4.7 Article

Rapid prediction of deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat bran by MOS-based electronic nose and characterization of the relevant pattern of volatile compounds

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 98, 期 13, 页码 4955-4962

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.9028

关键词

electronic nose; metal oxide sensors; deoxynivalenol; wheat bran; discriminant function analysis; volatile compounds

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research, MIUR [D.D. 427/Ric, 02_00186_3417512]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDDeoxynivalenol (DON) is a mycotoxin, mainly produced by Fusarium sp., most frequently occurring in cereals and cereal-based products. Wheat bran refers to the outer layers of the kernel, which has a high risk of damage due to chemical hazards, including mycotoxins. Rapid methods for DON detection in wheat bran are required. RESULTSA rapid screening method using an electronic nose (e-nose), based on metal oxide semiconductor sensors, has been developed to distinguish wheat bran samples with different levels of DON contamination. A total of 470 naturally contaminated wheat bran samples were analyzed by e-nose analysis. Wheat bran samples were divided in two contamination classes: class A ([DON] 400 mu g kg(-1), 225 samples) and class B ([DON] > 400 mu g kg(-1), 245 samples). Discriminant function analysis (DFA) classified wheat bran samples with good mean recognizability in terms of both calibration (92%) and validation (89%). A pattern of 17 volatile compounds of wheat bran samples that were associated (positively or negatively) with DON content was also characterized by HS-SPME/GC-MS. CONCLUSIONSThese results indicate that the e-nose method could be a useful tool for high-throughput screening of DON-contaminated wheat bran samples for their classification as acceptable / rejectable at contamination levels close to the EU maximum limit for DON, reducing the number of samples to be analyzed with a confirmatory method. (c) 2018 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