4.5 Article

Detection of fumonisin B1: comparison of flow-injection liposome immunoanalysis with high-performance liquid chromatography

Journal

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 312, Issue 1, Pages 7-13

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-2697(02)00393-7

Keywords

FILIA; flow injection analysis; fumonisin B1; HPLC; immunoassay; liposome; mycotoxin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fumonisins are secondary metabolites of the fungus Fusarium moniliforme, a common mycotoxin in corn, which are known to cause cancer in a number of experimental animals and have been linked to human esophageal cancer in China and South Africa. A high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method is currently the most widely used method for the quantitative determination of fumonisins. This method utilizes precolumn derivatization with o-phthaldialdehyde, isocratic elution, and fluorescence detection. In this study, the HPLC method was chosen as the reference method to evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of FILIA (flow-injection liposome immunoanalysis) for the detection of the fumonisin 131 (FmB1). Studies indicate that a recovery of 86-90% could be obtained when commercial yellow cornmeal spiked with FmB1 was extracted in 75% methanol, which correlated favorably (correlation coefficient, r(2) = 0.945) with the result of 80-92% obtained using the flow-injection liposome immunoanalysis (FILIA) system. The data suggest that the FILIA method is comparable to HPLC for the detection of fumonisins in corn, animal feeds, and human foods. Important features of FILIA as compared to HPLC are, most importantly, lower detection limit (ca. 25x lower), and also less complex and faster sample preparation and therefore increased analytical throughput. In addition, 24 human corn-based foods and 6 animal feeds were examined for the presence of FmB1 using HPLC and FILIA. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available