4.5 Review

A global systematic review and meta-analysis on prevalence of the aflatoxin B1 contamination in olive oil

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MYSORE
卷 60, 期 4, 页码 1255-1264

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13197-022-05362-y

关键词

Aflatoxin; Meta-analysis; Mycotoxins; Occurrence; Olive oil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the occurrence of aflatoxin B1 in olive oil using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. The results showed that 32% of olive oil samples had detectable levels of aflatoxin B1, while 68% were free of this contaminant.
Olive oil can be contaminated by fungal toxins; therefore, it is necessary to monitor the incidence of mycotoxins in this oil. In the present study, the pooled prevalence of detectable aflatoxin B-1 (AFB(1)) in olive oil was evaluated using systematic review and meta-analysis approach from 1 January 1991 to 31 December 2020 (30 years study). The search was conducted via electronic databases involving Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Agris and Agricola. Synonyms were collected from combination of the MESH, Agrovoc and free text method. After screening and selection process of primary researches, full texts of eligible researches (46 studies) were evaluated and data of the nine studies as included researches were extracted. Random effect model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of AFB(1) in olive oil and weighing model of Dersimonian-Laired was applied. Summary measure of mycotoxin prevalence was estimated using Metaprop module of STATA and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Binomial Exact Method. Pooled prevalence of AFB(1) in olive oils were 32% (95% CI 8-56%) which means that 68% of olive oil were free of detectable contaminants of AFB(1). Due to controversy over the results of primary studies, future researches and consequent subgroup analysis based on the main variables affecting the aflatoxins contamination in olive oil are recommended to achieve the conclusive results.

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

4.5
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