Anti-Mycotoxin Strategies for Food and Feed E-Book
122,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
Anti-Mycotoxin Strategies for Food and Feed Up-to-date information on mycotoxigenic fungi and toxins, with methods to control them in food and feed Anti-Mycotoxin Strategies for Food and Feed focuses on strategies to control the health risk of mycotoxins associated with cereals, pulses, and vegetables during post and pre harvest stages, in addition to foods, food-based products, and feeds. Each chapter is carefully designed to offer information elucidating various strategies, which include physical, chemical, and biological methods. The book provides a combined approach of advanced techniques used against mycotoxigenic fungi, which is helpful in studying the strategies for different mycotoxins. Special attention has been paid to diseases caused by mycotoxigenic fungi and their destructive effect on either preharvest, post-harvest, or storage, and their respective toxins which pose a long-term health risk to humans and animals, if contaminated food or feed enter our food chain. The primary focus of the text is on the recent and advanced approaches and strategies including control, detoxification, degradation and binding methods, with graphical representations of protocols with supporting tables and figures. Anti-Mycotoxin Strategies discusses specific sample topics such as: * Advanced anti-fumonisin strategies and strategies for the control of aflatoxigenic Aspergillus species in contaminated food and feed * Innovative strategies to decontaminate Ochratoxin A and Zearalenone. * Effects of toxic citrinin, patulin and Ergot alkaloids in animals, birds, and humans, and effective mitigation strategies as its control measures. * Detoxification and Decontamination strategies of Deoxynivalenol an emetic toxin, Trichothecenes, T-2/HT-2 toxin and nivalenol associated in food and feed as contaminants. Presenting and discussing mycotoxin management strategies at length and enabling readers to reduce or eliminate health hazards to humans and animals, Anti-Mycotoxin Strategies is an essential resource for mycologists, mycotoxicologists, Microbiologists, Food technology professionals in the food, seed, and feed industries, scientists, students, researchers, and farmers / agriculturists.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 565
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
List of Contributors
Preface
Introduction
References
1 Strategies for the Control of Aflatoxigenic
Aspergillus
Species in Contaminated Food and Feed
Graphical Representation
1.1 Introduction
1.2
Aspergillus
Species and Aflatoxin Types in Food and Feed
1.3 Distribution of Aflatoxin Contamination Across the Globe
1.4 Aflatoxin Limits in Food and Feed
1.5 Aflatoxin Biosynthesis
1.6 Aflatoxin Mitigation
1.7 Physical Strategies to Control
Aspergillus
Species and Aflatoxins
1.8 Chemical Strategies to Control
Aspergillus
Species and Aflatoxins
1.9 Biologicals as a Control Strategy Against
Aspergillus
spp. and Aflatoxins
1.10 Summary
1.11 Future Implications
1.12 Study Questions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
References
Further Reading
2 Advanced Anti‐Fumonisin Strategies in Food and Feed
Graphical Representation
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Occurrence and Distribution
2.3 Toxicity and Its Effects
2.4 Physical Detoxification Strategies Against Fumonisin
2.5 Chemical Detoxification Strategies Against Fumonisin
2.6 Biological Detoxification Strategies Against Fumonisin
2.7 Recent Advanced Detoxification Strategies Against Fumonisin
2.8 Summary
2.9 Future Implications
2.10 Study Questions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
References
Further Reading
3 Innovative Strategies to Decontaminate Ochratoxin A in Food and Feed
Graphical Representation
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Production of OTA in Fungi
3.3 Occurrence and Distribution
3.4 OTA Toxicity and Its Effects on Humans and Animals
3.5 Recent Strategies Used in OTA Decontamination
3.6 Summary
3.7 Future Implications
3.8 Study Questions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
Author Contributions
References
Further Reading
4 Patulin‐Effective Mitigation Strategies in Food and Feed
Graphical Representation
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Occurrence and Distribution of Patulin
4.3 Effect of both Pre‐ and Post‐harvest Stages
4.4 Mitigation Strategies Against Patulin Mycotoxin
4.5 Detoxification of Patulin
4.6 Degradation Products of Patulin
4.7 Binding Methods
4.8 Future Implications
4.9 Summary
4.10 Study Questions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
Author Contributions
References
5 Trichothecenes
Graphical Representation
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Structure and Biosynthesis of Trichothecenes
5.3 Occurrence and Distribution
5.4 Toxic Effects of Trichothecenes
5.5 Detoxification Methods of Trichothecenes
5.6 Physical Methods for Detoxification of Trichothecene Toxins
5.7 Chemical Method for Trichothecene Detoxification
5.8 Biological Methods for Detoxification of Trichothecenes
5.9 Advanced Methods for Detoxification of Trichothecenes
5.10 Summary
5.11 Future Implications
5.12 Study Questions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
Author Contributions
References
Further Reading
6 Citrinin
Graphical Representation
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Occurrence and Distribution of Citrinin
6.3 Toxicity and Its Effects of Citrinin in Animals, Birds, and Humans
6.4 Effects of Both Pre‐ and Post‐Harvest Stages on Citrinin Production
6.5 Physical Control Measures Against Citrinin
6.6 Chemical Control Measures Against Citrinin
6.7 Biological Control Measures Against Citrinin
6.8 Detoxification/Degradation/Binding Methods of Citrinin
6.9 Summary
6.10 Future Implications
6.11 Study Questions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
Author Contributions
References
Further Reading
7 Detoxification and Control Strategies of Zearalenone in Food and Feed
Graphical Representation
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Occurrence and Distribution
7.3 Physical Detoxification and Decontamination Methods
7.4 Chemical Detoxification and Decontamination Methods
7.5 Biological Detoxification and Decontamination Methods
7.6 Summary
7.7 Future Implications
7.8 Study Questions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflict of Interest
References
Further Reading
8 Decontamination and Detoxification of Deoxynivalenol – An Emetic Toxin of Food and Feed
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Deoxynivalenol
Graphical Representation
8.3 Occurrence and Distribution
8.4 Toxicological Effects of Deoxynivalenol
8.5 Prevention Strategies Against Deoxynivalenol
8.6 Biological Control Agents (BCA)
8.7 Detoxification of Deoxynivalenol
8.8 Summary
8.9 Future Implications
8.10 Study Questions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
Author Contributions
References
Further Reading
9 Strategies for the Management and Mitigation of Nivalenol Contamination in Food and Feed
Graphical Representation
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Biochemistry and Occurrence
9.3 Distribution of NIV Contamination in Food and Feed
9.4 Nivalenol Biogenesis
9.5 Effects of Ecological Factors on Nivalenol Production
9.6 Nivalenol Tolerance Limits
9.7 Detection Methods of Nivalenol
9.8 Recent Management and Mitigation Strategies against Nivalenol
9.9 Summary
9.10 Future Perspective
9.11 Study Questions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
Author Contributions
References
Further Reading
10 Innovative Strategies in the Control of T‐2 and HT‐2 Toxins in Food and Feed
Graphical Representation
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Occurrence and Distribution
10.3 Toxicity and Its Effects
10.4 Detoxification Strategies Against Trichothecene
10.5 Advances in Detoxification Strategies of Trichothecene
10.6 Summary
10.7 Future Implications
10.8 Study Questions
Conflict of Interest
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
References
11 Ergot Alkaloids and Anti‐Mycotoxin Strategies in Food and Feed
Graphical Representation
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Occurrence and Distribution
11.3 Effects of both Pre‐ and Post‐Harvest Stages
11.4 Recent Strategies Against Ergot Alkaloid Mycotoxins
11.5 Physical Control
11.6 Chemical Control
11.7 Biological Control
11.8 Detoxification Methods of Ergot Alkaloids
11.9 Summary
11.10 Future Perspective
11.11 Study Questions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
Author Contributions
References
Further Reading
Websites
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Introduction
Table 1 Fungi and the commodities they affect.
Table 2 Common diseases caused by mycotoxigenic fungi species in cereals, h...
Table 3 Mycotoxins most commonly found in food and feed.
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 Physical, chemical, and biological strategies for the reduction o...
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Strategies on detoxification of fumonisin B1.
Chapter 3
Table 3.1 Maximum permitted OTA levels in some common foods.
Table 3.2 Summary of physical and chemical degradation of Ochratoxin A in f...
Table 3.3 Summary of biological decontamination of Ochratoxin A.
Table 3.4 Advantages and disadvantages of various decontamination methods....
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Contamination of patulin in various food products.
Table 4.2 Anti‐patulin strategies in food and feed.
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Evolution of trichothecenes.
Table 5.2 Strategies against trichothecene in food and feed.
Chapter 6
Table 6.1 Strategies on detoxification of CIT.
Chapter 7
Table 7.1 Examples of studies reporting chemical means for ZEN removal.
Table 7.2 Studies on adsorption of ZEN by microorganisms.
Table 7.3 Different studies on degradation of ZEN by microorganisms.
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Physicochemical properties of DON.
Table 8.2 Acceptable limits of DON content in different foods and feeds.
Table 8.3 Strategies on detoxification of DON.
Chapter 9
Table 9.1 Nivalenol tolerance limits by different organizations.
Table 9.2 Strategies for detoxification of nivalenol in food and feedstuff....
Chapter 10
Table 10.1 Strategies against T2 and HT‐2 in food and feed.
Chapter 11
Table 11.1 Recent studies of the presence of EAs in different food products...
Table 11.2 Represents various effects of ergot alkaloids on animals.
Table 11.3 Physical, chemical, and biological methods of ergot alkaloids ma...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 (a) Healthy peanuts; (b)
Aspergillus flavus
on infected peanuts; ...
Figure 1.2 Biosynthesis pathway of aflatoxins
Figure 1.3 Novel strategies for degradation of aflatoxins in food and feed...
Figure 1.4 Detoxification of aflatoxin B1 by
Stenotrophomonas
sp. CW117 and ...
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Representation of inhibition of ceramide synthase by Fumonisin B1...
Figure 2.2 Post‐effects of fumonisins on humans and animals.
Figure 2.3 Fumonisin detoxification strategies in food and feed.
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Molecular structures of OTA, OTB, and OTC
Figure 3.2 Number of published articles on OT (Scopus and Web of Science dat...
Figure 3.3 Biosynthesis pathway of OTA.
Figure 3.4 Degradation pathway of OTA by electron beam radiation.
Figure 3.5 Biodegradation of OTA.
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 Mitigation strategies for the degradation of patulin.
Figure 4.2 Physical method for the patulin degradation.
Figure 4.3 Biological strategies for patulin detoxification.
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Chemical structure of trichothecenes.
Figure 5.2 Gene cluster of trichothecene producing
Fusarium
species.
Figure 5.3 Chemical method for detoxification of trichothecene
Figure 5.4 Biological methods for detoxification of trichothecenes.
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Occurrence of CIT in agricultural commodities.
Figure 6.2 Representation of biochemical changes induced by CIT toxicity.
Figure 6.3 Representation of CIT toxicity in animals and humans.
Figure 6.4 CIT detoxification strategies in food and feed.
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Chemical structure of zearalenone and estradiol.
Figure 7.2 Studies that summarize enzymatic actions of lactone hydrolase and...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Toxicological effects of DON.
Figure 8.2 Detoxification strategies of DON.
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Chemical structure of (a) nivalenol, (b) deoxynivalenol, (c) fusa...
Figure 9.2 Nivalenol biosynthetic pathway.
Figure 9.3 Strategies for detoxification of nivalenol.
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 Toxicity of T‐2 toxin.
Figure 10.2 T‐2 toxin mode of action.
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 Chemical structure of the most common ergot alkaloids.
Figure 11.2 The structure of the tetracyclic ergoline ring system.
Figure 11.3 Physical, chemical, and biological methods of ergot alkaloid man...
Guide
Introduction
Table of Contents
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
List of Contributors
Preface
Begin Reading
Index
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
iii
iv
xiii
xiv
xv
xvii
xviii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
Anti-Mycotoxin Strategies for Food and Feed
Edited By
Deepa Nagaraju
Molecular Mycotoxicology Laboratory, Department of Studies in Microbiology, University of Mysore, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.
Sreenivasa Marikunte Yanjarappa
Molecular Mycotoxicology Laboratory, Department of Studies in Microbiology, University of Mysore, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.
Premila N. Achar
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA.
and
Angel Medina Vaya
Director of Environment and Agrifood, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford, U.K.
This edition first published 2024© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Deepa Nagaraju, Sreenivasa Marikunte Yanjarappa, Premila N. Achar, and Angel Medina Vaya to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficesJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication DataNames: Nagaraju, Deepa, editor. | Sreenivasa, M. Yanjarappa (Marikunte Yanjarappa), editor. | Achar, Premila N., editor. | Medina Vaya, Angel, editor.Title: Anti‐mycotoxin strategies for food and feed / edited by Deepa Nagaraju, Sreenivasa M. Yanjarappa, Premila N. Achar and Angel Medina Vaya.Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, [2024] | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2023039034 (print) | LCCN 2023039035 (ebook) | ISBN 9781394160792 (hardback) | ISBN 9781394160808 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781394160822 (epub)Subjects: MESH: Mycotoxins–adverse effects | Fungi–pathogenicity | Food Contamination–prevention & control | Animal Feed–microbiologyClassification: LCC RA1242.M94 (print) | LCC RA1242.M94 (ebook) | NLM QW 630.5.M9 | DDC 615.9/5295–dc23/eng/20231106LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023039034LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023039035
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock, Evgeniy Kazantsev/Shutterstock, Nopparat/Adobe Stock Photos
List of Contributors
Premila N. AcharDepartment of Molecular andCellular BiologyKennesaw State UniversityKennesaw, GA, USA
G. AdithiApplied Mycology LaboratoryDepartment of Studies in MicrobiologyUniversity of MysoreMysuru, India
Dominic AgyeiDepartment of Food ScienceDivision of SciencesUniversity of OtagoDunedin, New Zealand
Kadaiah AjithkumarMain Agricultural Research StationUniversity of Agricultural SciencesRaichur, Karnataka, India
Azam AliCenter for Bioengineering andNanomedicine, Division of Health SciencesUniversity of OtagoDunedin, New Zealand
Ali AtouiLaboratory of MicrobiologyDepartment of Life and Earth SciencesFaculty of Sciences, Hadath CampusLebanese UniversityBeirut, Lebanon
Thippeswamy BasaiahDepartment of Post‐Graduate Studiesand Research in MicrobiologyJnanasahyadriKuvempu UniversityShivamogga, Karnataka, India
Priyanthi ChandravarnanDepartment of Food ScienceDivision of SciencesUniversity of OtagoDunedin, New Zealand
Center for Bioengineering andNanomedicineDivision of Health SciencesUniversity of OtagoDunedin, New Zealand
Department of Biosystems TechnologyUniversity of JaffnaJaffna, Sri Lanka
Rouaa DaouCentre d’Analyses et de Recherche (CAR)Unité de Recherche Technologies etValorisation agro‐Alimentaire (UR‐TVA)Faculty of SciencesSaint‐Joseph University of BeirutCampus of Sciences and TechnologiesMar Roukos, Lebanon
Regina S. DassFungal Genetics and MycotoxicologyLaboratory, Department of MicrobiologySchool of Life SciencesPondicherry UniversityPondicherry, India
N. DeepaMolecular Mycotoxicology LaboratoryDepartment of Studies in MicrobiologyUniversity of MysoreMysuru, Karnataka, India
S. DivyashreeApplied Mycology LaboratoryDepartment of Studies in MicrobiologyUniversity of MysoreMysuru, India
Andre El KhouryCentre d’Analyses et de Recherche (CAR)Unité de Recherche Technologies etValorisation agro‐Alimentaire (UR‐TVA)Faculty of SciencesSaint‐Joseph University of BeirutCampus of Sciences and TechnologiesMar Roukos, Lebanon
Quenton KritzingerDepartment of Plant and Soil SciencesUniversity of PretoriaHatfield, South Africa
Theresa S. R. MahadevaraoPostgraduate Department of MicrobiologyMaharani's Science College for Women(Autonomous)JLB Road, MysuruKarnataka, India
Pavagada K. MaheshwarDepartment of MicrobiologyYuvaraja’s College, University of MysoreMysore, Karnataka, India
Manjunath K. NaikDepartment of Plant PathologyCollege of AgricultureUniversity of Agricultural SciencesRaichur, Karnataka, India
Ankita B. NayakDepartment of Post‐Graduate Studies andResearch in Microbiology JnanasahyadriKuvempu UniversityShivamogga, Karnataka, India
Monica C. PaulFungal Genetics and MycotoxicologyLaboratory, Department of MicrobiologySchool of Life SciencesPondicherry UniversityPondicherry, India
Raghavendra M. PuttaswamyPostgraduate Department ofMicrobiologyMaharani's Science College for Women(Autonomous)JLB Road, MysuruKarnataka, India
Matapati RenukaMain Agricultural Research StationUniversity of Agricultural SciencesRaichur, Karnataka, India
Santosh SharmaThe Biotechnology ResearchGhaziabad, Delhi, India
Attihalli S. SavithaDepartment of Plant PathologyCollege of AgricultureUniversity of Agricultural SciencesRaichur, Karnataka, India
B. ShruthiApplied Mycology LaboratoryDepartment of Studies in MicrobiologyUniversity of MysoreMysuru, India
Agriopoulou SofiaDepartment of Food Science andTechnologyUniversity of the PeloponneseKalamata, Greece
M.Y. SreenivasaMolecular Mycotoxicology LaboratoryDepartment of Studies in MicrobiologyUniversity of MysoreMysuru, Karnataka, India
Prakash SumalathaDepartment of MicrobiologyYuvaraja’s College, University of MysoreMysore, Karnataka, India
Angel M. Vaya
Director of Environment and Agri‐foodCranfield UniversityCranfield, Bedford, UK
Sowmya H. VeerannaDepartment of Post‐Graduate Studies andResearch in Microbiology JnanasahyadriKuvempu University, ShivamoggaKarnataka, India
Preface
Prof. Dr. Laurent DufosséUniversité de La Réunion, FranceLaboratoire CHEMBIOPRO (Chimie etBiotechnologie des Produits Naturels),ESIROI agro‐alimentaire,île de la Réunion,France
Mycotoxins are toxic compounds produced by toxigenic fungi that accumulate in food and feed on possessing health hazards to humans and animals. We need to accept that the use of current traditional methods to control fungi and mycotoxins production is not effective, hence mycotoxins still enter our food chain. Several research groups across the globe have developed novel strategies to keep control on mycotoxigenic fungi and their negative impact on food and feed products. This book highlights several advanced and promising approaches to curb economically important mycotoxins and covers the information regarding the recent methods used against mycotoxins. Authors have discussed strategies to control health risk mycotoxins associated with foods and feeds. Each individual chapter is carefully designed and offered a breath of information elucidating various anti‐mycotoxin strategies that include physical, chemical, and biological methods. Special attention has been paid to diseases caused by mycotoxigenic fungi and their destructive effect during preharvest, post‐harvest, or storage. Moreso, of global concerns, the mycotoxins pose a long term health risk to humans and animals, if the contaminated food or feed enters our food chain. Current information on mycotoxin management strategies is presented and discussed at length in different chapters.
The book Anti‐Mycotoxin Strategies for Food and Feed forms to be a combined approach of advanced novel techniques used against mycotoxigenic species and mycotoxins that will be helpful to study the strategies for different mycotoxins. The chapters are arranged by considering all the most important mycotoxins reported worldwide that needs major attention to control. Each chapter describes a recent strategy used for controlling/detoxification/degradation/binding methods and biosynthesis with graphical representations of protocols and figures used for each mycotoxin and also future perspectives. Authors have provided information on recent developments to control important mycotoxigenic fungi and their dangerous toxins. Overall, the book presents advanced methods and strategies used to control the economically important mycotoxigenic fungi persisting in agriculture and food chain.
Introduction
Fungi are a diverse group of eukaryotic organisms ranging from unicellular to more complex multicellular forms. They consist of mass of branching intertwined filaments called hyphae and mass of such hyphae is known as mycelium. The hyphal growth allows the fungus to colonize a food and feed source as well as to grow from one food source to another (Sietsma et al. 1995). As a consequence of growth and colonization, fungi cause decay and spoilage of food and feed grains.
Fungi commonly associated with cereal food grains are broadly separated into field fungi and storage fungi (Table 1) (Deepa and Sreenivasa 2019). Of the fungi involved, the most important field fungi are Fusarium, Alternaria, Curvularia, and Cladosporium, while Penicillium and Aspergillus are important storage fungi (Christensen and Kaufmann 1969; Lacey and Magan 1991; Frisvad 1994; Samson et al. 1996; Pitt and Hocking 1997; Deepa and Sreenivasa 2019). These fungi, when grown on stored grains, can reduce the germination along with loss of carbohydrate, protein, and oil content; increase the moisture content and the quantity of free fatty acid; and also bring about several other biochemical changes (Wilson et al. 1995; Deepa and Sreenivasa 2017). The fungal growth also causes discoloration of grain, dry matter loss, mustiness, heating, and several secondary metabolite productions such as mycotoxins. Mycotoxins on consumption are potentially hazardous to humans and animals (Christensen and Kaufmann 1969; Bhattacharya and Raha 2002; Deepa et al. 2021a,b).
These fungal species in cereals, cereals‐based food and feed matrix, fruits, and vegetables include many species that are pathogenic to crops and responsible for range of diseases, and among them some are mycotoxigenic and some cause opportunistic contagions in humans and farm animals (Munkvold and Desjardins 1997; Rebell 1981; Nelson et al. 1981; Marasas et al. 1984; Burgess 1985; Joffe 1987; Marasas and Nelson 1987; Deepa and Sreenivasa 2022). Mycotoxigenic fungal species cause destructive diseases in some of the world's most agriculturally important food crops such as maize, wheat, potato, cassava, palm, banana, pine, and numerous vegetables and fruits (Sreenivasa et al. 2011; Leslie et al. 1990; Summerell et al. 2003). Mycotoxigenic fungi are associated with food and feed in moderate and semi‐tropical areas, as well as all European crop‐growing areas. They cause root, stem, and ear rot diseases (Table 2), with severe reductions in crop yield, often appraised at between 10% and 30%. Consumption of such contaminated food and feed affects humans and animals among which some mycotoxins are considered to be carcinogenic and life‐threatening (Deepa and Sreenivasa 2017; Logrieco et al. 2002).
Table 1 Fungi and the commodities they affect.
Source: Adapted from Champ et al. (1991)
Commodity
Field fungi
Storage fungi
Mycotoxigenic fungi
Maize
Nigrospora; Cuvularia; Lasiodiplodia; Bipolaris; Arthrinium; Rhizopus; Phoma; Rhizoctonia
Aspergillus; Chaetomium; Penicillium citrinum; P. funiculosum; A. wentii
Aspergillus flavus; Fusarium moniliforme
(=
F. verticillioides
);
F. semitectum
Peanuts
Cladosporium cladosporioides; Lasiodiplodia theobromae; Pestalotiopsis guepinii
Aspergillus niger; Penicillium pinophilum; Chaetomium
species
Aspergillus flavus
Rice
Bipolaris maydis; Fusarium semitectum; Cladosporium cladosporioides; Nigrospora oryzae; Curvularia lunata; C. genticulatus; C. oryzae; C. eragrostidis; C. pallescens; Phoma
species
; Colletotrichum
species
Aspergillus
species;
Penicillium
species;
Alternaria
species
Altenaria padwickii; A. alternata; A. longissima; Fusarium
species
Sorghum
Bipolaris maydis; Fusarium semitectum; Cladosporium cladosporioides; Nigrospora oryzae; Curvularia lunata; C. pallescens; Phoma
species
; Setosphaeria rostrata
Aspergillus niger; Eurotium chevalieri; E. rubrum; Chaetomium
species
Aspergillus flavus; Fusarium moniliforme; Penicillium citrinum; Alternaria longissima; A. alternata
Soybean
Arthrinium phaeospermum; Lasiodiplodia theobromae; Fusarium semitectum; Cladosporium cladosporioides; Nigrospora oryzae; Curvularia lunata; C. pallescens; Phoma
species;
Epicoccum nigrum; Pestalotiopsis guepinii
Aspergillus niger; A. wentii; A. restrictus; A. penicillioides; Eurotium rubrum; Eupen cinnamopurpureum; Chaetomium
species
Aspergillus flavus; Fusarium moniliforme; Penicillium citrinum; Alternaria alternata
Fruits and vegetables
Paecilomyces; Xylaria; Bysochlamys; Peacylomyces; Eupenicillium
species
Penicillium species, Aspergillus species
Penicillium expansum Aspergillus species
Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites produced by several species of fungi. It has been estimated that up to 50% of the world's food crops are affected by mycotoxins (Charmley et al. 1995; Bullermann 1996; Eriksen and Alexander 1998; Fandohan et al. 2003; Sreenivasa et al. 2012). Mycotoxins establish a varied range of compounds molded from different forerunners and pathways that are gathered together based on their harmfulness to higher animals and humans. Some mycotoxins are produced by only a few fungal species, while others are produced by a large number of species from several genera (Smith et al. 1984). They are chemically diverse and occur in a wide diversity of substrates. They cause illness/death of humans and animals. If food or feed containing them is consumed, it may also cause economic losses in livestock through disease and reduced efficiency of production (Deepa and Sreenivasa 2017). Many of the fungi that produce the toxins are also frequent contaminants of food and feed‐based products (Table 3). These comprise members of the genera Fusarium, Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Alternaria producing mycotoxins such as aflatoxins, fumonisins, citrinin, patulin, trichothecenes, deoxynivalenol, T‐2 toxin, HT‐2 toxins, nivalenol, ochratoxin, and zearalenone.
Table 2 Common diseases caused by mycotoxigenic fungi species in cereals, humans, and animals.
Source: Adapted from The American Phytopathological Society, http://www.apsnet.org/online/common/toc.asp
Commodities
Diseases
Cereal crops (Wheat, Paddy, Maize, Sorghum, Barley, Feed‐matrix)
Crown rot (=foot rot), Root rot, Ear rot, Seed‐rot, Seedling blight, Dryland root rot, Pink snow mold, Scab (=head blight), Pecky rice (kernel spotting), Kernel rot, Gibberella ear rot, Stalk rot, Damping‐off, Pokkah Boeng (twisted top), Rusts (Scab)
Fruits and vegetables
Anthracnose, Botrytis rot, Downy mildew, Powdery mildew, Rust, Rhizoctonia rot, Sclerotia rot, Fusarium rot, Oak root, Sappy bark, Phytophthora root, Crown rot
Animals and birds (Horse, Swine, Rats, Rabbit, Chicken, primates)
Equine leukoencephalomalacia, Porcelain pulmonary edema, Hepatotoxicosis, Lesions in liver and lungs, Targets to pancreas, Heart, Oesophagus, Kidney, Hepatic nodules, Adenofibrosis, Hepatocellular carcinoma, Cholangiocarcinoma, Hepatotoxins, Anorectic, lethargic, Erythrocyte formation, Lymphocyte cytotoxic effects, Weight reduction, Biliary hyperplasia, Thymic cortical atrophy, Oesophageal cancer, Reduction in WBC and RBC
Humans
Esophageal cancer, Skin lesions, Wounds, Keratitis
In current days, molecular‐based techniques have been used as advanced technologies for the accurate detection of mycotoxins since identification and detection of mycotoxigenic fungi by conventional methods are labor‐ and time‐consuming tasks that require expertise in fungal taxonomy and chemical analysis. Nowadays variations among PCR techniques, immunological and serological methods, nanotechnology base methods, and aptamers have become faster alternatives as the early identification method even though DNA from fungus present in the food and feed samples are extracted prior to its incubation period. Killed fungi can also be detected which might be an additional advantage (Deepa et al. 2021a,b, 2022).
The eradication of the growth of mycotoxigenic fungi and associated mycotoxins in food and feed is of supreme importance because of consumption of significant quantities of these cereals by humans. Managemental strategies are required and need to be practiced by detecting at an early stage for the improvement of crop yield, food safety, and economic development. Most of the traditional methods from drying, sorting, and heating involving physical methods like separation, washing, adsorption, and irradiation play a role in the management of mycotoxins. Certain chemical methods such as ozone treatment, alkaline treatment, and many biological methods involving microorganisms, essential oils, plant products, genetic engineering, resistant varieties, and commercial products are in recent days practice as strategies for mycotoxin control (Shruthi et al. 2022). Advanced methods like cold plasma, nanoparticles, pulsed electric fields, and molecular strategies are in practice against mycotoxins associated with foods and feeds. These methods are applicable with their respective advantages and disadvantages in managing mycotoxins. Presently, degradation and detoxification strategies as adsorbents of the mycotoxins are in much practice.
Table 3 Mycotoxins most commonly found in food and feed.
Source: Adapted from www.mycotoxin.org
S. No.
Toxin
Fungus
Food commonly affected
1
Aflatoxin
Aspergillus flavus, A. parasiticus
.
Maize, groundnuts, cottonseeds, feeds
2
Fumonisins
F. moniliforme
,
F. proliferatum, F. nygamai
Maize, sorghum, feed matrix
3
Ochratoxin
Aspergillus ochraceus, Penicillium viridicatum
Maize, wheat, barley, oats, poultry feed matrix
4
Patulin
Bysochlamys
,
Eupenicillium
,
Penicillium
,
Aspergillus
and
Peacylomyces
Apples, apricots, kiwis, plums, peaches, cereal‐based food
5
Trichothecenes/T‐2/HT‐2/Nivalenol
F. graminearum
,
F. asiaticum
,
F. culmorum
,
F. cerealis
,
F. pseudograminearum
,
F. sporotrichioides
,
F. sibiricum F. langsethiae
,
F. acuinatum
and
F. poae
Wheat, barley, maize
6
Citrinin
Penicillium
,
Aspergillus
and
Monascus
Food grains, beans, fruits, vegetables, black olive, roasted nuts, sunflower seeds, spices, herbs and spoils dairy products
7
Zearalenone
F. graminearum
Wheat, maize, barley, sorghum
8
Deoxynivalenol
Fusarium graminearum
Wheat, barley, oats, maize, rye, feeds
9
Ergot alkaloids
Claviceps purpurea, C. Africana, A. fumigatus, Pencillium sp
.
Rye, triticale, wheat, barley, millet, oats
Our edited book “Anti‐Mycotoxin Strategies in Food and Feed” consists of eleven chapters discussing various strategies for degradation and decontamination of mycotoxins in food and feed. We have hereby covered all the major mycotoxins such as Aflatoxins, Fumonisins, Ochratoxin, Patulin, Citrinin, Trichothecenes, Zearalenone, Deoxynivalenol, Nivalenol, T‐2/HT‐2, and Ergot alkaloids. Our contributors have discussed each mycotoxin, its occurrence and distribution, and effects of particular mycotoxin during both pre‐ and post‐harvest stages including effects on humans and animals on consumption of such mycotoxin‐associated foods and feed. The authors have majorly discussed all the recent advanced strategies involved such as physical, chemical, and biological methods and have mainly concentrated on detoxification, degradation, and other binding methods against respective mycotoxins. Further aspects of reading and study questions pertaining to each mycotoxin have been discussed in each of the chapters.
References
Bhattacharya, K. and Raha, S. (2002). Deteriorative changes of maize, groundnut and soybean seeds by fungi in storage.
Mycopathologia
155: 135–141.
Bullermann, L.B. (1996). Occurrence of
Fusarium
and fumonisins on food grains and in foods. In:
Fumonisins in Food
(ed. L.S. Jackson, J.V. De Vries, and L.B. Bullerman), 27–38. New York: Plenum Press.
Burgess, L.W. (1985). Mycotoxigenic species of
Fusarium
associated with grain diseases in Eastern Australia. In:
Trichothecenes and Other Mycotoxins
(ed. J. Lacey). New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Champ, B.R., Highley, E., Hocking, A.D., and Pitt, J.I. (1991).
Fungi and Mycotoxins in Stored Products: Proceedings of an International Conference
. ACIAR Proceedings No. 36. Bangkok, Thailand. Australian Centre for International Research.
Charmley, L.L., Trenholm, H.L., Prelusky, D.A., and Rosenberg, A. (1995). Economic losses and decontamination.
Nat. Toxins
3: 199–203.
Christensen, C.M. and Kaufmann, H.H. (1969).
Grain Storage: The Role of Fungi in Quality Loss
. Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press.
Deepa, N. and Sreenivasa, M.Y. (2017). Fumonisins: a review on its global occurrence, epidemiology, toxicity and detection.
J. Vet. Med. Res.
4 (6): 1093.
Deepa, N. and Sreenivasa, M.Y. (2019). Chapter 13: “Biocontrol strategies for effective management of phytopathogenic fungi associated with cereals”. In:
New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering‐Microbial Biotechnology in Agro‐Environmental Sustainability
, 177–189. Elsevier.
Deepa, N. and Sreenivasa, M. Y. (2022). Molecular approaches for the early detection of mycotoxigenic fungi in feeds and feed matrix. Mycotoxinsite.com.
Deepa, N., Achar, P., and Sreenivasa, M.Y. (2021a). Current perspectives of biocontrol agents for management of
Fusarium verticillioides
and its fumonisin in cereals – a review.
J. Fungi
7: 776.
Deepa, N., Adkar‐Purushothama, C.R., and Sreenivasa, M.Y. (2021b). Chapter 6: “Molecular technologies for the early detection of fungal phytopathogens associated with cereal crops”. In:
Microbial Genomic Technologies to Combat the Problems of Farming Lands. Microbes in Land Use Change Management
, 137–154. Elsevier.
Deepa, N., Chennappa, G., Deepthi, B.V. et al. (2022). Antifungal potential of
Azotobacter
species and its metabolites against
Fusarium verticillioides
and biodegradation of fumonisin.
J. Appl. Microbiol.
133 (4): 2430–2444.
Eriksen, G.S. and Alexander, J. (1998).
Fusarium
toxins in cereals – a risk assessment. 146 pp. TemaNord 1998:502. Nordic Council of Ministers. Ekspressen Tryk and Kopicenter, Copenaghen, Denmark.
Fandohan, P., Hell, K., Marasas, W.F.O., and Wingfield, M.J. (2003). Infection of maize by
Fusarium
species and contamination with fumonisin in Africa.
Afri. J. Biotechnol.
2: 570–579.
Frisvad, J.C. (1994). Mycotoxins and mycotoxinogenic fungi in storage. In:
Stored Grain Ecosystems
(ed. D.S. Jayas, N.D.G. White, and W.E. Muir), 251–288. New York, USA.
Joffe, A.Z. (1987).
Fusarium poae
and
F. sporotrichioides
as principal causal agents of alimentary toxic aleukia. In:
Mycotoxic Fungi, Mycotoxins, Mycotoxicoses: An Encyclopaedic Handbook
, 3e (ed. T.D. Wyllie and L.G. Morehouse), 21–86. New York, USA.
Lacey, J. and Magan, N. (1991). Fungi in cereal grains: their occurrence and water and temperature relationships. In:
Cereal Grain Mycotoxins, Fungi and Quality in Drying and Storage
, 77–118. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Leslie, J.F., Pearson, C.A.S., Nelson, P.E., and Toussoun, T.A. (1990).
Fusarium
spp. from corn, sorghum, and soybean fields in the Central and Eastern United States.
Phytopathology
80: 343–350.
Logrieco, A., Mule, G., Moretti, A., and Bottalico, A. (2002). Toxigenic
Fusarium
species and mycotoxins associated with maize ear rot in Europe.
Eur. J. Plant Pathol.
108: 597–609.
Marasas, W.F.O. and Nelson, P.E. (1987).
Mycotoxicology
. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, USA.
Marasas, W.F.O., Kriek, N.P.J., Fincham, J.E., and Van Rensburg, S.J. (1984). Primary liver cancer and oesophageal basal cell hyperplasia in rats caused by
Fusarium moniliforme
.
Int. J. Cancer
34: 383–387.
Munkvold, G.P. and Desjardins, A.E. (1997). Fumonisins in maize: can we reduce their occurrence?
Plant Dis.
81: 556–565.
Nelson, P.E., Toussoun, T.A., and Cook, R.J. (1981).
Fusarium Diseases, Biology and Taxonomy
. University Park, USA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Pitt, J.I. and Hocking, A.D. (1997).
Fungi and Food Spoilage
, 2e. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
Rebell, G. (1981).
Fusarium
infections in human and veterinary medicine. In:
Fusarium: Diseases, Biology, and Taxonomy
(ed. P.E. Nelson, T.A. Toussoun, and R.J. Cook). University Park, USA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Samson, R., Hoekstra, E., Frisvad, J., and Filtenborg, O. (1996).
Introduction to Food‐borne Fungi
, 5e. Netherlands: Centraal bureau voor Schimmel cultures. Baarn.
Shruthi, B., Deepa, N., Rakesh, S. et al. (2022). Exploring biotechnological and functional characteristics of probiotic yeasts: a review.
Biotechnol. Rep.
34: e00716.
Sietsma, J.H., Wosten, H.A.B., and Wessels, J.G.H. (1995). Cell wall growth and protein secretion in fungi.
Can. J. Bot.
73: 388–395.
Smith, J.E., Lewis, C.W., Anderson, J.G., and Solomons, G.L. (1984). Mycotoxins in human nutrition and health. In:
EUR 16048 EN. European Commission
. Agro‐Industrial Research Division.
Sreenivasa, M.Y., Dass, R.S., Raj, A.‐P.C. et al. (2011). Assessment of the growth inhibiting effect of some plant essential oils on different
Fusarium
species isolated from sorghum and maize grains.
J. Plant Dis. Prot.
118 (6): 208–213.
Sreenivasa, M.Y., Raj, A.‐P.C., Dass, R.S., and Janardhana, G.R. (2012). Diversity of
Fusarium
species associated with Maize and Sorghum grains grown in Karnataka, India.
Fungal Sci.
26 (2): 111–123.
Summerell, B.A., Salleh, B., and Leslie, J.F. (2003). A utilitarian approach to
Fusarium
identification.
Plant Dis.
87: 117–128.
Wilson, J.P., Cooper, H.H., and Wilson, D.M. (1995). Effect of delayed harvest on contamination of pearl millet grain with mycotoxin producing fungi and mycotoxins.
Mycopathologia
132: 27–30.
1Strategies for the Control of Aflatoxigenic Aspergillus Species in Contaminated Food and Feed
Premila N. Achar1, Quenton Kritzinger2, and Santosh Sharma3
1 Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA
2 Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, Pretoria, South Africa
3 The Biotechnology Research, Ghaziabad, India
CONTENTS
Abstract
Keywords
Graphical Representation
1.1 Introduction
1.2
Aspergillus
Species and Aflatoxin Types in Food and Feed
1.3 Distribution of Aflatoxin Contamination Across the Globe
1.4 Aflatoxin Limits in Food and Feed
1.5 Aflatoxin Biosynthesis
1.6 Aflatoxin Mitigation
1.7 Physical Strategies to Control
Aspergillus
Species and Aflatoxins
1.8 Chemical Strategies to Control
Aspergillus
Species and Aflatoxins
1.9 Biologicals as a Control Strategy Against
Aspergillus
spp. and Aflatoxins
1.10 Summary
1.11 Future Implications
1.12 Study Questions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
References
Further Reading
Abstract
Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus are pathogenic to a variety of crops, including maize, groundnuts, and sorghum. Contamination occurs during pre‐ and post‐harvest and storage. Current strategies against Aspergillus spp. in grains include physical and chemical methods. Extensive use of chemicals may produce side effects, such as carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and toxicity to consumers due to toxic residues in food products. Due to an increased global awareness of the use of chemicals, there is an increased interest in sourcing alternate natural products against pathogenic fungi. It is proven that natural products are less toxic, environmentally safer, and most importantly, biodegradable as opposed to synthetic fungicides. In this chapter, we highlight the anti‐aflatoxigenic strategies of plant extracts and essential oils against Aspergillus spp. to reduce or prevent aflatoxin contamination in food and feed. Emphasis will be placed on the feasibility of plant biologicals as alternative control methods, highlighting the research gaps.
Keywords
Aspergillus spp.; aflatoxin; food and feed; plant extracts; essential oils and control strategies;
Graphical Representation
1.1 Introduction
Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites produced by fungi, detected in our food and feed that ultimately lands in our food chain. These toxic chemical compounds are produced by certain fungi and are associated with diseased or moldy crops. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, one‐fourth of the world's crops are affected by mycotoxins (Deepa et al. 2016a, b; Eskola et al. 2020; Nazhand et al. 2020). However, the mycotoxins of importance and of greatest significance in human foods and animal feeds are aflatoxins produced by Aspergillus species.
1.2 Aspergillus Species and Aflatoxin Types in Food and Feed
Aspergillus species have been reported as one of the serious contaminants of plants, plant products, food, and feed (Kumar et al. 2022a) and in various agricultural crops before harvesting or during storage (Saini and Kaur 2012). Aflatoxins are produced by many fungal species though mainly by various species of Aspergillus section Flavi. These include Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus parasiticus, Aspergillus nomius, Aspergillus pseudotamarii, Aspergillus parvisclerotegenus, and Aspergillus minisclerotigenes (Ahmad et al. 2014; Pleadin et al. 2014; Olana 2022). Of all the Aspergillus species, A. flavus and A. parasiticus (Figure 1.1) are known as the most toxigenic strains (Ajmal et al. 2022; Shabeer et al. 2022). Recent reports indicate at least 28 species of the genus Aspergillus have been identified to produce aflatoxins (Frisvad et al. 2019; Ajmal et al. 2022). The type of aflatoxins detected in various food sources around the world between 2010 and 2022 and the method of detection using various techniques are documented at length (Kumar et al. 2022b). The most common and important ones are aflatoxin‐B1 (AFB1), aflatoxin‐B2 (AFB2), aflatoxin‐G1 (AFG1), aflatoxin‐G2 (AFG2) (Benkerroum 2020), aflatoxin‐M1 (AFM1), and aflatoxin‐M2 (AFM2) (MdQuadri et al. 2012). While B1, B2, G1, and G2 are found in food crops or their products, M1 (metabolite of B1) and M2 (metabolite of B2) are found in the animals' by‐products such as dairy products (Serraino et al. 2019; Shabeer et al. 2022). In addition, aflatoxins have been found in animal urine (Lalah et al. 2020). Aflatoxin B1 has been classified as a class I human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and is reportedly the most toxic (World Health Organization and International Agency for Research on Cancer 1993; IARC 2012; Deepa and Sreenivasa 2017; Deepa et al. 2021).
1.3 Distribution of Aflatoxin Contamination Across the Globe
Aflatoxigenic fungi are worldwide in distribution, and due to their ubiquitous nature, about 4.5 billion of the world's population is subjected to aflatoxin contamination (Sreenivasa et al. 2008, 2011a; Tola and Kebede 2016; Shabeer et al. 2022). According to the latter author, aflatoxin contamination is most prevalent in Asia and Africa, where climatic conditions favor the development of aflatoxigenic strains in both field and storage conditions. Due to global climate change, aflatoxin is an emerging threat in regions that were previously free from this menace, though there have been a few reports of aflatoxin in different regions of Europe (Nagaraja et al. 2016; Jallow et al. 2021; Ajmal et al. 2022). Moreover, aflatoxin contamination of food and feed is still of global significance and remains a food safety issue since it poses significant health risks to humans and animals. Increased mortality in farm animals and the marketability of food products are adversely affected by aflatoxin contamination (Reiter et al. 2009; Sreenivasa et al. 2011b; Rajarajan et al. 2013; Ajmal et al. 2022). Even with the best prevention strategies, according to researchers (Peles et al. 2021), aflatoxins can end up in the food chain given that they are universal worldwide and that ever‐changing environmental conditions prevent strict elimination. Singh et al. (2021) reported challenges in the supply chain and socio‐economic hardships caused by the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic. In addition, the numbers of those affected may rise with increased consumption of aflatoxin‐contaminated foods and due to political instability (World Bank 2022).
1.4 Aflatoxin Limits in Food and Feed
International agencies have enacted regulations to minimize the levels of aflatoxins in food and feed. The FAO has provided regulations on mycotoxin concentration in both food and feeds, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has assigned specific limits for aflatoxin consumption. For humans' and animals' consumption, the maximum limit for aflatoxins in food and feed has been set to 20 ppb by the European Commission (FDA 2019; Commission Directive 2003), a limit to 4 ppb by the European Union, and 0.5 ppb in food and dairy products, respectively (Kodape et al. 2022). According to the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF 2022) database, most of the aflatoxin contamination was reported in nuts such as peanuts, pistachios, hazelnuts, and almonds; spices; and dried figs with up to 1000 μg/kg. Pickova et al. (2021) suggested that this high concentration of aflatoxins was mainly due to poor food management practices of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Hence, an increase in health concerns related to it could also be expected.
Figure 1.1 (a) Healthy peanuts; (b) Aspergillus flavus on infected peanuts; (c) A. flavus‐contaminated peanuts on Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) after seven days of incubation; (d) seed coat cracked by sporulating A. flavus; (e) A. parasiticus and (f) A. flavus culture on PDA.
1.5 Aflatoxin Biosynthesis
Aflatoxins are furanocoumarin derivatives produced by a polyketide pathway by many strains of A. flavus and A. parasiticus; in particular, A. flavus is a common contaminant in agriculture (Bennett and Klich 2003). A detailed review of biosynthesis and regulation of aflatoxins, for reducing human exposure to aflatoxins as well as how aflatoxin impacts human health, was reported (Roze and Linz 2013). The biosynthesis of aflatoxins involves an elaborate series of at least 15 post‐polyketide synthase steps, yielding a series of increasingly toxigenic metabolites (Figure 1.2) (Nazhand et al. 2020).
1.6 Aflatoxin Mitigation
Due to the harmful effect of aflatoxins on the health of humans and animals worldwide, the control of aflatoxins is essential (Shabeer et al. 2022). It is imperative that researchers understand the role of various abiotic and biotic factors that predispose the infection of the host with aflatoxigenic fungi and the conditions that encourage their formation in order to minimize or prevent aflatoxin contamination in crops (Paterson and Lima 2010; Udomkun et al. 2017). To minimize aflatoxin contamination in plants, several strategies have been developed, including traditional and innovative techniques to control Aspergillus spp. in food and feed.
Innovative control technologies can enhance sustainable agricultural productivity (Filazi and Sireli 2013; Prietto et al. 2015). However, the first step is to understand pre‐ and post‐harvest management techniques (Olana 2022). Conventional approaches for mycotoxin reduction include both prevention and decontamination strategies. These strategies can be grouped into physical, chemical, and biological processes (Table 1.1). In addition, the development and future perspective of nanoenzymes in aflatoxin degradation (Figure 1.3) have been reported (Deepa and Sreenivasa 2019a, b; Guo et al. 2021).
Each group represents its own advantages and limitations regarding implementation and overall efficacy. In the following sections, each process is briefly discussed, providing an overview of current and novel technologies and methods with regard to aflatoxin decontamination of grain, food, and feed.
Figure 1.2 Biosynthesis pathway of aflatoxins
(Source: Reproduced with permission from Nazhand et al. 2020/MDPI).
Table 1.1 Physical, chemical, and biological strategies for the reduction of aflatoxins.
S. No.
Aflatoxin reduction strategy
Methodology
Percentage reduction
References
1.
Physical
Sorting
Bright greenish yellow fluorescence (BGYF) test
AFB 85–90%
Marshall et al. (
2020
)
High‐temperature treatments
Heating in an oven
AFB1 50% and 90% at 150 and 200 °C, respectively
Hussain et al. (
2011
)
2.
Chemical
Citric acid
Combination of citric acid and pulsed light treatments
AFB 98.2% AFB1 98.9%
Abuagela et al. (
2019
)
Lactic acid
Lactic acid in combination with heating for 120 minutes
AFB1 85%
Aiko et al. (
2016
)
Ozone
Ozonated‐roasted Ozonated only Roasted only
AFB1 100% AFB1 80.95% AFB1 57.14%
Kaur et al. (
2022
)
40 minutes treatment with 90 mg/L ozone
AFB1's decrease from 77.6 to 21.42 mug/kg
Luo et al. (
2015
)
2.8 and 5.3 mg/L of ozone stream at room temperature for up to 240 minutes in poultry feed samples 2.8 and 5.3 mg/L of ozone stream at room temperature for up to 120 minutes in poultry feed samples
AFB1 74.3–86.4% AFB1 53.3–70.2%
Torlak et al. (
2016
)
3.
Biological
Plant extracts
Oil extract from
Cymbopogon citratus
AFB1 100% at 0.1 mg/mL
Paranagama et al. (
2003
)
Punica granatum
Zingiber officinalis
and
Olea europaea
AFB1 100% at 5 mg/mL AFB1 100% at 15 mg/mL
Mostafa et al. (
2011
)
Prosopis rusciflolia
(methanol extract of aerial parts)
AFB1 100% at 47 μg/mL
Gomez et al. (
2020
)
Turmeric (25% ethanolic extract)
AFB1 90.78%
Behiry et al. (
2022
)
Peel wastes: Eggplant (50% diethyl ether extract) Sugar apple (75% ethanol extract) Pomegranate (25% diethyl ether extract)
AFB1 96.11% AFB1 94.85% AFB1 78.83%
Ismail et al. (
2021
)
Essential oils
Various concentrations of different EOs (antifungal activities of EOs – disc diffusion, poisoned food technique, MIC)
Up to 100%
Thanaboripat et al. (
2016
) Kahkha et al. (
2014
) Gemeda et al. (
2014
) Gupta et al. (
2011
) Yooussef et al. (
2016
)
Over 90%
Achar et al. (
2020
)
67.53–72.7%
Abd El‐Aziz et al. (
2015
) Xiang et al. (
2020
)
Potent antifungal
Hyldgaard et al. (
2012
) Alizadeh et al. (
2010
) Sulieman et al. (
2016
) Wang et al. (
2018
)
Microbes
Binding ability to cell wall of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
AFB1 3.96 ppb reduction when viable yeast cells used
Sahebghalam et al. (
2013
)
Lactobacillus
spp.
AFB1 (29.9–44.5%)
Oluwafemi et al. (
2010
)
Atoxigenic
A. flavus
strains
AFB1 90%
Xu et al. (
2021
)
1.7 Physical Strategies to Control Aspergillus Species and Aflatoxins
Hand sorting is the most common physical decontamination process that can be labor‐intensive and time‐consuming. Grain that looks moldy, discolored, deformed, wrinkled, or unhealthy should be removed and discarded. Marshall et al. (2020) remarked that the combination of fluorescence‐based sorting to remove highly contaminated produce paired with a secondary decontamination process is believed to offer great potential in reducing aflatoxin contamination in grain but also not negatively affecting the sensorial and nutritional profile. The bright greenish yellow fluorescence (BGYF) test is based on the fluorescent properties of kojic acid (formed by A. flavus or A. parasiticus) or the mycotoxin itself and peroxidase enzyme present in the plant tissues. A camera using hyperspectral fluorescence data with an LED‐based UV lighting system can detect and sort contaminated grain at a remarkable speed (Marshall et al. 2020).
Figure 1.3 Novel strategies for degradation of aflatoxins in food and feed
(Source: Reproduced with permission from Guo et al. (2021)/Elsevier).
An effective strategy to prevent aflatoxin contamination of food crops and foodstuff is the ability to manipulate the storage environment to prevent fungal growth. Drying is the basic but fundamental process of moisture removal from grain. More conventional types of drying include mechanical driers and solar drying. Sun‐drying, where grain is heated by solar radiation, is regarded as the cheapest process. On sunny days, the drying process can normally take two to three days depending upon the spreading density and the climatic conditions. It is important that all processes after drying (e.g. packaging, transport, storage) be followed with care to ensure that the grain remains dry.
Naturally, the storage container and conditions are of utmost importance. Clean and dry storage containers, for example, drums, metallic silos, or polyethylene bags, are essential. To prevent mycotoxin contamination, grain should be stored under anaerobic conditions since most fungal species are obligate aerobes. Airtight containers or hermetically sealed bags, for example, Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS), can be used to decrease moisture and oxygen levels (Walker et al. 2018).
Various field management practices may also prevent aflatoxin contamination in crops. These include the use of resistant varieties, correct planting time, fertilizer application, weed control, insect control, and avoiding stress (e.g. water or mineral stress) (Hell and Mutegi 2011). Basically, good management practices can lead to reduction of aflatoxin contamination in the field.
It is well known that aflatoxins are highly thermostable and therefore do not decompose during cooking or processing. However, high‐temperature treatments of 100 and 150 °C did reduce AFB1 levels significantly in soybean (Glycine max) milk (Su 2019). Furthermore, it is reported that high‐pressure cooking is more effective than conventional cooking to remove AFB1.
There are numerous reviews that focus on the control and decontamination of aflatoxins in food and feed using physical methods (Peng et al. 2018; Marshall et al. 2020; Guo et al. 2021; Kutasi et al. 2021; Sipos et al. 2021; Abou Dib et al. 2022). Recently, Hamad et al. (2023) published a comprehensive review of innovative strategies for controlling mycotoxins in foods, highlighting cold plasma (CAP), magnetic materials, and nanoparticles as part of the physical methods. CAP is a novel non‐thermal technology used to inactivate fungal pathogens and mycotoxins, which is regarded as being eco‐friendly, highly efficient, and low cost (Guo et al. 2021; Sipos et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2021). According to Misra et al. (2019), CAP is a result of atmospheric dielectric discharge, causing the ionized gas to contain metastable atoms and molecules with a nearly zero net electrical charge. The mycotoxin degradation is attributed to the free radicals of O and OH.
Other physical approaches that have been reviewed include ultraviolet (UV) light (Sipos et al. 2021), gamma rays (Tahir et al. 2018; Sipos et al. 2021), and microwave irradiation. Awan et al. (2022) found that AFB1 concentration in pine nuts was reduced through UV‐based detoxification. Microwave irradiation resulted in a 3‐log reduction in aflatoxin producing A. parasiticus contamination of hazelnuts (Corylus avellana) after 120 seconds of treatment, without any noticeable change in nutritional and sensorial properties of the nuts (Basaran and Akhan 2010). The authors also proposed a hybrid process where UV‐C surface treatment and vacuum‐assisted microwaves can be combined with air drying to increase the shelf life and quality of the nuts. On the other hand, Hussain et al. (2011) found that AFB1 reduction was directly proportional to washing time in contaminated wheat (Triticum aestivum) varieties. However, the concentration of AFB1 was reduced more by heating than washing; AFB1 levels decreased by 50% and 90% by heating in an oven at 150 and 200 °C, respectively. Kutasi et al. (2021) reported that processes including freezing, cooking, and pressurizing have little effect on aflatoxins. Furthermore, they commented that methods such as irradiation with UV photons, pulses of extensive white radiation, and gaseous plasma are propitious but further studies are needed to understand the exact mechanisms of how these techniques degrade aflatoxins.
New advances include the use of novel combined proteinous nanobiocatalysts. Lyagin et al. (2022) developed enzymatic nanobiocatalysts that can destroy mycotoxins, including AFB1. The treatment of contaminated feed with these enzymes (belonging to hydrolases, oxidoreductases, and lyases) stabilized within polyelectrolyte complexes with poly(glutamic acid) significantly decreased the negative effects of mycotoxin mixtures on blood biochemical parameters, which were indicative of severe damage to liver and kidneys of Sprague‐Dawley rats (Lyagin et al. 2022).
In addition to the reviews mentioned earlier, Pankaj et al. (2018) discussed the advantages and limitations of decontamination technologies including microwave heating, gamma and electron beam irradiation, UV and pulsed light, and electrolyzed water and CAP. For instance, pulsed light, electrolyzed water, and CAP have shown complete degradation of aflatoxin on various substrates. However, the application of food products needs further research due to their interaction with food components and the toxicology of the degradant.
1.8 Chemical Strategies to Control Aspergillus Species and Aflatoxins
Chemical treatment has been used as one of the most effective means for the removal of mycotoxins from contaminated commodities. Ammonia, as an anhydrous vapor and aqueous solution, has attracted the widest interest and has been exploited commercially by the feed industry for the destruction of aflatoxin (Peng et al. 2018). On‐farm procedures involve spraying with aqueous ammonia followed by storage at ambient temperature for approximately two weeks in large silage bags (Coker 1994).
However, chemicals used as grain protectants or to protect stored produce have become expensive and are also perceived as being harmful to the environment and human health. Furthermore, the contamination of grain and foodstuff by chemicals can cause diseases or death in animals or humans. Chemical exposure does not only apply to people eating contaminated grains but it also applies to people working in the agricultural sector such as sprayers and farm workers. The use of chemicals has been reported to have adverse effects on the environment by causing toxic build‐up, infertility, and groundwater contamination (Schoumans et al. 2014). Moreover, chemical pesticides tend to affect non‐target organisms and increase the likelihood of resistance to pathogens (Zaker 2016; Walia et al. 2017). Azole fungicides such as prochloraz and tebuconazole are commonly used on important grains like maize against multiple Aspergillus spp. These fungicides inhibit the biosynthesis of ergosterol in fungi and yeast (Zarn et al. 2003). Ergosterol is important in the regulation of the fluidity and permeability of membranes (Jordà and Tuig 2020). However, the inhibition of fungi by azole fungicides has led to several teratogenic effects noted in humans (Chambers et al. 2014; Chennappa et al. 2014, 2016).
Abuagela et al. (2019) studied the effect of citric acid and pulsed light treatments (physical and chemical treatments) combined to degrade AFBs in groundnuts. Aflatoxins reduced by 98.2% with the combined treatment when compared to untreated groundnuts. Of significance, AFB1 was reduced by up to 98.9%. However, there were changes in color parameters in the groundnuts and further investigations are required to deliver a commercially preferred product. Another study has shown lactic acid to be the most efficient in degrading AFB1 when compared to acetic and citric acids (Aiko et al. 2016). Approximately, 85% degradation of AFB1 was achieved in combination with heating for 120 minutes. Although two degradation products were formed, namely AFB(2) and AFB(2a), AFB(2a) showed much reduced cytotoxicity on HeLa cells when compared to AFB1.
Ozone (O3) treatment has been identified as a process that contributes to improved quality and safety of food (Mohamed et al. 2022). Studies using ozone as an aflatoxin detoxification treatment on food and feed have shown varying results. Mohamed et al. (2022) reported that ozone treatments eliminated or significantly reduced aflatoxins in raw and ready‐to‐eat meat products with minor changes in physicochemical properties. Kaur et al. (2022) found that groundnut kernels that underwent ozonation and roasting had a 100% reduction in AFB1 when compared to kernels that just received ozonation or roasting. In addition, these authors found that the combined ozonation‐roasting treatment had enhanced the functional compounds, structure, and texture of the kernels. Luo et al. (2015) found that AFB1 contents in maize with a moisture content of 20.37% decreased from 77.6 to 21.42 mug/kg after 40 minutes of treatment with 90 mg/L ozone. The degradation rate was found to be 72.4% (Luo et al. 2015). Contrary to these reports, Baazeem et al. (2022) found that AFB1 production in raw pistachio nuts was stimulated in A. flavus colonies after ozone treatment and storage for a period of 10 days and in nuts inoculated with conidia prior to ozone exposure.
Ozone proved to be an efficient chemical control method in poultry feed with a high AFB1 elimination percentage of up to 86.4% and did not affect the quality of the grain (Torlak et al. 2016). It is important that the application of ozone follows proper ozonation parameters to prevent ozone from decomposing into hydroxyl, hydroperoxyl, and superoxide radicals (Torlak et al. 2016), which can have negative effects on the grain. It is not known to be highly toxic to humans when used at concentrations effective as a fungicide (Sciorsci et al. 2020). However, the use of ozone by smallholder farmers may be limited due to costs or ease of access. A basic Google search on industrial ozone generators showed an average cost of between $400 and $900 per unit, which may be a high price to pay for small, already financially struggling farmers. In addition, a lack of knowledge on the usage of ozone by smallholder farmers may prove to be a major setback (El‐Desouky et al. 2012).
1.9 Biologicals as a Control Strategy Against Aspergillus spp. and Aflatoxins
In this section, biological approaches include plant extracts, essential oils (EOs), and the use of microorganisms as biodegradation agents to control aflatoxin production in food and feed.
