4.0 Article

The prevalence and risk assessment of aflatoxin in sesame-based products

Journal

ITALIAN JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 33, Issue -, Pages 92-102

Publisher

CODON PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.15586/ijfs.v33iSP1.2065

Keywords

mycotoxin; contamination; risk assessment; traditional products; sesame based

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the contamination of aflatoxins in sesame seeds, tahini, and tahini halva collected from the Iranian market, finding the highest prevalence in sesame seeds. While over 10% of the samples exceeded European regulations for aflatoxin levels, the margin of exposure suggested that the intake of these products does not pose a significant cancer risk for adults.
The contamination of aflatoxins (AFs) in 120 samples of sesame seeds, tahini, and tahini halva collected from Iran's market were evaluated. The exposed risk due to ingestion of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) via their consumption was estimated with the aid of the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). The highest prevalence of AF (55%) was associated with sesame seed samples, followed by tahini (45%) and tahini halva (32.5%). The AFB1 concentration in sesame seeds, tahini, and tahini halva was in the ranges of 0.21-12.35, 0.23-5.81, and 0.27-3.56 mu g/kg, respectively. The concentration of the total aflatoxin (TAF) in 7 (17.5%), 8 (20%), and 2 (5%) samples of sesame seeds, tahini, and tahini halva, respectively, was below the limit of European regulations (4 mu g/kg), while the levels of AFB1 in 10 (25%), 7 (17.5%), and 6 (15%) samples of sesame seeds, tahini, and tahini halva, respectively, were higher than the European regulations (2 mu g/kg). As the percentile 50 and 95 of margin of exposure (MOE) with AFB1 for sesame seed, tahini, and tahini halva was more than 10,000, it could conclude the intake of aflatoxin through the consumption of mentioned products did pose a not remarkable cancer risk for adults.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available