniques for aflatoxins (AFs) quantification. The present study was aimed to compare four different techniques; thin-layer chromatography (TLC), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the analysis of aflatoxin B₁ (AFB₁), B₂ (AFB₂), G₁ (AFG₁) and G₂ (AFG₂) in brown rice (n = 120) being collected from Karachi, Pakistan. All the four assays provide precised, accurate and comparable results. However, some differences were observed. For instance, TLC, HPLC and LC-MS/MS methodologies offered the advantage of the quantification of individual toxins in contrast to ELISA technique. The contamination ranges of AFB₁/AFB₂ as determined by TLC, HPLC and LC-MS/MS were 1.18-9.97/0.59-1.52, 0.16-10.54/0.26-1.35 and 0.11-10.88/0.38-1.48 µg/kg, respectively. However, AFG₁ and AFG₂ were not detected in any tested samples. Furthermore, owing to low-detection limit and sensitivity, HPLC and LC-MS/MS methodologies have identified greater number of contaminated samples in comparison to TLC and ELISA techniques. The overall average results of total AFs as provided by HPLC (3.79 µg/kg) and LC-MS/MS (3.89 µg/kg) were found higher in comparison to TLC (3.68 µg/kg) and ELISA (3.70 µg/kg). On the basis of achieved results, it was concluded that TLC, HPLC, LC-MS/MS and ELISA techniques are valuable tool for the quantification of AFs in cereals and grains. Furthermore, HPLC and LC-MS/MS techniques offer an added advantage for the detection of AFs in diminutive levels.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iqbal et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: