Upload
truongdien
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Micro-Analysis of Aflatoxin M1 in Dairy Products at
Trace Levels and Its Elimination
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB
IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
CHEMISTRY
BY
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN
INSTITUE OF CHEMISTRY
UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB
LAHORE, PAKISTAN
July, 2009
1
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the research work described in this thesis entitled “Micro-
Analysis of Aflatoxin M1 in Dairy Products at Trace Levels and Its Elimination” by
Imtiaz Hussain is the original work and has been carried out under my supervision. I
have gone through all the data/ results/ materials reported in the manuscript and certify
their correctness/ authenticity. I further certify that the material included in this thesis has
not been used in part or full in a manuscript already submitted or in the process of
submission in partial/ complete fulfillment of the award of any other degree from this or
any other institution. I also certify that thesis has been prepared under my guidance
according to the prescribed format and I endorse its evaluation for the award of PhD
degree though the official procedures of the university.
Research Supervisor:
Professor Dr. Jamil Anwar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Institute of Chemistry
University of the Punjab
Lahore
Dated: ……………………
i
CERTIFICATE
I, as a Co-supervisor certify that the research work described in this thesis entitled
“Micro-Analysis of Aflatoxin M1 in Dairy Products at Trace Levels and Its
Elimination” by Imtiaz Hussain is the original work. I have gone through all the data/
results/ materials reported in the manuscript and certify their correctness/ authenticity. I
further certify that the material included in this thesis has not been used in part or full in a
manuscript already submitted or in the process of submission in partial/ complete
fulfillment of the award of any other degree from this or any other institution. I also
certify that thesis has been prepared under my guidance according to the prescribed
format and I endorse its evaluation for the award of PhD degree though the official
procedures of the university.
Research Co-supervisor:
Dr. Munwar Ali Munwar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Institute of Chemistry
University of the Punjab
Lahore
Dated: ……………………
ii
DEDICATED TO
MY SWEET MOTHER
& MY LOVING FATHER
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Allah Almighty, the most merciful and compassionate, the most gracious and
beneficent, is the Lord of lords and reserves all praises and I bow my head in His
gratitude for enabling me to achieve one of the goals of my life. Million and million
times peace (Drood-o-Salam) upon the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace of
Allah be upon him), who is blessing for humanity as a whole and for whole of the
universe and whose life and teachings is a source of eternal success.
I deem it a great honour and privilege to record my profound gratitude and
indebtedness to my worthy supervisor, Prof. Dr. Ch. Jamil Anwar, Professor Institute of
Chemistry, University of the Punjab, Lahore for his sympathetic and inspiring attitude,
patronizing supervision, generous assistance, erudite suggestions, and unfailing patience
through out the course of study and research and encouragement during the write up of
the manuscript. I express my deep gratitude to my honourable Co- supervisor Dr.
Munawar ali Munawar, Associate Professor Institute of Chemistry, University of the
Punjab, Lahore for his beneficial suggestions and constructive criticism during the course
of this study. I am thankful to Prof. Dr. Saeed Ahmad Nagra, Director Institute of
Chemistry, for providing research facilities.
I wish to express my most sincere thanks to Dr. Muhammad Rafique Asi, Senior
scientist Nuclear Institute for agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad for his
technical and skilful guidance and unlimited cooperation from the beginning to the end of
my research work. I extend my thanks to Mr. Muhammad Aslam, Accountant Institute
of Chemistry, University of the Punjab, Lahore and Mr. Muhammad Aslam, In-charge
store, Institute of Chemistry, University of the Punjab, Lahore, for their best cooperation
in the departmental work.
I am highly thankful to Higher Education Commission (HEC), Islamabed for
financial support for this project without which the present cherished goal would have
merely been a dream. I do not find appropriate words to express my thanks to Dr. Abu-
Saeed Hashmi, Eminent Scientist, UVAS, Lahore, for his sincere guidance. With sincere
gratitude, I offer my thanks to Dr. Khushi Muhammad, Chairman Microbiology
Department, University of Animal and Veterinary Science (UVAS), Lahore for his open
hearted cooperation in research work. I am cordially thankful to Dr. Muhammad
iv
Zargham, Professor Department of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Science,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, for his sincere cooperation.
I feel pleasure to express my gratitude to the administration and members of
CENUM, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, especially Mrs. Affia Tabassam, Principal Scientist,
Dr. Shan Elahi, Senior Scientist, and Mr. Hamid Rashid, technologist for their
cooperation and providing facilities for ELISA analysis.
I extend my special thanks to Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad Shafique, Chief Executive
SNAM PHARMA, Lahore, for his valuable services in obtaining literature and chemicals
relating to aflatoxin analysis. I extend my thanks to Mr. Ibrar Minhas, Chief Executive
AM Traders for providing materials and chemicals required for research purposes.
Its pleasure for me in expressing gratitude for Dr. M. Ishaq Khalid Consultant
Psychiatrist (UK) and Dr. Tayyaba Khalid (UK) who always encouraged me for the
higher ideals of life. I am especially thankful to my college colleagues Prof. Dr. Khalid
Zafar-Ullah, Prof. Bashir Ahmad, Prof. Sajid Asdullah, Prof. Tabassam Rasool,
Prof. Imran Zaidi, and Prof. Iftikhar Haider Malik for their timely help. I appreciate
my genius students Kashif, Qamar, Bilal, and Osman for their cooperation in research
activities and proof reading of the manuscript. My special thanks are for my friends Dr.
Akhlaq Ahmad, Prof. Ahmad Sher Awan, Ch. Ashiq Ali, Mian Ghulam Mustafa,
Mr. Hafeez-Ullah, Kari Abdullah, Mr. Khalid Anjum, Mr. Sajjad Baig and Mr.
Shahbaz Nazir for their moral support.
I am also indebted to my loving wife Tahira Yasmin and my lovely sons
Muhammad Najm-os-Saqib and Muhammad Aqib, who always prayed for me and
whose love remained all the time with me in this whole run.
I finally express my great gratitude and my deepest affection for my parents, my
cousin Javed Yaqoob, elder brother Ijaz Hussain, sweet nephews Rizwan and Abdur
Rehman, for their love, good wishes, inspiration and whose hands always rose in prayer
for me
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN
v
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Mycotoxins and Aflatoxins ....................................................................................... 1
1.2. Aflatoxin Biosynthesis .............................................................................................. 6
1.3. Toxicity of Aflatoxins ............................................................................................... 7
1.4. Aflatoxin M1 and Dairy Products ............................................................................. 8
1.5. Aflatoxin Determination Techniques ...................................................................... 10
1.5.1. (1) Sample Preparation Techniques ................................................................. 10
1.5.1.1. Liquid-Liquid Separation .......................................................................... 11
1.5.1.2. Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) .................................................................... 11
1.5.1.3. Immunoaffinity Columns (IACs) .............................................................. 11
1.5.1.4 MycosepTM Columns ................................................................................ 12
1.5.2. (2) Detection Techniques ................................................................................. 12
1.5.2.1. Analytical Methods ................................................................................... 13
1.5.2.1.1. Thin-Layer Chromatography .............................................................. 13
1.5.2.1.2. High Performance Thin-Layer Chromatography ............................... 14
1.5.2.1.3. High Performance Liquid Chromatography ....................................... 14
1.5.2.1.4. Liquid Chromatography with Mass Spectrometric Detection ............ 15
1.5.2.2. Immunological Methods ........................................................................... 16
1.5.2.2.1. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Asssay (ELISA) ............................ 16
1.6. Management and Control of Aflatoxin Hazards ..................................................... 17
1.6.1. Pre-Harvest Management ................................................................................. 17
1.6.1.1. Cultural Control ......................................................................................... 17
1.6.1.2. Genetic Resistance of Cultivars ................................................................ 18
1.6.1.3. Use of Plant Breeding for Development of Host Resistance .................... 18
1.6.1.4. Genetic Engineering .................................................................................. 18
1.6.1.5. Bio-Competitive Agents ............................................................................ 19
1.6.2. Post-Harvest Management ............................................................................... 19
1.6.3. Detoxification ................................................................................................... 19
1.6.3.1. Chemical Detoxification ........................................................................... 20
1.6.3.2. Physical Detoxification ............................................................................. 20
1.6.3.2.1. Thermal Inactivation .......................................................................... 20
1.6.3.2.2. Irradiation ........................................................................................... 21
1.6.3.2.3. Use of Aflatoxin Binders .................................................................... 21
1.7. Legislation ............................................................................................................... 22
vi
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................................... 23
2.1. Toxicological Studies .............................................................................................. 23
2.2. Methodology Studies ............................................................................................... 25
2.3. Carry-Over of Aflatoxin in Milk ............................................................................. 30
2.4. Survey of AFM1 in Milk and Milk Products .......................................................... 31
2.4.1. Survey of AFM1 in Milk .................................................................................. 31
2.4.2. Survey of AFM1 in Cheese .............................................................................. 51
2.4.3. Survey of AFM1 in Yoghurt ............................................................................ 63
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................. 68
3.1. Materials and Instruments ....................................................................................... 68
3.1.1. Milk Samples ................................................................................................... 68
3.1.2. Samples of Cheese and Yoghurt ...................................................................... 68
3.1.3. Feed Samples ................................................................................................. 68
3.1.4. Chemicals and Standards ................................................................................. 69
3.1.5. Instruments ....................................................................................................... 69
3.2. Methods ................................................................................................................... 70
3.2.1. Determination of Aflatoxin M1 with Fluorometer ........................................... 70
3.2.2. Determination of Aflatoxin M1 by HPLC ....................................................... 70
3.2.2.1. Extraction Procedure ................................................................................. 70
3.2.2.2. LC Determination with Fluorescence Detection ....................................... 71
3.2.2.3. Calculations ............................................................................................... 71
3.2.3. Determination of Aflatoxin B1 by HPLC ........................................................ 71
3.2.3.1 Extraction and Clean-up Procedure ............................................................ 71
3.2.3.2. Aflatoxin Derivatization ............................................................................ 72
3.2.3.3. LC Determination with Fluorescence Detection ....................................... 72
3.2.3.4. Calculations ............................................................................................... 72
3.2.4. Determination of Aflatoxin M1 in Cheese and Yoghurt by ELISA ................ 73
3.2.4.1. Sample Preparation ................................................................................... 73
3.2.4.2. Test Procedure ........................................................................................... 73
3.2.4.3. Calculations ............................................................................................... 74
3.2.5. Determination of Milk Fat Percentage ............................................................ 74
3.2.6. Determination of Milk Protein ....................................................................... 74
3.2.6.1. Test Portion Preparation ............................................................................ 74
3.2.6.2 Digestion .................................................................................................... 75
3.2.6.3. Distillation ................................................................................................. 75
3.2.6.4. Calculations .............................................................................................. 75
3.2.7. Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................... 76
vii
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................ 79
4.1. Aflatoxin M1 Contamination in Raw Milk- A General Survey .............................. 79
4.2. Aflatoxin M1 Contamination Variation with Respect to Localities and with Respect to Herd-Size of Cattle ....................................................................................... 90
4.3. Aflatoxin M1 Contamination in Milk of Different Species .................................. 100
4.4. Aflatoxin M1 Contamination in Milk Products .................................................... 115
4.5. Aflatoxin B1 Contamination in Dairy Feed .......................................................... 120
4.6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 126
4.6.1. Implications of Study Results and Elimination of AFM1 Contamination in Milk and Milk Products ........................................................................................... 127
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 131
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 156
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ......................................................................................... 156
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
1
Target organs of some mycotoxins along with their primary
health effects, feed suitable for growth, and fungi producing
them
3
2Distribution of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in raw milk samples by
month-wise and district-wise in the Punjab82
3Distribution of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in raw milk samples by
month-wise83
4Distribution of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in raw milk by district-wise
and season-wise85
5Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of urban buffaloes93
6Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of semi-urban buffaloes94
7Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of rural buffaloes94
8Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of urban cows94
9Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of semi-urban cows95
10Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of rural Cows95
11
Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of urban buffaloes belonging to the small herd-size
category
96
12
Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of urban buffaloes belonging to the medium herd-
size category
96
13
Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of urban buffaloes belonging to the large herd-size
category
97
14
Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of semi-urban buffaloes belonging to the small
herd-size category
97
15 Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw 97
ix
milk samples of semi-urban buffaloes belonging to the medium
herd-size category
16
Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of semi-urban buffaloes belonging to the large
herd-size category
98
17
Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of rural buffaloes belonging to the small herd-size
category
98
18
Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of rural buffaloes belonging to the medium herd-
size category
98
19
Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw
milk samples of rural buffaloes belonging to the large herd-size
category
98
20
Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) level (µg L-1) in buffalo milk and cow
milk in urban, semi-urban and rural areas along with variation of
aflatoxin M1 concentration in buffalo milk with respect to herd-
size.
99
21Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated milk
samples of five species103
22 Fat% in buffalo milk samples 10423 Fat% in cow milk samples 10424 Fat% in goat milk samples 10525 Fat% in sheep milk samples 10526 Fat% in camel milk samples 10527 Protein% in buffalo milk samples 10528 Protein% in cow milk samples 10629 Protein% in goat milk samples 10630 Protein% in sheep milk samples 10631 Protein% in camel milk samples 106
32Composite result of AFM1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and
protein% in milk of the five species107
33Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in
buffalo milk109
34Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in cow
milk110
35Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in goat
milk111
36Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in
sheep milk112
x
37Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in
camel milk113
38Pearson correlation analysis of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L)
concentration, fat%, and protein% in the milk of five species114
39Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated
cheese samples117
40Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated
yoghurt samples118
41Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) contamination (µg/ kg) in cheese and
yoghurt118
42Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated
cottonseed cake samples123
43Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated
concentrate samples124
44Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated wheat
bran samples124
45 Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in bread samples 124
46Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated
paddy straw samples124
47 Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) level (µg/ kg) in different feedstuffs 125
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. No. Title Page No.
1 Structures of aflatoxins 52 The regression line 773 The linear equation 784 District-wise distribution of AFM1 in raw milk samples 84
5Distribution of AFM1 season-wise and district-wise in raw milk
samples86
6 Season-wise distribution of AFM1 in raw milk samples 877 Month-wise distribution of AFM1 in raw milk samples 88
8Comparison of HPLC chromatograms: (A) standard (B) sample,
for AFM1 in milk92
9Calibration curve of standard solutions of AFM1 by HPLC
analysis93
10Area-wise comparison of aflatoxin M1 in milk of buffaloes and
cows95
11 Calibration curve of standard solutions of AFM1 with 101
xi
concentrations of 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0 and 10.0 µg/ L by
HPLC analysis
12Comparison of HPLC chromatograms: (A) standard (B) sample,
for AFM1 in milk of five species 102
13Comparison of AFM1 contamination%, fat%, and protein% in
milk of the five species108
14 Standard curve from ELISA analysis for cheese 11615 Standard curve from ELISA analysis for yoghurt 117
16HPLC chromatograms: (A) Standard (B) Sample, for aflatoxin
B1
122
17The linear standard curve of AFB1 standards with concentrations
from 0.5µg/ L to 15µg/ L123
xii
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture No. Title Page No.
1Buffaloes grazing at island in the Ravi river near Lahore, Pakistan
89
2 The growth of moulds on bread 125
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation WordA AspergillusAFB1 Aflatoxin B1
AFB2 Aflatoxin B2
AFM1 Aflatoxin M1
AFM2 Aflatoxin M2
ANNEX AnnextureANOVA Analysis of VarianceAOAC Association of Official analytical ChemistsAOCS American Oil and Chemical Society AVN Averantinbw Body weight°C Degree Celsius (centigrade)CEC Commission of European Communitiescm Centimeter(s)Co A Co-enzyme ACV Coefficient of varianceC8 Carbon 8C18 Carbon 18Da DaltonDAD Diode array detectorDHOMST Dihydroxy O-methylsterigmatocystinEC European commission/ communitiese.g. For exampleELISA Enzyme linked immunosorbent assayet al. And others (co-workers)etc. (ETCETERA) Other (things)EU European UnionF F ratio (statistics)F FusariumFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFDA Food and Drug AdministrationFig. FigureFLD Fluorescence Detectorg Gram(s)g Gravity(in centrifuging)GIT Gastrointestinal tractHAVN Hydroxy averantinHPLC High-performance liquid chromatographyHSCAS Hydrated sodium calcium aluminosilicateIAC Immunoaffinity columnsIARC International agency for Research on Cancerid inner diameteri.e. That isIUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied ChemistryJECFA The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additiveskg Kilogram(s)kGy Kilogray
xiv
L Litre(s)LC Liquid chromatography; Liquid chromatographLtd. LimitedM Molar (applied to concentration of solution)min Minuteml Millilitremm MillimeterMS Mass spectrometry; Mass spectrometerN Normal (applied to concentration of solution)N2 NitrogenND Not detectedng Nanogram(10-9 g)NGO Non government organization(s)nm Nanometer(10-9 m)No. NumberNOR NorsoloricOMST O-methylsterigmatocystinOTA Ochratoxin Ap p value (statistics)PA Penitrem APBS Phosphate buffer salinePCR Polymerase chain reactionppb Parts per billionppt Parts per trillionPSI Per square inchPSQCA Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority® Trademark name (registered)Rf Retardation factor (Distance spot moved/distance solvent moved, TLC) rpm revolutions per minuteRP-HPLC Reversed phase high performance liquid chromatographySD Standard deviationSE Standard errorSIM Selection-ion-moniteringSPE Solid phase extractionST SterigmatocystinStd. Standardtech. TechnologyTFA Tri-fluoro acetic acidTLC Thin-layer chromatographyTM TrademarkUAE United Arab EmiratesUHT Ultra high-temperature treatedUSA United States of America USDA United States Department of AgricultureUV UltravioletVAL VersiconolVERA Versicolorin AVRB Versicolorin Bvs VersusWHO World Health Organization
xv
WTO World Trade Organizationλ Lambda(for wavelength)µg Microgram(s) (10-6 g)µL Microlitre(s) (10-6 L)µm Micrometer(s) (10-6 m)% Percent (parts per hundred); percentage< Less than; under; below (used with numbers only)> More than; greater; above; exceeds (used with numbers only)
xvi
ABSTRACT
Milk is a complex mixture of fat, protein, carbohydrate, and mineral components
and it has been a source of human food since the recorded history. Aflatoxin M1 is
excreted in milk of those lactating animals which have ingested aflatoxin B1 contaminated
feed. Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is metabolized to aflatoxin M1 in liver and then excreted in
milk and urine. Aflatoxin B 1 is a potent carcinogen and aflatoxin M1 (AFM1), being the
metabolite of AFB1, has toxic properties similar to AFB1. Several researches have
demonstrated the potential toxicity of exposure to AFM1. Aflatoxin M1 is present in milk
and milk products.
This study includes the determination of contamination of aflatoxin M1 in milk
and milk products and contamination of aflatoxin B1 in dairy feed in the Punjab province
of Pakistan. The analytical techniques used in the determination of AFM1 were high
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), fluorometry (using Fluorometer), and
enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For the determination of AFB1, HPLC
was used. Immunoaffinity columns were used to accomplish cleanup step during HPLC
and fluorometric determination. A total of 977 samples of milk, cheese, and yoghurt
were analyzed for AFM1 contamination. Whereas a total of 260 samples of feed
commodities (concentrate feed, cottonseed cake, wheat bran, bread, paddy straw, and
wheat straw) were analyzed for AFB1 contamination.
In the first phase of study 168 sample of raw milk from fourteen districts, were
analyzed by using immunoaffinity columns and Fluorometer. All the samples were found
contaminated with AFM1, however in 96.4% samples the level of contamination was
below the US tolerance limit of 0.5 µg/ L. Only 3% samples showed AFM1
contamination higher than the US tolerance limit. While considering EU maximum
permissible limit (0.05 µg/ L), 99.4% samples exceeded this limit. Seasonal effect was
also studied on the presence of AFM1 contamination in milk. ANOVA analysis indicated
significant difference (p < 0.01) in AFM1 concentration in milk in different seasons. The
AFM1 contamination was higher in winter as compared to summer and this was supported
by previous studies.
During the study of AFM1 contamination in raw milk taken from different
localities, variation in levels of AFM1 was found in raw milk from different localities in
the central areas of the Punjab, Pakistan. Total 480 milk samples of buffaloes and cows
xvii
from different localities (urban, semi-urban, and rural) were analyzed by using HPLC
with prior clean-up step applying immunoaffinity columns. The percentage of AFM1
contamination in buffalo and cow milk was 42.5% and 52.5% respectively. In both types
of milk, level of AFM1 contamination was higher in milk samples obtained from urban
and semi-urban areas and it was minimal in milk samples taken from rural areas. The
AFM1 contamination in buffalo milk was studied statistically with respect to herd-size
variation also. The results showed significant variations with respect to herd-size (F=
6.631, p= 0.001). Milk samples in case of small herd-size (1-5 cattle) and medium herd-
size (6-10 cattle) showed higher AFM1 concentration as compared to large herd-size
(more than 10 cattle).
Another study was conducted to investigate the AFM1 contamination in the milk
of five mammalian species namely buffalo, cow, goat, sheep, and camel from the area of
Faisalabad district of the Punjab province, Pakistan. Analysis was made by using HPLC
with fluorescence detection. Immunoaffinity columns, which are based on the principle
of affinity chromatography, were used for clean-up purposes. Total 169 milk samples
were analyzed. The percentage of AFM1 contamination in buffalo milk, cow milk, goat
milk, and sheep milk was found to be 34.5%, 37.5%, 20%, and 16.7% respectively.
AFM1 contamination was not detected in camel milk in this area.
Although there is massive use of fresh milk in Pakistan, but still significant
consumption occurs after milk has been processed. As AFM1 concentration is not
affected by normal milk processes, AFM1 is also present in milk products like cheese and
yoghurt. The milk product samples including 80 cheese samples and 80 yoghurt samples
were analyzed by using ELISA technique. The percentage of AFM1 contamination was
found to be 87.5% and 70% in cheese and yoghurt samples respectively.
Because of the possibility of presence of aflatoxin B1, feed plays a major role in
the occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in milk. The monitoring of AFB1 contamination in dairy
feed is compulsory to ensure safety of milk consumers. The study on the contamination
of AFB1 in the dairy feed samples showed high contamination of AFB1 in cotton-seed
cake samples and concentrate feed samples. Total 260 samples of different commodities,
used as dairy feed, were analyzed for AFB1 contamination by HPLC. The average AFB1
contamination levels in cottonseed cake, concentrate feed, wheat bran, bread pieces, and
paddy straw were found to be 242, 176, 98, 23, and 37 µg/ Kg respectively. The
contamination level was high as compared to US tolerance i.e., 20 µg/ Kg.
xviii
The study revealed that the menace of AFM1 concentration in milk and milk
products is present in the area. It is imperative to take measures to control and reduce the
AFM1 contamination in milk and milk products in the area. Contamination of AFM1 was
found in milk and milk products, but only a small percentage of contaminated samples
exceeded the US tolerance limit. This can be controlled by taking precautionary
measures. The study conducted for AFB1 contamination determination showed the high
concentration of AFB1 in cottonseed cake and concentrate feed. The use of these two
commodities must be controlled in the feed regimen of milking animals. Moreover, the
proper use of toxin binders can reduce the menace of AFM1 contamination in milk and
milk products in the area. The feed, straw, bread and other commodities contaminated
with moulds must not be used as a feed for milking animals. Availability of sufficient
moisture is the most critical factor in mould growth. A relative humidity of 70% to 90%
is suitable for growth of moulds and production of mycotoxins. Long storage of dairy
feed and feedstuffs should not be practiced or these should be stored in a proper way,
especially at low moisture content, to avoid the growth of moulds and to eliminate the
contamination of aflatoxins. Low moisture content and low humidity percentage can be
achieved by aeration. The concerned authorities should set a legal limit for AFM1 in
dairy products and AFB1 in dairy feed. Furthermore, establishment of sophisticated
laboratories for aflatoxins’ analysis and arrangement of surveillance programs for
aflatoxin contamination will prove to be of a great help in controlling aflatoxin
contamination.
xix
1. INTRODUCTIONContamination of aflatoxin M1 in milk is a matter of serious concern, because
AFM1 is a carcinogen. Milk is a part of common diet for adults as well as children which
are more susceptible to the hazardous effects of toxins. As AFM1 is heat stable and no
reduction has been observed in toxin level during pasteurization process, AFM1 has been
found in UHT milk (Diaz et al., 1995). It passes from raw milk to milk products. In
some milk derivatives like cheese and yoghurt, it is associated with the protein fraction
and hence there is 3-5 fold enrichment over that in milk (Bracket and Marth 1982; Pietri
et al., 1997). Aflatoxin M1 is an important member of aflatoxins, which are a group of
mycotoxins.
1.1. Mycotoxins and Aflatoxins
Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites, produced by filamentous fungi that can
pose a serious threat for human and animal consumers. The word mycotoxin literally
means “poison from fungi” (myco = fungus, toxin = poison), but all toxic compounds
produced by fungi are not considered to be mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are toxic to
vertebrates and other animal groups even in low concentrations. On this basis, other low-
molecular-weight fungal products like ethanol, toxic only in high concentrations, are not
termed as mycotoxins (Bennett, 1987). Mycotoxicology, the study of mycotoxins,
however arbitrarily excludes mushroom poisons, definitely deadly fungal metabolites,
from its area of study. The distinction between a mycotoxin and a mushroom poison is
made on two different levels; one is the size of the fungus producing them and other is the
human intention of exposure to these. The former is a production of micro-fungi
(moulds) and its exposure is almost accidental, whereas the latter is a macro-fungi
production and humans can be exposed to it because they may wrongly take these to be
delectable species (Moss, 1996). Fungal productions that are toxic to bacteria are known
as antibiotics and others which are fatal for plants are known as phytotoxins. Although
over 300 different types of mycotoxins have been identified but only a few are of
importance as far as human beings are concerned. Five genera of fungi, namely
Aspergillus, Fusarium, Penicillium, Alternaria, and Claviceps are responsible for the
production of a majority of mycotoxins (Geisen, 1998; D’Mello et al., 1998). The
mycotoxins produced by Aspergillus fungi are aflatoxin B, G, M, ochratoxin A (OTA),
1
sterigmatocystine and cyclopizonic acid. Penicillium toxins are patulin, OTA, citrinin,
penitrem A (PA) and cyclopiazonic acid. Fusarium toxins are deoxynivalenol (DON),
nivalenol, zearalenone, T-2 toxin, diacetoxyscipenol, fumonisins and moniliformin.
Alternaria toxins are tenuazonic acid, alternariol and alternariol methyl ether. Ergot
alkaloids are produced by claviceps fungi (Steyn, 1995).
The classification of mycotoxins has always been a troublesome question.
Different modes of classification have been proposed. The experts and researches of
different areas of study classify mycotoxins according to the mode and mood of their
subject. Organic chemists classify them according to their chemical structure (e.g.,
lactones, coumarins) and biochemists arrange them according to their biosynthetic origin
(e.g., polyketides, amino acid-derived). On the other hand, clinicians arrange them
according to the organ they affect (e.g., hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins, neurotoxins, and
immunitoxins), whereas the physicians use the illness associated with them to name them
(e. g., St. Anthony’s fire, stachybotryotoxicosis) and cell biologists put them into generic
groups (teratogenes, carcenogenes, mutagens, and allergens). Mycologists propose yet
another way to classify mycotoxins by classifying them according to the fungi producing
them (e.g., Aspergillus toxins, Penicillium toxins). All the above mentioned
classifications have certain shortcomings and none of these is comprehensive and entirely
satisfactory.
Mycotoxins can be hazardous for human and animal health because they are
capable of producing illness and death in humans and animals. Humans can be exposed to
mycotoxins by ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure (Pitt, 2000; Hendry and Cole,
1993). The diseases caused by mycotoxins in humans and animals are termed as
mycotoxicoses- characteristic symptoms of toxic effects of mycotoxins. The intensity of
these diseases ranges from acutely toxic to immunosuppressive or carcinogenic. All this
does not conclude that mycotoxins are only dangerous for humans. They have been
proven to be beneficial by the formation of antibiotics (penicillins), immunosuppressant
(cyclosporine), and in control of postpartum hemorrhage and migraine headaches (ergot
alkaloids) (Etzel, 2002).
Target organs of some mycotoxins along with their primary health effects and
fungi producing them are given in table 1 (D’Mello and MacDonald, 1997; Peraica et al.,
1999).
2
Table 1: Target organs of some mycotoxins along with their primary health effects, feed
suitable for growth, and fungi producing them.
Mycotoxin Food/Feed Symptoms/Primary
health effects
Target
organ
Main fungus
producingAflatoxins Cearls,
maize,
cottonseed,
ground nut
Acute hepatits,
haemorrhagic
desease, death
Liver Aspergillus
flavus, A.
paraciticus
Ergot alkaloids Cereals,
grasses
Gangrenous
necrosis, nervous
seizures,
reproductive failure
Peripheral
vascular
system
Claviceps
purpurea, C.
paspali
Fumonisins Maize Apathy, depression,
confusion, dullness,
hyper excitation
Esophagus Fusarium
proliferatum, F.
moniliforme, A.
ochraceusOchratoxin Cereals Nephritis Kidney A.ocharaceus,
Penicillium
viridicatum, P.
cyclopium, P.
verrucosum Trichothecenes Cereals Haemorrhage,
gastroenteritits,
dermal-mucosal
necroses
Mucoses F. culmorum,
F.
graminearum,
F. cerealis, F.
sporotrichioide
sZearalenone Cearls,
maize, corn
comb, maize
silage,
sorghum
Fertility disorder,
enlargement of
mammary glands
Urogenital
tract
F. culmorum,
F.
graminearum,
F.
sporotrichioide
s
3
Aflatoxins belong to the group of mycotoxins and are toxic metabolites,
produced by certain fungi. Their first appearance on the stage was quite mysterious and
fatal. In 1960, more than 100,000 turkeys died in England from an apparently new
disease that was termed as “Turkey X disease” (Blowt, 1961). Later on the same sort of
problem appeared in ducklings and young pheasants. Because of the importance of the
matter an extensive research was launched to probe into the matter. The early
investigations showed that the disease was associated with feed, namely Brazilian peanut
meal. It was established by the researchers that this peanut meal was highly toxic to
poultry and ducklings. It was speculated that the toxin might be of fungal origin. Finally,
in 1961, the toxin-producing fungus was identified to be Aspergillus flavus and was given
the name Aflatoxin. The word ‘aflatoxin’ is an acronym and in this word (A-fla-toxin),
the “A’ is for Aspergillus and “fla” for the species flavus along with word toxin. Now it
is known that aflatoxins are produced not only by Aspergillus flavus but a number of
other species like Aspegillus parasiticus, Aspegillus niger and Aspergillus nomius also
produce aflatoxins. Fungi, behaving in an opportunistic manner, get a chance to produce
aflatoxins by growing on poorly managed crops, appearing during crop drying and
processing, and while the commodity is either in storage or in transit.
More than a dozen different types of aflatoxins have been identified and the four
prominent members are B1, B2, G1, and G2. Others like M1 and M2, P1 and P2, and
aflatoxicol are produced as a result of animal and microbial metabolism. The structures
of important aflatoxins are shown in the Fig. 1. A. flavus fungus produces only B
aflatoxins, while the other species produce both B and G aflatoxins (D’Mello and
MacDonald, 1997). Aflatoxins M1 and M2 are the hydroxylated metabolites of aflatoxins
B1 and B2 respectively and are found in milk and milk products obtained from livestock
which have ingested contaminated feed. The aflatoxin M1 and M2 were first isolated from
milk of lactating animals that were fed aflatoxin preparations; therefore the M designation
is used for the aflatoxins which are present in milk. The B designation of aflatoxin B1
and B2 denotes the capacity to exhibit blue fluorescence under UV-light (365) and the G
designation refers to the yellow-green fluorescence of the relevant aflatoxins under UV-
light. The aflatoxin B1, after being ingested by taking contaminated commodities, is
converted into aflatoxin M1 by the action of certain enzymes found in the liver of animals
and humans. After its formation, AFM1 is excreted in the urine and milk of dairy cattle
and other lactating mammals.
4
Fig. 1: Structures of aflatoxins.
The commodities which are susceptible to the attack of fungi and which are
being contaminated with aflatoxins are peanuts and other nuts, cereals, spices, and
cottonseed. Usually in areas with higher temperature and humidity, food and feed are
contaminated with aflatoxins. The ideal conditions for the growth of Aspergillus and for
production of toxin are an equilibrium relative humidity of 80-85 per cent, equilibrium
moisture content of 17 per cent and temperature within the 24-35°C. The optimum
temperature for A. flavus is 28-30 °C and the minimum moisture content is 8-10 % in
peanuts (Hohler, 2000). Attack of fungus and thus in turn aflatoxin contamination
O O
O
O O
OCH3
Aflatoxin B1
O O
O
O O
OCH3
Aflatoxin B2
O O
O
O O
OCH3
Aflatoxin M2
OH
O O
O
O O
OCH3
Aflatoxin M1
OH
O O
O
O
OCH3
Aflatoxin G1
O
O
O O
O
O
OCH3
Aflatoxin G2
O
O
5
becomes more feasible when there is some sort of stress in plants. The stress may be in
the form of drought (below-normal soil moisture) that weakens the plant system,
extended periods of high temperature, damage from insects or birds, high crop density or
competition from weeds. These conditions weaken the host and provide a means of entry
to the fungus spores to establish a foothold in or on the host.
1.2. Aflatoxin Biosynthesis
Aflatoxins are a group of polyketide-derived furanocoumarins. The
biosynthesis of aflatoxins is a complex process and multi-enzymatic reactions are
involved in it and it is governed by genes maintained in a cluster. With the discovery of
the structures of aflatoxins, many attempts started to decipher the aflatoxin biosynthetic
pathway. The studies have determined that aflatoxins are synthesized in two stages from
malonyl CoA, first with the formation of hexanoyl CoA, followed by formation of
decaketide anthraquinone. A series of highly organized oxidation-reduction reactions
then allows formation of aflatoxins (Bhatnagar et al., 1992; Dutton, 1988; Townsend,
1997). The currently accepted scheme (Yu et al., 2002) for aflatoxin biosynthesis is:
hexanoyl Coa precursor → norsolorinic acid, NOR → averantin, AVN →
hydroxyaverantin, HAVN → versiconal hemiacetal acetate, VHA → versiconal, VAL →
versicolorin B, VERB → versicolorin A, VERA → demethyl-sterigmatocystin, DMST →
sterigmatocystin, ST → O-methylsterigmatocystin, OMST → aflatoxin B1 and aflatoxins
G1. Aflatoxin B2 and aflatoxin G2 are formed from dihydro O-methylsterigmatocystin,
DHOMST. Several specific enzymes with conversions in the aflatoxin pathway have been
partially purified (Bhatnagar et al., 1992; Dutton, 1988; Yabe et al., 1991a; Yabe et al.,
1991b; Bhatnagar et al., 1989; Bhatnagar et al., 1991), whereas others such as
methyltransferases (Bhatnagar et al., 1988) have been purified to homogeneity. Many
other enzymes, which are involved in aflatoxin biosynthesis such as a reductase and a
cyclase (Lin and Andeson, 1992) have also been purified from A. parasiticus. A
desaturase has been found in cell-free fungal extracts (Yabe et al., 1991a). Two
versiconal hemiacetal acetate reductases involved in toxin synthesis have been purified
and characterized by Matsushima et al. (1994). Kusumoto and Hsieh (1996) purified to
homogeneity an esterase that converts VHA to versiconal. Bhatnagar et al. (1991) and
Chatterjee and Townsend (1996) stated that in the later stages of AFB1 and AFB2
6
synthesis, independent reactions and formation of different chemical precursors are
catalyzed by common enzyme system (Bhatnagar and Cleveland, 1991).
There are a number of nutritional and environmental factors, such as
temperature, pH, carbon and nitrogen source, stress factors, lipids and trace metal salts,
which affect the production of aflatoxins by toxigenic Aspergilli. The molecular
mechanisms for these effects are still not clear, although numerous studies exist (Payne
and Brown, 1998; Bennett et al., 1979). As many nutritional and environmental factors
affect aflatoxins formation, it is likely that one or more signal transduction pathways
affect aflatoxins formation. Genetic connection between fungal development and toxin
formation also appears (Bennett and Papa, 1988).
1.3. Toxicity of Aflatoxins
Aflatoxins are the most toxic and carcinogenic compounds among the known
mycotoxins. Aflatoxins have been shown to be immunosuppressant, mutagenic,
teratogenic and hepatocarcinogenic in experimental animals. Aflatoxins are acutely and
chronically acting poisons. Main target is liver cells and these are able to cause cancers
in this vital organ even at very low concentrations. Livestock ingesting even minute
amounts of aflatoxins in contaminated feed suffer sickness, disease and mortality. The
contamination and toxicity may be transferred down the food chain to consumers in meat,
eggs and dairy products. The disease condition caused by the action of aflatoxins is
known as aflatoxicosis. It is primarily a hepatic disease. The effect of aflatoxins on
animals varies depending on species, age, sex and nutritional status. The young of a
species are more prone to aflatoxicosis. Gastrointestinal dysfunction, reduced
reproductivity, reduced feed-utilization, reduced efficiency, anemia, and jaundice are the
clinical signs of aflatoxicosis.
Acute toxicity of aflatoxins is less likely than chronic toxicity. Ducklings and
trout are more susceptible to acute poisoning by aflatoxins. When aflatoxins invade liver,
the principal target organ, lipids infiltrate hepatocytes and leads to necrosis or liver cell
death. This is the result of negative reaction of aflatoxin metabolites with different cell
proteins, which leads to inhibition of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and protein
synthesis. The decrease in liver function results in derangement of the blood clotting
mechanism, jaundice, and decrease in essential serum proteins synthesized by liver.
Other signs of aflatoxicosis are edema of the lower extremites, abdominal pain and
7
vomiting. Chronic toxicity, with sub-lethal quantities of aflatoxin for several days or
weeks, includes moderate to severe liver damage. There will be a decrease in growth
rate, lowered milk or egg production and immunosuppression. Immunosuppression is
due to the reaction of aflatoxins with T-cells, decrease in vitamin K activities, and a
decrease in phagocytic activity in macrophages.
Aflatoxins cause carcinogenicity and AFB1 is the most potent carcinogen.
Carcinogenesis has been mainly observed in ducks, trout, rats and mice. Trots are the
most susceptible and 1ppb AFB1 will cause liver cancer in trout. The occurrence of
carcinogenesis results due to the formation of 8,9-epoxide, which binds to DNA and
alters gene expression. Presence of aflatoxins enhances the chances of liver cancer in
individuals that are hepatitis B carrier.
Ruminants and non-ruminants have similar effects of aflatoxicosis. With the
continuous ingestion of toxic meal in calves, there is reduction in growth rate followed by
un-thriftiness and loss of appetite. An aflatoxin dose of 0.2 mg/ Kg body weight can
cause a decrease in weight gains. This can be due to poor feed utilization and a dramatic
increase in alkaline phosphate in the rumen. In adult ruminants, chronic aflatoxicosis can
cause anorexia, drying and peeling of the skin on the muzzle, rectal prolapse, and
abdominal edema. Aflatoxicosis also causes decreased fertility, abortion and lowered
birth weights in sheep.
1.4. Aflatoxin M1 and Dairy Products
Milk cheese and yoghurt are prominent dairy products. Milk is a lacteal
secretion of healthy dairy animals. In the United States the term “milk” refers to the milk
of cows. For the milk of other species, the name of that species precedes “milk”, for
example goat milk, sheep milk, camel milk, and buffalo milk etc. The Food and Drug
Administration of the US department of Agriculture defined milk in August, 1926 that
milk is the whole fresh, clean, lacteal secretion obtained by the complete milking of one
or more healthy cows, properly fed and kept, excluding that obtained 15 days before and
5 days after calving, or such longer period as may be necessary to render the milk
practically colostrums free (Meyer, 1987). Now, according to the Pasteurized Milk
Ordinance and Code recommended by the United States Public Health Service, 1985,
milk is defined as the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrums, obtained by the
8
complete milking of one or more healthy cows, containing not less than 8.25% milk
solids-not-fat, and not less than 3.25% of milk fat (Eskin, 1990).
The aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is the most commonly occurring and the most acutely
toxic among the aflatoxins (Etzel, 2002; Carnaghan et al., 1963) and is
hepatocarcinogenic (Creppy, 2002; Wogen & Newberne, 1967). After the AFB1 has been
ingested, it is bio-activated by cytochrome P-450 to a genotoxic epoxide, a DNA reactive
metabolite that forms N7- guanine adducts and it is also able to bind with proteins (Cupid
et al., 2004) that ultimately can cause cancer. AFB1 is degraded in the rumen of dairy
cows and minor but important part is re-sorbed and metabolized into AFM1 (oxygenated
derivative of AFB1) in liver. AFM1 is relatively stable and after circulation in blood it is
excreted in milk, urine or bile. The aflatoxins were declared as human carcinogens in
1987 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the classification
was confirmed by re-evaluation in 1992. Later, on the demonstrated toxic and
carcinogenic effects of AFM1, the toxin initially classified by IARC as a Group 2B human
carcinogen (IARC, 1993), has now moved to Group 1 (IARC, 2002). Aflatoxin M1 has
the molecular formula C17H12O7 with relative molecular mass of 328 Da and its structure
is shown in Fig. 1.
AFM1 in milk subsequently contaminate milk products like cheese and yoghurt.
Cheese is actually coagulated casein, where as yogurt is a fermented product. Generally,
concentration of AFM1 is higher in cheese and lower in yoghurt than that of in milk from
these are prepared. When milk was artificially spiked with AFM1 in small scale
manufacture of cheese, 60% was detected in whey while 40% remained in the cheese
(Lopez et al., 2001). Prasongsidh et al. (1999) found that when Cheddar cheese was
prepared from AFM1 spiked milk, there was average three-fold increase in the curd and
the enrichment factor in cheese was about 2.3-3.4 times. Govaris et al. (2001) spiked
milk with AFM1 to produce Telemes cheeses and studied and studied distribution and
stability of AFM1 during processing, ripening and storage. Telemes cheeses were
allowed to ripen for two months and stored for an additional four months. Concentrations
of AFM1 in the curds produced were 3.9-4.4 times higher than in the milk, while
concentrations were lower in whey than in milk and curds. Aflatoxins M1 concentrations
fell in the cheese during the ripening process. It was also shown by Bakirci (2001) that
levels of AFM1 in certain cheese in Turkey were higher than in bulk milk, while AFM1
levels in cream and butter were reduced. Govaris et al. (2002) showed that when cows’
9
milk was fermented to produce yogurt, concentration of AFM1 fell between 13 and 22%
and by 16 and 34% after storage of yoghurts of pH 4.6 and 4.0 respectively.
1.5. Aflatoxin Determination Techniques
Different highly efficient and sophisticated techniques have been developed in
the recent years for the determination of mycotoxins in different commodities. The
factors which cause the selection of a specific technique include type of mycotoxin,
available time and equipment, specificity, and sensitivity. The process of analysis
involves the steps; namely sampling and sample preparation, extraction, clean-up
(purification), and detection (measurement). The analytical details may be discussed in
two sub-groups: (1) Sample preparation techniques and (2) Detection techniques.
1.5.1. (1) Sample Preparation Techniques
Sampling and sample preparation is of utmost importance in the analytical
identification of aflatoxins. It certainly affects the final conclusion. For the
determination of aflatoxins at the parts-per-billion level, the systematic approaches to
sampling, sample preparation and analysis are absolutely necessary. European Union has
formed specific plans for certain commodities e.g. corn and peanuts. Due to
homogeneous distribution of AFM1 in liquid milk, there is less uncertainty in AFM1
measurement in milk. In case of sampling the entire primary sample must be ground and
mixed so that the analytical test portion has the same concentration of toxin as the
original sample. After proper sampling, there are the steps of extraction and clean-up.
Sometimes extraction and clean-up is the same step and sometimes extraction is different
step and clean-up is different step. Extraction of samples, together with effective clean-
up step, is an essential step in the analysis of aflatoxins. The analyte migrates into the
extraction solvent. The interfering compounds are removed by clean-up step. Common
extraction solvents for aflatoxins are acetonitrile/water and methanol/water.
In addition to conventional technique of liquid-liquid extraction, there was need
to develop new techniques due to its time consuming and tedious to apply nature. The
new approaches have been developed to lessen the problems. A number of clean-up
columns, using different principles such as solid phase extraction and immunoaffinity
techniques, have been developed. The new techniques are easy to use and easily
available. The immunoaffinity columns enhance selectivity, as only the analyte is
10
retained in the column which can be eluted easily. On the other hand, in Mycosep
columns the analyte is passed and all the other interfering contaminants are retained.
1.5.1.1. Liquid-Liquid Separation
The liquid-liquid separation is a conventional process and it is based on the
partition of organic compounds between aqueous phase and immiscible organic solvent
which may be non-polar or slightly polar. Hexane and cyclohexane are frequently used
for compounds with aliphatic properties, whereas dichloromethane and chloroform are
used for medium polar contaminants. This is simple procedure and involves inexpensive
equipment. Its disadvantages include contamination and loss of sample by adsorption to
the glassware, as there are several steps. Large volumes of solvents are used and have to
be disposed and these create pollution problems. In trace analysis, solvents with high
purity have to be used which are highly costly.
1.5.1.2. Solid Phase Extraction (SPE)
Solid phase extraction is suitable for the analysis of aqueous samples. It can be
performed on-line as well as off-line. Solid phase extraction process starts with
conditioning of the column by activating it with the solvent. The sample is then applied
and the analyte is trapped in the column. The interferences are removed by rinsing step.
Finally, the analyte is eluted and then pre-concentration step is employed by evaporating
excess solvent with nitrogen. A number of samples can be prepared simultaneously with
the use of vacuum manifold. Most frequently C8 and C18 bonded silica columns are used
and these are very pressure resistant and give reproducible results. There is no significant
drawback in case of SPE as compared to liquid-liquid separation. Its advantages include
the consumption of less solvent, less time, and the possibility of automation.
1.5.1.3. Immunoaffinity Columns (IACs)
Immunoaffinity columns have become increasingly popular in recent years for
clean-up purposes, because these offer high selectivity and are easy to use. These can be
applied for purification of samples that are contaminated with different mycotoxins.
Mycotoxins are low weight molecules and they are only immunogenic if they are bound
to a protein carrier. Antibodies are produced for mycotoxins. These antibodies are bound
to an agarose, sepharose, or dextran carrier and packed in a column. The analyte
11
molecules (aflatoxins) are bound selectively to the antibodies in the column. The matrix
components do not interact with the antibodies and a rinsing (washing) step removes most
of the possible interferences. The toxin can be eluted with a solvent causing antibody
denaturation. Immunoaffinity columns have higher recovery than liquid-liquid
partitioning. Single analyte columns are available and multifunctional columns for
simultaneous determination of a number of mycotoxins are also available. Major
disadvantages include the high costs and the fact that a column can be used once due to
the denaturation of antibodies during elution step. Columns are available commercially.
1.5.1.4 MycosepTM Columns
The MycosepTM multifunctional clean-up columns (Romer Labs Inc., Union,
MT, USA) consist of a number of adsorbents (charcoal, celite, ion exchange resins and
others) which are packed in a plastic tube. On the lower end of the MycosepTM column,
there is a rubber flange, a porous frit and one-way valve which allow the extract to force
through the packing material, when the column is inserted into the culture tube (glass
tube). The purified extract appears on the top of the plastic tube with in seconds. Almost
all interfering substances are retained on the column, whereas the analyte does not show
significant affinity to the packing material. No additional washing steps are required as in
solid phase extraction. Columns are available for a range of mycotoxins and are usually
suitable for one analyte.
1.5.2. (2) Detection Techniques
After the extraction of the analyte (aflatoxin) from the sample and applying a
clean-up procedure to remove interferences, then comes identification and quantification
in the last in the analytical methodology. For the detection of aflatoxins, three main types
of assays have been developed. These include biological, analytical and immunological
methods. The biological methods were used when analytical and immunological methods
were not available for routine analysis. Biological assays are non-specific and time
consuming and are qualitative in nature.
12
1.5.2.1. Analytical Methods
Many analytical methods have been developed and are available for estimation
of aflatoxins in agricultural commodities. These include thin layer chromatography, high
performance thin layer chromatography, and high-performance liquid chromatography.
1.5.2.1.1. Thin-Layer Chromatography
Thin layer chromatography is also known as flat bed chromatography or planar
chromatography and is one of the most widely used techniques in aflatoxin analysis.
TLC is a chromatographic technique which is used for the separation, purity assessment
and identification of aflatoxins. TLC can identify and quantify aflatoxins at levels as low
as 1ng/ g. Thin-layer chromatography consists of a stationary phase immobilized on a
glass or plastic plate and a solvent acting as a mobile phase. The sample, either liquid or
dissolved in a volatile solvent, is applied in the form of a spot on the stationary phase.
Then the chromatographic plate is placed vertically in a solvent reservoir and the solvent
moves up the plate by capillary action. When the solvent front reaches a certain limit of
the stationary phase, the plate is removed from the solvent reservoir. The separated spots
are then visualized with ultraviolet light or by spraying with a suitable reagent. The
contents of a sample can be identified by running standards simultaneously with the
unknown spots. The different components in a mixture move up the plate at different
rates due to differences in their partitioning behavior between the mobile liquid phase and
the stationary phase. The Rf value for each spot is calculated. It is the ratio of the distance
(cm) from start to centre of sample spot and distance (cm) from start to solvent front. Rf
stands for “ratio of fronts” or “retardation factor”. It is characteristic for a given
compound on the same stationary phase using the same mobile phase under same
conditions of development of the plate. For identification purposes, Rf values of
standards are compared to those of unknown samples. A number of methods have been
developed for the determination of aflatoxins by TLC. Silica plates are mostly used with
a number of solvent mixtures. Mostly the solvent systems are based on chloroform and
small amounts of methanol or acetone. Now-a-days, less toxic and environmental
friendly solvent mixtures (e.g. toluene/ethyl-acetate or acetone/ iso-propanol) are also
employed. Aflatoxins are strongly fluorescent (exitation λ= 365 nm, detection or
emission λ= 430 nm) themselves and can easily be detected by fluorodensitometry.
13
Thin layer chromatography is the standard AOAC method for aflatoxin analysis
since 1971, AOAC Official Method 971.24, First Action 1971 and Final Action 1988
(AOAC Official Method 971.24, 2000). TLC separation of aflatoxins provided basis for
sensitive analytical techniques. TLC quantification method gives a reasonable level of
selectivity and sensitivity to separate aflatoxins from other interfering compounds. TLC
is the method of choice for rapid screening of aflatoxins and for situations where
advanced techniques equipments are not available.
1.5.2.1.2. High Performance Thin-Layer Chromatography
There is lack of precision associated with TLC procedures due to the
introduction of possible errors during the sample application, plate development, and
plate interpretation steps. High performance thin-layer chromatography methods improve
the precision by automating the sample application and plate interpretation steps.
1.5.2.1.3. High Performance Liquid Chromatography
High performance liquid chromatography is a very precise and highly automated
quantification technique for aflatoxins analysis with high selectivity and sensitivity.
Now-a-days, HPLC methods are widely used because of their superior performance and
reliability as compared with TLC. HPLC methods have been developed for all major
mycotoxins in cereals and other agricultural commodities. In the field of analysis of
aflatoxins, HPLC is mainly used for final separation and detection of the analyte of the
interest and extraction and clean-up techniques have to be applied prior to detection with
HPLC.
In HPLC a liquid mobile phase or solvent is used to move the sample through the
column. An immobilized liquid stationary phase is packed in the column. The analyte is
then partitioned between the two phases as it passes through the column and thus leading
to the separation of compounds due to different partitioning coefficients. Two types of
HPLC methods are commonly used i.e., normal phase chromatography and reversed
phase chromatography. In normal phase chromatography, a polar stationary phase e.g.
silica gel and a non-polar solvent e.g. hexane are used. Whereas reversed phase
chromatography (RP-HPLC) employs non-polar stationary phase e.g. C8 or C18
hydrocarbons and polar mobile phase e.g. water, methanol or acetonitrile. In HPLC,
detection is mainly accomplished by using a UV detector, diode array detector (DAD) or
14
a fluorescence detector (FLD). Fluorescence detection utilizes the emission of light (435
nm) from molecules that have been excited to higher energy levels by absorption of
electromagnetic radiation (365 nm) for aflatoxins. Fluorescence detection has superior
sensitivity than other detection systems and sometimes derivatization of the analyte has to
be performed which enhances the sensitivity. Fluorescence detection is possible in the
range of microgram/Kg. Choice of detector usually depends on the nature of the sample.
RP-HPLC is commonly performed for determination of aflatoxins in foods.
Stationary phase for aflatoxins include C18 material. Pre- or post-column derivatization
is necessary for low-level detection. For aflatoxins derivatization is performed with
strong acids or oxidants e.g. Br2, I2 or trifluoro-acetic acid. This results in increase of
fluorescence by a factor 20. Sometimes, a pre-column is employed to avoid heavy
contamination or subsequent blocking of main separation column.
1.5.2.1.4. Liquid Chromatography with Mass Spectrometric Detection
Liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS) is fairly a
recent development in aflatoxins detection and it is one of the most advanced techniques.
It is time-consuming and requires expert knowledge. In mass spectrometric detection,
extraction and clean-up techniques have to be applied before detection. In LC-MS, the
HPLC effluent enters an ionization chamber via a nebuliser. There are several techniques
for ionization, namely electrospray, thermospray, chemical and fast atom bombardment.
Fragmentation takes place in a collision chamber. The fragments then enter the high
vacuum region of the MS where detection takes place. Several set-ups are available for
optimal identification and quantification. Ion trap instruments are more suitable for
identification than triple quadruple instruments (higher MSn power), whereas triple
quadruple instruments provide better information for quantification with faster scanning
and higher sensitivity. There are also available hybrid instruments that provide a linear
ion trap in a triple quad instrument to get the best results out of both set-ups. LC-MS
methods have their applications in determination of aflatoxins in corn, milk and samples
of other commodities. In Selection-Ion-Monitoring (SIM) mode, detection can be made
at levels as low as pico-grams.
15
1.5.2.2. Immunological Methods
Immunological methods are based on the affinities of the monoclonal or
polyclonal antibodies for aflatoxins. Due to the advancement in biotechnology, highly
specific antibody-based tests are now commercially available for measuring aflatoxins in
foods in less than ten minutes. There are two major requirements for immunological
methods. First requirement is high quality antibodies and second is methodology to use
the antibodies for the estimation of aflatoxins. Being low molecular weight molecules,
aflatoxins cannot stimulate the immune system for the production of antibodies. Such
molecules of low molecular weight, which cannot evoke the immune system, are called
haptens. Therefore, before immunization, aflatoxins must be conjugated to a carrier
molecule which is a larger molecule like proteins. Bovine serum albumin (BSA) is most
commonly used as a carrier protein and hapten is conjugated with it. The three types of
immunochemical methods are: immunuaffinity column assay (ICA), radioimmunoassay
(RIA), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Immunoaffinity columns are
mainly used for clean-up purposes and RIA has limited use in aflatoxins analysis. ELISA
is most commonly used for the estimation of aflatoxins.
1.5.2.2.1. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Asssay (ELISA)
ELSA is most widely used test to detect aflatoxins, due to its simplicity,
sensitivity and adaptability. There are two types of ELISA, which are direct competitive
ELISA and indirect competitive ELISA. In direct competitive ELISA method, specific
antibody is coated to a solid phase such as a microtiter plate, whereas in indirect
competitive ELISA method, toxin-protein conjugate is coated onto the microtiter plate.
In aflatoxin analysis, direct competitive ELISA is used. ELISA is detection and
quantification of an antigen (aflatoxin) in a sample by using an enzyme labeled toxin and
antibodies specific to aflatoxin. ELISA is based on antigen-antibody reaction (Aycicek et
al., 2005). Antigen is that substance which can elicit production of antibodies when
introduced into warm blooded animals. Whereas antibodies are glycoproteins which are
produced as a result of an immune response, after introduction of antigens, leading to the
production of a specific antigen-antibody complex. In the direct competitive ELISA,
specific antibodies for aflatoxin are coated on to the wells in the microtiter strip. The
milk test samples or AFM1 standards are added to the wells. After incubation and
washing, enzyme conjugate (a conjugate of aflatoxin and bovine serum albumin is
16
attached with an enzyme molecule, such as, horseradish peroxidase or penicillinase or
alkaline phosphatase) is added to the wells. Free AFM1 and AFM1 enzyme conjugate
compete for the AFM1 antibody sites in the wells. Washing step removes any unbound
enzyme conjugate. Then substrate/chromogen is added to the wells and incubated. The
bound enzyme conjugate converts the colorless chromogen into a blue product. The stop
solution is added which leads to color change from blue to yellow. Then measurement is
made photometrically at 450 nm. The absorbance is inversely proportional to the AFM1
concentration in the sample i.e., the lower the absorbance, the higher the AFM1
concentration.
1.6. Management and Control of Aflatoxin Hazards
Aflatoxins affect adversely the economy of developing countries and public health
and hence there is strict need to control contamination of food and feed grains with
aflatoxins. Mainly, there are three methods for the management of aflatoxins hazard
namely pre-harvest management, post-harvest management, and detoxification.
1.6.1. Pre-Harvest Management
Preventing fungal growth is obviously the best method for prevention of toxin
production. Pre-harvest prevention of aflatoxins contamination is probably the best
strategy and has been most widely explored. Several recent advances in aflatoxins
elimination research, such as identification of resistant genotypes in corn and peanut
through plant breeding, result in the preeminence of this strategy. Advances in pre-
harvest control are occurring rapidly in aflatoxins as compared to other mycotoxins.
1.6.1.1. Cultural Control
Cultural control includes all the environmental and agronomic factors that
influence pod and seed infection by A.flavis and aflatoxins production. These factors may
vary considerably from one location to another location and between seasons in the same
location. Growing of same crop continuously on the same land should be avoided
because it may lead to build up of high populations of A. flavis. To avoid the
contamination of the crop, it is very important to select the cultivar which should fit a
particular growing season and mature at the end of the rainy season so that post harvest
field drying can be done under suitable conditions. It is necessary to establish optimum
plant populations, since too high population may lead to severe drought stress where rain
17
fall is sub optimal in a growing season. Hot and arid environments favour the growth of
A. flavus in the soil. In order to ensure adequate soil moisture, irrigation should be done
during the last 4-6 weeks of crop growth to prevent pre harvest aflatoxins contamination.
The individual plants which die due to the attack of pests and diseases should be lifted
separately as these are likely to be contaminated with aflatoxins. To harvest the crop at
optimum maturity is very important to control contamination. These are some main
cultural control practices which are used to prevent aflatoxin contamination.
1.6.1.2. Genetic Resistance of Cultivars
The aflatoxins problem was initially linked more to the post harvest period than to
the period of pod development in the soil. The aflatoxins contamination problem could
be solved if cultivars of different varieties of plants could be identified or bred which are
immune to seed infection by aflatoxin producing fungi or once infected do not support
aflatoxins production.
1.6.1.3. Use of Plant Breeding for Development of Host Resistance
The use of resistant varieties should be considered as a part of an integrated
aflatoxins management program incorporating cultural and crop handling procedures
which suitable to different agro ecological situations. Many breeding lines with
resistance to Aspergillus flavus colonization of seeds comparable to that of resistance
sources and with greater yield potential have been bred. However, when we are dealing
especially with resistance to natural seed infection in the field, resistance mechanisms
may operate at the pod surface, with in the testa / cotyledons. There are different genes in
conferring resistance to seed colonization, pre-harvest seed infection and aflatoxins
production by toxigenic fungi.
1.6.1.4. Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering may be utilized to develop host resistance through addition or
enhancement of antifungal genes. Gene, native or foreign, provoking resistance must be
identified that expresses inhibitory activity against Aspergillus flavus. The selection must
be done for gene promoters which will regulate the desired type of expression of anti
fungal genes at a desired time.
18
1.6.1.5. Bio-Competitive Agents
One option of pre-harvest management is the utilization of micro-organisms as
agents of control for aflatoxins contamination. The atoxigenic strains of Aspergillus
flavus would be the best bio-competitive agent to control Aspergillus flavus in the field,
because these strains as compared to other potential microbial bio-competitive agents
would be adaptable to environmental conditions identical to the toxigenic strains and
would be biological active at same time as well. However, aflatoxin contamination is a
complex process and in most cases a combination of approaches will be required to
control this problem.
1.6.2. Post-Harvest Management
Aflatoxins are naturally occurring toxicants and are unavoidable and pose serious
challenge to food safety. Mycotoxins contaminate nearly 25% of the world’s food crops
every year. Pre-harvest management is the best strategy for controlling aflatoxin
contamination, however even then contamination occurs, post-management strategy must
be applied to manage the hazards associated with aflatoxins in foods or feedstuffs.
Aflatoxin contamination can be successfully prevented by good practices of harvesting,
drying and storage. Aspergillus flavus needs moisture content of 18-19.5% in cereal
grains for growth and toxin production. If commodities are dried below this range of
moisture content, these would be resistant to invasion by Aspergillus flavus. Storage is
the most important procedure in post-harvest management of aflatoxins. Storage of food
grains under clean, dry conditions with low kernel moisture content (about 8-10%) and at
low temperature and with protection from insect infestation is extremely important.
1.6.3. Detoxification
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs may be contaminated with levels above the acceptable
limit. In samples contaminated with toxins, all seeds are not contaminated and in many
cases toxicity limits to very small number of seeds. These contaminated seeds can be
separated from the normal healthy looking seeds depending on kernel size, color etc. The
sorting of contaminated kernels by visual examination may not be affected when healthy
appearing kernels have concealed damage through mold growth between the cotyledons.
The main objective of removal of toxic kernels is to reduce the aflatoxin levels and if the
segregation of toxic kernels cannot be effectively carried out or is partially successful,
19
there still remains the possibility of destroying the aflatoxins in foods and feedstuffs by
chemical or physical treatments.
1.6.3.1. Chemical Detoxification
One of the methods to destroy mycotoxins is chemical detoxification. It is
important that chemical detoxification or chemical treatment should be economically and
technically viable. It should meat the criteria of FAO/ WHO. These criteria include that
the process of detoxification (a) should destroy or inactivate the toxin, (b) should not
produce toxic or carcinogenic products in the finished product, (c) should destroy fungal
spores and mycelia that could proliferate and produce the toxin, (d) should preserve the
nutritive value and acceptability of the product, and (e) should not significantly alter
important technological properties of the product. Ammoniation is the method which is
most commonly used for the detoxification of the contaminated animal feed. This
procedure is used with agricultural commodities in many countries. Nixtamalization,
which is the traditional alkaline heat treatment of corn used in the manufacture of
tortillas, reduces significantly the levels of aflatoxins. It has been shown that sodium
bisulfite reacts with aflatoxins under various conditions of temperature, concentration,
and time to form water soluble products.
1.6.3.2. Physical Detoxification
Physical treatments include application of heat, irradiation with micro-waves,
gamma-rays, X-rays, UV light, and adsorption on toxin binders/ inorganic clays, to
manage the hazards of aflatoxins.
1.6.3.2.1. Thermal Inactivation
This method is good for products that are usually heat processed. However many
mycotoxins are chemically stable at processing temperatures. Aflatoxins are stable up to
their melting point around 250 °C. Aflatoxins are not completely destroyed by boiling
water, autoclaving, or a variety of food and feed processing procedures. There may be
partial destruction of aflatoxins by oil and dry roasting of peanuts.
20
1.6.3.2.2. Irradiation
Ultra violet (UV) radiation and gamma (γ) radiation would be effective in
reducing aflatoxin levels in foods. A study made by Ferreira-Castro et al. (2007) showed
the efficacy of γ–irradiation as a method of decontamination of maize containing
Fusarium verticillioides under controlled conditions. Maize grains inoculated with a
spore suspension of Fusarium verticillioides were irradiated to 2, 5, and 10 kGy. The
irradiated and control samples were analyzed for the presence of fumonisins. Their viable
cells were counted and their morphology was investigated by electronic microscopy. It
was found possible to decrease the risk of exposure to fumonisins by irradiating maize to
5 or 10 kGy, while at the dose of 2 kGy, the survived fungi (36%) can produce more
fumonisins than the fungi in the control un-irradiated samples under the same conditions.
In the same way, gamma radiations could be studied to reduce aflatoxin levels in foods
and feeds.
1.6.3.2.3. Use of Aflatoxin Binders
Adsorption and binding of aflatoxins to non-biological/ mineral materials is a very
good method and applicable method for aflatoxins decontamination. The adsorbent
materials are readily available and are a part of normal processing operation in oil
refineries. Recent researches have shown that the addition of certain adsorbents to toxin
contaminated diets can greatly reduce the bioavailability of toxins in the gastrointestinal
tract. Mineral binders have been shown to be effective in vito and in vivo. Some toxin
adsorbents are: silicate products (montmorillonite, bentonite and hydrated sodium
calcium aluminosilicate, zeolites and clinoptilolite), carbon products (activated or
supervactivated charcoal), inorganic polymers (cholestyramine, polyvinylpyrrolidone).
Among all these adsorbents, hydrated sodium calcium aluminosilicate (HSCAS) has been
the most extensively studied in vitro and was selected for extensive in vivo application in
a varied number of farm animals. HSCAS adsorb and retain 95% of aflatoxins. HSCAS
are activated by heat drying process. These inorganic clays are thought to act by ion
exchange interactions between free radicals on the clays and potentially charged groups
on the toxins. That is why the clay binders are most effective against the polar toxins
such as aflatoxins.
21
1.7. Legislation
Mycotoxins have severe impacts on health and economy, especially, in developing
countries. The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), a scientific advisory
body, of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization has
partly evaluated the hazard for some mycotoxins (ochratoxin A, patulin, aflatoxins).
JECFA provides a mechanism for assessing the toxicity of additives, veterinary drugs
residues and contaminants (Van Egmond, 2002). Food legislation act as a safeguard to
the health of consumers and to economic interests of food producers and traders. Since
the emergence of aflatoxins in the 1960s, regulations have been established in many
countries to protect the consumers from the harmful effects of mycotoxins in foods and
feedstuffs. There are many factors that play role in the process of setting limits for
mycotoxins. These include the availability of toxicological data, survey data, availability
of analytical methods, legislation in other countries and need for sufficient food supply.
International enquires on existing mycotoxin legislation for foods and feedstuffs have
been carried out several times and details about tolerance limits, legal basis, responsible
authorities, official protocols of analysis and sampling have been published (Schuller et
al., 1983; Van Egmond, 1989; Stoloff et al., 1991; Van Egmond and Dekker, 1995).
FDA’s action levels for a flatoxins (FDA, 1994) in human food, milk, beef cattle’ feed,
feed of swine over 100 lbs, feed of breeding beef cattle or swine or mature poultry, feed
of immature animals and feed of dairy animals are 20, 0.5, 300, 200, 100, 20, and 20 µg/
kg respectively. Mycotoxin regulations have been established in about 100 countries
(Wagacha and Muthomi, 2008). National maximum tolerance level for aflatoxins in
human food in Australia, China, European Union (total aflatoxins), European Union (only
AFB1), Germany, Kenya, Guatemala, Ireland, India, and Taiwan is 5, 20, 4, 2, 4, 20, 20,
30, 30, and 50 µg/ kg (Felicia, 2004). The EU tolerance level is the strictest in standard
worldwide and considerably more precautionary than any national or international
standard.
22
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Food products which could be contaminated with aflatoxins include cereal such as
maize, sorghum, pearl millet, rice, wheat (Zheng et al., 2005; Attala et al., 2003; Abbas
et al., 2002; Aly, 2002; Vergas et al., 2001; Rojas et al., 2000; Kpodo et al., 2000),
oilseeds like, groundnut, soybean, sunflower, cottonseed (Thomas et al., 2003;), spices
like chilies, black pepper, coriander, turmeric, ginger (Taguchi et al., 2002; Reddy et al.,
2001; Martins et al., 2001) , nuts like, almond, pistachio, coconut, peanut (Yu et al.,
2004; Zhang et al., 2000; Diop et al., 2000) and milk (Calaresu et al., 2006). Growing
evidence indicates the presence of aflatoxin M1 in dairy products. Recently there is
increasing need for analytical methods for the trace level identification and quantification
of aflatoxin M1. It is a potent hepato-carcinogen and there is also need to develop
strategies for its reduction and elimination in dairy products.
2.1. Toxicological Studies
Aflatoxin M1 is a cytotoxic, as demonstrated in human hepatocytes and its acute
toxicity is similar to AFB1. It was reported by Allcroft and Carnaghan (1963) that milk
from aflatoxin-fed cows contained a toxic substance which caused lesions typical of
aflatoxins poisoning in one-day-old ducklings. De Iongh et al. (1964) stated that an
extract of the toxic milk, obtained from mammals fed on aflatoxins containing diet,
contained a blue-violet fluorescent substance (later called aflatoxin M) which was
responsible for the toxicity of the milk. A substance with similar chromatographic
characteristics was recovered from the urine of sheep which were fed aflatoxin (Allcroft,
et al., 1966) and from the liver of rats dosed with aflatoxins (Butler and Clifford, 1965).
The presence of a substance in mouldy peanuts with the same characteristics as aflatoxin
M was described by De Iongh et al. (1965). Aflatoxin M was isolated from the urine of
sheep and from mouldy peanuts and was found to be consisted of two components,
named as aflatoxin M1 and aflatoxin M2 (Holzapfel, et al., 1966). These two components
are hydroxy derivatives of aflatoxin B1 and aflatoxin B2 respectively. Holzapfel et al.,
reported the acute oral LD50s of aflatoxin M1 and aflatoxin M2 and described the
histopathology of the lesions caused by AFM1 and AFM2. Newly hatched ducklings were
shown to be extremely sensitive to both AFB1 and AFM1 with LD50 values of 12µg/ bird
23
and 16µg/ bird respectively (Purchase, 1967). In case of AFM1, histopathological
examination showed liver lesions similar to those caused by AFB1 and necrosis of the
renal tubules. AFM1 and AFB1 act by a similar mechanism in causing acute toxicity and
sub-cellular changes, such as changes in liver parenchymal cells, dissociation of ribosome
from the rough endoplasmic reticulum, and proliferation of the smooth endoplasmic
reticulum. Moreover, only the naturally occurring isomer of each aflatoxin is biological
active.
Van Egmond (1994) described the results of long-term studies of toxicity of
aflatoxins. In one study by Sinnhuber et al. (1974), rainbow trout were given diets
containing aflatoxin B1 at 4 µg/ kg or AFM1 at 0, 4, 16, 32, and 64 µg/ kg for 12 months
and then were given control diet. To determine the effect of maturation on tumour
development, selected groups were held for 20 months. Some trout were fed AFM1 at 20
µg/ kg of diet for 5-30 days to determine the effect of limited oral take of the toxin.
There was significantly higher mortality rate at maturation (16-20) months with AFM1-
induced hepatomas in female trout than in male trout. The trout, which were given AFM1
at 20 µg/ kg of diet, had a 3-12% incidence of hepatoma with in 12 months. It was
concluded in the study that AFM1 is a potent liver carcinogen but less potent than AFB1.
In another study by Canton et al. (1975), rainbow trout were given diets containing AFM1
at 0, 5.9, or 27 µg/ kg and AFB1 at 5.8 µg/ kg for 16 months. The study was made by
killing fish after 5, 9, and 12 months. Degeneration of the liver was seen in all the three
groups, but no timours or preneoplastic changes were found. However, at 15 months, the
fish fed with diet containing AFB1 5.8 µg/ kg had a 13% incidence of hepatocellular
carcinoma and a 23% incidence of hyperplastic nodules, and those fed the diet with AFM1
27 µg/ kg had a 2% incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and a 6% incidence of
hyperplastic nodules. It was concluded that AFM1 is less carcinogenic in trout than
AFB1.
Van Egmond in 1994 described two further studies in rats. In the first study,
made in 1974, weanling Fischer rats were fed 25µg/ day of synthetic AFM1 by
intubations on 5 days/week for eight consecutive weeks. Under similar conditions, a
second group of rats was given natural AFB1 at the same concentration and a control
group was also included. Among the AFM1 fed rats, only one rat (3%) developed a
hepatocellular carcinoma and 28% rats had liver lesions (preneoplastic lesions). All the
rats, receiving AFB1, developed tumors. The controls showed no significant liver lesions.
It was concluded that the carcinogenic potency of AFM1 is much lower than that of AFB1.
24
In the second study, made by Cullen et al. (1987), Fischer rats were fed on diets
containing AFM1 at 0, 0.5, 5, or 50 µg/ kg and were killed between 18 and 22 months.
Hepatocellular carcinoma was detected in 5% rats and neoplastic nodules in 15% rats fed
diets with AFM1 50 µg/ kg between 19 and 20 months. No nodules or carcinomas were
observed at the lower dose of AFM1. Among the rats fed the diet containing AFB1 50 µg/
kg, 95% rats developed hepatocellular carcinomas. Only few rats fed the diet containing
AFM1 at 50 µg/ kg developed intestinal carcinomas. The greater polarity of AFM1 than
AFB1 might be associated with the higher incidence of intestinal tumours. It was
concluded that AFM1 was a hepatic carcinogen, but with potency 2-10% that of AFB1.
Thus AFM1 is toxic in a similar manner as AFB1, but lower in magnitude.
The ability of AFB1 and AFM1 in inducing genotoxicity and DNA damage was
tested in Drosophila melanogaster in vivo in the mei-9a mei-41D5 DNA repair test and
the mwh/flr3 wing spot test. Larval stock consisting of meiotic recombination-deficient
double-mutant mei-9a mei-41D5 males and repair-proficient females was exposed to the
test agent in the repair test. Evidence of DNA damage was taken by preferential killing
of the mutant larvae. Aflatoxin M1 was found to be a DNA-damaging agent, but its
activity was about one-third of AFB1. In the wing spot test larval flies, trans-heterzygous
for the somatic cell markers mwh and flr3, were treated. The wings were inspected at
adulthood for spots manifesting the phenotype of the marker. The geotoxicity of AFM1
and AFB1 was found similar. It was concluded that AFM1 is genotoxic in vivo
(Shibahara, et al., 1995).
2.2. Methodology Studies
Much research work has been devoted over the last 40 years for developing
methods for detection and determination of mycotoxins in foods and agriculture
commodities (Chu, 1991; Holcomb, et al., 1992). This effort is continuing and keeping
pace with the progress in analytical chemistry. Methods for mycotoxins are required to
meet the legislation, monitoring and survey work, and for research. Presently, the most
commonly used methods for detection of aflatoxin M1 are HPLC-, TLC-, ELISA-methods
(Lee et al., 2009; Stubblefield and Shannon, 1974a) and FLUOROMETERIC method
(Hansen, 1990). All analytical procedures include the steps: sampling, extraction, clean-
up (purification) and determination (separation, identification and quantification). As the
distribution of aflatoxin M1 in liquid milk is reasonably homogeneous, therefore, there is
25
less uncertainty and sampling of liquid milk for aflatoxin M1 is more accurate than
sampling of granular feed products. The performance of sampling plans for aflatoxin in
granular feed products, such as shelled maize (Park, et al., 2000; Johansson, et al., 2000a;
Johansson, et al., 2000b; Johansson, et al., 2000c) and cotton seed (Whitaker et al.,
1976) has been evaluated, while there has been little evaluation of sampling plans to
detect aflatoxin M1 in milk.
Extraction, in most cases, involves conventional procedures using acetone,
chloroform and methanol etc. Small amounts of water give better extraction efficiencies.
The most significant recent improvement in the purification step is the use of solid-phase
extraction (SPE). The use of solid-phase extraction (SPE) with C18 cartridges, or
immunoaffinity columns (IAC) is now well established in aflatoxin determination.
MycocepTM columns, which remove matrix components with efficiency and can produce
a purified extract within a short time, are also available. Conventional clean-up with silica
columns is also in use. Test extracts are cleaned up before instrumental analysis (thin
layer or liquid chromatography) to remove co-extracted materials that often interfere with
the determination of target substance. The immunoaffinity clean-up procedure was
expanded in order to encompass successfully the determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk by
thin layer chromatography. Thin layer chromatography (TLC), can be used easily to
identify and determine aflatoxins as low as 1 ng/ g. Among the chromatographic
techniques applied to mycotoxins, TLC is by far the most widely used in the detection,
analysis and characterization of fungal toxins. Reviews and book chapters on
chromatography of mycotoxins in general and on TLC in particular have been published
since late 1970s (Heathcote and Hibbert, 1978; Betina, 1984). In case of detection of
AFM1, once purified extracts are obtained, the concentration of aflatoxin M1 may be
determined in several ways. Mostly the quantitative methods involve TLC or HPLC.
Aflatoxin M1 is a weakly polar component and can be extracted with solvents such as
methanol, acetone, chloroform or combination of these solvents with water. Practically,
the choice of solvent depends on the clean-up and the separation procedure. The
quantitative methods that have been developed and validated for aflatoxin M1 in milk
products were originally designed for the analysis of milk powder. Milk powder is
prepared to increase shelf life and to reduce sample bulk. The various mixtures of
methanol – water (Masri, et al., 1968; Masri, et al., 1969; Fehr, et al., 1971), acetone -
water and acetone - chloroform – water (Purchase and Steyn, 1967) were used to extract
aflatoxin M1 from milk powder.
26
Methanol and water were used as the extraction solvents in the first effective
method for the determination of aflatoxin M1 in fluid milk (Jacobson, et al., 1971). This
method was modified by McKinney (1972) and others. Stubblefield and Shannon
(1974a) accomplished extraction with acetone and water, precipitation with lead acetate
solution to de-proteinize the milk, and a de-fating step with hexane. TLC with
fluorescence detection was applied for ultimate separation, detection, and quantification.
The collaborative study proved the method to be successful (Stubblefield and Shannon,
1974b) and the method became an official AOAC method for aflatoxin M1 (AOAC
Official Method 974.17, 1990).
In another method, extraction of aflatoxin M1 from liquid milk was made with
chloroform in a separating funnel and then extract was cleaned-up over a small silica gel
column. Finally the separation was made by TLC and detection was made with
fluorescence. Aflatoxin M1 spots were quantified by visual or densitometric estimation
(Stubblefield, 1979). After modifications, this method was applied for determination of
aflatoxin M1 in cheese, in which two-dimensional TLC was applied to improve separation
of the aflatoxin M1 spots from the background. An AOAC/ IUPAC collaborative study
evaluated the method (Stubblefield, et al., 1980) and it became an official AOAC method
for aflatoxin M1 in milk and cheese (AOAC Official Method 980.21, 2000).
Van Egmond et al. (1978) confirmed the identification of aflatoxin M1 on thin
layer plate by reacting aflatoxin M1 with trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). In the method the
plate was developed with chloroform-methanol-acetic acid-water (92+8+2+0.8) mixture.
The Rf value of the blue fluorescent derivative was compared with of the AFM1 standard.
Cohen et al. (1984) proposed a liquid chromatographic (LC) method for the
determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk. The samples were initially extracted with
acetonitrile-water mixture followed by purification using a silica gel cartridge and a C18
cartridge. Final analysis by LC was achieved using a radial compression module equipped
with 5 micron C18 column and a fluorescence detector. The method was successfully
applied to samples at levels of 10 to 0.08 ng/ g added aflatoxin M1 with recoveries in the
range of 70-98%.
Tyczkowska et al. (1984) modified the official AOAC method for aflatoxin M1 by
replacing cellulose column chromatography with cartridge chromatographic clean-up and
replacing thin layer chromatographic (TLC) determination with liquid chromatographic
(LC) quantification to yield a new method for bovine and porcine milk.
27
Bijl et al. (1987) proposed a simple and sensitive method for the determination of
aflatoxin M1 in cheese. The ground cheese sample is extracted with acetone-water
mixture (3+1). Acetone is evaporated under vacuum, and the aqueous phase is passed
through a C18 disposable cartridge. After cartridge is washed with acetonitrile-water
mixture (1+9), the toxin is eluted with acetonitrile. The extract is then cleaned up on a
silica cartridge. Final analysis is performed by two dimentional thin layer
chromatography (TLC) combined with fluorodensitometry or by liquid chromatography
on a reverse phase C18 column with fluorescence detection. Recovery is greater than
90%, the coefficient of variation is 6% or less. The detection limit is in the range 10
ng/kg. The identity of aflatoxin M1 is confirmed by formation of the M2a or acetyl-M1
derivative and re-chromatography.
Analytical laboratories moved away from TLC to HPLC determination with
advances in HPLC methods in 1980s. Moreover, factory-prepared solid-phase extraction
columns became available for the purification of milk extracts. The method of Ferguson-
Foos and Warren (1984) combined these two developments successfully and originally it
was developed for normal-phase HPLC. This method was modified by using reversed-
phase HPLC, with the preparation of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) derivatives of aflatoxins
M1 and M2, and evaluated in an AOAC collaborative study (Stubblefield and Kwolek,
1986). The method was declared as AOAC official method (AOAC Official Method
986.16, 2000)
Many rapid tests have been introduced which use specific antibodies for isolation
and detection of mycotoxins in food (Newsome, 1987; Groopman and Donahue, 1988;
Pestka, 1988). ELISA systems, using enzyme-linked antibodies for detection, are very
simple to use, but there are interferences from sample components and variability due to
test conditions (Scott, 1988). Use of immunoaffinity cartridges is a more recent advance
in quantitative extraction of aflatoxin M1. Monoclonal antibodies specific for aflatoxin
M1 are immobilized on Sepharose® and packed into small cartridges. The method of
Mortimer et al. (1987) was the first published method for aflatoxin M1 with
immunoaffinity columns. For AFM1 determination, a milk sample is loaded onto the
affinity column. The antigen i.e. AFM1 is selectively complexed by the specific
antibodies on the solid support to form antigen-antibody complex. Then, the column is
washed with water to remove all other matrix components of the sample. A small volume
of pure acetonitrile is used to elute AFM1 and the eluate is concentrated and analyzed by
HPLC coupled with fluorescence detection.
28
Immunoaffinity-based methods for aflatoxin M1 were modified and subsequently
published and studied collaboratively under the auspices of the International Dairy
Federation and AOAC international by groups of mainly European laboratories that could
determine aflatoxin M1 in milk at concentrations equal to 0.05 µg/ L. The collaborative
study of Tuinstra et al. (1993) led to International Dairy Federation Standard 171.
Another collaborative study (Dragacci et al. 2001) was conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of an immunoaffinity column clean-up liquid chromatographic for
determination of AFM1 in milk at proposed European regulatory limits. The procedure
included centrifugation, filtration, and application of the test portion to an immunoaffinity
column. Then the column was washed with water and aflatoxin was eluted with pure
acetonitrile. Aflatoxin M1 was separated by reversed-phase liquid chromatography and
detection was made with fluorescence detector. Liquid milk samples (frozen), both
naturally contaminated with AFM1 and blank samples for spiking, were sent to 12
collaborators in 12 different European countries. Test portions of milk samples were
spiked at 0.05ng AFM1 per ml. After the removal of two non-compliant sets of results, the
mean recovery of AFM1 was 74%. The relative standard deviation for repeatability
(RSDr) ranged from 8 to 18%, based on results of spiked samples (blind pairs at 1 level)
and naturally contaminated samples (blind pairs at 3 levels). The relative standard
deviation for reproducibility (RSDR) ranged from 21 to 31%. As evidenced by
HORRAT values at the low level of AFM1 contamination, the method showed acceptable
within and between laboratory precision data for liquid milk. The collaborative study
resulted in approval of AOAC Official Method 2000.08 (AOAC Official Method
2000.08, 2005).
Manetta et al. (2005) developed a new HPLC method with fluorescence detection
using pyridinium hydrobromide perbromide as a post-column derivatizing agent to
determine aflatoxin M1 in milk and cheese. The detection limits for milk and cheese were
1 ng/ kg and 5ng/ kg respectively. The calibration curve was linear from 0.001 to 0.1 ng
injected toxin. The method includes a preliminary C-8 (SPE) clean-up. The average
recoveries of aflatoxin M1 from milk and cheese, spiked at levels of 25-75 ng/ kg and
100-300 ng/ kg, respectively, were 90 and 76%. The precision (RSDr) ranged from 1.7 to
2.6% for milk and from 3.5 to 6.5% for cheese. The method is rapid and easily
automatable and therefore is useful for accurate and precise screening of aflatoxin M1 in
milk and cheese.
29
2.3. Carry-Over of Aflatoxin in Milk
The importance of carry-over of aflatoxin in milk is above board. When AFB1 is
consumed through feedstuffs, a part of it is degraded in the rumen of dairy animals. The
remaining part of AFB1 is metabolized into AFM1 in liver. Aflatoxin M1 is a stable
compound and it circulates in the blood until it is secreted in milk and urine. Several
studies have been performed to investigate the carry-over of aflatoxin from feedstuffs to
milk. Among the early studies are those of Sieber and Blanc (1978), Applebaum et al.
(1982), and Van Egmond (1989). In these studies the results are quite variable. The
carry-over of the consumed AFB1 to AFM1 in milk varied between 0.18 and 3.94% of the
consumed quantity. The variation in results may be attributed to the low quality of earlier
analytical methods for aflatoxins.
A number of reports on carry-over of aflatoxins have been published after 1985.
Among these the prominent are those of Price et al. (1985); Frobish et al. (1986); Fremy
et al. (1987); Munksgaard et al. (1987); Pettersson et al. (1989); Harvey et al. (1991);
Veldman et al. (1992); Veldman (1992); Galvano et al. (1996). Some of these are very
accurate and extensive investigations. The carry-over % values in the studies of Price et
al., Frobish et al., Fremy et al., Munksgaard et al., Pettersson et al., Harvey et al.,
Veldman et al., Veldman and Galvano et al., were 4.07, 2.33, 0.32, 1.54, 2.60, 0.63, 6.20,
2.7, and 0.53 respectively. These studies show variations of carry-over of aflatoxin
between 0.32 and 6.2 %. The mean value of these reports is 1.81 %. Considering these
studies, a carry-over of 1.63 % is obtained when cows are fed a maximum of 500 µg of
AFB1 per day. A number of reasons are responsible for variations. These may include
experimental techniques, species, production level of milking animals, and feeding and
milking routines. The production level of milking animals is important. The study of
Pettersson et al., 1989 in Sweden and that of Veldman et al., 1992 in Netherlands, with
high milk producing dairy cows, showed the highest carry-over of 2.6% and 6.2 %
respectively.
30
2.4. Survey of AFM1 in Milk and Milk Products
In the present era large number of surveys in various countries are undertaken to
find out the incidence of AFM1 contamination in milk and milk products due to its
detrimental effects on human health.
2.4.1. Survey of AFM1 in Milk
A limited survey of was carried out by Nuryono et al., (2009) in Indonesia in
2006. They analyzed 113 fresh milk samples by ELISA for the contamination of AFM1.
Concentration of AFM1 in 48 samples (42.5%) was less than 0.005µg/ L and in 31
samples (27.4%) AFM1 concentration was found between 5 and 10 µg/L. The
concentration of AFM1 in 34 samples (30.1%) was above 10 µg/ L and none of the
contaminated samples exceeded the EU regulation limits of 0.025 and 0.05 µg AFM1/ L
for adult and infant consumption.
Shundo et al., (2009) investigated, from September to November 2006, the
presence of AFM1 in 125 samples of powdered milk, pasteurized milk and UHT milk in
the city of Sao Paulo in Brazil and estimated the average daily intake of AFM1 among the
children enrolled in day-care centres and elementary schools.. Analysis for determination
of AFM1 was done with HPLC-RP along with immunoaffinity columns for cleanup. The
quantification limit was 0.01 µg/ kg and AFM1 was found in 119 (95.2%) samples at the
levels of ranging from 0.01 to 0.2 µg/ kg with mean concentration of 0.031 µg/ kg. It
was estimated that the average daily intake of AFM1 was 0.001 µg/ kg bw per day for
children and 0.000188 µg/ kg bw per day for adults.
Herzallah (2009) examined raw and pasteurized milk of sheep, cow, and goat and
also examined eggs and beef samples for the presence of AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, AFG2,
AFM1, and AFM2. The samples were collected from different local markets in Jordan
during a period of 5 months (January-May 2007) and analyzed with HPLC using UV and
fluorescence detectors. The milk samples collected in January were found to contain 0.56
µg/ L AFM1 and 0.1 µg/ L AFM2 whilst the concentration of AFM1 and AFM2 were less
than 0.05 µg/ L for milk samples collected from March to May.
The incidence of contamination of AFM1 in milk samples collected from the
Syrian market was investigated by Ghanem and Orfi (2009) with ELISA technique. The
31
analysis of a total of 126 samples of raw milk, pasteurized milk, and powdered milk
showed that 80% samples were contaminated with various levels of AFM1 ranging
from0.020 to 0.765 µg/ L. The AFM1 contaminated samples of exceeding the American,
Syrian, and EU tolerance limits were 22%, 38%, and 52% respectively.
Lee et al. (2009) investigated the level of AFM1 in raw milk, produced in South
korea, using immunoaffinity column chromatography and HPLC with fluorescence
detector. Raw milk samples (100) were collected from 100 cattle ranches located in three
different provinces of South Korea. Out of 100, forty eight raw milk samples contained
AFM1 at low level (0.002-0.08 µg/ L) with mean value of 0.026 µg/ L. Out of the AFM1
contaminated raw milk samples, 29 samples contained only traceable amount of AFM1
below the LOQ 0.02 µg/ L. None of the samples exceeded the maximum level (0.5 µg/
L) of Korean regulation for AFM1 in milk. The limit of detection was 0.002 µg/ L and
the result of recovery test with 0.5 µg/ L AFM1 in raw milk sample was 96.3% (SD 3.6, n
= 5).
Sadeghi et al. (2009) studied the exposure of infants to and of lactating mothers
AFB1 to, using AFM1 in breast milk as a biomarker for exposure to AFB1. An enzyme-
linked immunosorbent assay was modified the analysis of AFM1 in breast milk samples
from women in Tehran, Iran. Out of 160 samples, AFM1 was detected in 157 samples by
average concentration of 8.2 ± 5.1 ng/ kg (range 0.3-26.7 ng/ kg). The concentration of
AFM1 in one sample was higher than the maximum tolerance limit accepted by EU and
USA (25 ng/ kg) and in 55 samples was higher than the maximum concentration
recommended by Australia and Switzerland (10 ng/ kg). Logistic regression did not show
significant correlation between AFM1 and gestational age, education, postnatal age,
gender, nationality, clinical condition, the number of family members, the number of
children, type and amount of dairy consumption, vegetable, fruit, oil, and meat. But there
was significant relation to the cereal consumption, also to the height at birth.
Tajkarimi et al. (2008) analyzed 319 raw milk samples collected from dairy forms
and milk collecting centers of 15 dairy plants in 14 Iranian states in winter and summer
during February and August 2004. The samples were analyzed for AFM1 with a validated
HPLC method and the recovery at 0.05 µg/ kg was 68% and coefficient of variation (CV)
was 15%. The recovery at 0.5 µg/ kg was 81% and CV was 25%. The 54% of the field
samples were found contaminated with AFM1. The mean concentration of AFM1 was
0.057 µg/ kg with 0.014 SD and sample median 0.039. The 44% of the samples had
levels <0.01 µg/ kg and 77% had levels <0.05 µg/ kg. In industrial and traditional dairy
32
forms the levels of contamination were equal, but the season had an indirect effect (α ≤
0.05) on the levels of contamination on the farms. The level of contamination in winter
was significantly (α ≤ 0.1) higher than in summer.
A survey on the presence of AFM1 and OTA in leading brands of infant formulas
marketed in Italy was conducted by Meucci et al. (2008). Infant formulas constitute an
important or often sole source of food for newborns and infants during the first months of
life. These formulas have a special role in the neonate diet because they should serve as
substitutes of human milk. The analysis of AFM1 and OTA was performed by
immunoaffinity column clean-up and HPLC with fluorescence detection. Aflatoxin M1
was found in 2 out of 185 samples but at levels that are below the European legislation
limit of 25 ng/ L.
Oveisi et al., (2007) determined natural occurrence and level of AFM1in
pasteurized liquid milk, infant formula, and milk-based cereal weaning food consumed in
Tehran, Iran. A total of 328 branded milk products and liquid milk samples were
collected and analyzed by ELISA method. The pasteurized liquid milk samples (128),
infant formula samples (20) and milk-based cereal weaning food samples (80) showed
that the incidence of contamination with AFM1 was 96.3%. The presence AFM1 of in
each group was 72.2 ± 23.5, 7.3 ± 3.9 and 16.8 ± 12.5 ng/ kg ranging between 31-113, 1-
14, and 3-35 ng/ kg respectively. In general the amount of AFM1 in 100 (78%) samples
of liquid milk and 24 (33%) samples of milk-based weaning food exceeded the maximum
tolerance limit accepted by EC, but in all of the infant formula samples it was lower than
the EC prescribed limit of 50 ng/ kg for AFM1 in milk and 25 ng/ kg for AFM1 in infant
milk products.
Decastelli et al. (2007) analyzed samples of raw cow’s milk and cattle feed from
the beginning of 2004 to the end of 2005 in Northern Italy. The presence of AFM1 in
milk and AFB1 in feed was higher than the maximum allowable limit in 1.7% of raw milk
samples and in 8.1% of feed samples. In 2005, the presence of these aflatoxins was
below the limits of EU regulations. In the analysis, an ELISA immunoassay was used as
screening test and the positive samples were confirmed by the HPLC analysis.
A study was made by Brukstiene et al. (2007) to determine the occurrence and
levels of AFM1 in the raw milk and dairy products produced in Lithuania. The obtained
results were compared with the maximum AFM1 tolerance limit for milk which is 50ng/
kg as determined by the regulation of EC. Raw milk samples were collected from forms
in various districts of Lithuania during 2004-2007 winter periods when cows are fed in
33
stables. Samples of the dairy products were analyzed during 2004-2006 by ELISA
immunochemical method. Nine raw milk samples out of 149 were fond contaminated
with AFM1. The concentration range determined was from 5.2 to 7.9 ng/ kg. After
testing 364 dairy product samples, it was found that only one sample of pasteurized milk
contained a 6 ng/ kg concentration of AFM1. In the remaining tested samples,
concentration of AFM1 was the ELISA determination level.
Atanda et al. (2007) undertook a survey to determine the AFM1 contamination of
milk and some locally produced dairy products in Abeokuta and Odeda local
governments of Ogun State, Nigeria. The samples of human and cow milk, yoghurt,
“wara”, ice-cream, and “nono” were collected randomly with in the local governments
and analyzed for AFM1 by using two dimensional TLC. Aflatoxin M1 contamination was
noticed in the range of 2.04 – 4.00 µg/ L in milk and ice-cream. Samples of human milk,
cow milk, and ice-cream showed high AFM1 concentration of 4.0, 2.04, and 2.23
respectively in abeokuta local government and AFM1 concentration of 4.0 µg/ L in cow
milk in Odeda local government. The study concluded that the AFB1 concentration in
feed which is transformed into AFM1 in milk should be reduced by good manufacturing
and good storage practices. Furthermore, there is need for stringent quality control during
processing and distribution of dairy products.
Tajkarimi et al. (2007) analyzed raw milk samples collected between April 2003
and February 2004 from milk tanks in one dairy plant in each of five regions in Iran.
Aflatoxin M1 analysis was made with validated HPLC method. Milk samples were
chosen with mean distances apart of 400 km, where there were different ecologies
(temperature, relative humidity etc.) and different agricultural products were used for
animal feeding. Twenty four to twenty five samples per season were analyzed for AFM1.
The overall mean of all samples was 0.041-0.065 µg/ L (95% confidence) and the
adjusted mean based on statistical modification was 0.039 µg/ L (61 samples had 0.000-
0.050 µg/ L, 29 samples were contaminated with 0.05-0.10 µg/ L, and remaining 8
samples had 0.10-0.39 µg/ L). All the samples were lower than Codex Alimentarius and
FDA standard for AFM1 (0.05 µg/ L). Levels of AFM1 were in winter and spring than in
summer and autumn seasons but the difference was not statistically significant (p> 0.07).
However, the level of AFM1 in milk from one region (Hamedan) was significantly lower
(p< 0.05) than in those of the other regions (Gorgan, Rasht, Shiraz, Tehran).
Ghiasian et al. (2007) carried out a survey on the occurrence of AFM1 in summer
and winter in raw milk samples from 93 traditional and industrial dairy farms of the
34
Hamedan district in order to address representative data on AFM1 in milk collected from
these regions. One nineteen samples (63.97%), out of 186 milk samples, were detected
contaminated with AFM1. The mean concentration of AFM1 in contaminated samples
was 43.4 ng/ L with the minimum and maximum levels of ≤ 10 anf 410 ng/ L
respectively. Fourteen (11.76%) contaminated samples had AFM1 concentration higher
than the maximum level specified in European Union regulations (50 ng/ L). The AFM1
contamination ratios of milk in summer and winter months were 56.5 and 71.7%
respectively.
Ayar et al. (2007) detected AFM1 contamination in 48 milk samples and AFB1
contamination in 48 feed samples. Different levels of aflatoxins were found in milk and
feed samples. Altogether, 20 raw milk samples (41.67%) and 15 feed samples (31.25%)
contained the aflatoxin levels above the legal limits established by the European
communities (EC) regulation and Turkish Food Codex. The study concluded that milk
and feed samples collected from this area constitute a potential risk for public health.
Oliveira and Ferraz (2007) analyzed 36 samples of pasteurized, ultra high-
temperature treated (UHT) and milk powder of goat traded in the city of Campinas, Brazil
for AFM1 contamination from October to December 2004 and March to May 2005.
Twenty five samples were found positive for AFM1 contamination at levels of 0.011-
0.161. The level of AFM1 contamination was below the tolerance limit of 0.50 µg/ L as
adopted for AFM1 in milk by Brazilian regulations. The mean levels of AFM1 in
pasteurized, UHT and milk powder of goat were 0.072 ± 0.048, 0.058 ± 0.044 and 0.056
± 0.031 µg/ L respectively. It was concluded that the incidence of AFM1 in goat milk
traded in Campinas is high, but at levels that probably leads to a non-significant human
exposure to AFM1 by consumption of goat milks.
Offiah and Adesiyun (2007) studied the occurrence of aflatoxins in peanuts, milk,
and animal feed in Trinidad, the West Indies. They determined the prevalence of AFB1 in
186 peanut products (140 peanut, 32 peanut butter, and 14 nut cakes) obtained from
supermarkets, road vendors, and sale outlets. They also determined the frequency of
aflatoxin M1 in 175 raw milk samples from milk collection centers and 37 pasteurized
milk samples obtained from supermarkets and sale outlets. The analytical technique used
for aflatoxins was that of radioimmunoassay method (Charm II Test) based on an indirect
competitive assay. Out of 175 raw milk samples, 13 (7.4%) were contaminated with
aflatoxin M1, while all the tested pasteurized milk samples were for aflatoxin M1
incidence.
35
Zinedine et al. (2007) surveyed 54 samples of pasteurized milk produced by five
different dairies from Morocco for the presence of aflatoxin M1 by using immunoaffinity
columns and liquid chromatography coupled to fluorescence detector. Confirmation of
AFM1 identity in positive samples was made by the formation of AFM1 hemi-acetal
derivative (AFM2a) after derivatization with TFA. The results showed that 88.8% of the
samples were contaminated with AFM1 and 7.4% were above the maximum level of 0.05
µg/ L set by the Moroccan and European regulations for AFM1 in liquid milk. The
contamination of AFM1 in milk of the five dairies was 100, 92.3, 90, 83.3, and 77.7%
respectively with AFM1 levels ranging from 0.001 to 0.117 µg/ L and the mean value of
AFM1 was 0.0186 µg/ L. According to the results of the study, the estimated daily intake
of AFM1 was 3.26 ng per person per day.
Gallo et al. (2006) reported a survey about in both raw and heat-treated milk from
Southern Italy from over the years from 2002 to 2005. Five hundreds and fifty two milk
samples of from cows, buffaloes, sheep, and goats were analyzed. Overall AFM1 was
detected in 248 samples (44.9%) from all the species. Most of these milk samples
contained AFM1 concentrations that were below the legal maximum residue level (MRL)
and only 33 samples (6.0%) were non-compliant. Bovine milk was fond the most
contaminated. The highest contamination levels of AFM1 were found during 2003 and
2005.
Unusan (2006) arranged a study having the purpose of determination of the levels
of AFM1 in UHT milk samples in central Anatolia, Turkey. The ELISA technique was
used to find out the occurrence of AFM1 in UHT milk samples. A total of 129 samples of
commercial UHT whole milk were analyzed and the mean value of AFM1 was found to
be 108.17 ng/ L. Sixty eight samples (53%) were below the limit of AFM1 in milk
permitted by EU and the remaining 61 (47%) were above the permitted limit. Four milk
samples exceeded the prescribed US regulations. The study concluded that the AFM1
levels in milk samples marketed in Antolia region appeared to be serious public health
problem at the moment. Dairy farmers must be educated by the government authorities
on potential health consequences of aflatoxins.
Diaz and Espitia (2006) conducted a study to establish the occurrence and levels
of contamination of AFM1 in retail milk from Bogota, Colombia. During 2004 and 2005,
241 samples were analyzed by HPLC coupled with fluorescence detector and with a prior
clean-up with immunoiaffinity columns. The analysis showed 69.2 and 79.4% AFM1
contamination in milk above 10 ng/ L, during 2004 and 2005 respectively. The range of
36
contamination was from 10.7 to 213.0 ng/ L in 2004 and from 10.6 to 288.9 ng/ L in2005.
In spite of the high incidence of AFM1 found in the analyzed milk samples, all samples
complied with current local regulations which allow AFM1 content in milk up to 400 ng/
L. The study emphasizes on the establishment of a permanent surveillance program for
milk consumed in Bogota in order restrict milk lots, containing AFM1 levels above the
regulatory level, entering the food chain.
Polychronaki et al. (2006) assessed the level and frequency of breast milk AFM1
as biomarker of maternal exposure. From May to September 2003, breast milk samples
were collected from a selected group of 388 lactating mothers of children attending the
New El-Qalyub Hospital, Qulyubiyah government, Egypt. After the extraction of
aflatoxin, AFM1 levels were assessed by HPLC with fluorescence detection. Aflatoxin
M1 contamination of breast milk was frequent (36%), albeit at moderate levels.
During 2002-2003, a total of 107 samples of raw, pasteueized, and UHT milk
commercialized in the cities of Sao Paulo and Marilia, Brazil, were analyzed for the
presence of AFM1 by Shundo and Sabino (2006). The samples were analyzed using
immunoaffinity columns for clean-up and TLC for determination. Aflatoxin M1 contents
were detected in 79 (73.8%) of milk samples ranging from < 0.02 to 0.26 µg/ L. The
parameters like recovery, repeatability, detection limit and quantification limit were
evaluated to in house optimization of this method. Based on spiking experiments, the
recovery values ranged from 85.83 to 73.86% at the levels of 0.010-0.50 µg/ L
respectively. The relative standard deviation for repeatability ranged from 7.73 to 2.08
µg/ L. LOQ was 0.02 µg/ L. The results of the analysis demonstrated a satisfactory
correlation when compared with HPLC. The study showed that immunoaffinity column
clean-up gave excellent results for recovery and sensibility.
Alborazi et al. (2006) evaluated AFM1 contamination in pasteurized milk samples
in Shiraz city, Iran. A total of 624 pasteurized milk samples were collected during April-
September 2003. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 100% of the examined milk samples.
Aflatoxin M1 level in 17.8% of the samples was greater than the maximum tolerance limit
(50 ng/ L) accepted by EU. The study concluded that AFM1 contamination is a serious
problem for public health and to achieve a low level of AFM1 contamination in milk,
cows’ feed samples from various cowsheds must be evaluated routinely for aflatoxin and
kept away from fungal contamination as much as possible.
Deveci and Sezgin (2006) studied the effects of process stages on the AFM1
contents in skim milk powder which was produced from cow milk contaminated
37
artificially with AFM1 at two different levels, 1.5 and 3.5 µg/ L. Pasteurization,
concentration, and spray drying caused losses of about 16, 40, and 68% respectively in
content of the milk at 1.5 µg/ L level with AFM1, whereas losses of 12, 35, and 59
respectively were observed in the milk contaminated at the level 3.5 µg/ L of AFM1.
These losses were found to be significant statistically. After 3 and 6 months storage
periods the AFM1 content decreased by 2 and 5% respectively for the skim milk powder
produced from milk with 1.5 µg/ L AFM1, whereas the AFM1 content decreased by 2 and
5% respectively for the skim milk powder produced from milk with 3.5 µg/ L AFM1. For
3 and 6 months, changes in AFM1 content were found statistically insignificant (p > 0.05
and p > 0.01).
Bognanno et al. (2006) checked AFM1 in 240 samples of dairy ewes’ milk,
obtained from farms of Enna (Sicily, Italy) during the period of October-July 2000, by
HPLC using fluorimetric detector. The positive milk samples were for AFM1 were
confirmed by LC-MS. Aflatoxin M1 was found in 81% milk samples ranging from 2-108
ng/ L. Three samples were above the legal limit (50 ng/ L). The mean contamination of
AFM1 in milk samples obtained from ewes placed in stable was higher than that from
grazing ewes (35.27 vs 12.47 ng/ L). Samples collected in September-October showed
higher AFM1 contamination than those collected during other months (42.68 vs 10.55 ng/
L). The differences in AFM1 contamination are related to the administration of compound
feed. The present study concluded that according to the AFM1 contamination recorded in
ewe milk did not present a serious human health hazard. But the surveillance of AFM1
contamination should be more continuous and wide spread for ewe milk, because ewe
milk is exclusively used to produce cheese due to its higher protein content and AFM1 has
preferential binding to casein during coagulation of milk.
Jasutiene et al. (2006) evaluated how the technological factors of dairy product
processing affect the stability of AFM1. Milk powder was artificially contaminated with
AFM1 (0.31, 0.44, and 0.76 µg/ L) and it was dissolved in water to reconstitute milk (10%
w/v). This milk was pasteurized and fermented with three different starters (YC-180,
ABY-2, and CH-N-22) to pH 4.0 and pH 4.5. HPLC method with fluorescence detection
and with a prior clean-up step with immunoaffinity was used to determine AFM1 in milk,
pasteurized milk and fermented milk products. The excitation wavelength was set at 365
nm and emission wavelength was set at 435 nm. The study showed that three minutes
pasteurization at 95 °C had no significant effect on the AFM1 content in milk.
Fermentation with different starters to pH 4.0 and 5.0 produced significant effect on the
38
stability of AFM1 and on the average the AFM1 concentration in yoghurt and fermented
milk samples fell by 25%. It was found that the composition of starter and pH of the final
product had no statistically significant effect on AFM1 stability.
Gurbay et al. (2006) conducted a study to determine the levels of AFM1 in
commonly consumed milk samples in Ankara, capital city of Turkey. Aflatoxin M1
concentration in milk samples was determined by HPLC equipped with fluorescence
detector and the clean-up step was carried out with immunaffinity columns. The mean
recovery of the method was 117.9% and standard curves were linear in the range of 10-
200 ng/ L with correlation coefficient of 0.9998. The LOD was found to be 10 ng/ L. A
total of 27 samples were analyzed among which 24 were of UHT milk and 3 were of
daily pasteurized milk. Aflatoxin M1 was present in 59.3% samples, however only one
sample was contaminated at a level above the maximum permissible limit (50 ng/ L)
accepted by EU and Turkey.
The presence of AFM1 was determined by Kamkar (2005) in raw milk samples
from dairy plants of Sarab city of Iran during the year 2001. Total 111 milk samples were
analyzed and the presence of AFM1 was detected in 85 (76.6%) milk samples ranging
from 0.015 to 0.28 µg/ L. Level of AFM1 in 40% positive samples was higher than the
maximum tolerance limit (0.05 µg/ L) accepted by some European countries. The lowest
mean value of 0.024 µg/ L of AFM1 concentration was found in August and the highest
mean value of 0.024 µg/ L of AFM1 concentration was found in December. Aflatoxin M1
incidence level in January, February, April, and December was higher than the other
months. The mean contamination level of AFM1 was higher significantly (p< 0.01) in
autumn and winter samples than those of spring and summer. Furthermore no statistical
difference was found between AFM1 contents of spring and summer samples.
Sassahara et al. (2005) made a study aimed at to analyze the presence of
aflatoxins in foodstuffs (concentrated and roughage) destined for dairy cattle and in the
milk produced by these animals. Aflatoxin contamination of foodstuff happened mainly
in the feeds and silages did not present contamination of aflatoxins. Among the 42 milk
samples analyzed, 10 (24%) samples were found contaminated with AFM1 and 3 (7%)
samples were above the 0.5µg/ L limit.
Deveci and Sezgin (2005) made a study to determine AFM1 levels of skim milk
powders produced in Turkey. Analysis was made by HPLC along with immunoaffiniy
columns. Twenty one skim milk powder samples were collected from seven firms in four
different seasons (March-April-May, June-July-August, September-October-November,
39
and December-January-February). Aflatoxin M1 levels in the 21 samples were found in
the range of 0.0 to 0.705 µg/ kg. Two samples had the AFM1 levels (0.535 and 0.705 µg/
kg) which exceeded the Turkish Codex (0.5 µg/ kg). As a whole, 90.5% of the samples
did not exceed the maximum tolerance limit established by Turkish Codex. The study
showed that seasonal variations of AFM1 contents were statistically significant (p < 0.01)
and AFM1 contents of the samples collected in summer were lower than those of the
samples collected in the winter.
Kaniou-Grigoriadou et al. (2005) examined the presence of AFM1 in ewe’s milk
and the produced curd and Feta cheese by using ELISA. A total of 162 samples of Feta
cheese were obtained from traditional cheese-making plants of the West side of
Thessaloniki province, Greece. The levels of AFM1 in milk samples (highest value 18.2
ng/ L) were found far below the tolerance level. Higher levels of AFM1 were detected in
curd samples giving a mean enrichment factor of 4.9. The final ripened cheese was found
to be free of AFM1.
Sizoo and Van Egmond (2005) made a study the goal of which was to determine
the mass fractions of a number of analytes (AFM1, AFB1, ochratoxin A etc.) in the
duplicate diet samples collected by 123 participants in the spring and autumn 1994. For
the analysis of AFM1, AFB1, ochratoxin A, a method of analysis was developed that could
determine simultaneously these mycotoxins at very low levels. The method based on
chloroform extraction, liquid-liquid extraction, immunoaffinity cleanup and liquid
chromatography. The method was in-house validated and recoveries were found between
68-74% for AFM1 (at spiking levels of 30-120 ng/ kg, CV 7.6%), between 95-97% for
AFB1 (at spiking levels of 50-200 ng/ kg, CV 2.8%), and 75-84% for ochratoxin A (at
spiking levels of 150-600 ng/ kg, CV 4.3%). Limits of quantitation, defined as
signal/noise = 10, were found to be 24, 5, and 16 ng/ Kg in lyophilized material for
AFM1, AFB1, and ochratoxin A respectively. The method was used to analyze 123
samples of 24-hours diets and AFM1 was detected in 48% of the samples; the toxin
contents remained below the limit of quantitation in all samples. The 42% of the samples
showed AFB1 contamination and in 25% of the samples the toxin levels were above the
limit of quantitation. Ochratoxin A was detected in all the samples. The levels of the
toxins’ intakes were estimated from the analytical results. Intake levels of aflatoxins were
very low, while the mean intake of ochratoxin A was estimated to be 1.2 ng/ kg body
weight per day. This is well below the tolerable daily intake established by JECFA at 14
40
ng/ kg body weight per day. The study showed that the current dietary intake of
ochratoxin A in the Netherlands poses no appreciable health risk.
Oruc et al. (2005) determined AFM1 levels in 115 raw cow milk samples collected
from plain and mountain villages during March-April 2003 in Bursa province, Turkey, by
using ELISA technique. The mean AFM1 concentration was found 78.06 ± 6.34 ng/ kg
(0.00-212.40 ng/ kg) in milk samples plain villages and 71.72 ± 5.52 ng/ kg (12.30-
164.10 ng/ kg) in milk samples from mountain villages. The mean AFM1 concentration
in the plain villages’ milk samples was higher than those in those of mountain villages,
but the difference was not significant statistically. Overall, the incidence of in the
collected milk samples, regardless of the area differentiation, was found noticeably high
(99.13%) with approximately 60% of the samples exceeding the EU and Turkish
tolerance limit of 50 ng/ kg. The AFM1 concentration in 61.82% and 56.67% milk
samples from plain and mountain villages respectively were above the tolerance limit of
50 ng/ kg.
Celik et al. (2005) studied the contamination level of AFM1 in 85 pasteurized milk
samples which were consumed by the people of all ages including children. The
technique used for analysis was that of ELISA. Contamination of AFM1 was found in 75
(88.23%) samples, whereas 48 (64%) samples exceeded the legal level of AFM1 in milk
according to the Turkish Food Codex and Codex Alimentarius limit (50 ng/ kg or L). The
study showed serious risks for public health from milk consumption.
Rastogi et al. (2004) determined the occurrence of AFM1 contamination in Indian
infant products and liquid milk samples by using competitive ELISA technique. A total
of 187 samples comprising of infant milk food (18), infant formula (17), milk based
cereal weaning food (40), and liquid milk samples (12) were investigated and showed
87.3% contamination of AFM1. The infant milk products showed the higher range of
AFM1 contamination (65-1012 ng/ L) than that of liquid milk. Approximately 99% of the
contaminated samples exceeded the EU/ Codex Alimentarius recommended limit (50 ng/
L), whereas 9% contaminated samples the prescribed limit of US regulations (500 ng/ L).
The results suggested a need to introduce a safety limit for AFM1 levels in infant milk
products and liquid milk under the ‘ Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of India’ as
well as to describe the levels of AFB1 in dairy cattle feedstuffs so as to minimize the
health hazard risk from AFM1 contamination.
Carvajal et al. (2003) undertook a survey of AFM1 levels in milk as there was its
need due to high per capita milk consumption in Mexico. Quantification of AFM1 was
41
done in 580 samples by using HPLC. The AFM1 levels in the seven most consumed
brands from different regions were related with two processes (pasteurized and ultra-
pasteurized), different expiration dates, and different fat contents. Pasteurization and
ultra-pasteurization did not diminish AFM1 contamination. The milk with the lowest
contamination of AFM1 was a brand imported as powder and rehydrated in Mexico.
A study was undertaken by Abdulrazzaq et al. (2003) to determine whether breast
milk of mothers from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) contained aflatoxins. One
hundred and forty lactating mothers participated in the study, among these 55 were those
who had delivered premature infants and 85 were those who had full-term infants. Breast
milk samples were collected during regular feeding of infants in the special care baby unit
and postnatal wards using an electric breast pump and 10 mL milk was siphoned off into
a zinc free plastic container and AFM1 concentration was measured HPLC. Samples of
breast milk were collected between January 1999 and December 2000. Almost 66% of
the mothers were expatriates and 34% mothers were UAE nationals. The factors
considered were baby’s weight, postnatal age, sex, birth weight and gestational age.
Mothers’ nationality, age, and parity were also recorded. Overall, 92% of the breast milk
samples were found contaminated with AFM1. No significant correlation could be found
by univariate and multivariate regression analysis between AFM1 levels and the factors
studied. The study showed the need that public should be educated about hazards of
aflatoxin ingestion to reduce the presence of aflatoxin in breast milk.
Bonessi et al. (2003) conducted a study for observation of AFM1 in raw fresh or
pasteurized milk which is a part of commercial trade between members of the EU and
Emilia Romanga Region (Italy) in compliance with the institutional responsibilities of the
Veterinary Office Communitarian Exchange of the Emilia Romanga Region (Italy) and
collaboration of the Experimental Zoophylaxis Institute of Brescia. The results of the
study were favorable and none of the tested samples demonstrated AFM1 level beyond
acceptable and legal requirements.
Rodriguez-Velasco et al. (2003) used ELISA and HPLC methods for examination
of AFM1 in cow’s milk samples collected from dairy farms in the province of Leon,
Spain. Initially, the concentration of AFM1 in the milk extracts were estimated by
ELISA, with recovery rates of 74.6-109% for artificially contaminated milk at the levels
of 10-80 ng/ L. The samples, found contaminated with AFM1 at the levels above 10 ng/
L, were further quantified with HPLC. The mean recovery for HPLC was 89.3%. The
LOD was 10 ng/ L for both ELISA and HPLC. Aflatoxin M1 was confirmed in only 3.3%
42
of the samples and the concentrations in all these cases were lower than the maximum
limit applicable to these products pursuant to EU legislation. The validation of both of
the methods was done with reference material certified by the Community Bureau of
Reference.
The occurrence of AFM1 in the milk produced in an area of the Emilia region
(Italy) was surveyed from 1993 to 1998 by Pietri et al. (2003). A total of 332 milk
samples were collected from dairy farms delivering milk to factories for Parmigiano
Reggiano cheese production and AFM1 was detected in 95.5% of the samples. Twenty
eight samples (8.4%) exceeded the limit (50 ng/ kg) set by the Commission of the
European Communities (CEC) in 1998. The most contaminated samples (23 out of 28)
were found in the first two years of sampling, whereas in the later years there was a
general trend towards lower AFM1 levels.
Lopez et al. (2003) carried out a study in Argentina during winter to determine
AFM1 contamination degree of milk, as the exposure of infants to AFM1 is something to
worry about because milk is a main nutrient for children. The milk samples were
collected in winter and in the all cases AFM1 levels were lower than the recommended
limits. But, it is necessary to maintain control as AFM1 is a human carcinogen.
Garrido et al. (2003) determined the incidence of AFM1 and AFM2 in milk
samples (60 UHT and 79 pasteurized milk samples) collected from supermarkets in
Ribeirao Preto-SP, Brazil in 1999 and 2000. The analysis was done according to the
method 986.16 of AOAC International. Aflatoxin M2 could not be detected in any
sample, whereas AFM1 was detected in 29 (20.9%) samples ranging 50-240 ng/ L. The
results of the study showed that despite high incidence of AFM1 in commercial UHT and
pasteurized milk sold in Ribeirao Preto, the contamination levels of these toxins could not
be considered a serious public health problem according to MERCOSUR Technical
Regulations. Levels of AFM1 in 20.9% of the milk samples exceeded the concentration
of 50 ng/ L permitted by the EU.
Waliyar et al. (2003) made a study in which various food and feed samples
including groundnut seed, maize, sorghum, soybean cake, groundnut cake, poultry feed,
buffalo milk, cow milk, and milk powders were collected from farmers’ field, farmers’
stores, oil millers’ storage, traders’ storage, retail shops, and supermarkets. More than
2000 samples were analyzed by ELISA for aflatoxin contamination and most of the
samples contained high levels of aflatoxins with the exception of sorghum seeds.
Groundnut cake, which is the major cattle feed ingredient in the peri-urban area of
43
Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh, India), showed aflatoxin contamination in more than 75%
samples at levels above 100 µg/ Kg leading to a high level of AFM1 in milk samples.
Strategies to reduce aflatoxin levels especially in groundnut with management
interventions at pre-harvest, harvest, and storage are necessary.
Roussi et al. (2002) determined AFM1 contamination in 298 milk samples by
immunoafinity column extraction and HPLC. In the first sampling, from December 1999
to May 2000, 114 samples of pasteurized, UHT, and concentrated milk were collected
from supermarkets, whereas 52 raw milk samples of cow, sheep, and goat were collected
from different milk producers all over Greece. In the second sampling, from December
2000 to May 2001, 54 samples of pasteurized milk, 23 samples of bulk-tank raw milk,
and 55 raw milk samples of cow, sheep, and goat were collected. In the first sampling,
the incidence rates of AFM1 contamination in pasteurized, UHT, concentrated, cow,
sheep and goat milk samples were 85.4, 82.3, 93.3, 73.3, 66.7, and 40.0% respectively.
Only one cow milk and two concentrated milk samples exceeded the EU limit of 250 ng/
L. In the second sampling, the incidence rates of AFM1 contamination in pasteurized,
bulk-tank, cow, sheep, and goat milk samples were 79.6, 78.3, 64.3, 73.3, and 66.7%
respectively. Only one cow and one sheep raw milk sample exceeded the limit of 50 ng/
L. The results proved that the current regulatory status about aflatoxins in Greece is
effective.
A study was carried out by Salem (2002) to investigate the natural occurrence of
total aflatoxins in feedstuffs and AFM1 in raw milk of dairy farms in Assiut province,
Egypt. A total of 82 feedstuff samples and 85 raw milk samples were collected from six
dairy farms and two factories producing concentrate feed in Assiut province. All the
samples were obtained between October 1999 and February 2000 and total aflatoxins in
feedstuffs and AFM1 in raw milk were analyzed by ELISA. All feedstuff samples were
found to be contained total aflatoxins in the range of 2 to 60 ng/ mL except six feed
ingredients which contained values lower than detection limit (1.75 ng/ g). The mean
value of total aflatoxins in all the feedstuff samples from all the investigated dairy farms
was 3.2 ± 1.66 ng/ g. The mean values of total aflatoxins in feedstuffs ranged from 2.0-
5.0 ng/ g in the individual farms. Four samples exceeded the Egyptian maximum level
(20 ng/ g). The highest value was found in cottonseed meal. Aflatoxin M1 was found in
50 (58.8%) of the investigated milk samples and AFM1 concentration ranged from ND –
15 ng/ L. The results revealed that AFM1 levels in the analyzed milk samples were below
the maximum tolerance limit of EU countries (50 ng AFM1/ L milk). Sixteen samples out
44
of the 50 positive samples exceeded the Swiss limit (10 ng/ L) which is the most
restrictive in the world.
Abdel-El-Fatha et al. (2002) conducted a study to determine the level of AFM1 in
camels’ milk collected from Sinai Governorate, Egypt, because the people living in this
area consume camels’ milk without any heat treatment. The collected milk samples (50)
were analyzed for AFM1 using TLC. Results revealed that 16% of the samples were
positive with a mean value of 0.65 ± 0.008 mg/ L. The concentration of AFM1 in positive
samples ranged from 0.4 to 0.9 mg/ L. The study concluded that the control measures to
safeguard consumers from AFM1 should be emphasized.
Abdel-El-Fatha (2002) determined the occurrence of aflatoxins in infants’ milk
powder samples (30) from different pharmacies in Kaliubia Governorate, Egypt. TLC
was used for the analysis of aflatoxins. The collected samples were analyzed and
screened for aflatoxins B1, B2, M1, and M2 and the data showed that the incidence of
aflatoxins B1, B2, M1, and M2 were 0.8, 0.6, 1.5, and 0.0 ppb respectively. The study
concluded that control measures to safeguard infant’s powder from exposure to aflatoxins
should be given emphasis.
Kamkar (2002) studied AFM1 contamination in commercial UHT milk in Tehran,
Iran. A total of 64 milk samples were analysed for the presence of AFM1 by using TLC
method. The data was analyzed statistically by applying one-way ANOVA. Fifty three
samples (82%) were found positive for AFM1 and 11 samples (17.4%) were negative.
Aflatoxin M1 concentration in the milk samples ranged from 69 to 387 ng/ L. All the
contaminated samples had AFM1 levels higher than the EU standard (50 ng/ L).
Martins and Martins (2000) determined contamination in 101 milk samples
collected from individual farms and supermarkets in Lisbon, Portugal, during June to
September 1999. Thirty one samples of raw milk were obtained from individual farms
and 70 UHT milk samples (18 whole milk, 22 semi-skimmed milk, and 30 skimmed milk
samples) were collected from supermarkets. Overall, incidence of aflatoxin M1 was very
high (83.2%) with 80.6% of raw milk and 84.2% of UHT milk. Among the raw milk
samples, 17 samples (54.8%) contained low levels (0.005-0.010 µg/ L), two samples
(6.5%) had levels of 0.011 and 0.020 µg/ L and six samples (19.3%) had levels between
0.021 and 0.050 µg/ L. Of the 70 samples of UHT milk, 10 samples (one whole milk,
two semi-skimmed milk, and seven skimmed milk samples) had levels below 0.005 µg/
L. Nine samples (two whole milk and seven skimmed milk samples) were contaminated
with AFM1 levels between 0.005 and 0.010 µg/ L. Twenty five samples (eight whole
45
milk, one semi-skimmed milk, and 16 skimmed milk samples) had AFM1 contamination
levels of 0.011-0.020 µg/ L. Six samples of whole milk and 18 samples of semi-skimmed
milk had levels of 0.021-0.050 µg/ L. One whole milk sample and one semi-skimmed
milk sample were contaminated at the levels of 0.059 and 0.061 µg/ L respectively and
exceeded the legal limit. The study concluded that, at the moment, the contamination of
milk with AFM1 does not appear to be a risk to public health, although the presence of
this toxin was detected in 83.2% of the samples analyzed.
Campiglio and Cerutti (1999) tested 360 samples of 23 raw materials for
aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, and G2. Eighty two samples of whole milk, skimmed milk,
powdered milk, and powdered whey were tested for AFM1. In raw materials, aflatoxins
were present in concentrations up to 40 ppb in a proportion of samples of nutmeg,
capsicum and paprika.
Ioannou-Kakouri et al. (1999) monitored aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, and G2 in locally
produced and imported foodstuffs (nuts, cereals, oily seeds, pulses) during 1992-1996.
The samples (peanuts/groundnuts, pistachios) which showed the total aflatoxins above the
Cyprus maximum level (10µg/ kg) lied between 0.7 and 6.9%. The highest incidence of
aflatoxin contamination was found in groundnut butter (56.7%) and the highest level of
AFM1 was detected in groundnuts (700 µg/ kg). Levels of AFM1 in raw and pasteurized
milk, analyzed in 1993, 1995, and 1996), were within both Cyprus tolerance limit (0.5 µg/
L) and the tolerance the tolerance limit adopted by of some European countries (0.05 µg/
L). Analysis of AFM1 was made by immunochemical methods with recoveries near 80%.
The results of the study indicated effectiveness of monitoring as well as the need for
constant surveillance and control. The control is meant for to prevent unfit products from
entering the Cyprus market and it includes sampling, retainment, analysis, and destruction
of foodstuff’ lots containing aflatoxin levels above tolerance limits.
Lopez et al. (1998) used TLC to detect AFM1 in 50 Argentinian milk samples
collected in autumn from commercial sources and from small dairy farms where cows
were manually milked. Aflatoxin M1 could not be detected in any of the samples tested.
Dhand et al. (1998) screened for aflatoxin samples of cow milk (15), buffalo milk (14),
paneer (27), khoa (28), and burfi (28) from Ludhiana, Indian Punjab. Aflatoxin M1 was
found to be present in 55 samples (7 cow milk, 5 buffalo milk, 8 paneer, 18 khoa, and 17
burfi samples). Seven samples (2 buffalo milk, 2 paneer, and 3 burfi samples) were found
to be contaminated with AFB1. Aflatoxin B2 and M2 were not detected in any of the
samples tested.
46
Choudhary et al. (1997) analyzed for AFM1 after collection of samples of raw
cow milk and raw buffalo milk from individual animals and from bulk supplies located in
and around Anand town, Gujarat, India and from the Gujarat Agriculture University
Farm. The samples of market milk supplied by three dairies in Anand town were
collected from retail outlets. The samples were analyzed for the presence of AFM1 by
HPLC. For raw cow milk, 30 (88.23%) of 34 individual samples and 31 (96.87%) of 32
of bulk samples were positive for AFM1. However on average, concentrations of AFM1
were lower in the bulk samples (mean 0.110 µg/ L) than in individual ones (mean 0.143
µg/ L). Similarly for raw cow milk, 84.21% of individual samples and 96.43% of bulk
samples were positive for AFM1. However on average, concentrations of AFM1 were
lower in the bulk samples (mean 0.074 µg/ L) than in individual samples (mean 0.076 µg/
L). Raw buffalo milk samples contained relatively lower AFM1 concentration as
compared to raw cow milk. All market raw milk samples, except one, were positive for
AFM1 but concentrations (ranging from 0.006-0.282 µg/ L) were below the action level
of 0.50 µg/ L which is laid down by Food Drug Administration. On the other hand,
83.3% of raw milk samples from individual cows exceeded this limit.
Domagala et al. (1997) collected 187 milk samples from 10 farms in the Krakow
Disrict of Poland and bulk milk samples from 5 collection points belonging to the
Krakow Dairy Cooperative during 1993-1994 and analyzed for AFM1 using ELISA.
Among the milk samples from the farm, 20% were positive for AFM1 with concentrations
ranging from 3.6 to 10.6 ng/ kg milk. From the 157 bulk milk samples, 37 (23.6%) were
positive for AFM1 and 25 samples had AFM1concentrations above 10 ng/ kg, whereas 12
had concentrations between 10 and 50 ng/ kg. None of the milk samples tested exceeded
the tolerance limit of 50 ng/ kg.
Meerarani et al. (1997) carried out HPLC analysis on 325 milk samples (buffalo
and cow milk) collected at random from milk vendors and farms during different months
of the year. Aflatoxin AFM1 was detected in 36 (11%) samples at concentration levels
ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 µg/ L. Three samples had AFM1 concentration above 0.5 µg/ L.
Saitanu (1997) examined for AFM1 270 samples of raw milk and commercial milk
products by using a radioimmunoassay. Except one sample of raw milk and eleven
samples of imported dry milk, AFM1 was found in all milk samples. In 48 (18%)
samples, including milk (17/67), pasteurized milk (20/63), UHT milk (7/60), sterilized
milk (3/60), and ‘pelleted’ milk (1/7), aflatoxin AFM1 contents were above 0.5 ppb. All
47
dried milk samples were negative for AFM1 except two samples with les than 0.1 ppb.
The results of the 5 milk samples positive for AFM1 were confirmed by HPLC.
Markaki and Melissari (1997) collected 81 samples of commercial pasteurized
milk collected from market in Athens, Greece and analysed for the presence of AFM1.
For the rapid and reliable determination of AFM1, a combination of a commercial ELISA
kit and a modified HPLC method was used. Initially the AFM1 concentrations in milk
extracts were estimated by ELISA. Samples containing AFM1 above 5.0 ng/ L, were
further quantified with HPLC. Aflatoxin M1 was derivatized to its hydroxylated product
aflatoxin M2a and then determined. The recovery of the HPLC method was nearly 100%.
Thirty two samples contained AFM1 at levels of 2.5-5.0 ng/ L and 31 samples contained
only traces of the toxin. None of the sample contained the toxin above 5.0 ng/ L. In 9
samples AFM1 could not be detected.
Oliveira et al. (1997) surveyed AFM1 in samples 300 of dried whole milk
consumed by infants at municipal schools and nurseries in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The
analyses were performed by using commercially available direct competitive ELISA kits.
Samples were reconstituted in water (1:8), centrifuged at 1630 × g for 15 minutes and
subjected directly to the assay without clean-up procedures. Results showed 33 (111%)
positive samples for AFM1 at levels of 0.10 to 1.00 ng/ mL with mean value of 0.27 ±
0.20 ng/ mL. By using the data on milk consumption patterns for 4-month old infants
who have highest intake of milk, a mean daily intake of 3.7 ng/ Kg per day was estimated.
Domagala and Kisza (1996) determined mycotoxin levels in 30 milk samples and
42 cattle fed samples from farms in Poland’s Krakow region, and also in 157 milk
samples taken at collection points for the Krakow Dairy Cooperative. Contents of
sterigmatocystin (ST), o-methyl serigmatocystin (OMST) and AFM1 were determined
using chromatography and ELISA. Analysis of feed samples included determination of
levels of ST, OMST, and AFB1, as well as toxin producing strains of Aspergillus species.
While milk samples form collection points were only analyzed for the presence of AFM1.
In case of farm milk samples, ST and OMST were not found in any sample, whereas
AFM1 was found in 4 samples when analysis was carried out by chromatography and in 6
samples when ELISA was used. In case of milk from collection points, 37 samples were
found to be contaminated with AFM1. The maximum AFM1 level was 25 ng/ kg. The
study concluded that while the levels of mycotoxins detected in feed and milk samples
were low, the risk that they present should not be disregarded, as they can easily increase
as a result of conditions. As a result of this study, it was recommended that systematic
48
testing for these contaminants should be carried out. Other recommended strategies
include raising quality requirements for both feeds and milk with respect to mycotoxin
levels. The development of sensitive and cheap analytical methods is also necessary.
Balata and Bhout (1996) analyzed for AFM1 contamination 24 samples of raw
milk collected from camels from North-Western coastal desert region (Mariout Research
Station and the Bourg El-Arab farm). Aflatoxin M1 contamination was detected in 25%
of the samples in the range of 0.30 to 0.85 µg/ L, with the mean value of 0.55 µg/ L.
Mitchell (1996) assayed for AFM1 a total of 258 samples of dried milk produced
in Northern Ireland, UK from April 1992 to October 1995. All the tested samples had
AFM1 concentrations below the advisory limit of 0.5 µg/ kg. In 42% of the samples,
concentrations were below 0.05 µg/ kg. In 1992 and 1995, 23.5% and 50% of samples
respectively had AFM1 concentrations below the LOD. In summer, AFM1 concentrations
were significantly lower than those in winter with 51% and 30% samples respectively
having concentration below the LOD. The results of the study demonstrated that the
Feeding Stuffs Regulations for controlling the levels of AFB1 in cattle feed are effective
in controlling AFM1 in milk and milk products.
Cow milk from suppliers belonging to the Arifo Milk Producers’ Cooperative,
Perugia, Italy, was collected in February and May 1995 and was analyzed for AFM1
contents by Rossi et al. (1996). The mean values for the sets of 61 and 62 samples were
approximately 10 and 13 ppt respectively. There were 11 and 8 negative samples, but
some samples showed high contamination with two farms consistently recording AFM1
contents above 80 ppt. Similarly testing of bulk ewe milk, from 42 suppliers in June,
1995 showed contents less than 5 ppt in 13 samples.
Fu (1996) evaluated the method for the detection of in milk and dried milk. The
two immunoaffinity columns used were (1) the Afla Test-P and (2) the AFLAPREP M.
By using (1), the average recoveries of AFM1 were 84.4 ± 7.0 and 94.2 ± 9.5% for the
milk spiked at 0.5 and 1.0 ppb respectively. The LOD was 0.1 ppb and the method was
easy to use and was suitable for multi-sample treatment. By using (2), the average
recoveries of AFM1 were 84.7 ± 2.7, 88.7 ± 1.9 and 89.2 ± 4.2% for the milk spiked at
0.1, 0.5 and 1.0 ppb respectively. The LOD was 0.05 ppb and the method was easy to
use. Twenty five samples of milk (sterilized, low fat and pasteurized) and 25 samples of
dried milk products (dried milk and infant formulae) were purchased from supermarkets
in Taipei, Taiwan, from July 1994 to June 1995 and tested for AFM1 by using (2).
49
Aflatoxin M1 was detected in three samples of milk at concentrations of 0.33, 0.12, 0.08
ppb. No AFM1 was detected in the tested dried milk products.
A survey of 79 milk samples collected by the UK dairy cooperative, Milk Marque,
from farms throughout England and Wales showed the presence of AFM1 (Anonymous,
1996). The limit of detection was 0.01 µg/ kg. Aflatoxin M1 was present in 8 of 40
winter samples and two of 39 summer samples ranging 0.01-0.04 µg/ kg and in 3 winter
samples ranging 0.05 to 0.10 µg/ kg. When the results were compared with previous
surveys, the maximum level of AFM1 in milk has decreased from 0.52 and 0.78 µg/ kg
when surveillance started in 1977 to 0.18 µg/ kg in 1988, 0.16 µg/ kg in 1989, and to 0.09
µg/ kg in the present survey. This decrease showed the effectiveness of Feeding-stuffs
Regulations in limiting levels of aflatoxins permitted in feed.
Diaz et al. (1995) determined occurrence of AFM1 in 100 samples of commercial
milk taken from a supermarket in Madrid, Spain, from January to June 1993. The
analytical method used for the determination of AFM1 was a dialysis diphasic membrane
procedure and high-performance TLC. Eighty six samples contained AFM1 levels below
0.01 µg/ L and 14 samples contained the toxin levels in the range of 0.02-0.04 µg/ L.
Thirty six dried milk samples of six different brands and 49 pasteurized milk
samples of four different brands were purchased from retail stores in Hermosillo, Mexico
and were analyzed for AFM1 content by Esqueda-Valle et al. (1995). Aflatoxin M1 was
isolated by antibody affinity columns and quantified by fluorometry. Recovery was 97%
at spike levels of 0.05-0.50 µg/ kg with LOD of 0.05 µg/ kg. The mean AFM1
concentrations ranged from 0.13 ± 0.01 to 0.02 ± 0.07 µg/ Kg in dried milk and from 0.13
± 0.07 to 0.27 ± 0.12 µg/ kg in pasteurized milk. The highest levels of AFM1 found in
dried and pasteurized milk samples were 0.33 and 0.49 µg/ kg respectively. The AFM1
levels in 76% of samples were below 0.2 µg/ kg and 24% samples had levels between 0.2
and 0.5 µg/ kg. None of the samples exceeded the maximum level of 0.5 µg/ kg
permitted by the FDA.
In the Gambia, West Africa, Zarba et al. (1992) initiated a study to explore the
relationship between dietary intake of aflatoxins during a one week period and a number
of aflatoxin biomarkers including aflatoxin metabolite excretion into breast milk. Five
lactating women were selected for this study and milk samples were collected by hand
expression once a day during days 3-7 for three women and during days 3-6 for the two
other women. Aflatoxin M1 was measured in all the breast milk samples by a preparative
monoclonal antibody immunoaffinity column/ HPLC method. Aflatoxin M1 was found in
50
milk samples of three of the women and the percentage of aflatoxin excreted as AFM1 in
milk ranged from 0.09 to 0.43%. The study indicated that this method can be used to
assess the levels of AFM1 in human milk and this can be used as a biomarker for exposure
of children to this carcinogen.
Fritz et al. (1977) described a method enabling a simultaneous identification and
determination of AFM1 and AFB1 in milk and dairy products by means of a self
registering fluorescence spectrophotometer with TLC accessory, directly from the plate.
The recovery rates of AFM1 and AFB1 in milk were about 83 and 82% respectively and
LOD was 0.1 µg/ kg. The recovery rates of AFM1 and AFB1 in milk powder were about
89 and 94% respectively and LOD was 0.5 µg/ kg. Of 24 analyzed samples of
commercial winter milk, four were found aflatoxin M1 positive, whereas AFB1 could not
be detected. In milk powder products, could not be detected but, AFB1 was found in one
sample.
2.4.2. Survey of AFM1 in Cheese
Dashti et al., (2009) analyzed a total of 321 milk samples (177 fresh, 105 long-
life, 27 powdered milk, and 12 human milk), 40 cheese samples and 84 feed samples for
the detection of AFM1 and total aflatoxin. The samples were collected from Kuwaiti
markets during January 2005- March 2007. The ELISA method was used and results
showed that all fresh milk samples, except one, were contaminated with AFM1 ranging
from 0.0049 to 0.0687 µg/ kg. Among the contaminated samples, 8 samples exceeded the
European Union regulatory limit. Among the long life samples, the ranges of AFM1 were
from below the detection limit to 0.0888 µg/ kg, with the four samples above the action
limit of EC. The powdered milk contained AFM1 ranging from 0.0020 to 0.0414 µg/ kg.
Among the human milk samples, only five were found contaminated AFM1 with levels
ranging 0.0088 to 0.0152 µg/ kg with a mean 0.0097 µg/ kg. The cheese samples showed
80% contamination with AFM1 with a range 0.0238- 0.452 and mean of 0.0876 µg/ kg
with one sample being above the regulatory limit (0.250 µg/ kg). The feed samples
showed 79.8% contamination with total aflatoxin.
Manetta et al. (2009) investigated the distribution of AFM1 in samples of whey,
curd, and a typical hard and long maturing cheese like Granda Padano (ripened for 12
months), produced with naturally contaminated milk in the range of 30-98 ng AFM1/ kg.
Determinations AFM1 of were carried out on 25 samples of each product by reverse-phase
51
HPLC and fluorescence detection with post-column derivatization, after a preliminary
C18-SPE clean-up. Results showed that, in comparison to milk, AFM1 concentration
levels increased both in curd (three fold) and long maturing cheese (four to five fold),
while AFM1 occurrence in whey decreased by 40%.
Ardic et al. (2009) undertook a study to determine the presence and levels of
AFM1 in Turkish white brined cheese consumed in the province of Erzurum, Turkey. A
total of 193 cheese samples were randomly collected from retail outlets and AFM1
determination was made by ELISA technique. Aflatoxin M1, at detectable level (0.05 µg/
kg), was fond in 82.4% of the samples. The AFM1 concentration ranged from 0.052 to
0.860 µg/ kg. The 26.4% samples exceed the legal limit of 0.250 µg/ kg established by
Turkish Food Codex. Widespread occurrence of AFM1 in Turkish white brined cheese
was considered to be possible hazard for public health especially for children.
Tekinsen and Eken (2008) performed a study for the analysis of AFM1 in 100
UHT milk and 132 kashar cheese samples. The samples were obtained from five big
cities: Istanbul, Izmir, Konya, Tekirdag, and Edrine. ELISA (competitive) technique was
used for the determination of AFM1. AFM1 was detected in 67% UHT milk samples and
in 82.6% kashar cheese samples. The incidence of AFM1 in positive UHT milk and
kashar cheese samples was in the range of 10 to 630 ng/ Kg and 50 to 690 ng/ kg
respectively. Aflatoxin M1 levels in 31 (31%) UHT milk samples and 36 (27.3%) kashar
cheese samples exceeded the maximum tolerable limit of EC and Turkish Food Codex.
Study showed the presence of high levels of AFM1 that that constitute a human health risk
in Turkey, therefore, milk and dairy products have to be controlled continuously for
presence of AFM1 contamination by the Turkish public health authorities.
Kamkar et al. (2008) determined the AFM1 concentration in curd and whey of
Iranian white cheese. The cheese milk samples were artificially contaminated with
aflatoxin M1 at six levels (0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.75 µg/ L). Iranian traditional
recipe was used to produce cheese. Aflatoxin M1 concentration in curd, whey, and cheese
was determined by HPLC using immunoaffinity column clean-up and fluorescence
detection. Aflatoxin M1 was found in curd, whey, and cheese in the concentrations of
0.43, 1.47, 1.57 µg/ L respectively. The aflatoxin M1 level found in curd and cheese was
found 3.12- and 3.65-fold more than that in whey that shows the affinity of AFM1 to the
protein fraction of milk.
Mohammadi et al. (2008) used a chemometric approach to minimize the AFM1
content of Iranian white brine cheese. The effects of various processing factors such as
52
renneting temperature (30-40 °C), cutting size (0.5-1.0 cm), stirring time (10-20 min),
press time (1-2 hours), curd size (64-256 cm3), and saturated brine pH (4.6-6) on AFM1
content of the cheese curds were explored. Increasing renneting time and press time, the
AFM1 content of the cheese samples decreased. Lowering of the saturated brine pH
reduced the AFM1 concentration in the cheese curds. The study showed that the optimum
processing conditions for minimization of AFM1 in cheese curds were: renneting
temperature 39.91 °C, cut size 0.51 cm, stirring time 17.71 min, press time 19.48 min,
curd size 73.27 cm3 and saturated brine pH 4.79.
Torkar and Vengust (2008) evaluated the level of AFM1 and microbiological
contamination with yeast and moulds in 60 samples of raw milk and 40 samples of curd,
soft salted or non-salted cheese and semi-hard cheese manufactured by small artisan
food-processing plants in Solvenia, collected in autumn and winter season. The results
obtained from ELISA method were confirmed with HPLC method. Four (10%) cheese
samples were found contaminated with aflatoxin M1 at the concentrations higher than 50
ng/ kg. One sample of fresh cheese, two samples of curd, and one sample of semi-hard
cheese contained 223 ng/ kg, 127 ng / kg, 51 ng/ kg, and 68 ng/ kg respectively. In one
sample of fresh cheese and in one sample of semi-hard cheese, aflatoxin M1 was found in
the concentrations of 39 and 25 ng / kg respectively. In the other 34 (85%) samples the
AFM1 concentration was lower than the limit of detection of the HPLC method (1.7 ng/
kg).
Tekinsen and Ucar (2008) studied 92 butter and 100 cream cheese samples for the
analysis of AFM1. The samples were obtained from retail outlets in the five big cities:
Istanbul, Izmir, Kayseri, Konya, and Tekirdag. The occurrence and concentration range
of AFM1 in the samples was investigated by competitive ELISA method. At the
detectable level of 10 ppt, all 100% of the butter samples and 99% of the cream cheese
samples contained AFM1. The concentration of AFM1 in butter samples and cream cheese
samples ranged from 10 to 7000 ng/ Kg and from 0 to 4100 ng/ kg respectively. The
aflatoxin M1levels in 28% of the butter and 18% of the cream cheese samples were above
the maximum tolerable limit of the Turkish Food Codex. The study showed the presence
of high aflatoxin level that constitutes a human health risk in Turkey. It was concluded
that the farmers and dairy companies need to be informed about the aflatoxin and
aflatoxicosis and the continuous monitoring of the aflatoxin level must be applied by the
Turkish public health authorities.
53
Virdis et al. (2008) reported the results of a two years survey on AFM1
contamination in goat milk and hard goat cheese produced in Sardinia, Italy. ELISA
commercial kit was used to measure the AFM1 content in 208 bulk-tank goat milk
samples. The samples obtained from 45 extensive and 7 intensive farms. Four samples
were collected during each lactating period. Aflatoxin M1 content was also studied in 41
hard goat cheese samples from 12 cheese factories. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 36
(17.3%) bulk-tank goat milk samples at concentration of 5 to 40 ng/ L, while, in 172 it
was not detectable (< 5 ng/ L). The percentage of contaminated samples was higher in
intensive (71.4%) samples than in extensive (11.2%) ones. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in
4 (9.8%) out of 41 samples of ripened goat cheese at levels of 79.5 to 389 ng/ kg. These
contaminated samples were collected from the same cheese factory where the milk from
the intensive farms was used.
Deveci (2007) produced White Pickled cheese from cow’s milk contaminated
artificially with AFM1 at two different levels, 1.5 and 3.5 µg/ kg. The effects of process
stages on the AFM1 content were investigated. Pasteurization at 72 °C for two minutes
caused losses of AFM1 about 12% and 9% in milk contaminated with 1.5 µg/ kg AFM1
and 3.5 µg/ kg AFM1 respectively. These losses were statistically significant (p < 0.01).
It was found that after the cheese production, about 56% and 59% of total AFM1 remained
in cheese-curd, while about 32% of the total AFM1 transferred to the whey for both 1.5
µg/ kg AFM1 and 3.5 µg/ kg AFM1 contaminated milk. After the storage of three months
in brine, AFM1 content of cheeses produced from 1.5 µg/ kg AFM1 and 3.5 µg/ kg AFM1
contaminated milk decreased by 2.9% and 2.8% respectively. Changes in AFM1 content
in cheese samples were found statistically insignificant (p> 0.05 and p> 0.01) for three
months storage periods.
Colak (2007) made a study aimed at the determination of AFM1 levels in Turkish
White and Kashar cheeses which were produced with experimentally contaminated raw
milk. The distribution of AFM1 in White cheese during ripening was observed. Aflatoxin
M1 was added in concentrations of 0.25, 0.50, and 1.0 µg/ L of milk and then the cheeses
were produced according to their technologies. Whey, boiling water, cheese and brine
samples were checked for AFM1 residues. The quantification of AFM1 was done by
ELISA method. The toxin remained as 42.87% in White cheese samples. The change of
AFM1 concentration during White cheese ripening (0-90 days) was determined as the
average of 9.8%.
54
Oruc et al. (2007) investigated the distribution and stability of aflatoxin M1 in
Kashar cheese. Raw milk samples were spiked with AFM1 at 50, 250 and 750 ng/ L and
distribution of toxin in milk, cheese curd, whey, Kneading brine and cheese and its
stability during ripening was determined by HPLC. The concentration of aflatoxin M1 in
curds for each contamination level were 2.93, 3.19, and 3.37 times higher than those in
milk. After syneresis the percentage distribution of aflatoxin M1 was 40-46% in curds and
53-58% in whey, which indicated that relatively higher concentration of the toxin passed
to whey. By the kneading process, approximately 2-5% of AFM1 passed to kneading
brine. Over a sixty day storage period, there was no decrease in the concentration of
aflatoxin M1 suggesting that the toxin was stable during ripening.
Oruc et al. (2006) studied the distribution of between curd, whey, cheese and
pickle samples of Turkish white pickled cheese produced according to traditional
techniques and its stability during the ripening period. Cheeses were produced from the
milk artificially contaminated with AFM1 at the levels of 50, 250, and 750 ng/ L and
allowed to ripen for three months. Aflatoxin M1 determination was carried out with
HPLC with fluorescence detection employing immunoaffinity columns for clean-up.
During the synereses of the cheese a high concentration of AFM1 remained in curd and for
each trial the level was 3.6, 3.8, and 4.0 times higher than levels in milk. It has been
found in the study that only 2-4% of the initial spiking of AFM1 transferred into the brine
solution. During the ripening period of cheese, AFM1 levels remained constant
suggesting that AFM1 was quite stable during manufacturing and ripening.
Kamkar (2006) undertook a study to determine the presence and levels of AFM1
in cheese produced by different plants in the province of Tehran. A total of eighty cheese
samples were analyzed with TLC. Oh the 80 samples, 82.5% of the cheese samples were
found contaminated with AFM1. The range of AFM1 contamination level varied among
different months. Aflatoxin M1 concentration in May, August, November, February
samples ranged from 0.17 to1.30, 0.15 to 2.41, 0.16 to1.11 and 0.19 to 2.05 µg/ kg
respectively, while the mean values were 0.41, 0.35, 0.36, and 0.52 µg/ kg respectively.
The highest mean concentration of AFM1 was found in February samples (0.52 µg/ kg).
The lowest mean AFM1 concentration was found in August samples (0.35 µg/ kg).
According to statistical evaluation there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between
the concentration of cheese samples taken in May and August with November and
February. It means that AFM1 contents in cheese samples taken in November were not
lower than those of cheese samples taken in May and February. Among the contaminated
55
samples, 66.6 % exceeded the maximum acceptable level (0.25 µg/ kg) that was accepted
by some of the countries such as Turkey. The study concluded the high occurrence of
AFM1 in cheese samples and was considered to be possible hazard for human health.
Baskaya et al. (2006) determined AFM1 levels in various cheese samples in
Istanbul, Turkey. A total of 363 cheese samples (131 white cheese, 132 processed cheese
and 100 kashar cheese samples) were brought to Istanbul Military food Control
Laboratory and were analyzed from 2oo2 to 2004. AFM1 levels quantification was
performed by competitive ELISA method. In 283 (77.96%) of 363 cheese samples,
AFM1 levels were found to be lower than 0.25 µg/ kg which is maximum acceptable limit
according to the Turkish standards, while in 80 (22.04%) samples the µg/ kg levels were
higher than the acceptable limit. The highest rate of AFM1 incidence (40.19%) was
determined in 2002 and the rates of AFM1 incidence 2003 and 2004 were 15.39% and
13.49% respectively. The results indicated high level of AFM1 incidence in cheese
samples which could be a potential risk for consumer health.
Kamber (2005) determined the and level of AFM1 and total mould counts in Cecil
cheese and Kars kasher cheese sold on the markets of Kars province, Turkey. A total of
60 cheese samples were purchased randomly from different shops in Kars, Eastern
Turkey. Competitive ELISA was used to determine the levels AFM1 of in cheese samples
and the concentration of AFM1 were found in the range of 51-115 ng/ kg. The mean
values of AFM1 concentration were 82.5 ng/ kg and 62.4 ng/ kg for Cecil cheese and Kars
kashar cheese respectively.
Aflatoxin M1 levels in 600 cheese samples (200 white, 200 kashar, and 200
processed cheese) were determined by Yaroglu et al. (2005). The cheese samples
werecollected from some provinces of Turkey and analyzed between January 2001 and
February 2002 in Bursa, Turkey. Competitive ELISA technique was used to determine
AFM1 levels and the highest concentration was 800 ng/ kg in kashar cheese. AFM1
contamination was detected in 30 (5%) samples (10 white, 12 kashar, and 8 processed
cheese samples). The AFM1 contamination levels in 6 (1%) samples exceeded the legal
limit of 250 ng/ kg established by the Turkish Food Codex.
The occurrence and the concentration range of AFM1 in white pickle and Van otlu
cheeses were investigated by Tekinsen and Tekinsen (2005) with fluorometric method
using immunoaffinity columns. Total 50 samples of white pickle cheese and 60 samples
of Van otlu (herb) obtained from retail outlets in Van and Hakkari, Turkey. Aflatoxin M1
was found in 86.7% samples of Van otlu cheese and 62% samples of white pickle cheese
56
at the detection level of 0.1 µg/ kg. The incidence of AFM1 ranged from 0.16 to 7.26 and
0.10 to 5.20 µg/ kg in Van otlu and white pickle cheese samples respectively. Forty
percent white pickle cheese and eighty percent Van otlu cheese samples exceeded the
maximum acceptable level of 0.25 µg AFM1 / kg cheese set by Turkish government. The
occurrence of the AFM1 in cheese samples indicated that the necessary precautions will
have to be taken to minimize the contamination of AFB1 in feed.
Aycicek et al. (2005) analyzed for AFM1, total aflatoxin, and AFB1 , 223 samples
of dairy products (49 cheese, 94 white cheese, 53 kashar cheese, 27 butter, 51 dehulled
hazelnut, and 40 cacao hazelnut samples) marketed in Ankara, Turkey during September
2002-September 2003. ELISA technique was used for analysis. The incidence of AFM1
contamination was 90.58% in the analyzed dairy products. Aflatoxin M1 levels in 19
(8.52%) out of 223 samples of dairy products were determined higher than the maximum
tolerance limit of AFM1 accepted by the Turkish Food Codex. Total aflatoxin levels in
only one of 51 dehulled hazelnut and one of 40 hazelet cacao cream exceeded the legal
limit. The study warranted for continuous surveillance programme to monitor regularly
the occurrence of aflatoxins in food and foodstuffs which are consumed by humans.
Elgerbi et al. (2004) analysed for the presence of AFM1 49 samples of raw cow’s
milk and 20 samples of fresh white soft cheese collected directly from local dairy
factories in the north-west of Libya. The HPLC method was used for toxin detection and
quantification. Thirty five (71.4%) of the 49 milk samples showed AFM1 contamination
between 0.03 and 3.13 ng/ mL. Five milk samples (free of AFM1) were artificially
contaminated with AFM1 at the levels of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 1.0, and 3.0 ng/ mL and the
analysis showed the average recoveries of 66.85, 72.41, 83.29, 97.94, and 98.25% with
coefficients of variation of 3.77, 4.11, 1.57, 1.29, and 0.54% respectively. Fifteen (75%)
of 20 white soft cheese samples showed AFM1 contamination between 0.11 and 0.52 ng/
g of cheese. Four cheese samples (free of AFM1) were artificially contaminated with
AFM1 at the levels of 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, and 3.0 ng/ g and the analysis showed the average
recoveries of 63.23, 78.14, 83.29, and 88.68% with coefficients of variation of 1.53, 9.90,
4.87, and 3.79% respectively. AFM1 concentrations were lower in cheese samples as
compared to milk samples.
A study was undertaken by Sarimehmetoglu et al. (2004) to determine the
presence of levels of AFM1 in cheeses consumed in the province of Ankara. A total of
400 cheese samples containing 100 samples of each of white, kashar, tulum, and
processed cheeses were studied. The cheese samples were purchased randomly from
57
different markets and were analyzed by competitive ELISA technique. Three hundred
and twenty seven cheese samples (81.75%), consisting of white (82%), tulum (81%),
kashar (85%), and processed cheese (79%) samples, were found to contain AFM1 at
different levels. One hundred and ten cheese samples (27.5%) were found to have AFM1
levels that exceed the legal limits of 250ng/ kg established by the Turkish Food Codex.
The samples exceeding the Turkish safety limits were 27% of white cheese, 24% of tulum
cheese, 34% of kashar cheese, and 25% of processed cheese.
Finoli and Vecchio (2003) analyzed samples, from sheep and dairy farms or
markets in western Sicily, of feedstuffs (15), milk (40), and cheese (30) for their
respective contents of AFB1 and AFM1 to evidence any possible indirect mycotoxin
contamination risk to the consumer. Analysis was performed with HPLC and
fluorescence detection after immunoaffionity column extraction and cleanup. Aflatoxin
M1 was detected in 30% of the milk samples at levels ranging from 4 to 23 ng/ L and 13%
of the cheeses from 21 to 101 ng/ kg. The levels of aflatoxin B1 in the feedstuff samples
ranged from < 10 to 769 ng/ kg. None of the contaminated samples exceeded the legal
limits set down by the EU for milk (50 ng/ L) and for feed (5g/ kg) or that in force in the
Netherlands for cheese (200 ng/ kg).
Gunsen and Buyukyoruk (2003) made a study in which 125 samples of
commercially available vacuum packed fresh kashar cheese randomly collected between
October 1999 and December 2000 were analyzed for Coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli,
Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, moulds, yeasts and levels of AFM1. Twenty eight
(32.55%) of 86 samples exceeded the Turkish kashar limits for AFM1.
Gunsen and Buyukyoruk (2002) determined by ELISA aflatoxin B1 in 25 cacao
hazelnut cream and 15 dried apricot samples and AFM1 in 130 cheese samples (35 full
fatty Turkish white cheeses, 35 fresh kashars, 25 old kashars, 20 Gravyer cheeses, and 15
cream cheeses), randomly collected traditional retail markets with insufficient chilling
facilities in Bursa, Turkey during 2001. Mean AFB1 / AFM1 concentrations in the cacao
hazelnut cream, dried apricot, and cheese were 1076.5 ± 194.4, 1441.3 ± 331.9 and 142.2
± 18.7 ng/ Kg respectively. The percentage of the cheese samples which exceeded the
Turkish AFM1 tolerance limit of 250 ng/ kg was 15.45%.
Aycicek et al. (2002) studied the occurrence of AFM1 in 183 white cheese and
butter samples in Istanbul, Turkey in 2001. The study showed the high incidence AFM1
of in white cheese (65%) and butter (81%). The study marked the importance that should
be given to routine analysis of these products for contamination of AFM1. Lopez et al.
58
(2001) carried out a study to find out the distribution of AFM1 in both whey and cheese
when cheese was manufactured on small-scale using artificially AFM1 contaminated milk
as raw material. The AFM1 was added in concentrations that varied from 1.7 to 2.0 µg/ L
of milk. The production of cheese was home-made and the concentration of AFM1 was
determined in both whey and cheese using ELISA. The greatest proportion (60%) was
detected in whey, while 40% AFM1 remained in cheese.
Oruc and Sonal (2001) determined aflatoxin M1 by ELISA in 57 cheese and 10
milk samples collected from supermarkets and street milkmen in Bursa province, Turkey.
The highest concentration of aflatoxin M1 was found 810.0 ng/ kg in full fatty white
cheese. The incidence of aflatoxin M1 was higher in cheese (89.47%) than that of milk
(10%). The concentration of aflatoxin M1 in 7 (12.28%) out of 57 cheese samples
exceeded the Turkish tolerance limit of AFM1 (250ng/ kg). None of the milk samples
exceeded EU/ Turkish tolerance limit (50ng/ L).
Govaris et al. (2001) produced Telemes cheeses using milk that was artificially
contaminated with AFM1 at levels of 0.05 and 0.10 µg/ L. The cheeses were produced in
two cheese-making trials and were allowed to ripen for two months and stored for an
additional 4 months to stimulate commercial production of Telemes cheese. The
concentration of AFM1 in whey, curd, brine, and the produced cheeses were determined
at intervals by HPLC and fluoremetric detection coupled with immunoaffinity column
extraction. The concentrations of AFM1 in the produced curds were 3.9 and 4.4 times
higher than those in milk, whereas concentrations in whey were lower than those in curd
and milk. Aflatoxin M1 was present in cheese at higher concentrations at the beginning
than at the end of the ripening/ storage period and it declined to concentrations 2.7 and
3.4 times than those initially present in milk by the end of the sixth month storage.
Concentrations of AFM1 in brine were low and increased by the end of the ripening/
storage period but only a portion of the amounts of AFM1 lost from cheese was found in
the brine. The results revealed that Telemes cheeses produced from milk containing
AFM1 at a concentration close to either the maximum limit of 0.05 µg/ L set by EU or at
double of this value, will contain AFM1 at a level that is much lower or slightly higher
respectively than the maximum acceptable level of 0.25 µg of AFM1/ kg of cheese set by
some countries.
Bakirci (2001) studied the levels of AFM1 in raw milk samples obtained from the
dairy plants of Agricultural Faculty of Yuzuncu Yil University. The fat and carry-over of
AFM1 in milk products manufactured by the same dairy plant were also studied.
59
Aflatoxin M1 was found in 79 (87.77%) of the milk samples examined and 35 (44.30%)
of the positive samples were higher than the maximum tolerance limit (0.05 ng/ mL)
accepted by Turkey and some other countries. Statistical analysis showed that there was
significant difference (p < 0.05) between the mean concentrations of AFM1 of milk
samples taken from March to April and March to May. Ninety three samples were
investigated to determine the fate and carry-over of AFM1 in milk products. The results
showed no statistical differences between AFM1 contents of bulk milk, pasteurized milk,
skimmed milk, yoghurt, buttermilk, and whey. Aflatoxin M1 contents of white pickled
cheese and kashar cheese, were higher than those of bulk milk samples, whereas those of
cream and butter samples were lower.
Prado et al. (2001) determined AFM1 in soft and parmesan cheese by
immunoaffinity column and HPLC. The samples were collected in Belo Horizonte city,
Brazil. A purified extract was obtained by extraction with dichloromethane followed by
washing with n-methane and immunoaffinity clean-up. The quantification of AFM1 was
made by HPLC using fluorescence detector. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in all the
analyzed samples of soft cheese brand, the concentration ranging between 0.02 and 0.54
ng/ g with mean level of 0.15 ng/ g. In grated parmesan cheese, AFM1was detected in 13
(93%) of 14 samples analyzed and the concentrations ranged between 0.04 and 0.30 ng/ g
with the mean level of 0.14 ng/ g.
Finoli and Vecchio (1997) analyzed for AFM1 80 samples of goat milk and 25
samples of goat milk cheese from the same suppliers collected from dairy farms
Lombardy, Italy during March-October 1996. The analyses were carried out by HPLC
with fluorescence detection after clean-up with immunoaffinity columns. Aflatoxin M1
was detected in 30% of samples from farms in the range of 3 to 37 ng/ L for milk and 19
to 160 ng/ L for cheeses. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 11 commercial cheese samples in
the rage of 18 to 200 ng/ kg.
A total of 223 samples of Grana Padano cheese manufactured in 4 years (1991-
1994) by dairies in all provinces of the Po valley, Italy were checked for AFM1 by Pietri
et al. (1997). Grated cheese was extracted with chloroform and the defatted extract was
purified by an immunoaffinity column. Then AFM1 was determined by HPLC with
fluorescence detection. Only one sample exceeded the maximum tolerance limit (250 ng/
kg) set by some European countries. Only 15 (6.7%) samples had AFM1 concentrations
in the range of 100-250 ng/ Kg, whereas most of the samples (91%) were in the range 5-
100 ng/ kg. Mean AFM1 contamination levels for 1992 and 1994 were significantly
60
higher (p < 0.05) than those for 1993 and 1991. No significant difference of
contamination was observed among provinces or dairies of origin. It was concluded that
the situation regarding AFM1 contamination can be considered fairly satisfactory.
Barrios et al. (1996) analyzed, for the presence of AFM1, 35 samples of
commercial cheeses: 9 fresh, 9 semi-cured or semi-ripened and 17 ripened made with
different types of milk (cow, ewe, goat, and mixtures of milk of various species)
produced in the south of Spain. The method used for analysis was that of HPLC. In 16
(45.71%) of the 35 cheese samples, the presence of AFM1 was detected ranging in
concentration from 20 to 200 ng/ g of cheese. In the positive samples, the mean levels of
AFM1 were 105.33 ng/ g in ripened cheese, 73.80 ng/ g in semi-ripened cheeses, and
42.60 ng/ g in fresh cheeses.
A total of 22 samples of Spanish cheeses (12 samples of Manchego cheese with
visible signs of mould spoilage and 10 of a Blue cheese, Valdeon) were analyzed for the
presence of mycotoxins (AFB1and AFM1, sterigmatocystin, patulin, penicillic acid and
mycophenolic acid in Manchego cheese, and mycophenolic acid and roquefortine in
Valdeon cheese) by Lopez-Diaz et al. (1996). In addition, 24 Penicillium and Aspergillus
strains isolated from the samples were assessed for their ability to produce mycotoxins.
Four of the Manchego cheese samples were found to contain mycophenolic acid and one
of the Valdeon cheese samples contained roquefortine. No other mycotoxin could be
detected. One Aspergillus strain isolated from Manchego cheese had the ability to
produce aflatoxin M1. On the other hand, 7 of 9 Penicillium (P. roquefortii) strains
isolted from Valdeon cheese were able to produce roquefortine, with one strain also
producing mycophenolic acid.
Dragacci and Fremy (1996) used immuno-affinity columns to determine the
AFM1 content of cheeses with good recoveries. The analysis of cheeses in France in
1990-1995 showed that the occurrence was not very frequent. With the exception of
samples from 1989-1990, when AFB1 contaminated maize meals were used to
supplement feeds, a small portion of cheese samples contained AFM1 above the maximum
acceptable level (0.200 µg/ kg).
Dagoglu et al. (1995) investigated the presence of in 75 cheese samples by using
ELISA. Fifty samples (herb cheeses) were collected from Van and 25 were collected
from Istanbul, Turkey. Overall, 45.2% of samples contained AFM1. The highest level of
AFM1 was found in white cheese at a concentration of 0.51 ppb and the lowest was found
in herb cheese at concentration of 0.06 ppb.
61
Jahn and Rothe (1995) analyzed milk and milk products originating in Saxony,
Germany for the presence of residues and contaminants (e.g. organochlorine pesticides,
poly chlorinated biphenyls, and aflatoxins etc.) in 1994 and 1995 on behalf of Saxon
Agriculture Institute, under the ‘healthy eating’ project. Two eighty one samples of raw
milk, market milk, whipping cream, butter, cheese, quarg, and dried skim milk were
tested and it was concluded that concentrations of residues and contaminants were similar
to those for other areas of Germany.
Martins and Martins (1995) studied the presence of aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, G2, and
M1, ochratoxin A, sterigmatocystin and patulin using TLC in 182 samples of eight
commercial varieties of cheese (three types of Flamengo, Casteloes, Camembert, two
low-fat cheeses and Emmental) from five areas of Portugal from 1990 to 1993.
Mycotoxins were not detected in any of the samples studied despite the high sensitivity
and reproducibility of the method used.
Piva et al. (1988) checked 313 samples of imported liquid milk (225 from FR
Germany and 88 from France) and 159 samples of imported cheese (34 from FR
Germany, 82 from France and 43 from the Netherlands) for AFM1 in 1984. The number
of positive samples was small for both German and French milks i. e., 13.8% and 12.5%
respectively. The contamination levels were very low with maximum value of 23 ng/ L.
In case of cheeses, AFM1 was detected in 19.5, 26.5, and 53.5% of the French, German,
and Dutch samples respectively. Only two French samples of cheese exceeded 250 ng/
kg, the limit set by Swiss law. In 1985 two surveys for AFM1 contamination were carried
out on 276 milk samples mostly obtained from individual farms and on 416 cheese
samples taken from all parts of the country. As regards the milk, 70 samples (25.3%)
contained AFM1 but generally at very low levels. Only 7 samples (2.5%) exceeded 50 ng/
L. In case of cheese, 130 samples (31.3%) contained AFM1 but here again only 9
samples (2.2%) exceeded 250 ng/ L. The study showed that there was no significant in
AFM1 levels in Italian, German, and French cheese samples but these were significantly
lower (p < 0.01) than in Dutch samples.
Fremy and Roiland (1979) made several classic cheeses of Camembert from raw
milk spiked with AFM1. Three aflatoxin levels of 7, 5, and 3 µg/ L were used. Aflatoxin
M1 was recovered 35.6, 47.1, and 57.7% in the respective curds and 64.4, 52.9, and
42.3% in the respective whey. During the storage, contents of different cheeses decreased
25, 55, and 75% respectively. Similar results were obtained in milk contaminated with
AFM1 C14.
62
2.4.3. Survey of AFM1 in Yoghurt
Maqbool et al. (2009) used a highly sensitive competitive ELISA method to
determine AFM1 in milk and dairy samples randomly collected from the city of
Faisalabad, Pakistan. Riedel-de-Haen, aflatoxin M1 ELISA kit (Art-No. 45169) was used
for analysis. A total of 21, 10, and 10 random single fresh milk (1L), yoghurt (1 kg), and
butter (1 kg) samples respectively collected from different areas, in the city of Faisalabad,
such dairy farms, sale points, bazaars, and markets. Duplicate analysis of the total 41
samples showed AFM1 contamination levels below the EC maximum permissible limit
(50 ng/ L). The maximum levels of AFM1 concentration found in milk, yoghurt and
butter were 40, 13, and 7.4 ng/ L respectively. Despite these results, possibility of
exceeding the limit cannot be excluded and regular monitoring is necessary.
Gurbay et al. (2006) arranged a study to investigate the levels AFM1 of in dairy
products due to its importance potential human health hazard. Aflatoxin M1 Levels were
determined by a competitive ELISA kit. Eleven cheese samples were found
contaminated AFM1 with ranging from 78.2 to 188.44 ng/ kg, while 32 0f the 40 yoghurt
samples had AFM1 levels from 61.61 to 365.64 ng/ kg. The study showed the importance
of continuous surveillance of commonly consumed cheese and yoghurt samples for AFM1
contamination in Turkey.
Lin et al. (2004) conducted a survey to probe the incidence of AFM1
contamination in dairy products in Taiwan. AFM1 contamination was investigated in 44
samples of fresh milk, 45 samples of milk powder, and 24 samples of drinking yoghurt
collected from supermarkets, convenience stores, and drug stores located in 23 counties
of Taiwan from June to August 2002. The analytical method used was that of HPLC for
quantification of AFM1 using immonoaffinity columns for extraction step. The detection
limits for fresh milk (pasteurzed milk), milk powder and drinking yoghurt were 0.002,
0.02 and 0.005 ng/ mL respectively. The recoveries of AFM1 from fresh milk at spiked
levels of 0.5 and 0.05 ng/ mL were 83.3 ± 2.9 and 89.5 ± 2.9 % respectively. The
recoveries of AFM1 from milk powder at spiked levels of 5 and 0.5 ng/ mL were 86.0 ±
1.9 and 88.7 ± 1.9 % respectively. The recoveries of AFM1 from drinking yoghurt at
spiked levels of 0.5 and 0.05 ng/ mL were 99.9 ± 1.4 and 94.8 ± 3.2 % respectively.
AFM1 contamination could not be detected in the powder milk samples. Forty fresh milk
samples showed the contamination in the range of 0.002-0.083 ng/ mL. Aflatoxin M1was
detected in three drinking yoghurt samples at the levels of 0.007, 0.009, and 0.044 ng/
63
mL. According to the food sanitary standard regulation in Taiwan, the action level of
AFM1 is 0.5 ng/ mL for fresh milk and 5 ng/ mL for milk powder. All the samples (113)
collected in this survey met the regulation requirements.
Martins and Martins (2004) analyzed for the presence of AFM1 in 96 samples of
commercial yoghurts (48 natural yoghurts and 48 yoghurts with pieces of strawberries)
that were produced in Portugal. Immunoaffinity column extraction and HPLC technique
was used for the analysis. The LOD was 10 ng/ kg and the recoveries of AFM1 from the
samples spiked at the levels of 10.0, 50.0, 100.0, and 150.0 ng/ kg were 88.0%, 91.0%,
93.0%, and 99.0% respectively. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 18 yoghurt samples
(18.8%) ranging from 19 to 98 ng/ kg, while 78 yoghurt samples (81.2%) did not reveal
the presence of AFM1. Two samples (4.2%), out of 48 natural yoghurt samples, were
found contaminated with AFM1 containing 43 and 45 ng/ kg of AFM1. Sixteen samples
(33.3%), out of 48 yoghurt samples with pieces of strawberries, were contaminated with
AFM1 ranging 19 to 98 ng/ kg. The contamination level in six samples (12.5%) was
found to be low ranging from 19 to 35 ng/ kg, in four samples (8.3%) was found in the
range of 36 to 50 ng/ kg and in two samples (4.2%) was found with the levels of 51 and
65 ng/ kg. The contamination level in four samples (8.3%) was found to be high ranging
from 90 to 98 ng/ kg.
Sarimehmetoglu et al. (2003) analyzed AFM1 by ELISA procedure in 132
samples of yoghurt collected from different markets in Ankara Turkey during February to
July 2002. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 49 (37.12%) yoghurt samples in the range of 50-
800 ng/ kg. The AFM1 contamination levels were above the legal limits established by
the Turkish Food Codex. The study concluded the AFM1 contamination in yoghurt as a
serious human health hazard and measures should be undertaken to avoid AFM1
contamination.
Bahout and Moustafa (2003) collected eighty random samples of plain and
flavoured yoghurt from supermarkets around Zagazig city in Egypt, during the summer of
2002 and tested for yeasts, moulds, and aflatoxins. Aflatoxin M1 residue was detected in
two (5%) plain yoghurt samples, at the levels of 0.20 and 0.30 µg/ kg. One sample of
fruit-flavoured sample showed AFM1 contamination at the level of 0.42 µg/ kg.
Aflatoxin B1 was not detected in any of the plain yoghurt samples, but it was present in
two (5%) samples of fruit-flavoured yoghurt at levels of 0.32 and 0.50 µg/ kg.
Govaris et al. (2002) studied the distribution and stability of AFM1 during
production and storage of yoghurt. Cow’s milk was artificially contaminated with AFM1
64
at levels of 0.050 and 0.100 g/ L and fermented to yoghurt to reach pHs 4.0 and 4.6.
Yoghurt fermented to pH 4.6 was also used to prepare strained yoghurt. Yoghurts were
stored for 4 weeks at 4 °C. Analysis of AFM1 in milk, yoghurt, strained yoghurt, and
yoghurt was carried out using immunoaffinity column extraction and HPLC coupled with
fluorescence detector. A significant decrease (p< 0.01) was observed in AFM1 levels
compared with those initially added to milk. The growth of culture lactic acid bacteria
was found not to be affected in the AFM1 contaminated yoghurts, with the exception of
streptococcus thermophilus that showed significantly (p < 0.01) lower increase in the
yoghurt containing the toxin at high concentration. After fermentation, AFM1 was
significantly lower (p< 0.01) in yoghurts with pH 4.0 than in yoghurts with pH 4.6 at both
the contamination levels. During the storage in refrigerator, AFM1 was rather more stable
in yoghurts with pH 4.6 than with pH 4.0. The percentage loss of the initial amount of
AFM1 in milk was estimated 13% and 22% by the end of the fermentation, 16% and 34%
by the end of storage for yoghurts with pHs 4.6 and 4.0 respectively. The percentage
distribution ratio of the initial toxin (AFM1 in the yoghurt) in strained yoghurt/ yoghurt
whey was about 90/ 10 and 87/ 13 for the lower and the higher contamination levels
respectively.
Srivastava et al. (2001) analyzed, as part of the programme on environmental
contaminants in food stuffs in Kuwait, 54 samples of fresh full cream, skimmed milk,
yoghurt, and infant formula were analyzed for by HPLC following clean-up with
immunoaffinity columns. The contamination of aflatoxin M1 was found in 28% samples.
Galvano et al. (2001) collected, during 1996, 161 samples of milk, 92 samples of
dry milk for infant formula, and 120 samples of yoghurt from supermarkets and drug
stores in four big Italian cities and checked for AFM1 by immunoaffinity extraction and
HPLC. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 125 (78%) of milk samples ranging from < 1 to 23.5
ng/ L with the mean level of 6.28 ng/ L. In case of dry milk samples, AFM1 was detected
in 49 (53%) samples ranging from < 1 to 79.6 ng/ kg with the mean level of 32.2 ng/ kg.
While, in case of yoghurt samples, AFM1 was detected in 73 (61%) samples ranging from
< 1 to 32.1 ng/ kg with the mean level of 9.06 ng/ kg. Altogether, only in four dry milk
samples AFM1 concentration was above the legal limit established by EC in 1999.
Kim et al. (2000) investigated the occurrence of AFM1 in pasteurized milk and
dairy products by using direct competitive ELISA and HPLC. By ELISA, the recoveries
of AFM1 from the samples spiked at levels between 5 and 500 pg/ mL were 88.0-106.5%
for pasteurized milk and 84.0-94.0% for yoghurt. By HPLC, the recoveries were 103-
65
120% and 87.0-93.0% for pasteurized milk and yoghurt respectively. The LOD was 2 pg/
mL by ELISA and 10 pg/ mL by HPLC. A total of 180 samples were collected in Seoul,
Korea and analyzed. The incidence of AFM1 in pasteurized milk, infant formula,
powdered milk and yoghurt was 76, 85, 75, and 83% respectively mean concentrations of
18, 46, 200, and 29 pg/ g respectively when determined by ELISA. The results obtained
by ELISA were closely related to those by HPLC for AFM1.
Galvano et al. (1998), during 1995, conducted a study in which 159 samples of
milk, 97 samples of dried milk for infant formula, and 114 samples of yoghurt were
collected from supermarkets and shops in 4 Italian cities and were analysed for by
immunoaffinity extraction and HPLC. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 136 (86%) of the
milk samples in the range < 1 to 108.5 ng/ L with mean 21.77 ng/ L. Among the dried
milk samples, AFM1 was detected in 81 (84%) of the samples in the range of < 1 to 101.3
ng/ kg with mean 21.77 ng/ kg. Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 91 (80%) of yoghurt
samples in the range of <1 to 496.5 ng/ L with mean 18.08 ng/ L. Only 5 samples (2
milk, 2 dried milk, and 1 yoghurt samples) contained AFM1 levels exceeding the Swiss
legal limits. Aflatoxin M1 levels were 4 times higher in milk and yoghurt samples
collected during November to April than those collected during May to October. The
study concluded that during 1995, despite the widespread occurrence of AFM1, the mean
contamination levels in milk products sold in Italy were not a serious human health
hazard.
Galvano et al. (1996) reviewed critically data from literature since 1980 on the
occurrence of AFM1 in human and animal milk, infant formula, dried milk, cheese and
yoghurt. Moreover, the influence of storage and processing of milk and milk products on
the occurrence and stability of AFM1 was reviewed. It was concluded that: (1) attempts
should be made to harmonize already existing regulatory limits for aflatoxins in foods and
feed; (2) to avoid uncertainty in actual practice, further investigations should verify the
influence of milk storage and processing on AFM1 occurrence; (3) the occurrence of
AFM1 in animal milks and milk products is widespread, however, contamination levels do
not appear to be a serious health hazard; (4) monitoring programmes should be made
extensive and frequent; and (5) in tropical and subtropical countries, especially in African
countries, particular attention should be devoted to monitoring milk and milk products as
well as feed. Finally the review concluded that extensive and periodic surveys on the
occurrence of aflatoxins and their metabolites in human milk should be performed, since
there is risk of a serious health hazard to mother, fetus, or infants.
66
De Sylos et al. (1996) analyzed for AFM1, a total of 152 samples of pasteurized
milk, powdered milk, cheese and yoghurt, collected from groceries and supermarkets in
Campinas, Brazil, during 1989-1990 by using The AOAC method (visual quantification)
980.21. Fifty two pasteurized milk samples were also analyzed in 1992 by using HPLC
method. Aflatoxin M1 was not detected in the samples studied during 1989-1990. Four
milk sample of the 1992 batch were found contaminated with AFM1 in the range of 73-
370 ng/ L. Except for the sample containing 370 ng/ L, which would also have been
positive using the TLC method, the study concluded that the detection of AFM1 in 1992
reflected the higher sensitivity of the HPLC method and not a greater occurrence of the
toxin.
Stoloff et al. (1981), in the year 1979, conducted a survey of manufactured dairy
products (992 samples of nonfat dry milk, vanilla ice cream, yoghurt, Cheddar cheese,
and cottage cheese) for AFM1 contamination. One sample of cottage cheese had
detectable aflatoxin equivalent to 0.08 ng/ mL in the milk from which the product was
made. The samples were collected by Food and Drug District inspectors from randomly
selected establishments at three times throughout the year. The study concluded that in a
“normal” year should not be in manufactured dairy product in the United States at a level
in excess of that from milk with 0.1 ng AFM1/ mL.
Polzhofer (1977) investigated, during the period from September 1972 till
December 1974, 260 samples of milk, 41 of milk powder, 54 of yoghurt, 80 of fresh
cheese, 65 of Camembert cheese, 77 of hard cheese, and 134 of processed cheese for their
contents of aflatoxin B1, B2, G1, G2 , and M1. Only AFM1 could be detected in all
products. During the period of investigation, the average values of AFM1 concentration
were 0.07, 0.50, 0.20, 0.23, 0.43, 0.26, and 0.31 µg/ kg for milk, milk powder, yoghurt,
fresh cheese, hard cheese, processed cheese, and Camembert cheese respectively. The
maximum values of AFM1 concentration found were 0.33, 2.0, 0.47, 0.51, 0.73, 1.3, and
0.55 µg/ kg for milk, milk powder, yoghurt, fresh cheese, Camembert cheese, hard cheese
and processed cheese respectively.
67
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Materials and Instruments
3.1.1. Milk Samples
In this study, a total of 817 milk samples were analyzed. The 168 samples of raw
milk were randomly obtained from several collaborating dairies in 14 districts of the
Punjab, during the year 2005. The samples were collected in the middle of every month.
Samples were kept in freezer in case of delayed analysis. A total of 480 fresh milk
samples, comprising of 360 buffalo milk samples and 120 cow milk samples, were
procured by directly approaching the milking sites between January 2007 and March
2007. Area for milk collection was divided into three categories namely, urban, semi-
urban, and rural. The milk samples were stored in freezer compartment inside a
refrigerator until these were analyzed for AFM1. The milk samples were placed in a
cooler with icepacks during transportation. The samples of buffalo milk (55), cow milk
(40), goat milk (30), sheep milk (24), and camel milk (20) were obtained during the first
half of the year 2007 from the area of Faisalabad district in the Punjab province of
Pakistan. The milk samples were either analyzed immediately or stored in freezer in case
of delayed analysis.
3.1.2. Samples of Cheese and Yoghurt
The samples of cheese and yoghurt were collected from Faisalabad city during
2008. Eighty samples of cheese and eighty samples of yoghurt were analyzed.
3.1.3. Feed Samples
The total 260 samples of dairy feedstuff were analyzed for the contamination of
AFB1 which comprised of 60 concentrate feed, 80 cotton-seed cake, 36 wheat bran, 24
bread pieces, 36 wheat straw, and 24 paddy straw samples. Samples of concentrate feed
and other feedstuffs were collected in the start of 2007 and in the start of 2008 from the
areas of district Faisalabad and district Lahore in Pakistan.
68
3.1.4. Chemicals and Standards
All the reagents used were of Analar Grade. Acetonitrile (HPLC grade) of Sigma-
Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany) was used. The immunoaffinity columns AflaM1TM HPLC
were obtained from VICAM (Watertown, MA, USA). The MycoSep® 226 AflaZon+
(push-through format) columns were obtained from Romer Labs, Inc. (Stylemaster Drive
Union, MO 63084-1156 USA). The water used during analysis was double distilled with
water distillation system (Bibby, UK, model W14S). Alternatively, water was double
distilled with Millipore water purification system (Bedford, MA, USA). Standards of
AFM1 (10 µg/mL in acetonitrile) and AFB1 (10 µg/mL in acetonitrile) were purchased
from Supelco (Bellifonte, PA, USA) and stored with care in freezer. Working standard
solutions of 0.1 µg/mL were prepared from stock standard solutions and were stored in a
tightly Stoppered (closed) vial below 4oC.
3.1.5. Instruments
(a) Fluorometer, Vicam series-4 model (VICAM, USA),
(b) HPLC system of Agilent 1100 series (Agilent, USA)
(c) HPLC system of Shimadzu, model LC-10 (Shimadzu, Japan)
(d) Millipore water purification system (Bedford, MA, USA)
(e) Bibby water distillation system, model W14S (J.Bibby Science Products Ltd.,
UK)
(f) Gerber butyrometer (Gerber, Switzerland)
(g) Digester for protein analysis, Model DK 6 (Velp Scientifica, Italy)
(h) Distillation unit for protein analysis, Model UDK 126 D (Velp Scientifica, Italy)
(i) ELISA reader, model A3 (DAS Inc., Italy)
(j) Vacuum manifold, SPE-10 ( J.T. Baker Inc. USA)
(k) Water Bath-Shaker (GFL, Germany)
(l) Mini shaker/Vortex mixer (Thermolyne, USA)
(m) Micropipettes (Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany)
(n) Oven (Memmert, Germany)
(o) Centrifuge machine for Gerber method (locally made, Pakistan)
(p) Centrifuge (Gallenkamp, UK)
(q) Nitrogen generator (CLAIND, Italy)
(r) Grinding mill (Retsch KG, Germany)
69
(s) Refrigerator (NATIONAL, Pakistan)
(t) Water bath, model WB 14 (Memmert, Germany)
(u) Fume hood (Fisher Scientific Co., USA)
(v) Analytical balance (Sartorius, German)
(w) Sonicator (OGAWA SEIKI Co., Japan)
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Determination of Aflatoxin M1 with Fluorometer
The analysis was carried out with Fluorometer along with the use of affinity
chromatography columns for clean-up step according to the method described by Hansen
(1990). Before analysis sample was brought to room temperature. To remove cream
from the milk sample, it was centrifuged at 2000×g for 10 minutes. The 10 mL sample of
skim milk was passed through AflaTest affinity column of the VICAM, USA. These
affinity columns contain antibodies to aflatoxin. The column was then washed twice
with 10 mL portions of 10% methanol and the aflatoxin M1 was eluted from the affinity
column by passing 1.0 mL of 80% methanol. All the sample eluate (1.0 mL) was
collected in a glass cuvette.
The concentration of aflatoxin M1 was measured in a fluorometer, Vicam series-4
model with the option of 360 nm excitation filter and 440 nm emission filter. The results
were recorded using digital Fluorometer readout with automatic printing device.
3.2.2. Determination of Aflatoxin M1 by HPLC
The method used for determination of AFM1 was the AOAC Official Method
2000.08 (AOAC Official Method 2000.08, 2005).
3.2.2.1. Extraction Procedure
After warming at about 37oC in water bath, liquid milk was centrifuged at 2000×g
to separate fat layer and then filtered. The prepared test portion of 50 mL was transferred
into syringe barrel attached with immonoaffinity column (IAC) and passed at slow steady
flow rate of 2-3 mL/ min. The washing of column was done with 20 mL water and then it
was blown to dryness and afterwards aflatoxin M1 was eluted with 4 mL pure acetonitrile
by allowing it to be in contact with the column at least 60 seconds. The eluate was
70
evaporated to dryness using gentle stream of nitrogen and at the time of LC determination
it was diluted with the mobile phase.
3.2.2.2. LC Determination with Fluorescence Detection
The HPLC system of Agilent 1100 series (Agilent, USA), equipped with an auto
sampler LAS G1313A and a fluorescence detector FLD G1321A with excitation and
emission wavelength of 365nm and 435nm respectively, was used for AFM1
determination. The ZORBAX Eclipse XDB-C18 (Octadecyl silane chemically bonded to
porous silica) column (Agilent, USA), 4.6×150 mm with particle size 5 µm in diameter,
was used. Acetonitrile in ratio of 25% with 75% water was used as mobile phase. The
flow rate was 0.8 mL/min. Calibration curve was determined using a series of calibration
solutions of AFM1 in acetonitrile with concentrations of 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, and 10.0
µg/ L. The retention time for aflatoxin M1 was 6.1-6.5 min.
3.2.2.3. Calculations
Calculations were made according to the following equation:
Wm = Wa × (Vf/Vi) × (1/Vs)
Where Wm = amount of AFM1 in the test sample in µg/L; Wa = amount of AFM1
corresponding to area of AFM1 peak of the test extract (ng); Vf = the final volume of re-
dissolved eluate (µL); Vi = volume of injected eluate (µL); Vs = volume of test portion
(milk) passing through the column (mL).
3.2.3. Determination of Aflatoxin B1 by HPLC
For the determination of AFB1, the AOAC Official Method 994.08 was used with
small modifications (AOAC Official Method 994.08, 2000).
3.2.3.1 Extraction and Clean-up Procedure
A test portion of 50.0g and 100mL extraction solvent (850mL acetonitrile with
150mL deionized water) was taken in 250mL Erlenmeyer flask and placed in a shaker for
1 hour at high speed. After filtration, 8mL extract was taken with pipette in 10mL glass
tube. MycoSep® column (rubber flange end) was pushed slowly into the tube. As
column was pushed into the tube, extract was forced through frit, through 1-way valve,
and through packing material and was collected in column reservoir. The purified extract
71
(2mL) was transferred quantitatively from top of column to screw cap vial (derivatization
vial) and was evaporated under nitrogen.
3.2.3.2. Aflatoxin Derivatization
After adding n-hexane (200µL) in the derivatization vial to re-dissolve aflatoxin,
50µL of trifluoroacetic acid was added and it was mixed on vortex mixer for 30 seconds.
After five minutes, 1.95mL of deionized water: acetonitrile (9:1) mixture was added and
again mixed on vortex mixer for 30 seconds. Layers were allowed to separate and
aqueous layer (lower layer) containing aflatoxins was removed, filtered through 0.45µm
syringe filter and then injected onto LC column.
3.2.3.3. LC Determination with Fluorescence Detection
The high-performance liquid chromatography equipment (LC-10, Shimadzu,
Japan), comprising liquid pump LC-10AS, column oven CTO-10A, system controller
SCL-10A, fluorescence detector RF-530, communication bus module CBM-101, and data
acquisition software class LC-10A was used for the present study. The excitation
wavelength of 365nm and emission wavelength of 435nm was set during analysis. The
stainless steel column Discovery® C18 of Supelco (Bellifonte, PA, USA) with dimensions
of 25cm×4.6mm (id) and with particle size of 5 µm diameter was used. The mobile phase
(acetonitrile: methanol: deionized water in the ratio of 20:20:60) was degassed with
sonicator before use. The flow rate was 1.0 mL/ min. Calibration curve was determined
using a series of calibration solutions of AFB1 in acetonitrile with concentrations of 0.5,
1.5, 2.5, 5.0, 10.0, and 15.0 µg/ L. The retention time for aflatoxin B1 was 5.36 min.
3.2.3.4. Calculations
Aflatoxin B1 peak was identified in derivatized extract chromatogram by
comparing its retention time with corresponding peak in the standard chromatogram. The
quantity of the aflatoxin B1, C, was determined in the derivatized extract (injected) from
the respective standard curves. The concentration of aflatoxin B1 was calculated in test
sample as follows:
Aflatoxins B1 ng/g = C/W
W = 50g × (2mL/ 200mL) × (0.02mL/ 2mL) = 0.005g
72
Where W = equivalent weight of test portion (in 20µL) injected into LC; C = ng aflatoxin
(in 20µL) injected into LC.
3.2.4. Determination of Aflatoxin M1 in Cheese and Yoghurt by
ELISA
The samples cheese and yoghurt were analyzed for AFM1 using the competitive
ELISA procedure as described by the protocol provided with RIDASCREEN® ELISA kit
(RIDASCREEN® Aflatoxin M1 30/15, 2007).
3.2.4.1. Sample Preparation
Cheese (2.0g) samples were triturated and yoghurt samples (2.0g) were directly
analyzed. Extraction was completed with 40 mL dichloromethane by shaking for 15
minutes. The suspension was filtered and 10 mL of the extract was evaporated at 60°C
under weak N2-stream. The oily residue was re-dissolved in 0.5 mL methanol, 0.5 mL
PBS buffer and 1 mL n-heptane. After mixing thoroughly, it was centrifuged for 15
minutes at 2700 × g. The upper heptane layer was removed completely. From the lower
methanolic-aqueous phase, 100µL was taken and diluted with 400 mL buffer 1 and
100µL of it was used per well in the test.
3.2.4.2. Test Procedure
The standard solutions (100µL) and prepared samples (100µL) were added into
the microtiter well placed in the microwell holder. Gentle mixing was accomplished by
shaking the plate manually and incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature (20-25°C)
in the dark. The liquid was poured out of the wells and microwell holder was tapped
vigorously upside down against adsorbent paper to ensure complete removal of liquid
from the wells. The wells were washed by adding 250 µL washing buffer in each well
and poured out the liquid again. Washing step was repeated for two times. Then 100 µL
of the diluted enzyme conjugate was added and mixed gently by shaking the plate
manually and incubated for 15 minutes at room temperature in the dark. After incubation
the wells were washed again. The 100 µl of substrate/chromogen was added and mixed
gently by shaking the plate manually and incubated for 15 minutes at room temperature in
the dark. Now stop solution (100µL) was added in each well. Mixing was by shaking the
73
plate manually. The absorbance was measured photometrically at 450 nm against an air
blank with in 15 minutes after the addition of stop solution.
3.2.4.3. Calculations
The following formula was used to measure the % absorbance.
(Absorbance of standard or sample / absorbance of zero standard) × 100 = % absorbance
The zero standard is made equal to 100 % and absorbance values are taken in
percentages. A calibration curve is obtained by plotting %absorbance values for the
standards against the aflatoxin M1 concentration (µg/L). The concentration of AFM1 in
samples was calculated from the calibration curve.
3.2.5. Determination of Milk Fat Percentage
The Gerber method was used for the determination of fat percentage in milk
samples (Egan et al., 1981). According to this method, fat determination in milk is
performed with butyrometer. The 10 mL H2SO4 (95-98%) is taken into a Gerber
butyrometer (Gerber, Switzerland). The 10.94 mL of mixed milk is carefully taken with
specific pipette (Gerber, Switzerland) on to the side of the butyrometer to form a layer on
H2SO4. One mL of amyl alcohol (fat free) is added on to the layer of milk. The
butyrometer is sealed with special metal key and rubber stopper. The sample and
sulphuric acid are mixed by rolling the tube in hand at an angle of 45o. The butyrometer
is inverted once or twice to complete the mixing in the graduated stem and then
centrifuged at 1100 rpm for 4 minutes. The butyrometer (stopper downward) is incubated
in a water bath (Model WB 14, Memmert, Germany) at 65o C for at least 3 minutes and
fat% is read off directly from the scale.
3.2.6. Determination of Milk Protein
The Kjeldahl method was applied for the determination of milk protein in milk
samples using Block Digester/ Steam Distillation procedure according to the AOAC
official method 991.20 (AOAC Official Method 991.20, 1995).
3.2.6.1. Test Portion Preparation
The 6.75g K2SO4 and 0.75g CuSO4·5H2O catalyst (Total =7.5g) is added in the
digestion tube. More or less 1.0g of the test portion is weighed in the digestion tube after
74
warming at 38±1oC and mixing. Then 10 mL of H2SO4 is added. Tube is closed with
stopper and held for digestion. A blank (all reagents except test portion) is digested and
distilled each day.
3.2.6.2 Digestion
The digestion tubes are placed in the digester attached with the venting tubes to
remove the acid vapors. Initially the digester (Model DK 6, Velp Scientifica, Italy) is set
at low temperature (180oC-230oC) to control foaming. Digestion is carried out until white
fumes develop. The temperature is increased up to 420oC and digestion is continued.
Normal digestion temperature is 420oC and lower temperatures increase digestion time.
Digestion is completed in approximately 45 minutes at 420oC. After digestion when
contents are clear (clear with light blue-green color), boiling is continued for at least one
hour with total digestion time from 1.75-2.5 hours. The digestion tubes are removed from
the Block digester and then allowed to cool.
3.2.6.3. Distillation
The solution of NaOH (40%) is placed in alkali tank of distillation unit (Model
UDK 126 D, Velp Scientifica, Italy). Graduated Erlenmeyer flask (500 mL), containing
25 mL H3BO3 (4%) solution, is placed on receiving platform, with tube from condenser
extending below surface of H3BO3 solution. The digestion tube is attached to distillation
unit and then 50 mL sodium hydroxide solution is added. The steam-distillation is
started and continued until almost 150 mL distillate is collected. Receiving flask is
removed, few drops of indicator (methyl red/ bromocresol green) are added and then it is
titrated against 0.10 M HCl solution until first trace of pink coloration.
3.2.6.4. Calculations
Result is calculated by applying the following equation.
Nitrogen % = 1.4007 × (Vs- Vb) × M / W
Where Vs and Vb = mL HCl titrant used for test portion and blank respectively; M =
molarity of HCl solution; and W = test portion weight in gram. Multiply percent protein
by factor 6.38 to calculate percent protein.
75
3.2.7. Statistical Analysis
The data was analyzed by applying SPSS (statistical package for social sciences,
version 11.5) and mean and standard deviation of all variables (AFM1, AFB1, fat%, and
protein %) were calculated. The arithmetic mean is the most commonly used type of
average. It is usually referred to as simply the average or the mean. It is obtained by
dividing the sum of all the observations by the total number of observations. It is denoted by
" X ".
For ungrouped data
n
X =
nx...+x + x + x = X n321 ∑
Another term used in Statistics is variance. The Variance is defined as the
arithmetic mean of the squared deviations of the observations measured from their mean.
The population variance is denoted by σ2 where as sample variance is denoted by S2 and
defined as
For ungrouped data
sampleFor n
)x - (x = S
population For N
) - (x =
22
22
∑
∑ µσ
Alternative formula
∑∑
∑∑
n
X -
nX = S
N
X -
NX =
222
222σ
The positive square root of the variance is called Standard Deviation. It is
denoted by σ (S for sample). The standard deviation is an absolute measure of dispersion
(Steel et al., 1997).
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) gives the comparison among the mean values of
the results. ANOVA technique was applied for various variables (AFM1 concentration
and AFB1 concentration) using one-way/simple ANOVA. Mathematically, ANOVA and
Regression are very similar. Both analyses require an interval scale and normally
distributed dependent variable. When the independent variable is a nominal or ordinal
scale variable, we use ANOVA. When the independent variable is an interval scale
variable, we use regression. When there are more than one independent variables, and some
76
of the variables are nominal scale and some are interval scale type variables, we use either
ANOVA or Logistic regression. If we use ANOVA, the interval scale variables are called
"covariates".
To determine the relationship between different variables (concentrations of
AFB1/ AFM1 and corresponding areas of the peaks in the chromatogram/ %absorbance),
regression analysis/curve fitting was performed. The regression shows the dependency of
one variable (dependent) on the other variable (independent). The details of regression
are given in the following lines. If there are two variables in a sample, peak area (y-axis)
and concentration (x-axis) and both are continuous variables, their values can plotted to
observe whether they form a pattern. The plot shows a regression line and indicates that
how the area of peak can be influenced by the concentration. The Fig. 2 shows the
regression line.
Fig. 2: The
regression line.
The simplest
type of linear
regression or linear
equation is: y = a +
bx. Sometimes it is
referred to as f(x) = a
+ bx. In the linear
equation, “a” represents the intercept of the line on the y-axis, “b” represents the slope of
the line relative to the x-axis, i. e. b = tan θ as shown in the Fig. 3.
Fig. 3: The linear equation.
77
The most commonly used criteria to describe the relation between independent and
dependent variables, is the Coefficient of Determination (r2 or R2).
Coefficient of Determination is calculated as:
r2 = Σ(ŷ - µy)2/Σ(y - µy)2
= bSxy / Syy
= Regression Sum Square/Total Sum Square
= Explained Variation / Total Variation
r2 = S2xy / Sxx . Syy from (1) bSxy / Syy (b = Sxy/Sxx)
In fact, it can be proved that
R = Cov (x, y) / σx . σy
Where, Cov (x, y) stands for the covariance of the two variables x and y. It can be
expressed as Sxy / n, where n is the number of cases. Moreover, σx and σy are the standard
deviations of x and y.
The highest value of r2 is 1 and the highest value shows the most perfect
relationship between the variables. Closer the value of r2 to 1, more perfect the relationship
between the variables.
Correlation analysis gives the relationship between the variables. Correlation
analysis was performed to find out the correlation between AFM1 concentration in milk
and fat% of the milk. Correlation analysis was also performed to find out the correlation
between AFM1 concentration in milk and protein% of the milk. The Coefficient of
Correlation is calculated by using the Pearson Product Moment r.
r = Σ xy – Σx Σy/ Σx2 – (Σx)2/ n × Σ y2 – (Σy)2/ n
The value range of the coefficient of correlation is -1 to 1, where "0" means no
correlation, "+1" means perfectly positively correlated and "-1" means perfectly negatively
correlated (Steel et al., 1997). Anything ‘r’ value above "0.5" is considered to be high.
Anything from 0.2 to below 0.5 is referred as "medium", whereas anything below 0.2 will
be considered as low correlation.
78
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Milk, a balanced diet provided by nature, is of great worth for human beings.
Dairy products including milk are important sources of animal protein, vitamins, and
essential fatty acids for infants and young adults (Jensen and Nielsen, 1982). Due to the
common occurrence and harmful effects of aflatoxin contamination, there is a need for
detection and quantification of aflatoxin M1 in milk and its products.
4.1. Aflatoxin M1 Contamination in Raw Milk- A
General Survey
In the first phase of study, a survey was conducted regarding the contamination of
AFM1 in the Punjab province of Pakistan. Concentration of AFM1 was determined by
Fluorometer with a prior clean-up step with immunoaffinity columns. Immunoaffinity
columns have been successfully used in the analysis of aflatoxins in food and feed during
the last few years (Scott and Trucksess 1997). Many researchers have used IAC in
combination with HPLC (Gurbay et al., 2006; Tuinstra et al., 1993) for the analysis of
aflatoxins. The IAC in combination with Fluorometer was applied by Chiavaro et al.
(2005), for determination of aflatoxin B1 and aflatoxin M1 in pig liver.
A total of 168 milk samples were analyzed to evaluate the contamination level of
aflatoxin M1 in the raw milk. Contamination of AFM1 was detected in the raw milk.
Aflatoxin M1 was found to be present in all of the examined milk samples obtained from
14 districts of the Punjab province. The Table 2 gives the distribution of AFM1 in milk
samples by district-wise and month-wise in the Punjab during the year 2005. Graphically
the distribution of AFM1 in milk has been shown in Fig. 4. The graph shows that there is
no variation in the concentration of AFM1 in milk according to districts. Table 3 gives
minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation by month-wise. The 162 samples
(96.4%) had contamination less than 0.5 µg AFM1/ L milk which is US tolerance limit for
AFM1 in milk. Only one sample (0.6%) contained 0.5µg/ L of AFM1 in milk, while the
remaining 5 samples (3.0%) contained more than o.5 µg/ L of AFM1 in milk.
In general, regardless of the samples which are below and at the borderline limit
(0.5 µg/ L), 3.0% of the samples had concentration of AFM1 which exceeded the
79
prescribed limit of US regulations i.e. 0.5µg/ L. Almost 99.4% of the contaminated
samples exceeded the European community / Codex Alimentarius recommended limit.
The European Community and Codex Alimentarius Commission prescribe that the
maximum level of AFM1 in liquid milk and dried or processed milk products should not
exceed 0.05µg/ L or 0.05µg/ kg (Codex Alimentarious Commission, 2001; Creppy,
2002). This limit has been established following the ALARA (as low as reasonable
achievable) principle. In Austria and Switzerland the maximum level is further reduced
to the level of 0.01 µg/ kg for infant food commodities. Although US regulations
prescribe 10 times higher limits of AFM1, even then 3% Pakistani milk samples exceeded
the maximum limit.
The results of the present study were compared with those of other studies made
in Morocco, Iran, and Italy. Fifty four samples of pasteurized milk produced by five
different dairies from Morocco were surveyed for the presence of AFM1 and 88.8% of the
samples were contaminated with AFM1; 7.4% being above the maximum level of 0.05
µg/ L set by the Moroccan and European regulations for AFM1 in liquid milk (Zinedine et
al., 2007). In Iran, of the 111 samples, 85 (76.6%) were found contaminated with AFM1
in concentration between 0.015 and 0.28 µg/ L (Kamkar, 2005). The 40 milk samples
were analyzed in Italy and AFM1 was detected in 30% of milk samples at levels ranging
from 0.004 to 0.023 µg/ L. None of the contaminated samples exceeded the legal limit of
0.05 µg/ L set down by the European Union for milk (Finoli and Vecchio, 2003).
Seasonal effect influences concentration of aflatoxin M1 in milk. Table 4 gives
the distribution of AFM1 in milk by district-wise and season-wise. Graphically district-
wise and season-wise distribution of AFM1 in milk has been shown in Fig.5. The Fig. 5
shows that in almost all the districts the concentration of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk was
lower in summer season and maximum in winter season. ANOVA indicates significant
(p < 0.01) difference in AFM1 concentration among seasons. Fig. 6 depicts a significant
variation in the concentration of AFM1 in milk among all the four seasons. AFM1
concentrations are the highest in winter and the lowest in summer. Fig. 7 shows that the
minimum concentration of AFM1 in milk was observed during summer. Many authors
also reported higher concentration of AFM1 in cold seasons as compared to hot seasons
(Rossi et al., 1996; Blanco et al., 1988), the reason being in winters mostly milking
animals are fed with compound feeds and thus concentration of aflatoxin B1 increases
which in turn enhances AFM1 concentration in milk. Moreover temperature and moisture
contents also affect the presence of aflatoxin B1 in feeds.
80
Table 2: Distribution of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in raw milk samples by month-wise and district-wise in the Punjab.
Districts Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean SD SE
Lahore 0.55 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.28 0.39 0.39 0.36 0.36 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.059 0.017
Sheikhupura 0.44 0.38 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.19 0.28 0.27 0.34 0.37 0.32 0.081 0.023
Hafizabad 0.39 0.41 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.36 0.22 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.41 0.34 0.078 0.023
Jhang 0.46 0.46 0.25 0.39 0.26 0.35 0.34 0.13 0.17 0.28 0.30 0.41 0.32 0.095 0.028
T.T.Singh 0.70 0.49 0.46 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.34 0.34 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.071 0.021
Okara 0.48 0.46 0.46 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.01 0.40 0.28 0.40 0.35 0.36 0.119 0.034
Sahiwal 0.49 0.49 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.35 0.30 0.39 0.45 0.38 0.074 0.021
Khanewal 0.49 0.44 0.33 0.40 0.33 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.29 0.45 0.41 0.45 0.37 0.076 0.022
Pakpatan 0.66 0.49 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.49 0.34 0.19 0.44 0.30 0.41 0.44 0.39 0.095 0.027
Vehari 0.46 0.57 0.49 0.50 0.35 0.27 0.41 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.41 0.46 0.39 0.116 0.034
Bahawalnagar 0.49 0.49 0.44 0.45 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.47 0.37 0.40 0.069 0.020
Mazafargarh 0.40 0.49 0.39 0.42 0.37 0.42 0.37 0.12 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.37 0.38 0.090 0.026
Layya 0.44 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.36 0.38 0.32 0.16 0.30 0.31 0.46 0.25 0.36 0.089 0.026
Lodhran 0.59 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.33 0.37 0.20 0.22 0.33 0.27 0.30 0.46 0.37 0.099 0.029
Mean0.50
30.46
60.40
40.39
80.32
30.35
10.32
90.19
90.32
80.34
50.40
30.40
3
SD0.09
20.04
70.07
40.06
10.04
40.06
10.07
50.09
90.07
10.07
10.05
70.06
0
81
SE0.02
50.01
30.02
00.01
60.01
20.01
60.02
00.02
70.01
90.01
90.01
50.01
6
82
Table 3: Distribution of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in raw milk samples by month-wise.
Months Samples Minimum Maximum Mean SD SEJanuary 14 0.39 0.70 0.503 0.092 0.025February 14 0.38 0.57 0.466 0.047 0.013March 14 0.25 0.47 0.404 0.074 0.020April 14 0.31 0.50 0.398 0.061 0.016May 14 0.28 0.39 0.323 0.044 0.012June 14 0.27 0.49 0.351 0.061 0.016July 14 0.16 0.39 0.329 0.075 0.020August 14 0.01 0.42 o.199 0.099 0.027September 14 0.17 0.40 0.328 0.071 0.019October 14 0.27 0.45 0.345 0.071 0.019November 14 0.30 0.47 0.403 0.057 0.015December 14 0.25 0.47 0.403 0.060 0.016
83
Figure 2: Districtwise distribution of fresh milk samples (aflatoxin M1 concentration)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Laho
re
Sheikh
upur
a
Hafiza
bad
Jhan
g
T.T.S
ingh
Oka
ra
Sahiw
al
Khane
wal
Pakpa
tan
Vehar
i
Bahaw
alnag
ar
Maz
afar
garh
Layy
a
Lodh
ran
District
Afl
ato
xin
M1
co
nce
ntr
ait
on
(µ
g/L
)
Fig. 4: District-wise distribution of AFM1 in raw milk samples.
84
Table 4: Distribution of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in raw milk by district-wise and season-wise.
Districts Winter Spring Summer Autumn Mean SD SELahore 0.49 0.46 0.36 0.41 0.42 0.071 0.020Sheikhupura 0.38 0.39 0.25 0.28 0.32 0.089 0.026Hafizabad 0.42 0.31 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.079 0.023Jhang 0.41 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.32 0.106 0.030T.T.Singh 0.49 0.41 0.31 0.34 0.39 0.120 0.035Okara 0.42 0.40 0.28 0.34 0.36 0.125 0.036Sahiwal 0.46 0.38 0.34 0.33 0.38 0.081 0.023Khanewal 0.45 0.37 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.085 0.025Pakpatan 0.50 0.33 0.32 0.37 0.39 0.127 0.037Vehari 0.48 0.50 0.29 0.32 0.39 0.118 0.034Bahawalnagar 0.46 0.45 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.074 0.021Mazafargarh 0.43 0.41 0.32 0.40 0.38 0.090 0.026Layya 0.39 0.45 0.31 0.31 0.36 0.092 0.027Lodran 0.46 0.47 0.28 0.30 0.37 0.120 0.035Mean 0.44 0.40 0.30 0.34SD 0.078 0.066 0.093 0.071SE 0.010 0.013 0.012 0.013
85
Figure 4: Distribution by season and
districtwise of fresh milk samples (aflatoxin M1 concentration)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Laho
re
Sheikh
upur
a
Hafiza
bad
Jhan
g
T.T.S
ingh
Oka
ra
Sahiw
al
Khane
wal
Pakpa
tan
Vehar
i
Bahaw
alnag
ar
Maz
afar
garh
Layy
a
Lodh
ran
Distrcit
Afl
ato
xin
M1
con
cen
trai
ton
(µ
g/L
)Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Fig. 5: Distribution of AFM1 season-wise and district-wise in raw milk samples.
86
Figure 1: Seasonwise distribution of fresh milk samples (aflatoxin M1 concentration)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Seasons
Afla
toxi
n M
1 co
nce
ntr
aito
n (µ
g/L
)
Fig. 6: Season-wise distribution of AFM1 in raw milk samples.
87
Figure 1: Monthwise distribution of fresh milk
samples (aflatoxin M1 concentration)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Afl
ato
xin
M1
co
nc
en
tra
ito
n (
µg
/L)
`
Fig. 7: Month-wise distribution of AFM1 in raw milk samples.
Aspergillus flavus and Aspergilllus parasiticus easily grow in feeds having
moisture from 13% to 18% and environmental moisture from 50% to 60%, furthermore,
they can produce toxin (Jay, 1992). Another reason of low AFM1 level in summer may
be attributed to out-pasturing of milking cattle. Out-pasturing of milking cattle is an
effective factor for low level of AFM1 concentration in milk (Kamkar, 2005). Fig. 8
shows an attractive scene of buffaloes grazing on an island in the Ravi river near Lahore
city, Pakistan. In the present study the lowest AFM1 concentration has also been noted in
summer, which is found to be 0.01 µg/ L. Similar results were stated by other researchers
too (Applebaum et al., 1982; Blance and Karleskind, 1981) and they found that low
aflatoxin M1 level or no toxin production was obtained in summer season.
88
This is the first ever systematic study on aflatoxin M1 in Pakistan. According to
the results obtained from this study, the situation calls for continuous monitoring
aflatoxin M1 concentration in milk and milk products. Almost 99.4% of the analyzed
samples crossed the EU tolerance limit; there is urgent need to create awareness among
the people about the high concentration of AFM1 which is health hazard.
Picture 1: Buffaloes grazing at island in the Ravi river near Lahore, Pakistan.
(Courtesy daily The News August 30, 2007)
89
4.2. Aflatoxin M1 Contamination Variation with Respect
to Localities and with Respect to Herd-Size of
Cattle
Depending on the local conditions and traditions, different feed regimen is used in
different areas like urban and rural and feed plays main role in milk contamination with
AFM1. The present study showed the levels of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk of buffaloes and
cows from different localities of urban, semi-urban, and rural in the central areas of the
Punjab province of Pakistan.
High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method was used for analysis
in this study. Fig. 8 shows the peaks of AFM1 in standard and sample. HPLC is a
commonly used technique in latest aflatoxin determination (Nachtmann et al., 2007; Van
Egmond and Dragacci, 2001). Methodology for determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk
has been greatly improved in recent years with the application of immunoaffinity columns
(IAC) which provide a combination of extraction and clean-up stages. With the advent of
immunoaffinity columns, AOAC Official Method 2000.08 has come into force. This
method is meant for aflatoxin M1 in milk using IAC by liquid chromatography with Final
Action 2004. The previous AOAC liquid chromatographic method for aflatoxin M1 and
M2 in fluid milk was AOAC Official Method 986.16 with Final Action 1990 (AOAC
Official Method 986.16, 2000).
The clean-up step was carried out with immunoaffinity columns in this study for
determination of AFM1 along with HPLC. Fig. 9 shows the standard curve. The standard
curve was linear (y = 0.312 + 6.578x, y = area, x = amount) from 0.05µg/ L to 10µg/ L
AFM1 concentration. The coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.9997. The limit of
detection (LOD) was defined as the lowest limit of the analyte which could be detected
by the instrument. The LOD was determined as 0.004 µg AFM1/ L of milk.
Concentration of AFM1 in raw milk of buffaloes from urban, semi-urban, and
rural areas is given in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 respectively. Whereas concentration
of AFM1 in raw milk of cows from urban, semi-urban, and rural areas is given in Table 8,
Table 9, and Table 10 respectively. Fig. 10 shows area-wise comparison of AFM1 in milk
of buffaloes and cows. According to the statistical analysis of the data, there exists
difference in the concentration of AFM1 in the raw milk of buffaloes (F= 27.615, p<
0.05), and cows (F= 4.617, p<0.05) from the three areas urban, semi-urban and rural. The
90
higher concentration of AFM1 is present in urban and semi-urban area samples and lower
one is present in rural area samples, the reason being that the feeding practices are varied
in these localities. In urban and semi-urban areas there is less availability of green fodder
and there is excessive use of concentrated feed, cottonseed cake, corn, soybean, wheat
straw, paddy straw, and wheat bran. All these commodities are vulnerable to the attack of
moulds and there is a high possibility of presence of AFB1 in these commodities (Dutton
and Kinsey, 1996). The contamination of aflatoxin happens mainly in the feeds
(Sassahara et al., (2005). On the other hand, in rural areas there is abundance of green
fodder and it is commonly used as a feed of cattle by all and sundry. There is less use of
supplements like concentrated feed and oil seed cakes in these areas but wheat straw is
used along with green fodder. In some areas, there is also a common practice of grazing
which is another factor for less concentration of AFM1 in milk samples from rural areas.
91
Fig. 8: Comparison of HPLC chromatograms: (A) standard (B) sample, for AFM1 in
milk.
92
Aflatoxin M1
A
B
Aflatoxin M1
Fig. 9: Calibration curve of standard solutions of AFM1 by HPLC analysis.
Tale 5: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples of
urban buffaloes.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0990 0.1030 0.0218 0.0047 0.0209 0.01800.1321 0.0824 0.1074 0.0041 0.0261 0.01650.0792 0.0318 0.0895 0.0708 0.0508 0.01760.0660 0.0286 0.0043 0.0849 0.0172 0.01090.0878 0.0215 0.0290 0.0044 0.0636 0.01310.1047 0.0172 0.0174 0.0042 0.0848 ×0.0785 0.0043 0.0145 0.0726 0.0344 ×0.0628 0.0034 0.0062 0.0043 0.0954 ×0.0063 0.1343 0.0048 0.1210 0.0348 ×0.1545 0.0035 0.1062 0.0047 0.0174 ×0.1373 0.1791 0.1416 0.0605 0.0258 ×0.0058 0.0045 0.0046 0.0908 0.0206 ×
y = 0.312 + 6.578x
Regression Standardized Predicted Values of AFM1
2.01.51.0.50.0-.5-1.0
AR
EA
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
93
Table 6: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples of
semi-urban buffaloes.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0741 0.1432 0.0249 0.0043 0.07040.0988 0.0659 0.2513 0.0041 0.09380.2387 0.0878 0.0332 0.0044 0.04800.0593 0.0439 0.3770 0.0255 0.04900.0667 0.0527 0.5027 0.0042 0.04850.0889 0.1860 0.3016 0.0047 0.04950.0533 0.2232 0.0311 0.0340 0.02590.0444 0.0199 0.0207 0.0062 ×0.1790 0.2790 0.0415 0.0046 ×0.0494 0.0166 0.0249 0.0170 ×0.1193 0.3720 0.0046 0.0204 ×
Table 7: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples of
rural buffaloes.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0045 0.0113 0.0326 0.00690.0313 0.0151 0.0435 0.00460.0391 0.0226 0.0388 0.02080.0056 0.0166 0.0498 0.00470.0522 0.0207 0.0042 0.00480.0075 0.0276 0.0044 0.02320.0329 0.0311 0.0043 0.02910.0064 0.0139 0.0058 0.02400.0447 0.0174 0.0040 ×0.0263 0.0232 0.0052 ×0.0090 0.0261 0.0059 ×
Table 8: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples of
urban cows.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0306 0.0133 0.1114 0.0741 0.01460.0275 0.0148 0.0823 0.1237 0.49710.0344 0.4825 0.1234 0.0926 0.24400.8183 0.0167 0.1392 0.4454 0.04480.0290 0.0150 0.0152 × ×
94
Table 9: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples of
semi-urban cows.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0084 0.0028 0.0386 0.0429 0.5106 0.02730.0094 0.4538 0.0045 0.0118 0.0483 0.02150.4083 0.0022 0.0050 0.0105 0.0336 ×0.0075 0.0029 0.0057 0.0095 0.0217 ×
Table 10: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples
of rural Cows.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0125 0.0089 0.0075 0.0094 0.00760.0062 0.0078 0.0126 0.0057 0.00510.0104 0.0065 0.0084 0.0092 ×0.0069 0.0151 0.0108 0.0046 ×
Fig. 1. Area-wise comparison of aflatoxin M1 in milk of buffaloes and cows
54.16
42.5
30.8
57.555
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Urban Semi-urban Rural
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of m
ilk s
am
ple
s
con
tam
ina
ted
with
afla
toxi
n M
1
Buffaloes
Cows
Fig. 10: Area-wise comparison of aflatoxin M1 in milk of buffaloes and cows.
During the survey of AFM1 contamination in buffalo milk by keeping in view the
herd-size of cattle, there was found variation in AFM1 concentration in milk according to
herd-size of cattle in the area under study. Rearing of dairy animals is a source of income
95
for some people in this area and people adapt it as an occupation. For some people
milking animals are the only source of their livelihood. People rear dairy animals
according to their financial capacity and according to their resources. Therefore the
number of milking animals varies from one dairy to the other. Three categories were
under investigation in the present study. Category I was of small herd-size comprising of
animals up to five. Category II was that of medium herd-size comprising of animals from
six to ten. Category III was that of large herd-size comprising of animals above ten.
Furthermore, all these categories were studied in urban, semi-urban, and rural areas.
Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13 give the concentration of AFM1 in raw milk of urban
buffalo in small herd-size, medium herd-size, and large herd-size respectively. Table 14,
Table 15, and Table 16 give the concentration of AFM1 in raw milk of semi-urban buffalo
in small herd-size, medium herd-size, and large herd-size respectively. Table 17, table
18, and table 19 give the concentration of AFM1 in raw milk of rural buffalo in small
herd-size, medium herd-size, and large herd-size respectively. Table 20 gives a
composite result of AFM1 level in buffalo milk and cow milk in urban, semi-urban, and
rural areas along with variation of AFM1 concentration in buffalo milk with respect to
herd-size.
Tale 11: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples of
urban buffaloes belonging to the small herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0990 0.1321 0.0792 0.06600.0878 0.1047 0.0785 0.06280.1545 0.1373 0.1030 0.08240.0318 0.0286 0.0215 0.01720.0043 0.0044 0.0063 0.00580.0180 0.0165 × ×
Tale 12: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples of
urban buffaloes belonging to the medium herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.1343 0.1791 0.1074 0.08950.0290 0.0174 0.0218 0.01450.0043 0.0045 0.0045 0.00480.1062 0.1416 0.0708 0.08490.0176 0.0109 0.0131 0.00470.0062 0.0046 0.0041 ×
96
Tale 13: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples of
urban buffaloes belonging to the large herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.1210 0.0605 0.0908 0.07260.0042 0.0047 0.0044 0.00430.0508 0.0848 0.0954 0.06360.0261 0.0209 0.0174 0.03480.0344 0.0258 0.0172 0.0206
Table 14: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples
of semi-urban buffaloes belonging to the small herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0741 0.0988 0.0494 0.05930.0667 0.0889 0.0533 0.04440.2387 0.1193 0.1432 0.17900.0704 0.0938 0.0480 ×0.0485 0.0495 0.0490 ×
Table 15: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples
of semi-urban buffaloes belonging to the medium herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0659 0.0878 0.0527 0.04390.1860 0.2232 0.2790 0.37200.0199 0.0166 0.0332 0.02490.2513 0.3770 0.5027 0.30160.0311 0.0207 0.0415 0.02490.0259 × × ×
97
Table 16: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples
of semi-urban buffaloes belonging to the large herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0042 0.0041 0.0043 0.00460.0046 0.0047 0.0044 0.00620.0340 0.0255 0.0170 0.0204
Table 17: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples
of rural buffaloes belonging to the small herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0045 0.0056 0.0090 0.01130.0075 0.0064 0.0313 0.03910.0522 0.0329 0.0263 0.01510.0291 0.0232 × ×
Table 18: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples
of rural buffaloes belonging to the medium herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0166 0.0207 0.0276 0.01390.0174 0.0232 0.0388 0.04980.0311 0.0261 0.0326 0.04350.0240 × × ×
Table 19: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated raw milk samples
of rural buffaloes belonging to the large herd-size category.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ L)0.0044 0.0042 0.0058 0.00410.0052 0.0059 0.0069 ×0.0208 0.0046 0.0048 ×
98
Table 20: Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) level (µg/ L) in buffalo milk and cow milk in urban,
semi-urban and rural areas along with variation of aflatoxin M1 concentration in buffalo
milk with respect to herd-size.
Species Area Herd-size Total Contaminated Mean ±SD
Samples Samples (%age)
Buffalo Urban Small 40 22 (55%) 0.038±0.053
Buffalo Urban Medium 40 23(57.5%) 0.027±0.047
Buffalo Urban Large 40 20 (50%) 0.021±0.033
Buffalo Semi-urban Small 40 18 (45%) 0.039±0.087
Buffalo Semi-urban Medium 40 21 (52.5%) 0.075±0.130
Buffalo Semi-urban Large 40 12 (30%) 0.003±0.076
Buffalo Rural Small 40 14 (35%) 0.007±0.013
Buffalo Rural Medium 40 13 (32.5%) 0.009±0.015
Buffalo Rural Large 40 10 (25%) 0.002±0.004
Cow Urban Nil 40 23(57.5%) 0.087±0.174
Cow Semi-urban Nil 40 22(55%) 0.042±0.120
Cow Rural Nil 40 18(45%) 0.004±0.005
The result of statistical analysis applied to the data of AFM1 concentration in milk
samples of buffalo appeared to be significant with respect to herd-size (F= 6.631, p=
0.001). Milk samples in case of small herd-size (1-5 cattle) and medium herd-size (6-10
cattle) showed higher concentration than that of large herd-size (more than 10 cattle).
Most probably people belonging to the categories of small and medium herds use more
concentrated feed and other supplements to get high yield of milk as in many cases milk
is the only source of income for them and they try to acquire more and more milk to cater
their needs. Therefore to reduce the level of AFM1 in milk, it is imperative to educate
people belonging to these categories about the menace of aflatoxin contamination.
99
4.3. Aflatoxin M1 Contamination in Milk of Different
Species
There is an abundant production of milk in Pakistan and the major sources of milk
are five species of mammals namely buffalo, cow, goat, sheep, and camel. Currently in
Pakistan, there are 29.56 million cows, 27.33 million buffaloes, 53.79 million goats,
26.49 million sheep, and 0.92 million camels (Pakistan Livestock Census, 2006).
Pakistan is blessed with high yielding genetic dairy animals such as Nilli-Ravi buffalo,
Sahiwal cow, Kajli sheep and Beetle goat. Even without application of scientific tools,
dairy farmers are producing more than 33 million tons of milk per annum (Tipu et al.,
2007). A number of studies have been undertaken to determine AFM1 in cow milk (Gallo
et al., 2008; Rodriguez-Velsco et al., 2003; Choudhary et al., 1998). Buffalo milk AFM1
contamination has been shown by Garg et al. (2004). Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in goat
milk was confirmed by Virdis et al. (2008) and by Oliveira and Ferraz (2007). Many
studies declared contamination of AFM1 in sheep milk (Bognanno et al., 2006; Benedetti
et al., 2005; Battacone et al., 2005). The study of Abdel-El-Fatah et al. (2002) has shown
the contamination of camel milk with AFM1.
Due to the common occurrence and harmful effects of aflatoxin contamination,
there is a need for detection and quantification of aflatoxin M1 in milk. The present study
has been designed in this perspective. HPLC method combined with clean-up step with
immunoaffinity columns was used for AFM1 detection in the study. Fig.11 shows the
calibration curve. The standard curve was linear (y= -1.520 + 17.579x, y = area, x =
amount) from 0.05 µg/ L to 10 µg/ L AFM1 concentration. The coefficient of
determination (R2) was 0.9998. Fig. 12 shows the peaks of AFM1 in standard and sample.
100
Fig. 11: Calibration curve of standard solutions of AFM1 with concentrations of 0.05,
0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0 and 10.0 µg/ L by HPLC analysis.
y = -1.520 +17.579xR2 = 0.9998
Regression Standardized Predicted Values of AFM1
2.01.51.0.50.0-.5-1.0
Are
a
200
100
0
-100
101
Fig. 12: Comparison of HPLC chromatograms: (A) standard (B) sample, for AFM1 in
milk of five species.
102
A
B
Aflatoxin M1
A
Aflatoxin M1
B
Considering the contamination of AFM1, total 169 milk samples were analyzed
and these were taken from five species made up of 55, 40, 30, 24, and 20 samples of
buffaloes, cows, goats, sheep, and camels respectively. Table 21 gives the concentration
of AFM1 in buffalo milk, cow milk, goat milk, sheep milk, and camel milk. It was
observed that 15.8% of contaminated buffalo milk samples and 20% of contaminated cow
milk samples were above the EU action level of 0.05 µg/ L for AFM1 (European
Commission, 2006). However, none of the contaminated milk sample from goat milk and
sheep milk exceeded the EU action level for AFM1. No contamination of AFM1 in the
analyzed samples of camel milk was detected. In present study the contamination level of
AFM1 in raw milk samples was found to be low as compared to the results of earlier
studies in the same area (Hussain and Anwar, 2008; Hussain et al., 2008).
Table 21: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) in the contaminated milk samples of
five species.
Sample No. Buffalo milk
Cow milk Goat milk Sheep milk Camel milk
12345678910111213141516171819
0.02110.03230.02350.03410.01950.02300.02370.03180.03340.00570.03000.04100.12000.02600.02010.07210.04060.04530.0845
0.03900.02410.03340.07290.08700.01520.02540.03720.02830.02100.02220.06770.02840.02150.0543
0.01590.01450.00660.00790.00890.0136
0.00530.00770.01360.0125
Not detected in all the
tested samples
According to the statistical analysis of the data, there exists a variation in the
concentration of AFM1 (F = 4.952, p = 0.001) in the raw milk of the five concerned
species. In cow milk the percentage of AFM1 contamination is the highest whereas in
103
camel milk the percentage of AFM1 contamination is zero. The AFM1 contamination
level of goat milk and sheep milk is also well below the EU action level. The reason for
this seems to be that the species namely camel, goat, and sheep are mainly fed by grazing
and this practice is effective to reduce the level of AFM1 concentration in milk.
Moreover, cotton-seed cake, corn, and concentrate feed are not used for these species in
this area and these feed commodities are the major sources of aflatoxin contamination.
The milk of sheep and goat is safe with respect to AFM1 contamination, whereas the
camel milk is the safest regarding the contamination of AFM1 in this area.
Fat% in buffalo milk, cow milk, goat milk, sheep milk, and camel milk is given in
Table 22, Table 23, Table 24, Table 25, and Table 26 respectively. Protein% in buffalo
milk, cow milk, goat milk, sheep milk, and camel milk is given in Table 27, Table 28,
Table 29, Table 30, and Table 31 respectively.
Table 22: Fat% in buffalo milk samples.
Fat% in buffalo milk samples7.7 6.5 7.5 7.1 8.5 7.5 5.3 7.5 7.3 7.0 8.27.3 6.2 10.0 6.8 7.5 8.2 7.3 3.5 6.2 7.0 7.47.1 6.6 5.1 6.7 5.8 6.0 5.7 4.5 11.0 5.8 6.16.8 6.5 7.2 6.2 7.3 7.6 4.2 6.7 7.4 8.5 7.67.7 7.7 7.5 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.1 6.4 7.9 7.8 7.6
Table 23: Fat% in cow milk samples.
Fat% in cow milk samples2.3 6.0 4.5 2.2 2.5 6.1 3.5 3.3 2.7 2.65.8 4.6 5.1 5.3 3.6 4.2 3.8 5.2 3.5 3.23.7 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.1 4.0 3.9 3.0 4.1 2.93.8 3.4 3.2 4.3 4.4 3.6 4.1 4.2 3.4 3.2
104
Table 24: Fat% in goat milk samples.
Fat% in goat milk samples5.3 5.1 5.4 5.5 4.0 5.0 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.74.1 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.23.8 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.1 3.6 3.7
Table 25: Fat% in sheep milk samples.
Fat% in sheep milk samples7.2 5.5 8.0 8.7 8.8 8.3 8.8 8.57.9 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.9 8.9 8.2 7.68.4 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.7 7.8 8.1 8.7
Table 26: Fat% in camel milk samples.
Fat% in camel milk samples4.4 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.63 3.13.5 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.1 4.0 3.72.5 2.3 2.2 2.3 3.2 3.1 ×
Table 27: Protein% in buffalo milk samples.
Protein% in buffalo milk samples4.9 4.7 3.8 5.1 4.7 3.6 4.83.2 4.2 4.5 4.9 4.3 3.8 4.84.3 4.2 3.3 5.1 5.5 5.6 4.83.7 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.1 4.5 5.34.6 5.1 5.3 5.1 4.7 4.4 5.04.2 5.3 2.7 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.74.3 4.3 6.0 3.8 4.9 3.0 5.04.7 4.1 4.8 3.4 5.2 4.6 ×
Table 28: Protein% in cow milk samples.
105
Protein% in cow milk samples3.6 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.8 3.6 4.63.7 4.3 4.2 4.4 3.6 4.1 3.42.9 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.7 3.23.2 3.0 3.4 3.4 2.7 3.3 3.53.5 3.3 2.3 2.9 3.3 3.6 ×3.0 2.9 3.2 3.4 4.1 3.1 ×
Table 29: Protein% in goat milk samples.
Protein% in goat milk samples3.9 4.0 5.5 5.0 4.1 3.8 3.53.3 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.23.9 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.6 4.3 3.83.2 3.9 3.4 3.1 3.6 × ×4.0 3.0 3.5 3.6 × × ×
Table 30: Protein% in sheep milk samples.
Protein% in sheep milk samples5.4 5.7 7.2 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.25.8 5.7 5.6 5.3 5.9 5.1 5.55.1 5.1 5.2 5.7 5.8 6.0 5.45.6 5.6 6.1 × × × ×
Table 31: Protein% in camel milk samples.
Protein% in camel milk samples3.4 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.03.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.2 3.53.4 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.6 ×
106
Table 32: Composite result of AFM1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in milk
of the five species.
Species→ Buffalo Cows Goats Sheep Camel
Total samples 55 40 30 24 20
Contaminated
samples 19 15 6 4 Nil
AFM1 Mean±SD 0.013±0.024 0.014±0.022 0.002±0.005 0.002±0.004 ND
Fat% Mean±SD 7.0±1.26 3.8±0.95 3.9±0.66 8.1±0.73 3.2±0.60
Protein% Mean±SD 4.5±0.67 3.4±0.57 3.8±0.50 5.5±0.44 3.5±0.28
107
Fig. 13: Comparison of AFM1 contamination%, fat%, and protein% in milk of the five
species.
Table 32 gives a summary of results of AFM1 contamination, fat%, and protein%
in milk of the five species. Fig. 13 gives comparison of AFM1 contamination%, fat%,
and protein% in milk of the five species. The detail of AFM1 contamination, fat%, and
protein% in buffalo milk, cow milk, goat milk, sheep milk, and camel milk is given in
Table 33, Table 34, Table 35, Table 36, and Table 37 respectively. Table 38 gives the
detailed correlation analysis for all species. It was observed that there was no correlation
between AFM1 concentration and fat % for all species. Similarly no correlation was
found between AFM1 concentration and protein%.
7
3.8 3.9
8.1
3.24.5
3.4 3.85.5
3.5
34.5
37.5
20
16.7
11.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Buffalo Cow Goat Sheep Camel
Fat %
Protein %
AFM1 contamination %
108
Table 33: Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in buffalo milk.
Sample Fat% Protein% AFM1
(µg/ L)Sample Fat% Protein% AFM1
(µg/ L)123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
7.76.57.57.18.57.55.37.57.37.08.27.36.210.06.87.58.27.33.56.27.07.47.16.65.16.75.86.05.74.5
4.94.73.85.14.73.64.84.24.13.84.63.24.24.54.94.33.84.84.32.73.43.04.34.23.35.15.55.64.84.7
0.0211NDND
0.0323NDNDND
0.0235ND
0.0341NDNDND
0.0195NDND
0.0230NDNDNDND
0.0237NDNDND
0.0318NDNDNDND
313233343536373839404142434445464.74.849505152535455
11.05.86.16.86.57.26.27.37.64.26.77.48.57.67.77.77.58.28.18.38.16.47.97.87.6
6.04.84.63.74.95.34.94.14.55.35.34.84.94.74.65.15.35.14.74.45.04.34.55.25.0
0.0334NDNDNDNDND
0.0057NDNDND
0.0300ND
0.0510ND
0.12000.0260
ND0.02010.07210.0406
ND0.0453
ND0.0845
ND
109
Table 34: Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in cow milk.
Sample Fat % Protein % AFM1(µg/ L)12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
2.36.04.52.22.56.13.53.32.72.65.84.65.15.33.64.23.85.23.53.23.74.34.34.23.14.03.93.04.12.93.83.43.24.34.43.64.14.23.43.2
3.64.64.54.33.83.64.63.52.33.33.74.34.24.43.64.13.43.03.24.12.93.12.82.93.12.73.23.32.93.63.23.03.43.42.73.33.52.93.43.1
0.0390ND
0.0241NDNDNDND
0.0334ND
0.0729ND
0.087NDNDNDNDND
0.0152ND
0.0254ND
0.03720.0283
NDNDND
0.0210NDND
0.0222NDNDND
0.06770.0284
ND0.0215
ND0.0543
ND
110
Table 35: Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in goat milk.
Sample Fat% Protein% AFM1(µg/ L)123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
5.35.15.45.54.05.03.63.83.53.74.13.93.53.63.73.13.33.43.34.23.83.73.93.63.23.43.94.13.63.7
3.94.05.55.04.13.83.53.23.03.13.33.63.83.63.73.94.24.03.43.63.94.03.83.43.64.33.83.93.53.6
ND0.0159
ND0.0145
NDNDNDND
0.00660.0079
NDNDND
0.0089NDNDNDNDNDNDND
0.0136NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
111
Table 36: Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in sheep milk.
Sample Fat% Protein% AFM1(µg/ L)123456789101112131415161718192021222324
7.25.58.08.78.88.38.88.57.97.77.67.87.98.98.27.68.48.58.68.88.77.88.18.7
5.45.77.25.55.35.45.25.65.85.75.65.35.95.15.55.65.15.15.25.75.86.05.46.1
0.0053NDNDNDND
0.0077NDNDNDNDNDND
0.0136NDNDND
0.0125NDNDNDNDNDNDND
112
Table 37: Aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) contamination, fat%, and protein% in camel milk.
Sample Fat% Protein% AFM1(µg/L)123456789101112131415161718
4.43.43.53.33.33.63.13.53.83.43.23.14.03.72.52.32.22.3
3.43.53.23.33.43.13.03.63.73.84.03.93.23.53.43.63.73.8
NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
113
Table 38: Pearson correlation analysis of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ L) concentration, fat%, and
protein% in the milk of five species.
Species Variables Correlation values Status of correlation
Buffalo Fat% - AFM1
Protein%- AFM1
Fat% - Protein%
0.330(0.013)0.146
(0.286)0.130
(0.410)
Non-significant
Non-significant
Non-significant
Cow Fat% - AFM1
Protein%- AFM1
Fat% - Protein%
-0.075(0.064)0.075
(0.645)0.209
(0.196)
Non-significant
Non-significant
Non-significant
Goat Fat% - AFM1
Protein%- AFM1
Fat% - Protein%
0.328(0.077)0.150
(0.428)0.548
(0.002)
Non-significant
Non-significant
Significant
Sheep Fat% - AFM1
Protein%- AFM1
Fat% - Protein%
-0.047(0.826)-0.109(0.612)-0.195(0.361)
Non-significant
Non-significant
Non-significant
Camel Fat% - AFM1
Protein%- AFM1
Fat% - Protein%
N.A.
N.A.
-0.136(0.201)
N.A.
N.A.
Non-significant
114
4.4. Aflatoxin M1 Contamination in Milk Products
Milk is the fluid which is secreted by mammary glands of female mammals and it
contains all the nutrients necessary to sustain life and it is a major nutrient for humans
especially children. But it becomes hazardous when it contains contaminants like
aflatoxin M1 above the permissible level. The normal milk processes like pasteurization
have no significant effect on the AFM1 content in milk and AFM1 prevails in milk
products. However, fermentation produced significant effect on the stability of AFM1.
On the average, the concentration of AFM1 in yoghurt and fermented milk samples fell by
25% (Jasutiene et al., 2006). A number of countries have declared legal limits for AFM1
in milk and milk products. In some European countries, the limit for AFM1in milk has
been set 0.05 µg/ L and for AFM1 in cheese at 0.25 µg/ L (Manetta, et al., 2005).
However, there is no maximum tolerance level or such guidelines available for this
contaminant in Pakistan. Research in this area is among the major needs of the country.
Among the various milk products cheese and yoghurt are important ones. In
Pakistan the number of milk processing industries producing cheese and yoghurt is
limited. These industries are situated only in the Punjab province. The annual production
of cheese and yoghurt is 1164 and 10088 metric tons respectively (Agricultural Census
Organization, 2008). In the present study cheese and yoghurt samples, purchased from
local market, were analyzed for AFM1 contamination. Cheese is prepared from curdled
milk by removing whey and by curd ripening in the presence of special microflora, for
example, Lactococcus lactis is used as starter culture for Cheddar cheese. The process of
cheese formation consists of milk preparation, setting, molding, pressing, and ripening.
Yoghurt is prepared by bacteria culture. Yoghurt culture consists of thermophilic lactic
bacteria; Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus which live together
symbiotically (Belitz et al., 2004).
For AFM1 assay in milk and milk products, thin layer chromatography
(Van Egmond et al., 1978) and high-performance liquid chromatography (Dragacci et al.,
2001; Mortimer et al., 1987) are widely used. Through advances in biotechnology,
immunochemical procedures have been developed for the assay of AFM1, which are
based on the affinities of the monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies for aflatoxin. Three
types of immunochemical methods used for AFM1 analysis are: enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (Lee, 1996), radioimmunoassay (Saitanu, 1997), and
immunoaffinity column assay (Sharman et al., 1989; Dragacci & Fremy, 1996). Among
115
these, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method is simple, robust, and cost-effective.
It permits analysis of up to 200 samples per day. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
(ELISA) is in frequent use for the assay of AFM1 (Domagala et al., 1997; Oliveira et al.,
1997). The reliability of ELISA in AFM1 determination was confirmed by Rosi et al.
(2007) by analyzing 1500 milk samples and results from 600 of them were compared with
those of the HPLC reference method. ELISA and HPLC assays of spiked samples gave
same precision (coefficient of variation, recovery, and regression coefficient R2 values are
0.9-8%, 96.8-108%, and 0.993 respectively)
The calibration graph was obtained from the standards provided along with the
ELISA kit having the concentration of AFM1 0.00 - 0.08 µg/ L in milk. Standard graphs
of ELISA analysis are shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15 for cheese and yoghurt respectively.
According to the protocol leaflet provided with the ELISA kit, detection limit is 0.005 µg/
L, recovery rate is 95% for spiking of AFM1 (0.01 µg/ L to 0.08 µg/ L) in fatty milk, and
specificity of the ELISA kit is 100% for Aflatoxin M1 (RIDASCREEN® Aflatoxin M1
30/15, 2007).
y = -968.66x + 95.857
R2 = 0.9932
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.05 0.1AFM1 concentration
(microgram/litre)
%A
bs
ora
nc
e
Fig 14: Standard curve from ELISA analysis for cheese.
116
y = -1104.1x + 94.857
R2 = 0.9907
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
AFM1 Concentration (microgram/Kg)
% A
bsor
banc
e
Fig. 15: Standard curve from ELISA analysis for yoghurt.
Total 160 samples of dairy products were analyzed for the contamination of AFM1
which comprised of 80 samples of cheese and yoghurt each. The Table 39 and Table 40
give the details of contamination of AFM1 in cheese and yoghurt samples respectively.
The study revealed that overall 87% samples of cheese and 70% of yoghurt samples were
found contaminated with AFM1
Table 39: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated cheese samples.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ kg) in cheese samples0.036 0.058 0.049 0.048 0.047 0.046 0.0370.011 0.041 0.039 0.028 0.031 0.053 0.0400.033 0.036 0.051 0.029 0.030 0.032 0.0420.034 0.035 0.021 0.055 0.057 0.066 0.0560.061 0.060 0.059 0.064 0.069 0.055 0.0660.062 0.060 0.063 0.044 0.058 0.064 0.0270.028 0.039 0.043 0.045 0.024 0.025 0.0740.072 0.075 0.054 0.073 0.075 0.074 0.0060.049 0.048 0.050 0.065 0.068 0.029 0.0700.071 0.067 0.065 0.054 0.052 0.041 0.038
117
Table 40: Concentration of aflatoxin M1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated yoghurt samples.
Concentration of AFM1 (µg/ kg) in yoghurt samples0.018 0.033 0.055 0.022 0.044 0.025 0.038 0.0400.036 0.039 0.031 0.032 0.034 0.020 0.026 0.0370.041 0.029 0.027 0.007 0.006 0.073 0.006 0.0060.072 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.014 0.070 0.069 0.0650.064 0.057 0.067 0.062 0.060 0.059 0.035 0.0120.043 0.026 0.023 0.024 0.028 0.035 0.030 0.0350.021 0.019 0.017 0.042 0.045 0.047 0.049 0.050
Table 41: Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) contamination (µg/ kg) in cheese and yoghurt.
Commidity→ Cheese Yoghurt
Total samples 80 80
Contaminated samples 70 56
AFM1 contamination% 87.5 70
AFM1 (µg/ kg) mean 0.049 0.036
Std. Deviation 0.016 0.019
Minimum (µg/ kg) 0.006 0.006
Maximum (µg/ kg) 0.075 0.073
There is higher percentage of contamination in the cheese samples as compared to
yoghurt samples. The details of AFM1 contamination in cheese and yoghurt samples are
given in the Table 41. According to the statistical analysis of the data, there exists
difference in the concentration of AFM1 in cheese and yoghurt samples (F= 18.218, p<
0.05). The mean value of contamination level of AFM1 is 0.049 µg/ kg (SD = 0.016) in
cheese samples and 0.036 µg/ kg (SD = 0.019) in yoghurt samples.
The results of AFM1 contamination in cheese and yoghurt were compared with the
studies of other researchers in different countries showing AFM1 contamination in dairy
products. Due to detrimental effect of AFM1 on human health, extensive research on
AFM1 is in process at this time. Large number of surveys are undertaken every year to
know the presence and levels of AFM1 in dairy products in different countries. Elgerbi et
118
al. (2004) analyzed 20 samples of fresh white soft cheese for the presence of AFM1, after
collecting directly from local dairy factories in the north-west of Libya. Out of 20, fifteen
samples (75%) showed the presence of AFM1 in concentration between 0.11 and 0.52 µg/
kg of cheese. Tekinsen and Tekinsen (2005) investigated the occurrence and
concentration range of AFM1 in 60 samples of Van otlu cheese and 50 samples of white
pickle cheese obtained from retail outlets in Van and Hakkari, Turkey. Aflatoxin M1
ranged from 0.16 to 7.26 µg/ kg and 0.10 to 5.20 µg/ kg in Van otlu and white pickle
cheese samples respectively. Two hundred and twenty three samples of dairy products
including 196 cheese samples, marketed in Ankara, Turkey during Sep. 2002 and Sep.
2003 were analyzed for AFM1. The incidence of AFM1 contamination was found 90.58%
(Aycicek et al. 2005). Commonly consumed cheese and yoghurt samples were randomly
collected from supermarkets in Ankara, Turkey and AFM1 contamination was determined
by Gurbay, et al. (2006). Aflatoxin M1 was detected in 11 cheese sample out of 39
samples in the range of .078 µg/ kg to 0.188 µg/ kg. Thirty two out of 40 yoghurt
samples had AFM1 levels between 0.061 and 0.365 µg/ kg. Aflatoxin M1 contamination
was determined by Yapar et al. (2008) in 105 samples of cheese produced in north eastern
Turkey. Seventy five cheese samples (71.42%) were found contaminated with AFM1,
whereas the level of AFM1 in 40 cheese samples (30.08%) was found to exceed the limit
(0.25 µg/ kg) allowed by Turkish Food Codex. Dashti et al. (2009) analyzed a total of 40
cheese samples for the contamination of AFM1, which were collected randomly during
January 2005-March 2007 from Kuwait markets. Results showed 80% contamination
with AFM1 in cheese samples with a range 0.023-0.452 and mean of 0.087 µg/ kg. One
sample was above the regulatory limit (0.25 µg/ kg). The AFM1 contamination in milk
and milk products results from aflatoxin B1 contaminated feedstuffs ingested by lactating
animals. The first step to prevent the transfer of aflatoxins to humans is to control the
feed hygiene and there is need for stringent quality control during processing and
distribution of dairy products and this can be achieved by adopting good manufacturing
practices.
119
4.5. Aflatoxin B1 Contamination in Dairy Feed
Feed of lactating animals has substantial role in the occurrence of AFM1 in milk.
A number of commodities are used as feedstuffs to meet the productive requirements of
dairy animals in addition to the fodder which is mainly required for maintenance
purposes. Aflatoxins are present in feed commodities. The feedstuffs may be divided
into two types i.e., balanced and non-balanced. The balanced feed includes concentrated
feed which may simply be called as concentrate. The non-balanced feedstuffs include
cottonseed cake, wheat bran, maize cake, and bread etc. Moreover, wheat straw and
paddy straw are also used as dry roughages along with fodder. The ingredients of
concentrate are cereals (wheat, maize, rice, millet, barley, oat, and sorghum), wheat bran
(bye-product of flour mills), rice bran and broken-rice (bye-product of rice Sheller),
cottonseed cake (bye-product of oil expeller), cottonseed meal (bye-product of oil solvent
extraction plant), maize gluten meal, sunflower meal, soybean meal, and canola meal etc.
Most of the feedstuffs and concentrate ingredients, under favorable conditions of
temperature and moisture, are prone to the attack of fungi which results in AFB1
contamination (Tanaka et al., 2007; Ammida et al., 2006; Hwang and Lee, 2006; Gao et
al., 2005).
The present study has been designed to explore the AFB1 contamination in
different commodities used as feedstuffs for dairy animals in Pakistan, by using high-
performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Methods including
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), thin layer chromatography (TLC), high-
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry
(LC-MS) have been developed to analyze aflatoxins (Bacaloni et al., 2008; Sodhi and
Kapur Ghai, 2007; Var et al., 2007). High-performance liquid chromatography with
fluorescence detection has been increasingly used in the determination of aflatoxins due
to its accuracy, precision, and ease in automation. HPLC has wide range applications in
analytical chemistry. For analyzing aflatoxins HPLC is a preferred method which may be
used in normal-phase mode or reversed-phase mode. Normal-phase chromatography uses
polar (water or triethyleneglycol) bonded silica surface as stationary phase and a non-
polar mobile phase such as hexane or iso-propylether, whereas reversed-phase
chromatography employs a non-polar stationary phase, mostly a hydrocarbon, and a polar
120
mobile phase such as water, methanol, or acetonitrile (Skoog et al., 2003). For the
analysis of aflatoxins, most of the HPLC columns contain C8 or C18 bonded silica and
the mobile phase may be binary or ternary mixture of polar solvents. The most
commonly used solvent mixture includes deionized water, acetonitrile, and methanol.
The different steps involved in aflatoxin analysis are extraction, clean-up, and
quantitation. In present study the clean-up step was accomplished with the use of
MycoSep® columns. MycoSep® column shortens the time-consuming process of clean-
up. These contain a combination of adsorbents for complex commodities and are
applicable to grains, silages, feed, and food.
The original HPLC chromatograms are shown in Fig. 16. The standard curve was
obtained from AFB1 standards of concentrations from 0.5µg/ L to 15µg/ L and was found
linear (y = -157.13 + 476.08x, y = area, x = amount of AFB1). The linear standard curve
is shown in Fig. 17. The coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.9923. The LOD was
determined as 0.5µg AFB1/ kg of feed. The validation of the method was done by spiking
feed samples with standard AFB1 solution. The spiking was made at the level of 8 µg/
kg, 10 µg/ kg and 15 µg/ kg and recovery was found to be 101%, 92% and 88.6%
respectively.
Concentration of AFB1 in samples of cottonseed cake, concentrate feed, wheat
bran, bread and paddy straw is given in Table 42, Table 43, Table 44, Table 45, and Table
46 respectively. Total 260 samples of feedstuffs were analyzed for the contamination of
AFB1 which comprised of 80 cottonseed cake, 60 concentrate, 36 wheat bran, 24 bread,
24 paddy straw and 36 wheat straw samples. The contamination percentage in cottonseed
cake, concentrate feed, wheat bran, wheat bread, and paddy straw samples is 100%, 91%,
55%, 33%, and 33% respectively. All these feedstuffs are vulnerable to the attack of
moulds. The Fig. 17 shows the growth of moulds on bread. When AFB1 contamination
was compared in old and new samples of feedstuffs, its percentage was higher in old
samples as compared to the new ones. None of the 16 samples of wheat straw was found
contaminated with AFB1. Table 47 gives the detail of contamination of AFB1 in different
commodities. The study revealed that overall 65.7% samples of different feedstuffs were
found contaminated with AFB1. The aflatoxin contaminated feedstuffs ultimately cause
AFM1 contamination in milk.
121
Fig. 16: HPLC chromatograms: (A) Standard (B) Sample, for aflatoxin B1.
122
Fig. 17: The linear standard curve of AFB1 standards with concentrations from 0.5µg/ L
to 15µg/ L.
Table 42: Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated cottonseed cake
samples.
Concentration of AFB1 (µg/ kg) in cottonseed cake samples
232 230 218 616 204 202 262 260 257 255198 196 822 220 199 192 178 177 276 474284 282 230 228 224 223 230 228 263 861233 631 258 257 261 259 15 18 235 1214 13 11 19 16 17 220 410 216 220310 315 202 204 180 185 228 228 225 248243 215 404 250 246 238 232 235 225 190195 215 208 430 226 315 330 179 175 231
Regression standard predicted values of AFB1
2.01.51.0.50.0-.5-1.0
AR
EA
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
y=-157.13 + 476.08x
R2 = 0.9923
123
Table 43: Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated concentrate
samples.
Concentration of AFB1 (µg/ kg) in concentrate samples
7 6 172 171 3 213 214 4 291 190 365164 309 188 337 186 172 171 484 183 404 203200 202 240 235 135 130 150 165 155 160 180175 145 148 211 12 216 218 14 18 15 166230 137 215 185 178 191 168 244 134 142 143
Table 44: Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated wheat bran
samples.
Concentration of AFB1 (µg/ kg) in wheat bran samples
65 64 66 63 132 131 123 121 133 132130 128 10 8 14 160 55 140 145 148
Table 45: Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in bread samples.
Concentration of AFB1 (µg/ kg) in wheat bran samples
27 16 11 1418 24 37 39
Table 46: Concentration of aflatoxin B1 (µg/ kg) in the contaminated paddy straw
samples.
Concentration of AFB1 (µg / kg) in paddy straw samples
45 61 12 1713 46 58 47
124
Table 47: Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) level (µg/ kg) in different feedstuffs.
Sample category Total samples Contaminated samples Mean SD
Concentrate 60 55 176.25 96.24
Cottonseed cake 80 80 242.04 146.71
Wheat bran 36 20 98.40 49.87
Bread 24 8 23.24 10.47
Paddy straw 24 8 37.38 20.27
Wheat straw 36 Nil ND ND
Picture 2: The growth of moulds on bread.
The results of AFB1 contamination in feedstuffs were compared with the studies
of other researchers in different countries showing aflatoxin contamination of feeds and
feedstuffs. In Korea, Han et al. (2006) confirmed the contamination of only one feed
sample out of 249 total samples, at the level of 11µg/ kg, by using HPLC. Martins et al.
(2007) reported a survey on the occurrence of AFB1 in dairy cow’s feed over ten years
125
(1995-2004) in Portugal. The levels of AFB1 above the maximum limit established in
Portugal (5 µg/ kg) for dairy feed were observed in 62 (6.2%) samples with levels ranging
from 5.1 to 74 µg/ kg. A two years survey was conducted by Binder et al. (2007) on
1507 samples sourced from European and Mediterranean countries and 1291 samples
originating from the Asian-Pacific region for the occurrence of mycotoxins in
commodities, feeds, and feed ingredients. Aflatoxin B1 was detected in 54 maize samples
(out of 311 with max. level of 457 µg/ kg), 3 maize gluten meal samples (out of 37 with
max. level of 45 µg/ kg), 3 soybean meal samples (out of 122 with max. level of 45 µg/
kg), 3 rice-bran samples (out of 27 with max. level of 11 µg/ kg), 8 peanut meal samples
(out of 9 with max. level of 381), and 109 finished feed samples (out of 536 with max.
level of 330 µg/ kg). In present study 59.6% feedstuff samples exceeded the US
maximum AFB1 tolerance limit (20 µg/ kg), while 65.7% samples were above the EU
action level for AFB1 (2 µg/ kg).
There is the highest percentage of contamination and level of contamination in
samples of cottonseed cake. According to the statistical analysis of the data, there exists a
difference in the concentration of AFB1 in different feedstuffs (F= 14.709, p< 0.05).
Thus, contamination level varies in different commodities. Cottonseed cake contains the
highest level of AFB1 and almost 80% dairy farmers use cottonseed cake as feedstuff
which should be discouraged in order to check AFB1 contamination. AFB1 contamination
was higher in old samples as compared to the fresh ones. Some old samples did not show
contamination of AFB1 which led to the deduction that if storage conditions were suitable
then there were less chances of AFB1 contamination.
4.6. CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, this study revealed the contamination of AFM1 in milk and milk
products and AFB1 contamination in dairy feed commodities. The main results may be
summarized as following:
1. According to the overall study of AFM1 contamination in raw milk in fourteen
districts of the Punjab province of Pakistan, 99.4% samples showed AFM1
concentration higher than the EU tolerance limit, while 3% samples were higher
in AFM1 contamination than the US tolerance limit.
2. The AFM1 contamination in milk during winter season was found to be the
highest as compared to the AFM1 contamination in other seasons.
126
3. The percentage of AFM1 contamination in milk and level of contamination was
higher in the milk from urban and semi-urban areas as compared to that from rural
areas.
4. The AFM1 contamination was minimal in milk from rural areas.
5. Higher AFM1 contamination was observed in milk from buffaloes belonging to
small herd-size and medium herd-size as compared to AFM1 contamination in
milk from buffaloes belonging to large herd-size.
6. During the study of species of milking animals with respect to AFM1
contamination in milk, buffalo milk and cow milk showed higher AFM1
contamination in milk as compared to the AFM1 contamination in milk of goats,
sheep, and camels.
7. The AFM1 contamination in milk from goats and sheep was found insignificant
and was much below the US as well as EU tolerance limits. Thus the goat milk
and sheep milk from the area under consideration was found safe regarding AFM1
contamination.
8. The AFM1 contamination in camel could not be detected. Thus the camel milk
from the area studied was found to be the safest with respect to AFM1
contamination.
9. Due to the AFB1 contamination, dairy feed plays a major role in the AFM1
contamination in milk. The AFB1 contamination in feed commodities was
investigated and it was concluded that cottonseed cake and concentrate feed were
heavily contaminated with AFB1. The other feed commodities like wheat bran,
bread and straw were also found contaminated with AFB1.
10. Precautions must be taken in the storage of feed commodities. Low moisture
content, low temperature and low humidity conditions should be maintained
during storage because these depress the fungus growth and thus eliminate
aflatoxin contamination.
4.6.1. Implications of Study Results and Elimination of AFM1
Contamination in Milk and Milk Products
Pakistan is an agricultural country and its products should not be limited to the
local market, rather these should be trade oriented products and should be competent in
the international market. The ever changing world has been transferred into a global
127
village where the principle, survival of the fittest is strictly followed. Therefore, to enjoy
any meaningful share in the world trade, the products must meet established international
standards. Pakistan has accepted WTO rules and arrangements should be made for
improvement of quality of its agricultural products so that these might be according to the
international standards as well as safe for the consumers.
The AFM1 is cytotoxic, as shown by the results of in vitro studies in human
hepatocytes, and its acute toxicity in several species is similar to its parent compound
AFB1. According to the studies of carcinogenicity, AFM1 was about one-tenth as potent
as AFB1. The genotoxicity of AFM1 in vitro was found to be similar to that of AFB1 in
some test systems and between one-half and one-sixth of that of AFB1 in others. The
AFM1 contamination of milk and milk products has been found in the area under study
(Maqbool, et al., 2009; Hussain and Anwar, 2008; Hussain et al., 2008). The results of
the present study point to the need for measures to be taken to reduce and control the
AFM1 contamination in milk and milk products. As per results, contamination in buffalo
milk and cow milk is higher and these two species are the main source of milk in this
area. The milk of other species i.e., goat, sheep, and camel is used at limited level in this
area and furthermore the milk from these three species has been declared safe from the
AFM1 contamination point of view (Hussain et al., 2009). So attention should be mainly
focused on the reduction of AFM1 contamination in buffalo milk and cow milk.
Approximately 0.3-6.2% of AFB1 in animal feed is transformed to AFM1
in milk. The best way of controlling AFM1 in milk and milk products is to reduce the
amount of AFB1 in the feed of dairy animals. The concentration AFB1 in dairy feed can
be reduced by good manufacturing practice and good storage practices. Those feedstuffs
should be discarded which are apparently attacked by fungus. Long standing storage of
commodities used as dairy feed should be discouraged. Fresh feedstuffs for milking
animals should be used because during storage fungal growth and mycotoxin
contamination is suspected. In case of storage, aeration is recommended which helps to
maintain low humidity and is responsible for low moisture content; and thus chances of
fungal growth and toxin production are reduced.
As during the study, the cottonseed cake and concentrate feed have been found
heavily contaminated with AFB1, therefore, the use of these two commodities must be
controlled. If the use of these commodities is inevitable, these must be blended with the
commodities which are free from AFB1 contamination, so that the final feed product must
not contain the toxin exceeding the tolerance level.
128
Many studies have proved the effectiveness of toxin binders, used in feed, on the
reduction of carry-over of AFB1 to AFM1 in milk (Diaz, et al., 2004; Galvano et al.,
1996). Now-a-days a number of toxin binders for aflatoxins are available commercially
in Pakistan. A few examples are: Myco-AD (Special Nutrients Inc., USA), Mycofix®
Plus 3.0 (Biomin®, Austria), Mycotox® (Ceva Animal Health, France,). Proper use of
toxin binders is recommended for the feed of milking animals to reduce and control the
AFM1 contamination in milk and milk products. The correct dosage of most toxin
adsorbents in order to be effective is 5 to 20 kg per ton (1000 kg), depending on the level
of contamination.
During the study of AFM1 contamination with respect to herd-size and locality-
wise, the main contamination was observed in medium size herds and in the localities of
urban and semi-urban. Thus the people rearing medium-size herds must be focused. The
areas of urban and semi-urban must get attention. The people rearing milking animals are
not much educated. These people should be informed about the menace of aflatoxin
contamination. This is an era of media and media plays an important role in educating
people and to keep them well informed. Media should be properly used to get the people
informed about aflatoxin contamination and its consequences. Both print media and
electronic media should be utilized for this purpose. NGOs may play their role in this
regard.
Presently the Food Rules and specifications of Pakistan Standards and Quality
Control Authority (PSQCA) make no mention of maximum tolerance limits of aflatoxins
in food and feedstuffs (Pakistan Standard: 3189-1992, 1992; Pakistan Standard: 364-
1991, 1991; Pakistan Standard: 363-1982, 1982; Manual of Food Laws in Pakistan,
2004). In the light of this study, there is need for establishing food legislations governing
maximum tolerance limit of AFB1 in feed commodities for dairy animals and maximum
tolerance limit of AFM1 in milk and milk products in the country. The Government body
which deals and governs the standards in Pakistan is PSQCA. It may adopt US maximum
tolerance limit of 0.5 µg AFM1/ L of milk. This limit is both adequate for the protection
of consumers’ health and reasonably achievable in the country. It will also not restrict
adequate supply of milk for human use.
Analysis of aflatoxins at µg/ L or kg level needs high tech. laboratories equipped
with highly sophisticated instrumentation. Adequate number of laboratories must be
established for proper analysis of aflatoxins in different foods and feed commodities and
129
also for certification purposes, as required by the international trade. There should be
continuous surveillance programs in the country to monitor the occurrence of aflatoxins
regularly in milk and milk products.
130
REFERENCES
Abbas, H. K., Williams, W. P., Windham, G. L., Pringle, H. C. 3rd., Xie, W., & Shier, W.
T. (2002) Aflatoxin and fumonisin contamination of commercial corn (Zea mays)
hybrids in Mississippi. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 50 (18), 5246-
5254.
Abdel-El-Fatah, S. A. (2002) Evaluation of infant’s milk powder for aflatoxin in Kaliubia
Governorate. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 80 (2), 1873-1878.
Abdel-El-Fatah, S. A., Daoud, J. R. & El-Fatah-SA-Abdel (2002) Detection of aflatoxin
M1 in she-camel’s milk in Sinai. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 80 (2),
1865-1871.
Abdulrazzaq, Y. M., Osman, N., Yousif, Z. M., & Al-Falahi, S. (2003) Aflatoxin M1 in
breast-milk of UAE women. Annals of Tropical Paediatrics 23 (3), 173-179.
Agricultural Census Organization (2008) Survey and analysis of milk processing industry
of Pakistan 2005-06. First section, survey of the milk processing industry (p. 13).
Government of Pakistan, Statistics Division. Agricultural Census Organization,
Lahore 54000, Pakistan.
Alborazi, S., Pourabbas, B., Rashidi, M., & Astaneh, B. (2006) Aflatoxin M1
contamination in pasteurized milk in Shiraz (south of Iran). Food control 17 (7),
582-584.
Allcroft, R. & Carnaghan, R. B. A. (1963) Groundnut toxicity: an examination for toxin
in human food products from animals fed toxic groundnut meal. Veterinary
Research 75, 259.
Allcroft, R., Lewis, G., Nabney, J. & Best, P. E. (1966) Metabolism of aflatoxin in sheep:
excretion of the milk toxin. Nature 209, 154.
Aly, S. E. (2002) Distribution of aflatioxins in products and by-products during glucose
production from contaminated corn. Nahrung 46 (5), 341-344.
Ammida, N.H.S., Micheli, L., Piermarini, S., Moscone, D., & Palleschi, G. (2006)
Detection of aflatoxin B1 in barley: comparative study of immunosensor and HPLC.
Analytical letters 39 (8), 1559-1572.
Anonymous (1996) Survey of aflatoxin M1 in farm gate milk. Food Surveillance
information sheet 78, 4.
131
AOAC Official Method 2000.08 (2005) Aflatoxin M1 in liquid milk, immunoaffinity
column by liquid chromatography. Natural Toxins-chapter 49 (pp. 45-47). Official
Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 18th edition, AOAC International.
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-2417, USA.
AOAC Official Method 971.24 (2000) AOAC Official Method 971.24: Aflatoxins in
coconut, copra, and copra meal. Natural Toxins-chapter 49 (pp. 14-15). Official
Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th edition, volume I, AOAC
International, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-2417, USA.
AOAC Official Method 974.17 (1990) Aflatoxin M1 in dairy products, thin-layer
chromatographic method. Natural Poisons-chapter 49 (pp. 1199-1200). Official
Methods of Analysis of the AOAC, 15th edition, AOAC Inc. Arlington, Virginia
22201, USA.
AOAC Official Method 980.21 (2000) Aflatoxin M1 in milk and cheese, thin-layer
chromatographic method. Natural Toxins-chapter 49 (pp. 37-38). Official Methods
of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th edition, volume II, AOAC International.
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-2417, USA.
AOAC Official Method 986.16 (2000) Aflatoxins M1 and M2 in fluid milk, liquid
chromatographic method. Natural Toxins-chapter 49 (pp. 40-42). Official Methods
of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th edition, volume II, AOAC International.
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-2417, USA.
AOAC Official Method 991.20 (1995) Nitrogen (Total) in milk, Kjeldahl Methods.
Dairy products-chapter 33 (pp.10-12). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC
International, 16th edition, volume II. AOAC International, Arlington, Virginia
22201-3301, USA.
AOAC Official Method 994.08 (2000) Aflatoxins in corn, almonds, Brazil nuts, peanuts,
and pistachio nuts, multifunctional column (Mycosep) method. Natural toxins-
chapter 49 (pp. 26-27). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th
edition, volume II, AOAC International, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Applebaum, R. S., Brackett, R. E., Wiesman, D. W., & Marth, E. H. (1982) Aflatoxin:
toxicity to dairy cattle and occurrence in milk and milk products- a review. Journal
of Food Protection 45, 752-777.
Ardic, M., Karakaya, Y., Atasever, M., & Adiguzel, G. (2009) Aflatoxin M1 levels of
Turkish white brined cheese. Food control 20 (3), 196-199.
132
Atanda, A., Oguntubo, A., Adejumo, O., Ikeorah, J., & Akpan, L. (2007) Aflatoxin M1
contamination of milk and ice cream in Abeokuta and Odeda local governments of
Ogun State, Nigeria. Chemosphere 68 (8), 1455-1458.
Attala, M. M., Hassanein, N. M., Al-Beih, A. A., & Youssef, Y. A. (2003) Mycotoxin
production in wheat grains by different Aspergilli in relation to different relative
humidities and storage periods. Nahrung 47 (1), 6-10.
Ayar, A., Sert, D., & Con, A. H. (2007) A study on the occurrence of aflatoxin in raw
milk due to feeds. Journal of Food Safety 27 (2), 199-207.
Aycicek, H., Aksoy, A. & Saygi, S. (2005) Determination of aflatoxin levels in some
dairy and food products which consumed in Ankara, Turkey. Food Control 16 (3),
263-266.
Aycicek, H., Yarsan, E., Sarimehmetoglu, B. & Cakmak, O. (2002) Aflatoxin M1 in white
cheese and butter consumed in Istanbul, Turkey. Veterinary and Human
Toxicology 44 (5), 295-296.
Bacaloni, A., Cavaliere, C., Cucci, F., Foglia, P., Samperi, R., & Lagana, A. (2008)
Determination of aflatoxins in hazelnuts by various sample preparation methods and
Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A
1179 (2), 182-189.
Bahout, A. A., & Moustafa, A. H. (2003) Occurrence of fungi and aflatoxins in yoghurt
marketed in Zagazig city. Assiut Veterinary Medical Journal 49 (96), 195-202.
Bakirci, I. (2001) A study on the occurrence of aflatoxins M1 in milk and milk products
produced in Van province of Turkey. Food Control 12 (1), 47-51.
Balata, M. A. & Bhout, A. A. (1996) Aflatoxin M1 in camel’s milk. Veterinary Medical
Journal Giza 44 (2A), 109-111.
Barrios, M. J., Gualda, M. J., Cabanas, J. M., Medina, L. M. & Jordano, R. (1996)
Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in cheeses from the South of Spain. Journal of Food
Protection 59 (8), 898-900.
Baskaya, R., Aydin, A., Yildiz, A., & Bostan, K. (2006) Aflatoxin M1 levels of some
cheese varieties in Turkey. Medycyna Weterynaryjna 62 (7), 778-780.
Battacone, G., Nudda, A., Palomba, M., Pascale, M., Nicolussi, P. & Pulina, G. (2005)
Transfer of aflatoxin B1 from feed to milk and from milk to curd and whey in dairy
sheep fed artificially contaminated concentrates. Journal of Dairy Science 88,
3063-3069.
133
Belitz, H. -D., Grosch, W., Schieberle, P. (2004) Food Chemistry 3rd revised edition
(pp.505-550). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Benedetti, S., Iametti, S., Bonomi, F. & Mannino, S. (2005) Head space sensor array for
the detection of aflatoxin M1 in raw ewe’s milk. Journal of Food Protection 68 (5),
1089-1092.
Bennett, J. W. & Papa, K. E. (1988) The aflatoxigenic Aspergillus. In: Ingram, D. S.,
Williams, P. A. (Eds.), Genetics of plant Pathogenic Fungi. London, Academic
Press: 264-280.
Bennett, J. W. (1987) Mycotoxins, mycotoxicoses, mycotoxicology, and mycopathalogy.
Mycopathalogia 100, 3-5.
Bennett, J. W., Rubin, P. L., Lee, L. S., & Chen, P. N. (1979) Influence of trace elements
and nitrogen sources on versicolorin production by a mutant strain of Aspergillus
Parasiticus. Mycopathologia 69, 161-166.
Betina, V. (1984) Mycotoxins: Production, Isolation, Separation and Purification.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Oxford, New York, Tokyo.
Bhatnagar, D. & Cleveland, T. E. (1991) Aflatoxin biosynthesis: developments in
chemistry, biochemistry, and genetics. In: Shotwell O. L., Hurburgh, C. R. Jr
(Eds.), Aflatoxin in corn: New perspectives. Ames. Lowa State University Press,
391-405.
Bhatnagar, D. Cleveland, T. E., & Kingston, D. G. I. (1991) Enzymological evidence for
separate pathways for aflatoxins B1, B2 biosynthesis. Biochemistry 30, 4343-4350.
Bhatnagar, D. Cleveland, T. E., & Lillehoj, E. B. (1989) Enzymes in aflatoxins B1
biosynthesis strategies for identifying pertinent genes. Mycopathologia 107, 75-83.
Bhatnagar, D., Ehrlich, K. C., & Cleveland, T. E. (1992) Oxidation-reduction reactions in
biosynthesis of secondary metabolites. In: Bhatnagar, D., Lillehoj, E. B., Arora, D.
K. (Eds.), Handbook of applied mycology: mycotoxins in ecological systems. New
York, Marcel Dekker 1992, 255-286.
Bhatnagar, D., Ullah, A. H. J. & Cleveland, T. E. (1988) Purification and characterization
of a methyl transferase from Aspergillus parsiticus SRRC 163 involved in aflatoxin
biosynthetic pathway. Prep Biochem 18, 321-349.
Bijl, J. P., Van Peteghem, C. H., & Dekeyser, D. A. (1987) Fluorimetric determination of
aflatoxin M1 in cheese. Journal of AOAC 70 (3), 472-475.
134
Binder, E. M., Tan, L. M., Chin, L. J., Handl, J., & Richard, J. (2007) Worldwide
occurrence of mycotoxins in commodities, feeds and feed ingredients. Animal Feed
Science and Technology 137 (3-4), 265-282.
Blance, M., & Karleskind, A. (1981) Contamination of milk and dairy products by M1 in
France. Lait 61, 481-493 (French).
Blanco, J. L., Dominguez, L., Gomez-Lucia, E., Garayzabal, J. F., Garcia, J. A. & Suarez,
G. (1988) Presence of aflatoxin M1 in commercial ultra-high-temperature-treated
milk. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54 (6), 1622-1623.
Blowt, W. P. (1961) Turkey “X” Disease. Turkeys 9, 52, 55-58, 61, 77.
Bognanno, M., Fauci, L. L., Ritieni, A. Tafuri, A., De Lorenzo, A., Micari, P., Renzo, L.
D., Ciappellano, S., Sarullo, V., & Galvano, F. (2006) Survey of the occurrence of
aflatoxin M1 in ovine milk by HPLC and confirmation by MS. Molecular Nutrition
and Food Research 50 (3), 300-305.
Bonessi, M. M., Bortolotti, L., Gandini, G., Biancardi, A., & Romelli, S. (2003) Aflatoxin
M1 survey on EU milk: 1999, 2000, 2002. Industrie Alimentari 42 (425), 504-507.
Brackett, R. E. & Marth, E. H. (1982) Fate of aflatoxins M1 in parmesan and mozzarella
cheese. Journal of Food Protection 19, 551-554.
Brukstiene, D., Jasutiene, I., & Garmiene, G. (2007) Determination of aflatoxin M1 levels
in raw milk and dairy products from the Lithuanian market. Milchwissenschaft 62
(3), 317-319.
Butler, W. H. & Clifford, J. I. (1965) Extraction of aflatoxin from rat liver. Nature 206,
1045.
Calaresu, G., Piras, P., Carta, G., Galarini, R. & Chessa, G. (2006) Estimation of
measurement uncertainty for the determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk using
immunoaffinity clean-up procedures. Accreditation and Quality Assurance 11 (1-
2), 10-16.
Campiglio, A. & Cerutti, G. (1999) Presence of aflatoxins in raw materials of the food
industry. Latte 24 (8), 53-58.
Canton, J. H., Kroes, R., & Van Logten, M. J. (1975) The carcinogenicity of aflatoxin M1
in rainbow trout. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 13 (4), 441-443.
Carnaghan, R. B. A., Hartley, R. D. & O’kelly, J. (1963). Toxicity and fluorescence
properties of the aflatoxins. Nature 200, 1101.
135
Carvajal, M., Bolanos, A., Rojo, F., & Mendez, I. (2003) Aflatoxin M1 in pasteurized and
ultra-pasteurized milk with different fat content in Mexico. Journal of Food
Protection 66 (10), 1885-1892.
Celik, T. H., Sarimehmetoglu, B., & Kuplulu, O. (2005) Aflatoxin M1 contamination in
pasteurized milk. Veterinarski Arhiv 75 (1), 57-65.
Chatterjee, M. & Townsend, C. A. (1996) Evidence for the probable final steps in
aflatoxins biosynthesis. Journal of Organic Chemistry 59, 4424-4429.
Chiavaro, E., Cacchioli, C., Berni, E., & Spotti, E. (2005) Immunoaffinity clean-up and
direct fluorescence measurement of aflatoxin B1 and M1 in pig liver: comparison
with high-performance liquid chromatography determination. Food Additives and
Contaminants 22 (11), 1154-1161.
Choudhary, P. L., Sharma, R. S. & Borkhateria, V. N. (1998) Carry-over of aflatoxin B1
from feed as aflatoxin M1 in milk of Indian cows. Milchwissenschaft 53 (9), 513-
515.
Choudhary, P. L., Sharma, R. S., Borkhatriya, V. N., Murthi, T. N. & Wadodkar, U. R.
(1997) Survey on the levels of aflatoxin M1 in raw and market milk in and around
Anand town. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 50 (2), 156-158.
Chu, F. S. (1991) Detection and determination of mycotoxins. In: Mycotoxins and
Phytoalexins, edited by R. P. Sharma and D. K. Salunkhe, Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Presss, pp. 33-79.
Codex Alimentarius Commission (2001) Comments submitted on the draft maximum
level for Aflatoxin M1 in milk. In Codex committee on food additives and
contaminants 33rd session. Hauge, The Netherlands.
Cohen, H., Lapointe, M., & Fremy, J. M. (1984) Determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk by
liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Journal of AOAC 67 (1), 49-
51.
Colak, H. (2007) Determination of aflatoxin M1 levels in Turkish White and Kashar
cheeses made of experimentally contaminated raw milk. Journal of Food and Drug
Analysis 15 (2), 163-168.
Creppy, E. E. (2002) Update of survey, regulation and toxic effects of mycotoxins in
Europe. Toxicology Letters 127, 19-28.
Cullen, J. M., Reubner, B. H, Hsieh, L. S., Hyde, D. M. & Hsieh, D. S. P. (1987)
Carcinogenicity of dietary aflatoxin M1 in male Fischer rats compare to aflatoxin B1.
Cancer Research 47, 1913-1917.
136
Cupid, B. C., Lightfoot, T. J., Russel, D., Gant, S. J., Turner, P. C., & Dingley, K. H.
(2004) The formation of AFB1-macromolecular adducts in rat and human and
dietary levels of exposure. Food and Chemical Toxicology 42 (4), 559-569.
D’Mello, J. P. F. & MacDonald, A. M. C. (1997) Mycotoxins. Animal Feed Science and
Technology 69, 155-166.
D’Mello, J. P. F., Dacdonald, A. M. C., Postel, D., Dijksma, W. T. P., Dujardin, A., &
Placinta, C. M. (1998) Pesticide use and mycotoxin production in Fusarium and
Aspergillus pathogens. European Journal of Plant Pathology 104, 741-751.
Dagoglu, G., Keles, O. & Yildirim, M. (1995) Investigation of aflatoxin levels in cheese
by ELISA method. Veteriner Fakultesi Farmakoloji ve Toksikoloji 21 (1), 313-317.
Dashti, B., Al-Hamli, S., Alumira, H., Al-Zenki, S., Abbas, A. B., & Sawaya, W. (2009)
Levels of aflatoxin M1 in milk and cheese consumed in Kuwait and occurrence of
total aflatoxin in local and imported animal feed. Food Control 20, 686-690.
De Iongh, H., Vles, R. O. & de Vogel, P. (1965) Detection of aflatoxin in food. In:
Mycotoxins in foodstuffs, edited by G. N. Wogen, P. 235. The M. I. T. Press.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
De Iongh, H., Vles, R. O., & Van Plet, J. G. (1964) Milk of mammals fed an aflatoxin-
containing diet. Nature 202, 466.
De Sylos, C. M., Rodriguez-Amaya, D. B. & Carvalho, P. R. N. (1996) Occurrence of
Aflatoxin M1 in milk and dairy products commercialized in Campinas, Brazil. Food
Additives and Contaminants 13 (2), 169-172.
Decastelli, L., Lai, J., Gramaglia, M., Nachtmann, C., Oldano, F., Ruffier, M., Sezian, A.
& Bandirola, C. (2007) aflatoxins occurrence in milk and feed in Northern Italy
during 2004-2005. Food Control 18 (10), 1263-1266.
Deveci, O. (2007) Changes in the concentration of aflatoxin M1 during manufacture and
storage of White Pickled cheese. Food Control 18 (9), 1103-1107).
Deveci, O., & Sezgin, E. (2005) Aflatoxin M1 levels of skim milk powders produced in
Turkey. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis 13 (2), 139-142 + 194.
Deveci, O., & Sezgin, E. (2006) Changes in concentration of aflatoxin M1 during
manufacture and storage of skim milk powder. Journal of Food Protection 69 (3),
682-685.
Dhand, N. K., Joshi, D.Y. & Jand, S. K. (1998) Aflatoxin residues in milk and milk
products. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 51 (2), 129-131.
137
Diaz, D. E., Hagler Jr., W. M., Blackwelder, J. T., Eve, J. A., Hopkins, B. A., Anderson,
K. L., Jones, F. T. & Whitlow, L. W. (2004) Aflatoxin Binders II: Reduction of
aflatoxin M1 in milk by sequestering agents of cows consuming aflatoxin in feed.
Mycopathologia 157, 233-241.
Diaz, G. J., & Espitia, E. (2006) Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in retail milk samples from
Bogota, Colombia. Food Additives and Contaminants 23 (8), 811-815.
Diaz, S., Domingues, L., Prieta, J., Blanco, J. L., & Moreno, M. A. (1995) Application of
diaphasic dialysis membrane procedure for surveying occurrence of aflatoxins M1 in
commercial milk. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 43, 2678-12680.
Diop, Y., Ndiaye, B., Diouf, A., Fall, M., Thiaw, C., Thiam, A., Barry, O., Ciss, M., &
Ba, D. (2000) Contamination by aflatoxins of local peanut oils prepared in Senegal.
Ann. Pharm. Fr. 58 (6 suppl), 470-474. (French).
Domagala, J. & Kisza, J. (1996) Incidence of aflatoxins and their precursors in feeds and
in milk. Acta Academiae Agriculturae ac Technicae Olstenensis, -Technologia
Alimentorum 29, 105-113.
Domagala, J., Kisza, J., Bluthgen, A. & Heeschen, W. (1997) Contamination of milk with
aflatoxin M1 in Poland. Milchwissenschaft 52 (11), 631-633.
Dragacci, S. & Fremy, J. M. (1996) Application of immunoaffinity column cleanup to
aflatoxin M1 determination and survey in cheese. Journal of Food Protection 59
(9), 1011-1013.
Dragacci, S., Grosso, F., & Gilbert, J. (2001) Immunoaffinity column clean-up with
liquid chromatography for determination of aflatoxin M1 in liquid milk:
Collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 84 (2), 437-443.
Dutton, F. A., & Kinsey, A. (1996) A note on the occurrence of mycotoxins in cereals and
animal feedstuffs in Kwazulu Natal, South Africa 1984-1993. South African
Journal of Animal Sciences 26 (2), 53-57.
Dutton, M. F. (1988) Enzymes and aflatoxin biosynthesis. Microbiol Rev 52, 274-295.
Egan, H., Kirk, R.S. & Sawyer, R. (1981). Dairy products I. In: H. Egan, R.S. Kirk &
R.Sawyer, (Eds.), Pearson’s Chemical Analysis of Foods, 8th ed. (pp. 432-473).
England: Longman Scientific & Technical.
Elgerbi, A. M., Aidoo, K. E., Candlish, A. A. G., & Tester, R. F. (2004) Occurrence of
aflatoxin M1 in randomly selected North African milk and cheese samples. Food
Additives and Contaminants 21 (6), 592-597.
138
Eskin, N. A. M. (1990) Biochemistry of Foods, 2nd ed. (pp. 205-236). San Diego, USA:
Academic Press Inc.
Esqueda-Valle, M., Higuera-Ciapara, I., Nieblas, J., Valle, M. E. & Ciapra, I. H. (1995)
Aflatoxin M1 in commercial milk in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. Revista
Mexicana de Micologia 11, 179-183 (Spanish).
Etzel. R. A. (2002) Mycotoxins. The Journal of the American Medical Association 287
(4), 425-427.
European Commission (2006) Commission Regulation of 19 December 2006, setting
maximum levels of certain contaminants in foodstuffs (Text with EEA relevance),
2006/1881/EC. In: Official Journal, L364, 19/12/2006, pp. 5-24.
FDA (1994) Sec. 683.100. Action Levels for Aflatoxins in Animal Feeds (CPG
7126.33); www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgvet/cpg683-100.html.
Fehr, P. M., Bernage, L., & Vassilopoulis, V. (1971) Effect of consumption of peanut
oilcake polluted with Aspergillus flavus in lactating ruminants. Lait. 48, 377-391
(French).
Felicia, W. U. (2004) Mycotoxin risk assessment for the purpose of setting international
regulatory standards. Environmental Science and Technology 38 (15), 4049-4055.
Ferguson-Foos, J., & Warren, J. D. (1984) Improved clean-up for liquid chromatographic
analysis and fluorescent detection of aflatoxins M1 and M2 in fluid milk products
Journal of AOAC 67, 1111-1114.
Ferreira-Castro, F. L., Aquino, A., Greiner, R., Ribeiro, D. H. B., Reis, T. A. & Correa,
B. (2007) Effects of gamma radiation on maize samples contaminated with
Fusarium verticillioides . Applied Radiation and Isotopes 65, 927-933.
Finoli, C. & Vecchio, A. (2003) Occurrence of aflatoxins in feedstuff, sheep milk and
dairy products in Western Sicily. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2 (3), 191-196.
Finoli, C. & Vecchio, A. (1997) Aflatoxin M1 in goat dairy products. Microbiology,
-aliments, -Nutrition 15 (1), 47-52.
Fremy, J. M., Gautier, J. P., Herry, M. P., Terrier, C., & Calet, C. (1979) Effects of
ammoniation on the ‘carry-over’ of aflatoxins into bovine milk. Food Additives
and Contaminants 5 (1), 39-44.
Fremy, J. M. & Roiland, J. C. (1979) Appearance of aflatoxin M1during the manufacture
of Camembert cheese. Annales de la nutrition et de l”alimentation 33 (5), 619-630
(French).
139
Fritz, W., Donath, R. & Engst, R. (1977) Determination and occurrence of aflatoxin M1
and B1 in milk and dairy products. Die Nahrung 21 (1), 79-84 (German).
Frobish, R. A., Bradley, B. D., Wagner, D. D., Long-Bradley, P. E., & Hairston, H.
(1986) Aflatoxin residues in milk of dairy cows after ingestion of naturally
contaminated grain. Journal of Food Protection 49, 781-785.
Fu, Y. M. (1996) Determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk and milk powder using immuno-
affinity column and fluorescence measurement. Journal of Food and Drug
Analysis 4 (2), 181-183.
Gallo, A., Moschini, M., & Masoero, F. (2008) Aflatoxins absorption in the gastro-
intestinal tract and in vaginal mucosa in lactating dairy cows. Italian Journal of
Animal Science 7 (1), 53-63.
Gallo, P., Salzillo, A., Rossini, C., Urbani, V., & Serpe, L. (2006) Aflatoxin M1
determination in milk: method validation and contamination levels in samples from
Southern Italy. Italian Journal of Food Science 18 (3), 251-259.
Galvano, F., Galofaro, V. & Galvano, G. (1996) Occurrence and stability of aflatoxin M1
in milk and milk products: a worldwide review. Journal of Food Protection 59
(10), 1079-1090.
Galvano, F., Galofaro, V., De-Angelis, A., Galvano, M., Bognanno, M. & Galvano, G.
(1998) Survey of the occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in dairy products marketed in Italy.
Journal of Food Protection 61 (6), 738-741.
Galvano, F., Galofaro, V., Ritieni, A., Bognanno, M., De Angelis, A. & Galvano, G.
(2001) Survey of the occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in dairy products marketed in Italy:
second year of observation. Food Additives and Contaminants 18 (7), 644-646.
Galvano, F., Pietri, A., Bertuzzi, T, Fusconi, G. Galvano, M., Piva, A., & Piva, G. (1996)
Reduction of carry-over of aflatoxin from cow feed to milk by addition of activated
carbons. Journal of Food Protection 59, 551-554.
Gao, J., Ni, Y., Wan, H., Li, G., & Liu, Z. (2005) Determination of aflatoxins in maize by
combining high performance liquid chromatography with florisil column. Chinese
Journal of Ecology 24 (8), 967-969.
Garg, M. R., Murthy, T. N., Bhanderi, B. M., & Sherasia, P. L. (2004) Excretion of
aflatoxin B1 into milk as M1 in cows and buffaloes. Indian Veterinary Journal 81
(3), 334-335.
140
Garrido, N. S., Iha, M. H., Santos Ortoloni, M. R. & Duarte Favaro, R. M. (2003)
Occurrence of aflatoxins M1 and M2 in milk commercialized in Ribeirao Preto-SP,
Brazil. Food Additives and Contaminants 20 (1), 70-73.
Geisen, R. (1998) PCR methods for the detection of mycotoxin-producing fungi. In:
Bridge, P. D., Arora, D. K., Reddy, C. A., and Elander, R. P. (Eds.) Applications of
PCR in Mycology, Wallingford, CAB International, 243-266.
Ghanem, I. & Orfi, M. (2009) aflatoxin M1 in raw, pasteurized and powdered milk
available in the Syrian market. Food Control 20 (6), 603-605.
Ghiasian, S. A., Maghsood, A. H., Neyestani, T. R., & Mirhendi, S. H. (2007) Occurrence
of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk during the summer and winter seasons in Hamedan,
Iran. Journal of Food Safety 27 (2) 188-198.
Govaris, A., Roussi, V., Koidis, P. A., & Botsoglou, N. A. A. (2001) Distribution and
stability of aflatoxin M1 during processing, ripening and storage of Telemes cheese.
Food Additives and Contaminants 18, 437-443.
Govaris, A., Roussi, V., Koidis, P. A., & Botsoglou, N. A. A. (2002) Distribution and
stability of aflatoxin M1 during production and storage of yoghurt. Food Additives
and Contaminants 19, 1043-1050.
Groopman, J. D. & Donahue, K. F. (1988) Aflatoxin, a human carcinogen: determination
in foods and biological samples by mono-colonial antibody affinity
chromatography. Journal of Association of Official Analytical Chemists 71, 861-
867.
Gunsen, U. & Buyukyoruk, I. (2002) Aflatoxins in retail food products in Bursa, Turkey.
Veterinary and Human Toxicology 44 (5), 289-290.
Gunsen, U. & Buyukyoruk, I. (2003) Determination of bacteriological qualities and
aflatoxin M1 levels of commercially available fresh kashar cheeses. Turkish Journal
of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 27 (4), 821-825.
Gurbay, A., Aydin, S., Girgin, G., Engin, A. B., & Sahin, G. (2006) Assessment of
aflatoxin M1 levels in milk in Ankara, Turkey. Food control 17 (1), 1-4.
Gurbay, A., Engin, A., B., Caglayan, A., & Sahin, G. (2006) Aflatoxin M1 levels in
commonly consumed cheese and yoghurt samples in Ankara, Turkey. Ecology of
Food and Nutrition 45 (6), 449-459.
Han, E. –M., Park, H. R., Hu, S. J., Kwon, K. –S., Lee, H., Ha, M. –S., Kim, K. –M., Ko,
E. –J., Ha, S. –D., Chun, H. S., Chung, D. –H., & Bae, D. –H. (2006) Monitoring of
141
aflatoxin B1 in livestock feeds using ELISA and HPLC. Journal of Microbiology
and Biotechnology 16 (4), 643-646.
Hansen, T.J. (1990) Affinity column cleanup and direct fluorescence measurement of
aflatoxin M1 in raw milk. Journal of Food Protection 53 (1), 75-77.
Harvey, R. B., Phillips, T. D., Ellis, J. A., Kubena, L. F., Huff, W. E., & Petersen, H. D.
(1991) Effects on aflatoxin M1 residues in milk by addition of hydrated sodium
calcium aluminosilicate to aflatoxin –contaminated diet of dairy cows. American
Journal of Veterinary Research 53, 1966-1970.
Heathcote, J. G., & Hibbert, J. R. (1978) Aflatoxins: Chemical and Biological Aspects.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Oxgord, New York, CH. 4, P.54.
Hendry, K.M., & Cole, E.C. (1993). A review of mycotoxins in indoor air. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health 38, 183-198.
Herzallah, S. M. (2009) Detemination of aflatoxins in eggs, milk, meat and meat products
using HPLC fluorescent and UV detectors. Food Chemistry 114 (3), 1141-1146.
Hohler, D. (2000) A brief survey on important mycotoxins and possible detoxification
methods. Feed Tech 4 (5-6), 44-46.
Holcomb, M., Wilson, D. M., Trucksess, M. W. & Thompson, H. C., Jr, (1992)
Determination of aflatoxins in food products by chromatography. Journal of
Chromatography 624, 341-352.
Holzapfel, C. W., Steyn, P. S. & Purchase, I. F. H. (1966) Isolation of structure of
aflatoxins M1 and M2. Tetrahedron Letters, p. 2799.
Hussain, I. & Anwar, J. (2008). A study on contamination of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk in
the Punjab province of Pakistan. Food Control 19 (4), 393-395.
Hussain, I., Anwar, J., Asi, M. R. Munawar, M. A., & Kashif, M. (2009) Aflatoxin M1
contamination in milk from five dairy species in Pakistan. Food Control xxx
(2009), in press.
Hussain, I., Anwar, J., Munawar, M. A., & Asi, M. R. (2008) Variation of levels of
aflatoxin M1 in raw milk from different localities in the central areas of Punjab,
Pakistan. Food Control 19 (12), 1126-1129.
Hwang, J. -H., & Lee, K. -G. (2006) Reduction of aflatoxin B1 contamination in wheat by
various cooking treatments. Food Chemistry 98 (1), 71-75.
IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer. (1993) Aflatoxins. Some naturally
occurring substances: food items and constituents, heterocyclic aromatic amines and
142
mycotoxins. IARC monograph on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans,
56, 245-395, IARC, Lyon, France: World Health Organization.
IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2002) Aflatoxins. IARC
Monograph on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, 82, 171, IARC,
Lyon, France: World Health Organization.
Ioannou-kakouri, E., Aletrari., M., Christou, E., Hadjioannou Ralli, A., Koliou, A. &
Akkelidou, D. (1999) Surveillance and control of aflatoxins B1, B2 , G1, G2, and M1
in foodstuffs in the Republic of Cyprus: 1992-1996. Journal of AOAC
International 82 (4), 883-892.
Jacobson, W. C., Harmeyer, W. C., & Wiseman, H.G. (1971) Determination of aflatoxins
B1 and M1 in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 54, 21-24.
Jahn, F. & Rothe, H. (1995) The situation of residues in milk and milk products
manufactured in Saxony. Deutsche Milchwirtschaft 46 (25), 1383-1386 (German).
Jasutiene, I., Garmiene, G., & Kulikauskiene, M. (2006) Pasteurisation and fermentation
effects on aflatoxin M1 stability. Michwissenschaft 61 (1), 75-79.
Jay, J. M. (1992). Modern Food Microbiology (PP. 1-701). New York: Chapman and
Hall.
Jensen, G. K., & Nielsen, P. (1982) Reviews in the progress of dairy science: Milk
powder and recombination of milk and milk products. Journal of Dairy Research
19, 515.
Johansson, A. S., Whitaker, T. B., Giesbrecht, F. G., Hagler, W. M., Jr, Young, J. H.
(2000c) Testing Shelled corn for aflatoxin, Part III: Evaluating the performance of
aflatoxin sampling plans. Journal of AOAC International 83, 1279-1284.
Johansson, A. S., Whitaker, T. B., Giesbrecht, F.G., Hagler, W. M., Jr, Young, J. H.
(2000b) Testing Shelled corn for aflatoxin, Part II: Modeling the observed
distribution of aflatoxin test results. Journal of AOAC International 83, 1270-1278.
Johansson, A. S., Whitaker, T. B., Hagler, W. M., Jr, Giesbrecht, F. G., Young, J. H.,
Browman, D. T. (2000a) Testing Shelled corn for aflatoxin, Part I: Estimation of
variance components. Journal of AOAC International 83, 1264-1269.
Kamber, U. (2005) Aflatoxin M1 contamination of some commercial Turkish cheeses
from markets in Kars, Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 14 (11), 1046-
1049.
143
Kamkar, A. (2002) Study of the contamination of UHT milks with aflatoxin M1 in the city
of Tehran. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran 57
(4), 5-8.
Kamkar, A. (2005) A study on the occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk produced in
Sarab city of Iran. Food Control 16 (7), 593-599.
Kamkar, A. (2006) A study on the occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in Iranian Feta cheese.
Food Control 17 (10), 768-775.
Kamkar, A., Karim, G., Shojaee Aliabadi, F., & khaksar, R. (2008) Fate of aflatoxin M1 in
Iranian white cheese processing. Food and Chemical Toxicology 46 (6), 2236-
2238.
Kaniou-Grigoriadou, I., Eleftheriadou, A., Mouratidou, T., & Katikou, P. (2005)
determination of aflatoxin M1 in ewe’s milk samples and the produced curd and
Feta cheese. Food Control 16 (3), 257-261.
Kim, E. K., Shon, D. H., Ryu, D., Park, J. W., Hwang, H. J. & Kim, Y. B. (2000)
Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in Korean dairy products determined by ELISA and
HPLC. Food Additives and Contaminants 17 (1), 59-64.
Kpodo, K., Thrane, U., & Hald, B. (2000) Fusaria and Fumonisins in maize from Ghana
and their co-occurrence with aflatoxins. International Journal of Food
Microbiology 61, 147-57.
Kusumoto, K. & Hsieh, D. P. (1996) Purification and characterization of the esterases
involved in aflatoxins biosynthesis. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 8, 804-810.
Lee, J. E., Kwak, B. M., Ahn, J. H., & Jeon, T. H. (2009) Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in
raw milk in South Korea using an immunoaffinity column and liquid
chromatography. Food Control 20 (2), 136-138.
Lee, Y. –W. (1996) Detection of aflatoxin M1 in cow’s milk by enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay. Korean Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
24 (5), 630-635.
Lin, B. K. & Andeson, J. A. (1992) Purification and properties of versiconal cyclase from
Aspergillus parsiticus. Arch Biochem Biophys 293, 67-70.
Lin, L. -C., Liu, F. –M., Fu, Y. –M., & Shih, D. Y. –C. (2004) Survey of aflatoxin M1
contamination of dairy products in Taiwan. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis 12
(2), 154-160.
Lopez, C. E., Ramos, L. L., Ramadan, S. S. & Bulacio, L. C. (2003) Presence of aflatoxin
M1 in milk for human consumption in Argentina. Food Control 14 (1), 31-34.
144
Lopez, C., Ramos, L., Ramadan, S., Rodriguez, F. & Bulacio, L. (1998) Detection of
aflatoxin M1 in milk samples. Revista Argentina de Micologia 21 (3), 4-9
(Spanish).
Lopez,C., Ramos, L., Ramadan, S., Bulacio, L.S., & Perez, J. (2001) Distribution of
aflatoxin M1 in cheese obtained from milk artificially contaminated. International
Journal of Food Microbiology 64, 211-215.
Lopez-Diaz, T. M., Roman-Blanco, C., Gracia-Arias, M. T., Gracia-Fernandez. M. C. &
Gracia-Lopez, M. L. (1996) Mycotoxins in two Spanish cheese varities.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 30 (3), 391-395.
Manetta, A. C., Giammarco, M., Giuseppe, L. D., Fusaro,I., Gramenzi, A., Formigoni, A.,
Vignola, G., Lambertini, L. (2009) Distribution of aflatoxin M1 during Grana
Padano cheese production from naturally contaminated milk. Food Chemistry 113,
595-599.
Manetta, A. C., Giuseppe, L. D., Giammarco, M., Fusaro, I., Simonella, A., Gramenzi,
A., & Formigoni, A. (2005) High-performance liquid chromatography with post-
column derivatisation and fluorescence detection for sensitive determination of
aflatoxin M1 in milk and cheese. Journal of Chromatography A 1083 (1), 219-222.
Manual of Food Laws in Pakistan (2004) Pure Food Rules, 1965. In: Manual of Food
Laws in Pakistan, 2004 Ed. (pp. 83-161), Lahore 54000, Pakistan: Irfan Law Book
House.
Maqbool, U., Anwar-Ul-Haq & Ahmad, M. (2009) ELISA determination of aflatoxin M1
in milk and dairy products in Pakistan. Toxicological and Environmental
Chemistry 91 (2), 241-249.
Markaki, P. & Melissari, E. (1997) Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in commercial pasteurized
milk determined with ELISA and HPLC. Food Additives and Contaminants 14 (5),
451-456.
Martins, H. M., Guerra, M. M. M., & Bernardo, F. M. A. (2007) Occurrence of aflatoxin
B1 in dairy cow’s feed over 10 years in Portugal (1995-2004). Rev Iberoam Micol
24, 69-71.
Martins, M. L. L. & Martins, H. M. L. (1995) Occurrence of aflatoxins, ochratoxin A.,
sterigmatocystin and Patulin in Portuguese cheese. Veterinaria Tecnica 5 (1), 18-22
(Portuguese).
145
Martins, M. L., & Martins, H. M. (2000) Aflatoxin M1 in raw and ultra high temperature-
treated milk commercialized in Portugal. Food Additives and Contaminants 17
(10), 871-874.
Martins, M. L., & Martins, H. M. (2004) Aflatoxin M1 in yoghurts in Portugal.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 91 (3), 315-317.
Martins, M. L., Martins, H. M., & Bernardo, F. (2001) Aflatoxins in spices marketed in
Portugal. Food Additives and Contaminants 18 (4), 315-319.
Masri, M. S., Page, J. R., & Gracia, V. C. (1968) Analysis for aflatoxin M1 in milk.
Journal of Association of Official Analytical Chemists 51, 594-600.
Masri, M. S., Page, J. R., & Gracia, V. C. (1969) Modification of method for aflatoxins in
milk. Journal of Association of Official Analytical Chemists 52, 641-643.
Matsushima, K. Ando, Y., Hamasaki, T. & Yabe, K. (1994) Purification and
characterization of two versiconal hemiacetal acetate reductase involved in
aflatoxins biosynthesis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 60, 2561-2567.
McKinney,J. D. (1972) Determination of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk: A modified Jacobson,
Harmeyer, and Wiseman method. Journal of American and Oil Chemical Society
49, 444-445.
Meerarani, S., Ramadass, P., Padmanaban, V. D. & Nachimuthu, K. (1997) Incidence of
aflatoxin M1 in milk samples around Chennai (Madras) city. Journal of Food
Science and Tecnology, Mysore 34 (6), 506-508.
Meucci, V., Soldani, G., Razzuoli, E., & Massart, F. (2008) Mycotoxins occurrence in
Italian formula milk. Toxicology letters 180 (1), S192.
Meyer, L. H. (1987) Food Chemistry (pp. 293-215). Delhi, India: CBS publishers and
distributors.
Mitchell, E. (1996) Survey of aflatoxin M1 in milk powder. Food Safety Northern Ireland
Surveillance Bulletin 6, p. 6.
Mohammadi, H., Alizadeh, M., Bari, M. R., Khosrowshahi, A., & Tajik, H. (2008)
Minimization of aflatoxin M1 content in Iranian white brine cheese. International
Journal of Dairy Technology 61 (2), 141-145.
Mortimer, D. N., Gilbert, J., & Shepherd, M. J. (1987) Rapid and highly sensitive
analysis of aflatoxin M1 in liquid and powdered milks using affinity column clean-
up. Journal of Chromatography 407, 393-398.
Moss, M.O. (1996) Mycotoxins. Mycol Res 100, 513-523.
146
Munksgaard, L., Larsen, J., Werner, H., Andersen, P. E., & Viuf, B. T. (1987) Carry-over
of aflatoxin from cow’s feed to milk and milk products. Milchwissenschaft 42, 165-
167.
Nachtmann, C., Gallina, S., Rastelli, M., Ferro, G. L., & Decastelli, L. (2007) Regional
monitoring plan regarding the presence of aflatoxin M1 in pasteurized and UHT
milk in Italy. Food Control 18 (6), 623-629.
Newsome, W. H. (1987) Potential and advantages of immunochemical methods for
analysis of foods. Journal of Association of Analytical Chemists 69, 919-923.
Nuryono, N., Agus, A., Wedhastri, S., Maryudani, Y. B., Sigit Setyabudi, F. M. C.,
Bohm, J. & Razzazi-Fazeli, E. (2009) A limited survey of aflatoxin M1 in milk from
Indonesia by ELISA. Food Control 20 (8), 721-724.
Offiah, N. & Adesiyun, A. (2007) Occurrence of aflatoxins in peanuts, milk, and animal
feed in Trinidad. Journal of Food Protection 70 (3), 771-775.
Oliveira, C. A. F., & Ferraz, J. C. O. (2007) Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in pasteurized,
UHT milk and milk powder from goat origin. Food control 18 (4), 375-378.
Oliveira, C. A. F., Germano, P. M. L., Bird, C. & Pinto C. A. (1997) Immunochemical
assessment of aflatoxin M1 in powder consumed by infants in Sao Paulo Brazil.
Food Additives and Contaminants 14 (1), 7-10.
Oruc, H. H. & Sonal, S. (2001) Determination of aflatoxin M1 levels in cheese and milk
consumed in Bursa, Turkey. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 43 (5), 292-292.
Oruc, H. H., Cibik, R., Yilmaz, E., & Gunes, E. (2007) Fate of aflatoxin M1 in Kashar
cheese. Journal of Food Safety 27 (1), 82-90.
Oruc, H. H., Cibik, R., Yilmaz, E., & Kalkanli, O. (2006) Distribution and stability of
aflatoxin M1 during processing and ripening of traditional white pickled cheese.
Food Additives and Contaminants 23 (2), 190-195.
Oruc, H. H., Kalkanli, O., Cengiz, M., & Sonal, S. (2005) Aflatoxin M1 in raw milks
collected from plain and mountain villages in Bursa, Turkey. Milchwissenschaft 60
(1), 71-72.
Oveisi, M. –R., Jannat, B., Sadeghi, N., Hajimahmoodi, M., & Nikzad, A. (2007)
Presence of aflatoxin M1 in milk and infant milk products in Tehran, Iran. Food
control 18 (10), 1216-1218.
Pakistan Livestock Census (2006) Section second. Livestock population and domestic
poultry birds by administrative unit (p. 1). Pakistan Livestock Census 2006,
147
Government of Pakistan, Statistics Division. Agricultural Census Organization,
Lahore 54000, Pakistan.
Pakistan Standard: 3189-1992 (1992) Pakistan standard specification for flavoured milk.
Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority, Standards Development Centre,
Saddar, Karachi 74400, Pakistan.
Pakistan Standard: 363-1982 (1982) Pakistan standard specification for milk powder.
Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority, Standards Development Centre,
Saddar, Karachi 74400, Pakistan.
Pakistan Standard: 364-1991 (1991) Pakistan standard specification for condensed milk.
Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority, Standards Development Centre,
Saddar, Karachi 74400, Pakistan.
Park, D. L., Whitaker, T. B., Giesbrecht, F. G., & Njapau, H. (2000) Performance of three
pneumatic probe samplers and four analytical methods used to estimate aflatoxins in
bulk cottonseed. Joural of AOAC International 83, 1247-1251.
Payne, G. A. & Brown, M. P. (1998) Genetics and physiology of aflatoxin biosynthesis.
Annu Rev Phytopathol 36, 329-362.
Peraica, M., Radic, B., Lucic, A., & Pavlovic, M. (1999) Toxic effects of mycotoxins in
humans. Bull. W.H.O. 77, 754-766.
Pestka, J. J. (1988) Enhanced surveillance of food-borne mycotoxins by immunochemical
assay. Journal of Association of Official Analytical Chemists 71, 1075-1081.
Pettersson, H., Bertilsson, L., & Wennberg, O. (1989) Carry-over of aflatoxin from dairy
cattle feed to milk. World Association of Veterinary Food Hygienists Symposium,
Stockholm, July 2-7, Proceeding, 97-102.
Pietri, A., Bertuzzi, T., Bertuzzi, P. & Piva, G. (1997) Aflatoxin M1 occurrence in
samples of Grana Padano cheese. Food Additives and Contaminants 14, 341-344.
Pietri, A., Bertuzzi, T., Moschini, M. & Piva, G. (2003) Aflatoxin M1 occurrence in milk
samples destined for Parmigiano Reggiano cheese production. Italian Journal of
Food Science 15 (2), 301-306.
Pitt, J. I. (2000) Toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins. Br Med Bull. 56, 184-192.
Piva, G., Pietri, A., Galazzi, L. & Cuto, O. (1988) Aflatoxin M1 occurrence in dairy
products marketed in Italy. Food Additives and Contaminants 5 (2), 303-308.
Polichronaki, N., Paul, C., Turner, P. C., Mikkanen, H., Gong, Y., Amra, H., Abdel-
Wahhab, M., & El-Nezami, H. (2006) Determinants of aflatoxin M1 in breast milk
148
in selected group of Egyptian mothers. Food Additives and Contaminants 23 (7),
700-708.
Polzhofer, K. (1977) Determination of aflatoxins in milk and milk products. Zeitschrift
fur Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und-Forschung 163 (3), 175-177 (German).
Prado, G., De Oliveira, M. S., De Carvalho, E. P., Veloso, T, De Sousa, L. A. F.,
Cardoso, A. C. F., De Oliveira, M. S., De Carvalho, E. P., & De Sousa, L. A. F.
(2001) Aflatoxin M1 in soft and parmesan cheese by immunoaffinity column and
liquid chromatography. Revista do Instituto Adolfo Lutz 60 (2), 147-151
(Portuguese).
Prasongsidh, B. C., Sturgess, R., Skurray, G. R. & Bryden, W. L. (1999) Fate of
Cyclopiazonic acid in Cheddar cheese. Milchwissenschaft 54, 200-203.
Price, R. L., Paulson, J. H., Lough, O. G., Gingg, C., & Kurtz, A. G. (1985) Aflatoxin
conversion by dairy cattle consuming naturally-contaminated whole cottonseed.
Journal of Food Protection 48, 11-15.
Purchase, I. F. H. (1967) Acute toxicity of aflatoxins M1 and M2 in one-day-old
ducklings. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 5, 339-342.
Purchase, I. F. H., & Steyn, M. (1967) Estimation of aflatoxin M1 in milk. Journal of
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 363-364.
Rastogi, S., Dwivedi, P. D., Khanna, S. K., & Das, M. (2004) Detection of aflatoxin M1
contamination in milk and infant milk products from Indian markets by ELISA.
Food Control 15 (4), 287-290.
Reddy, S. V., Mayi, D. K., Reddy, M. U., Thirumala-Devi, K., & Reddy, D. V. (2001)
Aflatoxin B1 in different grades of chillies (Capsicum annum L.) in India as
determined by indirect competitive-ELISA. Food Additives and Contaminants 18
(6), 553-558.
RIDASCREEN® Aflatoxin M1 30/15 (2007) Enzyme immunoassay for the quantitative
analysis of aflatoxins M1. RIDASCREEN® Aflatoxin M1 30/15. Instruction booklet
(pp.1-18). R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany.
Rodriguez-Velasco, M. L., Calonge-Delso, M. M., & Ordonez-Escudero, D. (2003)
ELISA and HPLC determination of aflatoxin M1 in raw cow’s milk. Food
Additives and Contaminants 20 (3), 276-280.
Rojas, V., Martin, M. C., & Quinzada, M. (2000) Aflatoxins in newly harvested corn in
Panama. Rev. Med. Panama 25, 4-7 (Spanish).
149
Rosi, A., Borsari, A., Lasi, G., Lodi, S., Galanti, A., Fava, A., Girotti, S., & Ferri, E.
(2007) Aflatoxin M1 in milk: reliability of the immunoenzymatic assay.
International Dairy Journal 17 (5), 429-435.
Rossi, J., Cataluffi, L. & Gobbetti, M. (1996) Presence of aflatoxin M1 in cow and ewe
milk from some farms in Umbria. Industria del Latte 32 (1-2), 37-41 (Italian).
Roussi, V., Govaris, A., Varagouli, A. and Botsoglou, N. A. (2002) Occurrence of
aflatoxin M1 in raw and market milk commercialized in Greece. Food Additives
and Contaminants 19 (9), 863-868.
Sadeghi, N., Oveisi, M. R., Jannat, B., Hajimahmoodi, M., Bonyani, H. & Jannat, F.
(2009) Incidence of aflatoxin M1 in human breast milk in Tehran, Iran. Food
Control 20 (1), 75-78.
Saitanu, K. (1997) Incidence of aflatoxin M1 in Thai milk products. Journal of Food
Protection 60 (8), 1010-1012.
Salem, D. A. (2002) Natural occurrence of aflatoxins in feedstuffs and milk of dairy
farms in Assiut province, Egypt. Wiener Tierarztliche Monatsschrift 89 (2), 86-91.
Sarimehmetoglu, B., Kuplulu, O. & Aycicek, H. (2003) Detection of the aflatoxin M1 in
yoghurt by ELISA. Milchwissenschaft 58 (11-120), 643-645.
Sarimehmetoglu, B., Kuplulu, O., & Haluk Celik, T. (2004) Detection of aflatoxin M1 in
cheese samples by ELISA. Food Control 15 (1), 45-49.
Sassahara, M., Pontes Netto, D., & Yanaka, E. K. (2005) Aflatoxin occurrence in
foodstuff supplied to dairy cattle and aflatoxin M1 in raw milk in the North of
Parana state. Food and Chemical Toxicology 43 (6), 981-984
Schuller, P. L., Van Egmond, H. P. & Stoloff, L. (1983) limits and regulations on
mycotoxins, In: Proceedings International Symposium on Mycotoxins, K. Naguib,
M. M. Naguib, D. L. Park and A. E. Pohland, (Eds.). Cairo, Egypt, 6-8 September
1981. pp. 111-129.
Scott, P. M. (1988) Joint AOAC-AOCS-IUPAC mycotoxin committee. Journal of
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 71, 174.
Scott, P. M., & Trucksess, M. W. (1997) Application of immunoaffinity columns to
mycotoxins analysis. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists
International 80, 941-949.
Sharman, M., Patey, A. L., & Gilbert, J. (1989) Application of an immunoaffinity column
sample clean-up to the determination of aflatoxin M1 in cheese. Journal of
Chromatography 474 (2), 457-461.
150
Shibahara, T., Ogawa, H. I., Ryo, H. & Fujikawa, K. (1995) DNA-damaging potency and
genotoxicity of aflatoxin M1 in somatic cells in vivo of Drosophila melanogaster.
Mutagenesis 10, 161-164.
Shundo, L., & Sabino, M. (2006) Aflatoxin M1 in milk by immunoaffinity column
cleanup with TLC/HPLC determination. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 37 (2),
164-167.
Shundo, L., Navas, S. A., Lamardo, L. C. A., Ruvieri, V., & Sabino, M. (2009) Estimate
of aflatoxin M1 exposure in milk and occurrence in Brazil. Food Control 20 (7),
655-657.
Sieber, R., & Blanc, B. (1978) Aflatoxin M1 secretion in milk and occurrence in milk and
milk products. Mitt Gebiete Lebensm Hyg 69 (4), 477-491.
Sinnhuber, R. O., Lee, D. J., & Wales, J. H. (1974) Hepatic carcinogenesis of aflatoxin
M1 in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and its enhancement by cyclopropene fatty
acids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 53 (5), 1285-1288.
Sizoo, E. A., & Van Egmond, H. P. (2005) Analysis of duplicate 24-hour diet samples for
aflatoxin M1, aflatoxin B1 and ochratoxin A. Food Additives and Contaminants 22
(2), 150-157.
Skoog, D. A., Holler, F. J., & Nieman, T. A. (2003) Principles of Instrumental Analysis.
Singapore: Thomson Asia Pte Ltd.
Sodhi, S. & Kapur Ghai, J. (2007) Detection of aflatoxins B1 by ELISA. Indian
Veterinary Journal 84 (10), 1104-1105.
Srivastava, V. P., Bu-Abbas, A., Alaa-Basuny, A., Al-Johar, W., Al-Mufti, S. & Siddiqui,
M. K. J. (2001) Aflatoxin M1 contamination in commercial samples of milk and
dairy products in Kuwait. Food Additives and Contaminants 18 (11), 993-997.
Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H. & Dickey, D. A. (1997) Principles and Procedures of
Statistics, A Biometrical Approach, 3rd edition. Mc Graw Hill Book Co., New York
Steyn, P. S. (1995) Mycotoxins, general view, chemistry and structure. Toxicology
Letters 82/83, 843-851.
Stoloff, L., Van Egmond, H. P., & Park, D. L. (1991) Rationales for the establishment of
limits and regulations for mycotoxins. Food Additives and Contaminants 8, 213-
222.
Stoloff, L., Wood, G., & Carter, L. (1981) Aflatoxin M1 in manufactured dairy products
produced in the United States in 1979. Journal of Dairy Science 64 (12), 2426-
2430.
151
Stubblefield, R. D. & Kwolek, W. F. (1986) Rapid liquid chromatographic determination
of aflatoxins M1 and M2 in artificially contaminated fluid milks: collaborative study.
Journal of AOAC 69, 880-885.
Stubblefield, R. D. (1979) The rapid determination of aflatoxin M1 in dairy products.
Journal of American Oil and Chemical Society 56, 800-802.
Stubblefield, R. D., & Shannon G. M. (1974a) Aflatoxin M1: analysis in dairy production
and distribution in dairy foods made from artificially contaminated milk. Journal of
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 57, 847-851.
Stubblefield, R. D., & Shannon, G. M. (1974b) Collaborative study of methods for the
determination of aflatoxin M1 in dairy products. Journal of Association of Official
Analytical Chemists 57, 852-857.
Stubblefield, R. D., van Egmond, H. P., Paulsch, W. E., & Schuller, P. L. (1980)
Determination and confirmation of identity of aflatoxin M1 in dairy products:
collaborative study. Journal of Association of Official Analytical Chemists 63, 907-
921.
Taguchi, S., Yoshida, S., Tanaka, Y., & Hori, S. (2002) Rapid analysis of aflatoxins in
raw peanuts, corn, buckwheat, and red pepper by a new mini-column cleanup and
HPLC using post column photochemical derivatization system. Shokuhin Eiseigaku
Zasshi 43 (4), 202-207 (Japanese).
Tajkarimi, M., Shojaee Aliabadi, F., Nejad, A. S., Poursoltani, H., Motallebi, A. A., &
Mahdavi, H. (2007) Seasonal study of aflatoxin M1 contamination in milk in five
regions in Iran. International Journal of Food Microbiology 116 (3), 346-349.
Tajkarimi, M., Shojaee Aliabadi, F., Nejad, A. S., Poursoltani, H., Motallebi, A. A., &
Mahdavi, H. (2008) Aflatoxin M1 contamination in winter and summer milk in 14
states in Iran. Food Control 19 (11), 1033-1036.
Tanaka, K., Sago, Y., Zheng, Y., Nakagawa, H., & Kushiro, M. (2007) Mycotoxins in
rice. International Journal of Food Microbiology 119 (1-2), 59-66.
Tekinsen, K. K., & Ucar, G. (2008) Aflatoxin M1 levels in butter and cream cheese
consumed in Turkey. Food Control 19 (1), 27-30.
Tekinsen, K. K., & Eken, H. S. (2008) Aflatoxin M1 levels in UHT milk and kashar
cheese consumed in Turkey. Food and Chemical Toxicology 46 (10), 3287-3289.
Tekinsen, K. K., & Tekinsen, O., C. (2005) Aflatoxin M1 in white pickle and Van otlu
(herb) cheese consumed in southeastern Turkey. Food Control 16 (7), 565-568.
152
Thomas, A. E., Coker, H. A., Odukoya,O. A., Isama,G. K., & Adepoju-Bello, A. (2003)
Aflatoxin contamination of Arachis hypogaea (groundnuts) in Lagos area of
Nigeria. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 71 (1), 42-45.
Tipu, M.Y., Altaf, I., Ashfaq, M. & Siddique, S. (2007) Introduction. In Proceedings of
the workshop on monitoring of chemical adulterants and hygienic status of market
milk (pp. 7-39). Lahore, Pakistan: WTO-Quality Control Laboratory.
Torkar, K. G., & Vengust, A. (2008) The presence of yeasts, moulds and aflatoxin M1 in
raw milk and cheese in Slovenia. Food Control 19 (6), 570-577.
Townsend, C. A. (1997) Progress towards a biosynthetic rationale of the aflatoxins
pathway. Pure and Applied Chemistry 58, 227-238.
Tuinstra, L. G. M. T., Roos, A. H., & Van Trijp, J. M. P. (1993) Liquid chromatographic
determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk powder using immunoaffinity columns for
clean-up: Interlaboratory study. Journal of AOAC International 76, 1248-1254.
Tyczkowska, K., Hutchins, J. E., & Hagler, W. M. Jr. (1984) Liqud chromatographic
determination of aflatoxin M1 in milk. Journal of AOAC 67 (4), 739-741.
Unusan, N. (2006) Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in UHT milk in Turkey. Food and
Chemical Toxicology 44 (11), 1897-1900.
Van Egmond, H. P. & Dekker, W. H. (1995) World-wide regulations for mycotoxins in
1994. Natural Toxins 3, 332-336.
Van Egmond, H. P. (1989) Current situation on regulations for mycotoxins. Overview of
tolerances and status of standard methods of sampling and analysis. Food Additives
and Contaminants 6, 139-188.
Van Egmond, H. P. (1994) Aflatoxins in milk. In: Eaton, D. L. and Groopman, J. D.,
(Eds.), The Toxicology of aflatoxins: Human Health, Veterinary, and Agricultural
Significance, San Diego, CA, Academic Press, pp. 365-386.
Van Egmond, H. P. (2002) World-wide regulations for mycotoxins. Advances in
Experimental Medicine and Biology 504, 257-269.
Van Egmond, H. P., & Dragacci, S. (2001) Liquid chromatographic method for aflatoxin
M1 in milk. Methods in Molecular Biology 157, 59-69.
Van Egmond, H. P., Paulsch, W. E., & Schuller, P. L. (1978) Confirmatory test for
aflatoxin M1 on thin layer plate. Journal of AOAC 61 (4), 809-812.
Var, I., Kabak, B., & Gok, F. (2007). Survey of aflatoxins B1 in helva, a traditional
Turkish food, by TLC. Food Control 18 (1), 59-62.
153
Veldman, A. (1992) Effect of sorbentia on carry-over of aflatoxin from cow feed to milk,
Milchwissenschaft 47, 777-780.
Veldman, A., Meijs, J. A. C., Borggreve, G. J., & Heeres van der Tol, J. J. (1992) Carry-
over of aflatoxin from cows’ food to milk. Animal Production 55, 163-168.
Vergas, E. A., Preis, R. A., Castro, L., & Silva, C. M. (2001) Co-occurrence of aflatoxins
B1, B2, G1, G2, zearalenone and fumonisin B1 in Berzilian corn. Food Additives and
Contaminants 18 (11), 981-986.
Virdis, S., Corgiolu, G., Scarano, C., Pilo, A. L., & De Santis, E. P. L. (2008) Occurrence
of aflatoxin M1 in tank bulk goat milk and ripened goat cheese. Food Control 19
(1), 44-49.
Wagacha, J. M. & Muthomi, J. W. (2008) Mycotoxin problem in Africa: current status,
implications to food safety and health and possible management strategies.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 124 (1), 1-12.
Waliyar, F., Reddy, S. V., Subramaniam, K., Reddy, T. Y., Devi, K. R., Craufurd, P. Q.,
Wheeler, T. R., Bryson, R. J., Kennedy, R., Magan, N., & Scudamore, K. A. (2003)
Importance of aflatoxins in food and feed in India. Aspects of Applied Biology 68,
147-154.
Whitaker, T. B., Dickens, J. W., & Manroe, R. J. (1976) Variability associated with
testing cottonseed for aflatoxin. Journal of American Oil and Chemical Society 53,
502-505.
Wogen, G. N., & Newberne, P. M. (1967) Dose-response characteristics of aflatoxin B1
carcenogenises in rats. Cancer Research, 27, 2370-2376.
Yabe, K., Ando, Y., & Hamasaki, T. (1991a) Desaturase activity in the branching step
between aflatoxins B1 and G1 and aflatoxins B2 and G2. Agric Biol Chem 55, 1907-
1911.
Yabe, K., Ando, Y., & Hamasaki, T. (1991b) A metabolic grid among versiconal
hemiacetal acetate, versiconal acetate, and versiconal during aflatoxins biosynthesis.
Journal of General Microbiology 137, 2469-2475.
Yapar, k., Elmali, M., Kart, A., & Yaman, H. (2008) Aflatoxin M1 levels in different type
of cheese products produced in Turkey. Medycyna Weterynaryjna 64 (1), 53-55.
Yaroglu, T., Oruc, H. H., & Tayar, M. (2005) Aflatoxin M1 levels in cheese samples from
some provinces of Turkey. Food Control 16 (10), 883-885.
Yu, J., Bhatnagar, D., & Ehrlich, K. C. (2002) Aflatoxin biosynthesis. Rev Iberoam Micol
19, 191-200.
154
Yu, Y., Wan, S., Tan, P., Wan, X., & Miao, Z. (2004) Study on determination of
aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, and G2 in peanuts using OASIS HLB cartridges with post-
column derivatization HPLC and fluorescence detection. Se Pu 22 (6), 658
(Chinese).
Zarba, A., Wild, C. P., Hall, A. J., Montesano, R., Hudson, G. J. & Groopman, J. D.
(1992) Aflatoxin M1 in human breast milk from the Gambia, west Africa, quantified
by combined monoclonal antibody immunoaffinity chromatography and HPLC.
Carcinogenesis 13 (5), 891-894.
Zhang, P., Zhang, Y. B., Zhao, W. D., & Li, Y. B. (2000) Determination of aflatoxins in
peanut by high performance liquid chromatography using immunoaffinity column
clean-up and on-line electrochemical derivatization. Se Pu. 18 (1), 82-84 (Chinese).
Zheng, Z., Humphrey, C. W., King R. S., & Richard, J. L. (2005) Validation of an ELISA
test kit for the detection of total aflatoxins in grain and grain products by
comparison with HPLC. Mycopathologia 159 (2), 255-63.
Zinedine, A., Gonzalez-Osnaya, L., Soriano, J. M., Molto, J. C., Idrissi, L., & Manes, J.
(2007) Presence of aflatoxin M1 in pasteurized milk from Morocco. International
journal of Food Microbiology 114 (1), 25-29.
155
APPENDIX
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Hussain, I. & Anwar, J. (2008). A study on contamination of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk in
the Punjab province of Pakistan. Food Control 19 (4), 393-395.
Hussain, I., Anwar, J., Munawar, M. A., & Asi, M. R. (2008) Variation of levels of
aflatoxin M1 in raw milk from different localities in the central areas of Punjab,
Pakistan. Food Control 19 (12), 1126-1129.
Hussain, I., Anwar, J., Asi, M. R. Munawar, M. A., & Kashif, M. (2009) Aflatoxin M1
contamination in milk from five dairy species in Pakistan. Food Control xxx (2009),
in press.
156