4.4 Article

Fungi, aflatoxins, and cyclopiazonic acid associated with peanut retailing in Botswana

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 96-102

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-67.1.96

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peanuts are important food commodities, but they are susceptible to fungal infestation and mycotoxin contamination. Raw peanuts were purchased from retail outlets in Botswana and examined for fungi and mycotoxin (aflatoxins and cyclopiazonic acid) contamination. Zygomycetes were the most common fungi isolated; they accounted for 41% of all the isolates and were found on 98% of the peanut samples. Among the Zygomycetes, Absidia corymbifera and Rhizopus stolonifer were the most common. Aspergillus spp. accounted for 35% of all the isolates, with Aspergillus niger being the most prevalent (20.4%). Aspergillus flavus/parasiticus were also present and accounted for 8.5% of all the isolates, with A. flavus accounting for the majority of the A. flavus/parasiticus identified. Of the 32 isolates of A. flavus screened for mycotoxin production, 11 did not produce detectable aflatoxins, 8 produced only aflatoxins B-1 and B-2, and 13 produced all four aflatoxins (B-1, B-2, G(1), and G(2)) in varying amounts. Only 6 of the A. flavus isolates produced cyclopiazonic acid at concentrations ranging from 1 to 55 mug/kg. The one A. parasiticus isolate screened also produced all the four aflatoxins (1,200 mug/kg) but did not produce cyclopiazonic acid. When the raw peanut samples (n = 120) were analyzed for total aflatoxins, 78% contained aflatoxins at concentrations ranging from 12 to 329 mug/kg. Many of the samples (49%) contained total aflatoxins at concentrations above the 20 mug/kg limit set by the World Health Organization. Only 21% (n = 83) of the samples contained cyclopiazonic acid with concentrations ranging from 1 to 10 mug/kg. The results show that mycotoxins and toxigenic, fungi are common contaminants of peanuts sold at retail in Botswana.

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

4.4
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