4.7 Article

Patulin assessment and fungi identification in organic and conventional fruits and derived products

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 185-190

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.03.043

关键词

Patulin; Apple products; Tomato products; Fungi identification; DNA barcoding; Contaminants

资金

  1. European Union (FEDER funds through COMPETE)
  2. National Funds (FCT, Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia) [Pest-C/EQB/LA0006/2013]
  3. European Union (FEDER funds) [NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000069]
  4. consortium University of Porto/Santander Totta
  5. Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (ON.2 - O Novo Norte), from Quadro de Referencia Estrategico Nacional (QREN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, patulin levels in apples and tomatoes obtained in conventional and organic farms with 0 and 100% of rotten area, were determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to assess the influence of the production system with patulin content. Additionally, mould species were isolated and identified using classic morphological techniques and a DNA barcode system based on nrITS, beta-tubulin and calmodulin genes. The most frequently isolated genera were Rhizopus, Mucor, Alternaria, Cladosporium, Botrytis, Aspergillus and Penicillium. Higher patulin levels were found in samples contaminated by Penicillium expansum. Patulin levels were not significantly different in samples obtained from the two production system (conventional and organic). Among the three studied apple varieties, Golden delicious was the most contaminated with patulin followed by Reineta. Fuji apples with 0 and 100% of rotten area did not present quantifiable patulin levels. A survey for first time realized in commercialized tomato products showed that 35.7% of the samples (10 of 28) contained patulin in levels ranging from 3.22 to 47.72 mu g/kg. In apple juices, patulin levels ranged from 1.86 to 45.47 mu g/kg, which is below the maximum legal requirement (50 mu g/kg). (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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