The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mycotoxin analysis: An update
Open accessAbstract
Mycotoxin contamination of cereals and related products used for feed can cause intoxication, especially in farm animals. Therefore, efficient analytical tools for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of toxic fungal metabolites in feed are required. Current methods usually include an extraction step, a clean-up step to reduce or eliminate unwanted co-extracted matrix components and a separation step with suitably specific detection ability. Quantitative methods of analysis for most mycotoxins use immunoaffinity clean-up with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) separation in combination with UV and/or fluorescence detection. Screening of samples contaminated with mycotoxins is frequently performed by thin layer chromatography (TLC), which yields qualitative or semi-quantitative results. Nowadays, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) are often used for rapid screening. A number of promising methods, such as fluorescence polarization immunoassays, dipsticks, and even newer methods such as biosensors and non-invasive techniques based on infrared spectroscopy, have shown great potential for mycotoxin analysis. Currently, there is a strong trend towards the use of multi-mycotoxin methods for the simultaneous analysis of several of the important Fusarium mycotoxins, which is best achieved by LC-MS/MS (liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry). This review focuses on recent developments in the determination of mycotoxins with a special emphasis on LC-MS/MS and emerging rapid methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Nauck, M., Frid, A., Hermansen, K., Shah, N. S., Tankova, T., Mitha, I. H., Zdravkovic, M., Düring, M., Matthews, D. R., & for the LEAD-2 Study Group (2009) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc08-1355 · Cited by 1,129
Malachová, A., Sulyok, M., Beltrán, E., Berthiller, F., & Krska, R. (2014) · Journal of Chromatography A · doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2014.08.037 · Cited by 444
Self-citationWorldwide aflatoxin contamination of agricultural products and foods: From occurrence to control
Jallow, A., Xie, H., Tang, X., Qi, Z., & Li, P. (2021) · Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12734 · Cited by 363
Chemical Composition of Distillers Grains, a Review
Liu, K. (2011) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf103512z · Cited by 323
Silage and the safety and quality of dairy foods: A review
Driehuis, F. (2013) · Agricultural and Food Science · doi:10.23986/afsci.6699 · Cited by 150
“Information about these topics can be found elsewhere (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology [CAST] 2003, Krska et al. 2008, Driehuis et al. 2010).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Krska, R., Schubert-Ullrich, P., Molinelli, A., Sulyok, M., MacDonald, S., & Crews, C.
- Venue
- Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 152-163
- ISSN
- 1944-0049 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-0057
- OpenAlex
- W1974858218
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mycotoxin analysis: An update. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02652030701765723
- The paper
- Krska, R., Schubert-Ullrich, P., Molinelli, A., Sulyok, M., MacDonald, S., & Crews, C. (2008). Mycotoxin analysis: An update. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030701765723
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.