Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction for the Determination of Emerging Fusarium Mycotoxins in Water

Recent advancements in LC-MS based analysis of biotoxins: Present and future challenges

There has been a rising concern regarding the harmful impact of biotoxins, source of origin, and the determination of the specific type of toxin. With numerous reports on their extensive spread, biotoxins pose a critical challenge to figure out their parent groups, metabolites, and concentration. In that aspect, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) based analysis paves the way for its accurate identification and quantification. The biotoxins are ideally categorized as phytotoxins, mycotoxins, shellfish-toxins, ciguatoxins, cyanotoxins, and bacterial toxins such as tetrodotoxins. Considering the diverse nature of biotoxins, both low-resolution mass spectrometry (LRMS) and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) methods have been implemented for their detection. The sample preparation strategy for complex matrix usually includes "QuEChERS" extraction or solid-phase extraction coupled with homogenization and centrifugation. For targeted analysis of biotoxins, the LRMS consisting of a tandem mass spectrometer operating in multiple reaction monitoring mode has been widely implemented. With the help of the reference standard, most of the toxins were accurately quantified. At the same time, the suspect screening and nontarget screening approach are facilitated by the HRMS platforms during the absence of reference standards. Significant progress has also been made in sampling device employment, utilizing novel sample preparation strategies, synthesizing toxin standards, employing hybrid MS platforms, and the associated data interpretation. This critical review attempts to elucidate the progress in LC-MS based analysis in the determination of biotoxins while pointing out major challenges and suggestions for future development.

A mimotope peptide-based dual-signal readout competitive enzyme-linked immunoassay for non-toxic detection of zearalenone

In this study, a mimotope peptide-based non-toxic photoelectrochemical (PEC) competitive enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) was established for ultrasensitive detection of zearalenone (ZEN) with dual-signal readout.

Mycotoxin Analysis of Human Urine by LC-MS/MS: A Comparative Extraction Study

The lower mycotoxin levels detected in urine make the development of sensitive and accurate analytical methods essential. Three extraction methods, namely salting-out liquid–liquid extraction (SALLE), miniQuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe), and dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME), were evaluated and compared based on analytical parameters for the quantitative LC-MS/MS measurement of 11 mycotoxins (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, AFG2, OTA, ZEA, BEA, EN A, EN B, EN A1 and EN B1) in human urine. DLLME was selected as the most appropriate methodology, as it produced better validation results for recovery (79–113%), reproducibility (RSDs < 12%), and repeatability (RSDs < 15%) than miniQuEChERS (71–109%, RSDs <14% and <24%, respectively) and SALLE (70–108%, RSDs < 14% and < 24%, respectively). Moreover, the lowest detection (LODS) and quantitation limits (LOQS) were achieved with DLLME (LODs: 0.005–2 μg L⁻¹, LOQs: 0.1–4 μg L⁻¹). DLLME methodology was used for the analysis of 10 real urine samples from healthy volunteers showing the presence of ENs B, B1 and A1 at low concentrations.

Studies on the Presence of Mycotoxins in Biological Samples: An Overview

Mycotoxins are fungal secondary metabolites with bioaccumulation levels leading to their carry-over into animal fluids, organs, and tissues. As a consequence, mycotoxin determination in biological samples from humans and animals has been reported worldwide. Since most mycotoxins show toxic effects at low concentrations and considering the extremely low levels present in biological samples, the application of reliable detection methods is required. This review summarizes the information regarding the studies involving mycotoxin determination in biological samples over the last 10 years. Relevant data on extraction methodology, detection techniques, sample size, limits of detection, and quantitation are presented herein. Briefly, liquid-liquid extraction followed by LC-MS/MS determination was the most common technique. The most analyzed mycotoxin was ochratoxin A, followed by zearalenone and deoxynivalenol—including their metabolites, enniatins, fumonisins, aflatoxins, T-2 and HT-2 toxins. Moreover, the studies were classified by their purpose, mainly focused on the development of analytical methodologies, mycotoxin biomonitoring, and exposure assessment. The study of tissue distribution, bioaccumulation, carry-over, persistence and transference of mycotoxins, as well as, toxicokinetics and ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion) were other proposed goals for biological sample analysis. Finally, an overview of risk assessment was discussed.

An in vitro study of alkaline phosphatase sensitivity to mixture of aflatoxin B1 and fumonisin B1 in the hepatopancreas of coastal lagoon wild and farmed shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei

This study aimed to establish the combined effect of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and fumonisin B1 (FB1) on wild Litopenaeus vannamei hepatopancreas alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity compared with that of farmed shrimp. AP activity in hepatopancreas extract was confirmed by several specific inhibitor assays. AP activity of wild shrimp was higher than that of farmed shrimp (p < 0.05). However, AP activity from both wild and farmed shrimp was inhibited when incubated with AFB1 and FB1. The greatest inhibition occurred when AP was incubated with a mixture of AFB1 and FB1. The IC50 for AFB1 on AP activity of wild and farmed shrimp hepatopancreases was 0.790 and 0.398 μg/mL, respectively. The IC50 of FB1 was 0.87 μg/mL for wild shrimp and 0.69 μg/mL for farmed shrimp. These results suggest that, at the mycotoxins concentrations used in the study, AP from farmed L. vannamei was sensitive to the presence of both mycotoxins; however, AP is more sensitive to the combination of AFB1 + FB1 suggesting a possible synergistic or potentiating inhibitory effect.