4.1 Article

Using commercial immunoassay kits for mycotoxins: 'joys and sorrows'?

期刊

WORLD MYCOTOXIN JOURNAL
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 417-430

出版社

WAGENINGEN ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3920/WMJ2014.1715

关键词

aflatoxin; AOAC; multi-mycotoxin assays; proficiency tests; rapid methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapid test methods are widely used for measuring mycotoxins in a variety of matrices. This review presents an overview of the current commercially available immunoassay rapid test formats. Enzyme linked immune-sorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow tests, flow through immunoassay, fluorescent polarisation immunoassay, and immunoaffinity columns coupled with fluorometric assay are common formats in the current market. The two existing evaluation programs for commercial testing kits by United State Department of Agricultural Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (USDA-GIPSA) and AOAC Research Institute are introduced. The strengths and weaknesses of these test kits are discussed with regard to the application scope, variance, specificity and cross reactivity, accuracy and precision, and measurement range. Generally speaking, the current commercially available testing kits meet research and industrial needs as 'fit-for-purpose. Furthermore, quality assurance concerns and future perspectives are elaborated for broader application of commercial test kits in research, industry and regulatory applications. It is expected that new commercial kits based on advanced technologies such as electrochemical affinity biosensors, molecularly imprinted polymers, surface plasmon resonance, fluorescence resonance energy transfer, aptamer-based biosensors and dynamic light scattering might be available to users in the future. Meanwhile, harmonisation of testing kit evaluation, incorporation of more quality assurance into the testing kit utilisation scheme, and a larger variety of kits available at lower cost will expand the usage of testing kits for food safety testing worldwide.

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

4.1
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