Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), a highly carcinogenic metabolite produced by aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus, poses a serious threat to rice safety and public health. This study aimed to establish a rapid, non-destructive method for discriminating between aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic A. flavus infection and for the exploratory classification of AFB1 contamination levels in rice by integrating a handheld near-infrared (NIR) sensor with pattern recognition analysis. A total of 154 post-harvest rice samples were inoculated with aflatoxigenic A. flavus or non-aflatoxigenic A. flavus, or left untreated as controls. Spectra were collected from each sample, and pattern recognition analysis (PCA, SIMCA, OPLS-DA) was used to discriminate between infection types and to categorize AFB1 content. The uHPLC-MS/MS reference method quantified AFB1 concentrations ranging from 2.70 to 23.59 ppb at early infection stages. PCA revealed distinct separation trends among the three sample groups. The SIMCA model achieved 100.00% accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for discriminating among the three infection types in internal validation, and hold-out validation on an independent sample set demonstrated effective discrimination, yielding 96.67% overall accuracy. OPLS-DA produced comparable results, with accuracies of 95.90% in internal validation and 96.67% in hold-out validation. Notably, the SIMCA model was also applied in an exploratory manner to classify AFB1 content into low-AFB1 (<4.0 ppb) and high-AFB1 (≥4.0 ppb) groups; under Monte Carlo cross-validation and hold-out validation, this grading model yielded a mean accuracy of 63.10% and 87.50%, which demonstrated the potential feasibility of AFB1-level grading by handheld NIR spectroscopy. This approach shows potential for rapid laboratory-based screening in food supply chains to support timely risk assessment and intervention to protect food safety and public health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rouzi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: