4.7 Article

Detoxification of aflatoxin in corn flour by ozone

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 94, 期 11, 页码 2253-2258

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.6550

关键词

aflatoxin; corn flour; ozone; detoxification; moisture content

资金

  1. Special Fund for Grain-Scientific Research in the Public Interest of China [201313005]
  2. Special Fund for Agro-Scientific Research in the Public Interest of China [201203037]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171785, 31371874, 31101383, 31201381]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [JUSRP51302A]
  5. National Key Technology RD Program [2012BAD34B02]
  6. Jiangsu Province science and technology support project [BE2012404, BE2012428]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Corn, which is one of most important agricultural products worldwide, is prone to pollution by aflatoxins (AFs) in many areas, thus seriously jeopardizing human health and threatening economic growth. This study evaluated the effects of ozone on the detoxification of AFs in corn flour (CF) and the moisture content (MC) thereof. RESULTS: The detoxifying effects of ozone on CF became more obvious as the ozone concentration and exposure time increased. After CF was treated with 75 mg L-1 ozone for 60 min, the contents of AFB(1), AFG(1) and AFB(2) decreased from 53.60, 12.08 and 2.42 mu g kg(-1) to 11.38, 3.37 and 0.71 mu g kg(-1), respectively, which are lower than the maximum limits of AFB(1), AFG(1), AFB(2) and total AFs (20 mu g kg(-1)) for CF regulated by the Chinese government. Ozonation significantly affected the MC of CF, and ozone at a higher concentration decreased the MC more drastically. After CF was exposed to 15, 30, 45 and 75 mg L-1 ozone for 60 min, the MC of CF decreased from 17.4% to below 15%, fulfilling the long-period storage requirements for CF. CONCLUSION: Ozone is potentially applicable in effectively degrading the AFs in CF and in greatly decreasing the MC of CF. (C) 2013 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据