Next Article in Journal
Molecularly Imprinted Polymers for Dispersive (Micro)Solid Phase Extraction: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Formation of Humic-Like Substances during the Technological Process of Lignohumate® Synthesis as a Function of Time
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chromatographic Analysis of Aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus Isolated from Malaysian Sweet Corn

1
Department of Food Science, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
2
Department of Food Service and Management, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
3
Laboratory of Halal Science Research, Halal Products Research Institute, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
4
Laboratory of Food Safety and Food Integrity, Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Food Security, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 9 May 2021 / Revised: 14 June 2021 / Accepted: 30 June 2021 / Published: 5 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Forensics/Toxins)

Abstract

:
High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) provides a quick and efficient tool for accurately characterizing aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic isolates of Aspergillus flavus. This method also provides a quantitative analysis of AFs in Aspergillus flavus. The method’s recovery was assessed by spiking a mixture of AF at different concentrations to the testing medium. The validity of the method was confirmed using aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic strains of A. flavus. The HPLC system, coupled with a fluorescence detector and post-column photochemical reactor, showed high sensitivity in detecting spiked AFs or AFs produced by A. flavus isolates. Recovery from medium spiked with 10, 20, 60, and 80 ppb of AFs was found to be 73–86% using this approach. For AFB1 and AFB2, the limit of detection was 0.072 and 0.062 ppb, while the limit of quantification was 0.220 and 0.189 ppb, respectively. The AFB1 concentrations ranged from 0.09 to 50.68 ppb, while the AFB2 concentrations ranged between 0.33 and 9.23 ppb. The findings showed that six isolates produced more AFB1 and AFB2 than the acceptable limit of 5 ppb. The incidence of aflatoxigenic isolates of A. flavus in sweet corn and higher concentrations of AFB1 and AFB2 emphasize the need for field trials to explore their real potential for AF production in corn.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Aspergillus flavus is a ubiquitous saprophytic or parasitic fungus commonly found in decaying vegetation, crops, and seeds. Contamination of cereal crops by A. flavus is one of the worst food security problems due to its acute and chronic effects on humans and animals [1]. Together with A. parasiticus, A. flavus is the largest agricultural fungal species, producing aflatoxins (AFs) in corn, peanuts, and nuts [2]. Tropical conditions, including high temperatures, high humidity, heavy rains, and floods, cause mycological dissemination and AF production [3]. Due to Malaysia’s tropical environment, the temperature remains between 28 and 31 °C and humidity between 60 and 80%, providing suitable conditions for A. flavus to contaminate cereal crops. The colonization of A. flavus on ripening corn results in contamination with AFs. As climate change progresses, A. flavus is predicted to extend its growing area, contributing to an increasing threat of AF infection throughout the globe [4,5]. AFs are secondary metabolites that cause severe disease in humans and animals [6,7]. While approximately 13 types of AFs are currently identified, AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2 are the most harmful to humans and animals, predominantly found in foods and feeds. The letters “B” and “G” represent their blue and green fluorescence released under ultraviolet (UV) radiation, while the digits show their major and minor compounds. Furthermore, AFB2 and AFG2 are the dihydroxy byproducts of AFB1 and AFG1 [8,9]. AFs possess specific fluorescence activities due to their oxygenated pentaheterocyclic framework known as the coumarin nucleus (Figure 1). The tendency to fluoresce has motivated several analytical approaches to detect and quantify such toxins [10]. Owing to the lack of double bonds within the furan rings, AFB2 and AFG2 provide a greater fluorescence quantum output than both AFB1 and AFG1 [11].
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified AFB1 as a Group 1 human carcinogen, causing liver cancer in humans [12]. This active site might be involved in a reduction reaction, leading to a significant shift in its functions [13,14]. AFB1 is usually heat-resistant and can tolerate high temperatures during cooking or sterilization processes. In human food, the presence of AFB1 can cause acute and chronic health effects, including immunosuppressive diseases, stunting in children, hepatic carcinoma (HCC), and even death. Inhaling AF-contaminated dust may induce tumors in human and animal respiratory tracts [15]. Moreover, AFB1 is directly linked to jaundice, diarrhea, depression, low-grade fever, and liver cancer. The communities of A. flavus existing in diverse agroecosystems are composite sets of different populations.
Therefore, understanding the ability of A. flavus to produce AFs is an essential factor in the forecast of the prevalence and intensity of AF contamination. Previous studies presumed that A. flavus produces only AFB1 and AFB2; recent studies have found that few strains of A. flavus produce AFG1 and AFG2 [16,17]. Several strategies, including fungal cultures and molecular marker-based methods, have been developed to identify and distinguish aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic A. flavus strains [18,19]. Culture-based methods are rapid, cost-effective, and involve limited research expertise, however, the development of new analytical methods could be considered a promising alternative to culture-based methods, as they may have a broad range of applications, a shorter total analysis time, and high efficiency, sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is an advanced analytical separation method since it perfectly complements other known chromatographic techniques (conventional column chromatography, thin-layer chromatography, and gas chromatography). Furthermore, HPLC, equipped with a fluorescence detector (FLD) and post-column photochemical reactor, ensures a relatively fast, efficient, sensitive, specific, and global method for the detection of AF. Therefore, the HPLC-FLD system is a very versatile separation/detection system that allows the identification of chemical compounds. Given the advantages of HPLC-FLD, this study aimed to develop an analytical method for the identification of AF-producing isolates of A. flavus, isolated from Cameron Highlands’ sweet corn [20], and the quantification of these different AFs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Reagents

Standards including AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2 were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). HPLC-grade methanol and acetonitrile were acquired from Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) and used to prepare the mobile phase. HPLC-grade chloroform was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA) and used for the extraction of the AFs. Ultra-pure water was acquired from Elga LabWater (High Wycombe, UK) and used to prepare the mobile phase and culture media. Whatman filters with 0.2 µm pore size and a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) syringe filter (0.22 µm with 13 mm diameter) were obtained from HmbG Chemicals (Hamburg, Germany). Potato dextrose agar (PDA) was bought from Oxoid Ltd. (Basingstoke, UK).

2.2. Aflatoxin Standards Preparation

Standard solutions of AFB1 and AFB2 were prepared in acetonitrile at a fixed volume of 10 ppb (parts per billion) using a slightly modified method of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) [21,22]. In preparing 10 ppb of each AF stock standard, 10 mg of individual AF was dropped in 100 mL volumetric flasks. In each volumetric flask, 50 mL acetonitrile was poured and stirred for 30 s. Next, a 10 mL solution was emptied into a volumetric flask and mixed with the acetonitrile. The working solutions (individual and mixture solutions) were prepared with acetonitrile and retained in HPLC vials (Thermo Scientific, Milford, MA, USA) at −4 °C. Standard solutions of AFs were developed by dissolving the mobile phase’s working solutions in the calibration curve.

2.3. Strains of Aspergillus Flavus

Forty isolates of A. flavus were used in this study. For the recovery experiments, A. flavus NRRL 21,882 was used as a non-aflatoxigenic strain as it cannot produce AFs due to the deletion or mutation of gene clusters responsible for AF biosynthesis [23,24]. Alternatively, ATCC 200026 (synonym: NRRL 3357) was employed as a positive control since it produces AFB1 and AFB2 in laboratories and fields [25]. The A. flavus isolates were grown for 7 d at 30 ± 2 °C. PDA was preferred for this study, as it is rich in carbohydrate content and possesses an acidic pH (5.1), providing favorable conditions for A. flavus to grow and produce AFs [23]. Following seven days of incubation, conidia were harvested, counted, and adjusted to 1 × 106 using a hemocytometer and sterile distilled water. Spore suspensions of A. flavus were preserved at −4 °C until further analysis.

2.4. Inoculation of Aspergillus Flavus

Spore suspensions were used as an inoculum source throughout the inoculation process. Forty isolates of A. flavus with negative control (NRRL 21,882) and positive control (NRRL 3357) were inoculated in petri dishes (100 mm × 20 mm), comprising roughly 25 mL PDA. After inoculation, the dishes were incubated at 30 ± 2 °C for seven days.

2.5. Extraction of Aflatoxins

A flowchart for the extraction of AFs from A. flavus culture is presented in Figure 2. AFs were extracted from A. flavus cultures using a solid–liquid extraction method. We transferred 10 mL of ultrapure water into each culture, and spores were harvested by gently scratching the mycelial surface and transferred into 50 mL conical centrifuge tubes. Spore suspensions were then vortexed (LMS Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) for 30 s, before 1 mL was emptied into new 15 mL centrifuge tubes, mixed with 1.5 mL chloroform, and vortexed for 30 s. Next, the mixture was subjected to centrifugation (Sartorius, Germany) for 5 min at 13,000× g. The residual from the bottom phase was shifted into new HPLC vials. An additional 1.5 mL chloroform was used to extract the sample residue and recover traces of AFs following the first extraction. The chloroform extracts were mixed and vaporized to achieve adequate aridity. The extract was then diluted with a mobile phase of 1 mL and filtered into an HPLC vial using a PTFE syringe filter.

2.6. High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Procedure

In this study, samples were tested for AFs by a reversed-phase HPLC system (Waters 600, Milford, MA, USA) equipped with a fluorescence detector (FLD) (Waters 2475, Milford, MA, USA) and post-column photochemical reactor. The separation was accomplished through a C18 column (Ymc Triart, 5 μM, 12 nm, 150 mm × 4.6 mm; YMC, Tokyo, Japan) at 40 °C. The excitation and emission wavelengths were 360 nm and 440 nm, respectively. A mobile phase of acetonitrile (CH3CN)/methanol (CH3OH)/distilled water (H2O) (10:35:55 v/v/v) with a flow rate of 1 mL/min was employed to elute the samples. The mobile phase (acetonitrile, methanol, and dH2O) was filtered using a Whatman filter (0.2 µM × 47 mm diameter; Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and degassed for 30 min in an ultrasonic bath (Power sonic 420, Seoul, Korea). The volume of injection was 20 μL. The data software Empower-2 Chromatography (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) was used for data acquisition and data processing.

2.7. Validation of HPLC

The HPLC process was validated by assessing recovery, accuracy, linearity, and sensitivity under the AOAC guidelines [21], with minor changes. A mixture of known concentrations of AFB1 and AFB2 (10, 20, 60, and 80 ppb) was spiked into the blank samples to validate recovery. The spike of each concentration was achieved in triplicate, and the tests were conducted in triplicate each day for three consecutive days. Accuracy was observed through reliability. Reliability was measured by the relative standard deviation (RSD) of spiked toxins recurrent on the first day. Blank samples were developed by inoculating the negative control (NRRL 21,881) on PDA, harvested, and analyzed by HPLC coupled with FLD and a post-column photochemical reactor. The selectivity of the method was confirmed, as the chromatographic peaks did not conflict with the retention time of the AFs. The linearity for AFs was observed in triplicate, ranging between 10 and 80 ppb. The calibration curve for each concentration (10, 20, 60, and 80 ppb) was constructed employing the peak area of the AF against the analyte concentration. The linearity was assessed through the correlation coefficient (R2), interception (y), and slope (s) of the regression line. The sensitivity of the HPLC method was assessed by evaluating the LOD and LOQ through the following equation:
LOD = 3.3 σ/s and LOQ = 10 σ/s.
where σ is the standard deviation of blank samples, and s is the calibration curve slope.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The HPLC system has been enhanced and verified using statistical analysis to improve the recovery of the AFs and avoid chemical loss. The quantities were averaged and shown as a mean ± standard error. The peak areas of the AFs were separated without any interruption. The significance (p < 0.05) of the data was analyzed through the ANOVA test (analysis of variance) with a confidence interval of 95% using the SPSS® version 25 software (IBM SPSS® Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The following equation determines the relative standard deviation (RSD).
RSD = Si × 100/×
where S represents the standard deviation, while x represents the mean of the data.

3. Results

3.1. Aspergillus Flavus on PDA

On PDA, A. flavus isolates produced olive-green conidia, which dominated the appearance of the colony. After three days of incubation, sporulation began from the center and progressed radially, covering the colony’s surface. The conidia produced had a yellowish to olive color. As the sporulation spread outwards, it gave a characteristic white border encircling the sporulating mycelia. The white border eventually covered as the entire mycelia continued to sporulate and produce more conidia by day seven. The colonies produced brown or colorless exudates (droplets). Some isolates produced a compact mass of dark brown fungal mycelia (sclerotia). The reverse of the A. flavus colonies was pale in color. As the colony grew, it slightly raised as the mycelia piled, and the center became floccose and rough (Figure 3).

3.2. LOD and LOQ for Aflatoxin

The LOD and LOQ for AFs were used to validate the HPLC system’s performance. A standard solution of 20–80 ppb/mL of AFB1 and AFB2 was used to construct a four-point calibration curve. The LOD for AFB1 was 0.072 ppb, while for AFB2 it was 0.062 ppb. In contrast, the LOQ for AFB1 was 0.220 ppb, while for AFB2 it was 0.180 ppb (Table 1).

3.3. Linearity

The linearity was determined by four-point calibration curves over the range of 10 to 80 ppb for individual AFs to determine a relative association between response and AF concentration. Calibration curves were constructed by plotting the peak area (y) against the AF concentration (x) (Figure 4). Linear regression (R2) ranged between 0.9952 and 0.9960 for the FLD detector, representing enhanced linearity for AFB1 and AFB2 (Table 1).

3.4. Recovery of Aflatoxins

The percentage recovered of the analytes when the test sample is assessed with the complete method is known as the recovery of the method [26]. Table 2 represents the recovery percentage of AFB1 and AFB2 at different concentrations of a spike in culture conditions. Recovery of AFs exhibited the same retention time with a total recovery of 73–86%.

3.5. Quantification of AFB1 and AFB2

Regarding AFB1 quantification, 24 strains of A. flavus produced AFB1 ranging from 0.09 to 50.68 ppb, while the remaining 16 strains did not produce AFB1 (Table 3). In these AFB1-producing strains, two strains surpassed the maximum acceptable limit of 5 ppb. Alternatively, 22 strains were found to produce AFB2 with levels of 0.33 to 9.23 ppb. The results indicated that 6 of the 40 isolates produced AFB1 and AFB2 in quantities higher than the permissible limit of 5 ppb in food. Moreover, the positive control (NRRL 3357) produced both AFB1 and AFB2 with concentrations of 3.96 to 1.14 ppb. In contrast, the negative control (NRRL 21,882) did not produce any type of AFs (AFB1, AFB2) when cultured on the PDA medium, as seen in previous studies [23,27].

4. Discussion

The contamination of sweet corn with AFs represents one of the worst global food security problems, due to their acute and chronic adverse effects on humans and animals [28]. A. flavus is the leading food contaminant since it can produce AFs and persists as a pathogen in both pre-and post-harvest food supply [26]. The growth of A. flavus and AF production are linked to various environmental factors, including water activity, temperature, pH, and content of CO2 [1,29,30]. In Malaysia, the environmental conditions are characterized by high temperature, high humidity, and inadequate storage practices that contribute to the potential for a substantial exposure of the Malaysian people to AFs. Recent studies have found that species of A. flavus and A. niger are the most common fungi isolated from contaminated cereal crops [31]. The results of the current study demonstrate that among the 40 isolates of A. flavus, 24 isolates were aflatoxigenic, producing AFB1 and AFB2, while the remaining 18 isolates were non-aflatoxigenic. This study also displayed that all aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic isolates produced olive-green colonies on PDA medium and rapidly grow at optimum temperature (25–32 °C). This observation suggests the presence of aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic isolates in A. flavus species. The results also revealed that the A. flavus isolates producing small sclerotia could produce both AFB1 and AFB2, while the A. flavus isolates producing large sclerotia did not synthesize AFB1 and AFB2.
The results obtained from the current study demonstrated significant variability in the AF-producing potential of A. flavus. According to Bandyopadhyay et al. [32] and Sarma et al. [33], the size and formation of sclerotia are strongly related to the aflatoxigenicity of A. flavus isolates. It has been identified that all S-type A. flavus strains producing small sclerotia (≤400 μM in diameter) are aflatoxigenic, whereas the L-type strains producing larger sclerotia (≥400 μM in diameter) include both aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic strains. Similarly, Mellon [34] has reported a close relationship between small sclerotia and AF production. On the contrary, Barrett and Bevis [35] and Ehrlich et al. [36] found the highest level of AFs in isolates having large sclerotia. Hence, the relationship between AF production and sclerotial size and was observed in this study. This method has shown efficient separation capacity and selectivity, allowing the simultaneous quantification of the AFB1 and AFB2 produced by aflatoxigenic strains. The FLD detection method proficiently distinguishes the peaks of AFB1 and AFB2 in the same HPLC run without interruption. Besides that, method validation is a vital criterion for conducting the HPLC analysis [37]. LOD and LOQ were applied to validate the performance of the HPLC method. LOD is the lowest analyte concentration detected under specified laboratory conditions but not simply quantitated [38]. In contrast, LOQ is the smallest analyte concentration that can be quantified [39]. In this study, multiple concentrations of 3.0 ppb were injected to evaluate the sensitivity of FLD for detecting AFB2. It was noticed that FLD easily detected AFB2 at parts per trillion (ppt) as predicted, since it lacks a double bond in furan rings. To the best of our knowledge, an LOD of 1.0–5.0 ppb is adequate for a researcher to distinguish between aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic strains of A. flavus and to quantify the concentration of AFs. In this study, we used reversed-phase chromatography in which AFs were eluted in a sequence of AFB2 and AFB1 (Figure 5). The sequence has been confirmed by matching the retention time attained in the AF mixture with the retention time of the individual AFs. The extracted AFs were then identified using the FLD detector (Figure 5). Note that AFB2 can also be observed in low quantities while using the FLD detector as it fluoresces 40 times as higher as AFB1.
The percentage recovered of the analytes when the test sample was assessed with the complete method is known as method recovery [40]. FLD has detected all spiked samples in the sequence, and their mean was calculated. The recovery spectrum agreed with the criteria of AOAC and Codex Alimentarius’ acceptable recovery limits. The acceptable recovery limit of the AOAC at 10 ppb is from 70 to 125%, while for Codex Alimentarius, it is 60–120% at 1−10 ppb. The results indicated that 6 of the 40 isolates had produced AFB1 and AFB2 in amounts higher than the maximum acceptable limit of 5 ppb in food. Therefore, further research on AFs contamination of sweet corn in the field and storage is needed to provide data on the Malaysian population’s exposure towards AFs, particularly AFB1.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this is the first detailed study on A. flavus associated with sweet corn collected from the Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. This study demonstrated that an HPLC instrument (Waters 600, USA) coupled with a fluorescence detector (Waters 2475, USA) assured precision and linearity in the quantitative determination of AFs produced by aflatoxigenic A. flavus isolates. Chloroform was used for the extraction of AFs to prevent emulsion production—a two-layer mixture with AF existing in the chloroform layer, minimizing toxin loss and leaving other substances in the aqueous layer. Peaks of AFB1 and AFB2 were differentiated within 15 min with excellent selectivity, linearity, and recovery. AFB1 was detected in 24 of 40 A. flavus isolates ranging from 0.09 to 50.68 ppb, and 22 isolates were found to be producing AFB2 ranging between 0.33 and 9.23 ppb. The results indicated that 6 of the 40 strains had produced AFB1 and AFB2 in quantities greater than the permissible limit of 5 ppb. The occurrence of AF-producing A. flavus isolates in sweet corn and the quantities of AFB1 and AFB2 greater than the permissible limit emphasizes the need for field trials to investigate their actual ability for AF production in corn crops.

Author Contributions

F.M.G., supervision, project administration, funding acquisition; R.K., methodology, writing—original draft preparation; N.I.P.S., conceptualization, and methodology assistance; N.A.M. review, resources, and data curation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Geran Inisiatif Putra Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM/GP/2017/9568800.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial contribution of the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysia, for funding this research under the Science Fund (Grant number: 05-01-04-SF0750).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding this paper’s publication.

References

  1. Medina, A.; Schmidt-Heydt, M.; Rodriguez, A.; Parra, R.; Geisen, R.; Magan, N. Impacts of environmental stress on growth, secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters and metabolite production of xerotolerant/xerophilic fungi. Curr. Genet. 2015, 61, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Abbas, H.K.; Accinelli, C.; Shier, W.T. Biological control of aflatoxin contamination in US crops and the use of bioplastic formulations of Aspergillus flavus biocontrol strains to optimize application strategies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 7081–7087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Dias, C.; Aires, A.; Saavedra, M.J. Antimicrobial activity of isothiocyanates from cruciferous plants against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 19552–19561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Assunção, R.; Martins, C.; Viegas, S.; Viegas, C.; Jakobsen, L.S.; Pires, S.; Alvito, P. Climate change and the health impact of aflatoxins exposure in Portugal–an overview. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2018, 35, 1610–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Van der Fels-Klerx, H.; Vermeulen, L.; Gavai, A.; Liu, C. Climate change impacts aflatoxin B1 in maize aflatoxin M1 in milk: A case study of maize grown in Eastern Europe and imported to the Netherlands. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0218956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Mohammed, A.; Chala, A.; Ojiewo, C.; Dejene, M.; Fininsa, C.; Ayalew, A.; Arias, R.S. Integrated management of Aspergillus species and aflatoxin production in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) through the application of farmyard manure and seed treatments with fungicides and Trichoderma species. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 2018, 12, 196–207. [Google Scholar]
  7. Prakash, B.; Kedia, A.; Mishra, P.K.; Dubey, N. Plant essential oils as food preservatives to control molds, mycotoxin contamination, and oxidative deterioration of agri-food commodities–Potentials and challenges. Food Control 2015, 47, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fente, C.; Ordaz, J.J.; Vazquez, B.; Franco, C.; Cepeda, A. New additive for culture media for rapid identification of aflatoxin-producing Aspergillus strains. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 4858–4862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hruska, Z.; Yao, H.; Kincaid, R.; Brown, R.; Cleveland, T.; Bhatnagar, D. Fluorescence excitation-emission features of aflatoxin and related secondary metabolites and their application for rapid detection of mycotoxins. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2014, 7, 1195–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Maragos, C.; Appell, M.; Lippolis, V.; Visconti, A.; Catucci, L.; Pascale, M. Use of cyclodextrins as modifiers of fluorescence in the detection of mycotoxins. Food Addit. Contam. 2008, 25, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chandra, H.; Bahuguna, J.; Singh, A. Detection of aflatoxin in Zea mays L. from Indian markets by competitive ELISA. Octa J. Biosci. 2013, 1, 62–68. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ostry, V.; Malir, F.; Toman, J.; Grosse, Y. Mycotoxins as human carcinogens—the IARC Monographs classification. Mycotoxin Res. 2017, 33, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hua, S.S.T.; Parfitt, D.E.; Sarreal, S.B.L.; Sidhu, G. Dual culture of atoxigenic and toxigenic strains of Aspergillus flavus to gain insight into repression of aflatoxin biosynthesis and fungal interaction. Mycotoxin Res. 2019, 35, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Waliyar, F.; Osiru, M.; Ntare, B.; Kumar, K.; Sudini, H.; Traore, A.; Diarra, B. Post-harvest management of aflatoxin contamination in groundnut. World Mycotoxin J. 2015, 8, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Xie, L.; Chen, M.; Ying, Y. Development of methods for determination of aflatoxins. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 56, 2642–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Camiletti, B.X.; Torrico, A.K.; Maurino, M.F.; Cristos, D.; Magnoli, C.; Lucini, E.I.; Pecci, M.l.P.G. Fungal screening and aflatoxin production by Aspergillus section Flavi isolated from pre-harvest maize ears grown in two Argentine regions. Crop Prot. 2017, 92, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Saldan, N.C.; Almeida, R.T.; Avíncola, A.; Porto, C.; Galuch, M.B.; Magon, T.F.; Oliveira, C.C. Development of an analytical method for identification of Aspergillus flavus based on chemical markers using HPLC-MS. Food Chem. 2018, 241, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Abbas, H.K.; Zablotowicz, R.; Weaver, M.; Horn, B.; Xie, W.; Shier, W. Comparison of cultural and analytical methods for determination of aflatoxin production by Mississippi Delta Aspergillus isolates. Can. J. Microbiol. 2004, 50, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Sadhasivam, S.; Britzi, M.; Zakin, V.; Kostyukovsky, M.; Trostanetsky, A.; Quinn, E.; Sionov, E. Rapid detection, and identification of mycotoxigenic fungi and mycotoxins in stored wheat grain. Toxins 2017, 9, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Khan, R.; Ghazali, M.F.; Mahyudin, N.A.; Samsudin, N.I.P. Morphological characterization, and determination of aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus isolated from sweet corn kernels and soil in Malaysia. Agriculture 2020, 10, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International; AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-0-935584-87-5. [Google Scholar]
  22. Paez, V.; Barrett, W.B.; Deng, X.; Diaz-Amigo, C.; Fiedler, K.; Fuerer, C.; Hostetler, G.L.; Johnson, P.; Joseph, G.; Konings, E.J.; et al. AOAC SMPR® 2016.002. J. AOAC Int. 2016, 99, 1122–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alshannaq, A.F.; Gibbons, J.G.; Lee, M.K.; Han, K.H.; Hong, S.B.; Yu, J.H. Controlling aflatoxin contamination and propagation of Aspergillus flavus by a soy-fermenting Aspergillus oryzae strain. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 16871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dorner, J.W.; Lamb, M.C. Development and commercial use of Afla-guard®, an aflatoxin biocontrol agent. Mycotoxin Res. 2006, 22, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Khan, R.; Ghazali, F.M.; Mahyudin, N.A.; Samsudin, N.I.P. Co-Inoculation of aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic strains of Aspergillus flavus to assess the efficacy of non-aflatoxigenic strains in growth inhibition and aflatoxin B1 reduction. Agriculture 2021, 11, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lahouar, A.; Crespo-Sempere, A.; Marín, S.; Saïd, S.; Sanchis, V. Toxigenic molds in Tunisian and Egyptian sorghum for human consumption. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2015, 63, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Rank, C.; Klejnstrup, M.L.; Petersen, L.M.; Kildgaard, S.; Frisvad, J.C.; Gotfredsen, H.C.; Larsen, O.T. Comparative chemistry of Aspergillus oryzae (RIB40) and A. flavus (NRRL 3357). Metabolites 2012, 2, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Medina, A.; Mohale, S.; Samsudin, N.I.P.; Rodriguez-Sixtos, A.; Rodriguez, A.; Magan, N. Biocontrol of mycotoxins: Dynamics and mechanisms of action. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 17, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Khan, R.; Ghazali, F.M.; Mahyudin, N.A.; Samsudin, N.I.P. Biocontrol of aflatoxins using non-aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus: A literature review. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dagnas, S.; Onno, B.; Membré, J.M. Modeling growth of three bakery product spoilage molds as a function of water activity, temperature, and pH. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 186, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Probst, C.; Bandyopadhyay, R.; Cotty, P. Diversity of aflatoxin-producing fungi and their impact on food safety in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 174, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bandyopadhyay, R.; Ortega-Beltran, A.; Akande, A.; Mutegi, C.; Atehnkeng, J.; Kaptoge, L.; Cotty, P. Biological control of aflatoxins in Africa: Current status and potential challenges in the face of climate change. World Mycotoxin J. 2016, 9, 771–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Sarma, U.P.; Bhetaria, P.J.; Devi, P.; Varma, A. Aflatoxins: Implications on health. Indian J. Clin. Biochem. 2017, 32, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Mellon, J.E. Extracellular xylanolytic and pectinolytic hydrolase production by Aspergillus flavus isolates contributes to crop invasion. Toxins 2015, 7, 3257–3266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Barrett, C.B.; Bevis, L.E. The self-reinforcing feedback between low soil fertility and chronic poverty. Nat. Geosci. 2015, 8, 907–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ehrlich, K.; Moore, G.; Mellon, J.; Bhatnagar, D. Challenges facing the biological control strategy for eliminating aflatoxin contamination. World Mycotoxin J. 2015, 8, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rogers, H.A. How composition methods are developed and validated. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 8312–8316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Currie, L.A. Detection and quantification limits: Origins and historical overview. Anal. Chim. Acta 1999, 391, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Şengül, Ü. Comparing determination methods of detection and quantification limits for aflatoxin analysis in hazelnut. J. Food Drug Anal. 2016, 24, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Trucksess, M.W.; Stack, M.E.; Nesheim, S.; Albert, R.H.; Romer, T.R. Multifunctional column coupled with liquid chromatography for determination of aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, and G2 in corn, almonds, Brazil nuts, peanuts, and pistachio nuts: Collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 1994, 77, 1512–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Chemical structures of AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2.
Figure 1. Chemical structures of AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2.
Separations 08 00098 g001
Figure 2. Flowchart showing the extraction of AFs from an A. flavus culture.
Figure 2. Flowchart showing the extraction of AFs from an A. flavus culture.
Separations 08 00098 g002
Figure 3. Colony morphology of A. flavus on the potato dextrose agar (PDA); (A) = obverse, (B) = reverse.
Figure 3. Colony morphology of A. flavus on the potato dextrose agar (PDA); (A) = obverse, (B) = reverse.
Separations 08 00098 g003
Figure 4. Calibration curves of standard solutions of AFB1 (A) and AFB2 (B) concentrations of 10, 20, 60, and 80 ppb as detected by FLD.
Figure 4. Calibration curves of standard solutions of AFB1 (A) and AFB2 (B) concentrations of 10, 20, 60, and 80 ppb as detected by FLD.
Separations 08 00098 g004
Figure 5. Representative HPLC chromatograms of AFB1 and AFB2 in the culture of A. flavus detected by FLD.
Figure 5. Representative HPLC chromatograms of AFB1 and AFB2 in the culture of A. flavus detected by FLD.
Separations 08 00098 g005
Table 1. Validation of the quantification of AFs by HPLC.
Table 1. Validation of the quantification of AFs by HPLC.
AFLOD (ppb) aLOQ (ppb) bCalibration Curve c R2
AFB10.0720.220y = 55,012, 9.1 + 160.9960
AFB20.0620.180y = 1.92317 +160.9952
a. LOD, b. LOQ, c. x = concentration of AF (ppb); y = intensity.
Table 2. The recovery percentage of spiked aflatoxins from A. flavus culture.
Table 2. The recovery percentage of spiked aflatoxins from A. flavus culture.
Spiked Levels (ppb)Recovery of Aflatoxins (%)
AFB1 (ppb)AFB2 (ppb)
8081.386.0
6077.582.5
2077.676.1
1073.079.4
Table 3. The concentrations of AFB1 and AFB2 produced by A. flavus.
Table 3. The concentrations of AFB1 and AFB2 produced by A. flavus.
Strain No.Sclerotial TypeConcentrations
AFB1 (ppb)AFB2 (ppb)
AKR1---
AKR2L0.278 ± 0.12-
AKR3S0.221 ± 0.05-
AKR4S0.315 ± 0.11-
AKR5L--
AKR6S0.636 ± 0.51-
AKR7S0.428 ± 1.04-
AKR8S2.290 ± 0.682.481 ± 1.04
AKR9S-2.113 ± 0.64
AKR10L0.462 ± 0.390.548 ± 0.62
AKR11L0.508 ± 0.26-
AKR12L0.609 ± 0.11-
ARV13L0.284 ± 0.09-
ARV14S0.423 ± 0.12-
ARV15-0.265 ± 0.59-
ARV16-0.488 ± 0.945.715 ± 0.94
ARV17S3.848 ± 0.315.198 ± 0.05
ARV18S1.550 ± 0.532.165 ± 0.35
ARV19L0.309 ± 0.48-
ARV20L1.163 ± 0.16-
ARV21L3.538 ± 0.530.640 ± 0.01
ARV22L2.512 ± 0.89-
AK23S1.575 ± 0.130.332 ± 0.29
AK24L--
AK25S0.659 ± 0.340.751 ± 0.35
AK26S-1.191 ± 0.39
AK27S-0.536 ± 0.39
AK28S-0.339 ± 0.26
AK29S-0.362 ± 0.21
AK30S-2.142 ± 0.11
AKL31S-1.213 ± 0.14
AKL32S0.429 ± 0.020.330 ± 0.13
AKL33S0.267 ± 0.21-
AKL34L--
AKL35L--
AKL36L--
AKL37L--
AKL38S-8.665 ± 0.19
AKL39L--
AKL40S0.659 ± 0.124.928 ± 0.30
NRRL 21,882---
NRRL 3357S1.142 ± 0.114.928 ± 0.12
Note: (-) stands for nil.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, R.; Ghazali, F.M.; Mahyudin, N.A.; Samsudin, N.I.P. Chromatographic Analysis of Aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus Isolated from Malaysian Sweet Corn. Separations 2021, 8, 98. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/separations8070098

AMA Style

Khan R, Ghazali FM, Mahyudin NA, Samsudin NIP. Chromatographic Analysis of Aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus Isolated from Malaysian Sweet Corn. Separations. 2021; 8(7):98. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/separations8070098

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Rahim, Farinazleen Mohamad Ghazali, Nor Ainy Mahyudin, and Nik Iskandar Putra Samsudin. 2021. "Chromatographic Analysis of Aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus Isolated from Malaysian Sweet Corn" Separations 8, no. 7: 98. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/separations8070098

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop