4.7 Article

Ochratoxin A in commercial soluble coffee and coffee substitutes

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 56-60

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.04.045

关键词

Coffee substitutes; Contaminants; Food safety; Ochratoxin A; OTA

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) under the framework of QREN [NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000069]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coffee and cereals are recognized sources of ochratoxin A (OTA) in the human diet, but data concerning its amounts in soluble coffee substitutes are scarce. This work aimed to determine the amounts of OTA in commercial soluble coffee substitutes (mixtures of barley, malt, and chicory, either with or without coffee). OTA was isolated by immunoaffinity columns and quantified by HPLC with fluorescence detection. In a total of 40 samples analyzed, including 10 of soluble coffee, 13 mixtures with coffee and 17 mixtures without coffee, all commercialized in Portugal, 35 samples were positive for OTA, with concentrations ranging from <0.15 to 11.8 mu g/kg. Overall, coffee-containing samples had significantly higher amounts of OTA (p < 0.001) than substitutes without coffee. Indeed, coffee was the main determinant for the OTA content in the substitute beverages analyzed, with a highly significant linear correlation (r = 0.559, p < 0.001) between OTA amounts and coffee percentage in the mixtures. The high variability observed between samples is influenced by the brand effect as well as by raw-material quality. Globally, OTA amounts in coffee substitutes are generally low and within the regulated and safety limits. Their contribution to the provisional tolerable daily intake (PTDI) is therefore reduced (from 1.0 to 2.0% on average). Nevertheless, the high incidence of OTA contamination in these products should not be disregarded. (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