4.4 Article

Quality Evaluation of Five Commercial Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay Kits for Detecting Aflatoxin B1 in Feedstuffs

Journal

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 691-696

Publisher

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN ASSOC ANIMAL PRODUCTION SOC
DOI: 10.5713/ajas.14.0868

Keywords

Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay Kit; Aflatoxin B-1; Evaluation; Feedstuffs

Funding

  1. Special Fund Project for Beijing Poultry Industry Innovation Team in Modern Agricultural Technology System [C21108]
  2. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [20120323]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of five commercial enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits (A, B, C, D, and E) from different suppliers for detecting afiatoxin B-1 (AFB(1)). AFB(1)-free corn samples supplemented with different levels of AFB(1) (5, 10, and 20 mu g/kg) were used as positive controls and 6 replicates of each control sample were tested to evaluate the accuracy and precision of these kits. In addition, we also evaluated the performance of these ELISA kits for AFB(1) in 30 feed samples, including corn, distillers dried grains with soluble, wheat samples, soybean meal, and poultry feed, which were verified by high performance liquid chromatography. Results showed that the coefficients of variation ranged from 1.18% to 16.22% in intra-plate and 2.85% to 18.04% in inter-plate for the determination of AFB(1). The half maximal inhibitory concentration for five kits ranged from 3.72 to 7.22 mu g/kg. The quantitation limits of AFB(1) were all under the legal limit in China but somewhat inconsistent with kit instructions. Although the recovery rate of four of the five kits were either less than 90% or more than 110%, all these values were acceptable in practice. Two kits had high false positive rates (C and E). In conclusion, our results revealed that the qualities of five tested ELISA kits were significantly different.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available