In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the global demand for agricultural products, particularly grains. This trend is expected to continue due to the growing world population and changing lifestyles. Consequently, ensuring the safety of agricultural crops has become a global concern. Mycotoxins, among the most important contaminants in agriculture and food, have been linked to various harmful and irreversible effects on human and animal health, including carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and mutagenicity.
Various tests have been conducted on different types of animal feed to assess mycotoxin contamination, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Numerous screening methods, such as immunoassay-based techniques, biosensors, and non-invasive approaches, have been developed. However, to confirm positive findings, chromatographic methods, such as liquid chromatography (the most commonly used), gas chromatography, and thin-layer chromatography, are still employed.
Table 6 lists various methods for screening mycotoxins in wheat.
This document examined the validation of the Myco 7 kit in accordance with Commission Decision 2002/657/EC (
19). The results demonstrate that the kit is suitable for the simultaneous screening of 7 different mycotoxins in wheat flour samples within the validated ranges. The CCβ values were observed to be lower than the defined MRPLs set by the European Commission for all 7 mycotoxins. This method was observed to be fast, sensitive, and simple. All of the samples, whether packed or in bulk, were free from the screened mycotoxins. Freitas et al. obtained similar results, and the precision data they obtained are consistent with EU legislation performance criteria. Their results highlight that this method is a valuable and cost-effective screening method for the simultaneous semi-quantification of mycotoxins (
24).
Table 6 summarizes some examples of different mycotoxin screening methods.
| Technique | Matrix | Advantage | Disadvantage | Ref |
|---|
| Immunoassay-Based Methods: ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay); LFIA (lateral flow immunoassay); - FPIA (fluorescence polarization immunoassay) | A wide range of feed ingredients | Simple; Cheap; do not require sophisticated equipment or skilled personnel; -Require minimal or no sample pretreatment; -Portable | Can only detect a small group of mycotoxins; possibility of cross-reactivity with structural analogs; Quite time-consuming (ELISA) | (25, 26) |
| Biosensors and biosensor-based methods: -Biochip array technology | A wide range of feed ingredients | -Simple; Rapid; Cheap; do not require skilled personnel; require minimal or no sample pretreatment; -High-throughput (simultaneous determination) | Requires specific instrument; Possibility of cross-reactivity with structural analogs | (27-29) |
| Noninvasive methods: Infrared spectroscopy (NIR); Raman spectroscopy (RS) | A wide range of feed ingredients | Simple; rapid; in situ analysis; environmentally friendly; require slight or no sample preparation; | Limited application due to:; lack of appropriate calibration materials and; high matrix dependency; require skilled personnel; only useful at high contamination levels; require modern chemometrics methods | (25, 26) |
Overall, as it is mentioned in
Table 6, the advantages of the validated method outweigh other methods, and its disadvantages can be neglected compared to others.
As shown in
Figure 2, numerous studies on detecting mycotoxin contamination in wheat samples have been carried out worldwide using different techniques. In a study to detect 12 mycotoxin contaminations in wheat flour samples in Hungary, only 4 out of 33 samples were positive (
44). The analysis of 30 wheat flour samples collected across China revealed OTA (6.7%), ZEN (13.3%), AFB1 (16.7%), AFG1 (10.0%), AFB2 (16.7%), AFG2 (3.3%) and T-2 (13.3%) in samples using LC-MS/MS over a multi-antibody immunoaffinity column (
30).
Incidence of Mycotoxins in Wheat Flour Samples in Different Studies (30-43). (Abbreviations: FUM, fumonisin B1; OTA, ochratoxin A; AFG1, aflatoxin G1; DON, deoxynivalenol; T2, T-2 toxin; AFB1, aflatoxin B1; ZEA, zearalenone)
However, Kumagai et al. analyzed 50 wheat flour samples from Japan using HPLC or LC/MS for the detection of aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, and fumonisins. They observed that 56% of the samples were contaminated with ochratoxin A (
31). Several studies identified deoxynivalenol as the most frequently detected mycotoxin in wheat flour samples. An assessment of wheat flour samples collected in Serbia for 11 principal mycotoxin contaminations showed that 13 out of 15 samples were contaminated with deoxynivalenol, 5 with zearalenone, and 4 with T-2 toxin (
36). In a study conducted in the Chinese province of Hebei, 11 mycotoxins in 348 wheat flour samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS, revealing that 91.4% of the samples were contaminated with deoxynivalenol (
37). Another study in China evaluated 359 wheat flour samples collected in Shandong province using a multi-mycotoxin method based on ultra-high isotope dilution. They showed that 97.2% of the samples tested positive for deoxynivalenol (
35). In southwestern Germany, a study analyzed 60 wheat flour samples for mycotoxin contamination using HPLC or GC-MS. Among the total samples, 98% were contaminated with deoxynivalenol, 2% with T-2 toxin, and 38% with zearalenone (
38).
On another continent, Dos Santos et al. conducted an analysis of 200 wheat flour samples from southern Brazil using ultra-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) to detect 12 regulatory and non-regulated mycotoxins. They demonstrated that all samples were contaminated with 2 to 3 mycotoxins, mainly zearalenone, deoxynivalenol, and T-2 toxin (
44). Similarly, an analysis of 39 wheat flour samples collected throughout the northern region of Rio Grande do Sul state in Brazil revealed 39 positive samples for deoxynivalenol and 1 sample for zearalenone contamination. This analysis was conducted using a QuEChERS method and UPLC-MS/MS analysis (
39).
In Iran, a survey reported that there was no zearalenone contamination in 18 wheat flour samples collected from the Tehran retail market and analyzed by HPLC (
40). In a study in Khorasan province, ochratoxin A was detected in 17.5% of 40 wheat flour samples after HPLC analysis (
41). In another study, 200 flour samples collected from Golestan province were assessed with the HPLC method with immune-affinity chromatography; only 3.1% and 7.4% of the samples were positive for aflatoxin B1 in summer and winter, respectively (
42). Another study was conducted in the same province, where 29.4% of the wheat samples showed traces of aflatoxin, although none was above the standard value (
43). A third study in Golestan province showed that 29.4% of samples were contaminated; however, only the concentration of aflatoxin B1 was above permitted levels in one of them (
32).
In one study, 96 wheat flour samples collected in Guilan province were tested for deoxynivalenol contamination by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and 80 samples (83.3%) were positive (
33). The analysis of 150 wheat flour samples collected in Kermanshah, the western part of Iran, showed that all samples were contaminated with deoxynivalenol and deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside using the HPLC method (
34).
The present study revealed that 39 bulk and packaged wheat flour samples were compliant by screening with the Myco 7 array kit. As shown in
Figure 2, there are variations between the results of previous studies with each other and with the results of this study. Because mycotoxins are natural food contaminants, and mycotoxin production is related to the humid subtropical climate and storage conditions during the wheat-growing season, humidity during the wheat-growing season and storage conditions could be the reason for different concentrations of mycotoxins in various studies. Therefore, special attention should be dedicated to mycotoxin contamination in foods in different seasons and storage conditions.
To the best of our knowledge, no other similar study that screened 7 various mycotoxins in wheat flour samples using the mentioned technology has been carried out in Iran. The variety of methods and numerous studies on the detection of mycotoxin contamination in cereals indicate the global importance of this topic. Due to the significance and urgency of this issue, it is recommended that a more extensive survey with a diverse range of samples from all over the country be conducted.
5.1. Conclusions
This is the first study presenting the validation of Myco 7 array technology in wheat flour samples according to Commission Decision 2002/657/EC in Iran. Mycotoxin contamination in grains can lead to significant economic losses for farmers and pose serious health risks. The validated method meets the need for rapid and simultaneous screening of seven mycotoxins in various wheat flour samples with simple sample preparation. The test process of the Myco 7 kit was easy to conduct, and the results produced were straightforward to interpret.
Despite the results showing no mycotoxin contamination in wheat flour samples, due to the potential health and economic consequences, it seems necessary to regularly monitor for high-prevalence mycotoxins in different types of packaged and bulk wheat flour samples across various seasons and environments and other grain types. Therefore, it is imperative to conduct further research to monitor mycotoxins in various food items and estimate the average dietary exposure and health risk assessment of mycotoxins for key foods in Iran.