Review

Mycotoxins: Factors influencing production and control strategies

  • Received: 17 December 2020 Accepted: 05 February 2021 Published: 22 February 2021
  • Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites produced by filamentous fungi in food and feed due to several conditions that affect fungal growth and mycotoxin production in different ways. This review aims to explore the different factors that affect mycotoxin production and their control methods. Environmental conditions such as high temperature and humidity increase the risk of fungal growth and mycotoxin production. Other factors that affect contamination include pH, fungal strain, and substrate. To control mycotoxin contamination an integrated approach that starts in the field prior to planting and continues throughout the whole food chain is required, so good practices help minimize contamination at every step to deliver safe products. Good practices include proper practices on the field before and after planting, good harvest practices, appropriate drying measures, and good storage practices. Mycotoxin contamination is inevitable in food and once present they tend to remain as they are very stable compounds, although several physical, chemical and biological techniques could be applied to help minimize contamination. Food processing may also play a minimal role in controlling mycotoxins. Finally, regulations serve to keep food markets free from highly contaminated products, while proper sampling procedures and analytical methods ensure regulations endorsement.

    Citation: Rouaa Daou, Karine Joubrane, Richard G. Maroun, Lydia Rabbaa Khabbaz, Ali Ismail, André El Khoury. Mycotoxins: Factors influencing production and control strategies[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 416-447. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021025

    Related Papers:

    [1] Alexandra Mora, Umayr Sufi, Jedediah I. Roach, James F. Thompson, Irwin R. Donis-Gonzalez . Evaluation of a small-scale desiccant-based drying system to control corn dryness during storage. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 136-148. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.136
    [2] James F. Thompson, Michael S. Reid, Lucia Felix, Irwin Donis-Gonzalez, Bertha Mjawa, and Jane Ambuko . DryCardTM — A Low-Cost Dryness Indicator for Dried Products. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2017, 2(4): 339-344. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2017.4.339
    [3] Jessie Melo, Chaiane Quevedo, Ana Graça, Célia Quintas . Hygienic quality of dehydrated aromatic herbs marketed in Southern Portugal. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 46-53. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.46
    [4] Ibrahim Fusseini, Stephen K. Torkpo, Kwame Afreh-Nuamah . Assessment of levels of temperature conditions on the effectiveness of multiple-layer hermetic bag for bio-rational management of aflatoxin in stored maize. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(3): 342-353. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.3.342
    [5] Prakasit Duangpapeng, Abil Dermail, Khundej Suriharn . Phenolics, anthocyanins, and antioxidant capacity in the tassels of purple waxy corn: Effects of temperature and time during storage. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(1): 69-83. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024005
    [6] Bunmi K. Olopade, Solomon U. Oranusi, Obinna C. Nwinyi, Patrick B. Njobeh, Isiaka A. Lawal . Modification of montmorillonite clay with Cymbopogon citratus for the decontamination of zearalenone in millet. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 643-657. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.643
    [7] Mohamed-Yousif Ibrahim Mohamed, Ihab Habib . Listeria monocytogenes in food products, and its virulence in North Africa. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2025, 10(1): 97-128. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2025006
    [8] Nicholas Mawira Gitonga, Gilbert Koskey, Ezekiel Mugendi Njeru, John M. Maingi, Richard Cheruiyot . Dual inoculation of soybean with Rhizophagus irregularis and commercial Bradyrhizobium japonicum increases nitrogen fixation and growth in organic and conventional soils. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 478-495. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021028
    [9] Admasu F. Worku, Karta K. Kalsa, Merkuz Abera, Habtu G. Nigus . Effects of storage strategies on physicochemical properties of stored wheat in Ethiopia. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 578-591. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.578
    [10] A. Nurbekov, A. Akramkhanov, A. Kassam, D. Sydyk, Z. Ziyadaullaev, J.P.A. Lamers . Conservation Agriculture for combating land degradation in Central Asia: a synthesis. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(2): 144-156. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.2.144
  • Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites produced by filamentous fungi in food and feed due to several conditions that affect fungal growth and mycotoxin production in different ways. This review aims to explore the different factors that affect mycotoxin production and their control methods. Environmental conditions such as high temperature and humidity increase the risk of fungal growth and mycotoxin production. Other factors that affect contamination include pH, fungal strain, and substrate. To control mycotoxin contamination an integrated approach that starts in the field prior to planting and continues throughout the whole food chain is required, so good practices help minimize contamination at every step to deliver safe products. Good practices include proper practices on the field before and after planting, good harvest practices, appropriate drying measures, and good storage practices. Mycotoxin contamination is inevitable in food and once present they tend to remain as they are very stable compounds, although several physical, chemical and biological techniques could be applied to help minimize contamination. Food processing may also play a minimal role in controlling mycotoxins. Finally, regulations serve to keep food markets free from highly contaminated products, while proper sampling procedures and analytical methods ensure regulations endorsement.



    Abbreviations: AFM1: aflatoxin M1; AFB1: aflatoxin B1; DON: Deoxynivalenol; aw: water activity; OTA: ochratoxin A; ZEN: Zearalenone

    Filamentous fungi are microorganisms that can metabolize a variety of organic substances including sugars, proteins, and lipids… Fungi are ubiquitous in nature and are capable of attacking crops on the field and/ or during storage and surviving within a wide range of environmental factors including temperature, humidity, and pH. Fungi invade commodities extensively consumed by humans and animals and as a result of their growth on foodstuff, they produce as secondary metabolites, low molecular weight compounds known as mycotoxins [1]. Although there are over 100,000 species of known fungi, only a few of them, namely Aspergillus spp., Penicillium spp., and Fusarium spp. are known to be responsible for the production of the majority of mycotoxins that affect agriculture significantly [2,3].

    The emergence of modern mycotoxicology started with the aftermath of a veterinary crisis in London, England in 1962. During that time, 100,000 turkey poults died in what was recognized as a mysterious turkey X disease. This disease that was later attributed to the consumption of contaminated peanut meal with secondary metabolites (aflatoxins) alerted scientists to the possibility of the presence of other risky fungal metabolites [4].

    Currently, more than 300 mycotoxins are known and possess wide variations in fungal origin, structure, function, and biological effect but only few of them appear to have a significant effect on health and agriculture (Table 1) [5,6]. All identified mycotoxins range from simple four carbon compounds to complex ones [1], and this is due to the difference of biosynthetic pathways that result in their synthesis. As mycotoxin production does not appear to have a significant biochemical effect on fungal growth, they may have developed to play a defensive role against multiple intruders including insects, microorganisms, nematodes, animals, and humans. Their production can also play a role in maintaining the oxidative status of the cell at a level that is essential for fungal safety [7]. Some mycotoxins pose several health effects as they are toxic to humans and animals and they present a real concern to public health because of their widespread in the world food supply [8].

    Table 1.  Major mycotoxins, their producing fungi, and affected food types [4,9,10,11,12].
    Mycotoxin Producing Fungi Affected Foodstuff
    Aflatoxin B1, B2, G1, and G2 Aspergillus flavus
    Aspergillus parasiticus
    Aspergillus nomius
    Wheat, maize, rice, peanuts, nuts, spices, oilseeds, and cottonseed
    Aflatoxin M1 Metabolite of aflatoxin B1 Milk and dairy products
    Ochratoxin A Aspergillus carbonarius
    Aspergillus niger
    Aspergillus ochraceus
    Penicillium verrucosum
    Penicillium nordicum
    Penicillium cyclopium
    Wheat, barley, oats, cocoa beans, coffee beans, fruits and fruit juice, dried fruits, and wine
    Patulin Penicillium expansum
    Byssochlamys nivea
    Aspergillus clavatus
    Fruit and fruit juices, cheese, and wheat
    Trichothecenes Fusarium sporotrichiodes
    Fusarium langsethiae
    Fusarium graminearum
    Fusarium culmorum
    Fusarium cerealis
    Maize, wheat, barley, oats, grains, and animal feed
    Zearalenone Fusarium graminearum
    Fusarium culmorum
    Fusarium cerealis
    Fusarium equiseti
    Fusarium verticilliodes
    Fusarium incarnatum
    Maize, wheat, barley, rye and animal feed
    Fumonisin B1, B2, B3 Fusarium verticillioides
    Fusarium proliferatum
    Maize, rice, wheat, sorghum, barley, and oats

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    This review aims to explore the factors that affect mycotoxin contamination and control strategies to minimize their frequency in food.

    Mycotoxigenic fungi are very common pathogens that are frequent in all agricultural regions in the world. They can invade and grow on a wide range of crops, and are very diverse in a way that allows them to produce mycotoxins under a different set of conditions including environmental ones [13]. Several factors affect fungal growth and mycotoxin production, and generally, contamination with these toxins can occur at different points along the food chain since it is an accumulative process that may start in the field and increase during later stages including harvesting, drying, and storage [13]. However, the presence of fungi does not necessarily mean subsequent mycotoxin contamination since the conditions required to produce mycotoxins are specific and independent from those that promote fungal growth [14,15]. Similarly, the removal of fungi from food does not guarantee the absence of mycotoxins because of their resistant chemical nature.

    Fungal growth is divided into two parts: primary and secondary. While primary growth requires organic compounds for synthesis of biomass and energy production necessary to drive chemical reactions and produce primary metabolites essential to growth; secondary growth happens after a period of maintained growth and may lead, but not in all cases, to sporulation and production of secondary metabolites. The secondary metabolites, such as mycotoxis, don't have significant effects on growth, however, they seem to be produced upon the accumulation of excess primary metabolites precursors serving as a way to reduce their concentration in fungi [15].

    Since mycotoxin producing fungi and their target hosts are very diverse, a single set of conditions that contribute to mycotoxin contamination cannot be simply defined. Generally, the major factors that affect mycotoxin production are temperature, aw, relative humidity, pH, fungal strain and substrate.

    Climate factors play a key role in determining fungal occurrence [16] so the activity of the fungi and their level of colonization are much determined by predominant environmental conditions most importantly humidity and temperature specially on the field [9]. Those factors, according to Doohan et al. influence the development, survival, distribution, and frequency of mycotoxigenic fungi and their subsequent toxin accumulation [17]. Temperature and humidity also affect plant growth, strength, and health and influence the competitiveness of mycotoxigenic fungi [13]. Each fungi has an optimal temperature and water activity range for growth, germination, and mycotoxin production. Therefore, no single range of temperature and water activity can be defined as inducing to fungal activity. And due to disparities in environmental conditions and growth requirements, fungal development and mycotoxin production differences among geographical regions are obvious, for example, mycotoxins such as aflatoxins occur more frequently in regions where the climate is tropical and subtropical [18,19].

    When humidity and temperature conditions are favorable, fungal invasion can take place and occur at different stages either on the field or later during drying or storage and in some cases a sharp distinction of the stage in which fungal growth was initiated is not possible [15,20]. On the field, during pre-harvest, fungi such as Fusarium dominate mostly since they are hygrophilic fungal species that require a relative humidity of 90% and above to germinate and grow. While after harvest, hygrophilic fungi disappear as mesophilic and xerophylic fungal species such as Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium spp., germinate, grow and produce mycotoxins at relative humidities of 80 to 90%, and 80% and less, respectively [19]. During storage if the humidity in the surrounding environment exceeds the equilibrium relative humidity of the food, the food will gain moisture and aw of the food will increase. Increasing aw during storage is associated with susceptibility to fungal growth and mycotoxin production (Table 2).

    Table 2.  Fungi types, their growth and mycotoxin production optimal conditions reported in different studies [10,24,25,26,27].
    Fungi Growth Optimal growth Optimal for toxin production
    Temperature aw Temperature aw Temperature aw
    Aspergillus flavus/ parasiticus 15–44 ℃ 0.91–0.99 35 ℃ 0.95 33 ℃ 0.99
    Aspergillus ochraceous 10–40 ℃ 0.80-0.98 24–31 ℃ 0.96–0.98 25–30 ℃ 0.98
    Aspergillus carbonarius 8–40 ℃ 0.90–0.93 32–35 ℃ 0.94–0.99 30–35℃ 0.98

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    As for temperature requirements, most fungal species are mesophiles that grow within a temperature range of 5 to 35 ℃ with optimum growth taking place at a range between 25 to 30 ℃ [21]. There are also fungal species that can tolerate low temperatures known as psychrophiles, and others that can bare high temperatures referred to as thermophiles [9]. Temperature conditions that promote growth are related to chemical reactions necessary for development that happens inside the fungi most efficiently at the optimal temperature ranges allowing for an accelerated growth pace. However, when the temperature shifts from the optimal range the reaction rate declines or may even stop leading to a growth halt [22].

    Conditions that promote fungal growth may not always lead to mycotoxin production. However, generally, a temperature range between 25 and 30 ℃, a water activity higher than 0.78, and relative humidity between 88% and 95% are considered as favorable for fungal growth and subsequent mycotoxin production [23]. For example, it has been observed for Aspergillus spp. that the conditions that promote germination are within a wider range than ones that support fungal growth, which in turn, can take place over a broader range of conditions than mycotoxin production [19] (Table 2).

    The medium surrounding the fungi and its pH value play a role in fungal development and mycotoxin production. pH value or the saturation of hydrogen atoms in the medium surrounding the fungi affects its growth either through direct action on cell surfaces or through indirect effect on nutrient availability. Fungi possess the ability to modulate the surrounding pH through secreting acids or alkali, for example, Pennicilium sp. and Aspergillus sp. can acidify the surrounding by secreting gluconic and citric acids [28]. The capacity of controlling the pH gives the fungi a better chance to survive within the host. pH, on the other hand, can influence aw and temperature interactions since it affects metabolic processes specially ones related to sporulation and morphogenesis [29].

    pH value has also been shown to affect the biosynthesis gene expression, as for example and according to Brzonkalik, "the genes responsible for OTA production in Penicillium verrucosum are expressed at pH 8" [30]. The effect of pH on the production of certain types of mycotoxins is yet to be determined separately for every kind, but it is well established that acidic conditions promote germination and mycotoxin production in most cases. For example, aflatoxin production needs a pH value of 4.0 and in its case, the lower the pH the higher the synthesis [7,15]. Similarly, OTA is observed at much higher levels when Aspergillus ochraceus are at lower pH ranges [30]. Fumonisin B1, in turn, is not stable in an alkaline medium and needs a pH of 4.0 to 5.0 to be synthesized [7] and trichothecene production, as well, is induced under acidic conditions [15].

    Fungal species vary in toxicity and the production of mycotoxins is sometimes restricted to some types of fungi and at many times it is even limited to specific strains within a species [31]. And according to Laubscher et al. mycotoxin production is affected by "strain specificity, variation, and instability" [32]. This is evident since within the same species strains can display differences in the optimum conditions needed to promote growth and toxin production and different strains of same species may produce different types of mycotoxins. For example, Aspergillus flavus can grow at a temperature range of 15–44 ℃ and produce AFB1 unlike Aspergillus carbonarius that thrive at a wider temperature range of 8–40 ℃ and produce OTA [19].

    Mycotoxigenic fungi can grow on various types of substrates but the exact reason why fungi predominate on a specific food item is still unclear. However, since the nutrients required for their growth, mainly carbon and nitrogen, are widely found in food items especially ones rich with carbohydrates [33], molds can be found on almost all kinds of foodstuff. Nevertheless, substrates that promote fungal growth may not automatically be considered as supporters to mycotoxin production knowing that the conditions which promote toxin production are usually more constrained than those required for growth. In general, the production of mycotoxins is influenced mainly by the interaction of several factors in a substrate including pH, temperature, and composition especially the presence of simple sugars [34]. The interaction of multiple factors within a substrate imposes limitations on fungal growth, germination, and mycotoxin production since in the presence of all promoting factors, the lack of one single factor may affect fungal growth and halt its development.

    Osmotic pressure in a substrate affects fungal growth and mycotoxin production and many studies showed that it participates in determining the physiological responses of the fungi and it affects the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites including mycotoxins [35]. In addition to that, studies have shown that upon osmotic stress fungi are able to adjust their physiology in a way that enhances their adaptation and survival [35].

    On the other hand, sugars are composed of carbon molecules and naturally, filamentous fungi possess the ability to hydrolyze multiple carbon sources to produce energy and support growth [36]. Therefore, in the presence of sugars, especially simple ones that are readily available for breakdown, fungal growth will be more frequent. While upon the domination of complex sugars, fungal growth will be slower since those require more digestion to attain readily absorbable units of carbon. Simple sugars might also induce the production of mycotoxins, for example, Liu et al [37] showed that an increase of soluble sugars concentration to 3.0% and 6.0%, especially sucrose, maltose, and glucose promoted AFB1 production in cell culture. Similarly, Uppala et al. showed that more AFB1 production by A. flavus was caused by increasing the sugar content of the medium [38].

    Climate change is becoming more obvious and environmental changes are expected accordingly, this include an increase in global temperature that is anticipated to increase by 1.5 to 4.5 ℃ at the end of the 21st century [39]. An increase in precipitation, extreme weather conditions such as heat waves and prolonged cold winter, flooding, and droughts are also expected. This change will be coupled by an accumulation of gases in the atmosphere including carbon dioxide that is expected to double or triple in concentration within the next 25 to 50 years [40]. Global warming and climate change can greatly affect food security including the decrease of yields, decrease of crop quality, and the increase of food safety issues rendering some products unsuitable for human consumption. Global change is expected to affect many aspects of the food chain (Table 3) in what relates to mycotoxins especially that they are mainly affected by environmental factors [41].

    Table 3.  Climate change effects on atmosphere, agriculture, mycotoxin production, and crop storage.
    Climate change impact on different elements Specific effect
    Effect on weather Increase in global temperature; Increase in precipitation; Extreme weather conditions (prolonged warm or cold episodes); Flooding; Droughts; Accumulation of gases in the atmosphere (CO 2)
    Effect on agriculture Decrease of yields; Decrease of crop quality; Increase of pest and insect population, spread, and attacks; Early maturing and ripening of crops; Decreased plant resilience; Changes in crop pathology
    Effect on mycotoxins Increase or decrease in mycotoxin production according to regions and prevalence of climatic conditions optimal for mycotoxin production such as temperature and humidity
    Effects on storage In uncontrolled storage: Increase in the risk of fungal invasion and mycotoxin production; Formation of hotspots in storage; Increase of intragranular CO 2; Increase grain respiration; Increase in insect and pest attacks

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Climate change is expected to affect regions in varied ways, and according to the European Food Safety Authority, some geographical regions will be affected in advantageous ways while others will experience detrimental effects [42]. For example, according to Medina et al. Southern Europe and the Mediterranean basin will experience significant changes that lead to mycotoxin prevalence increase and yield production decrease, while in northern Europe the climate change effects are expected to be positive [43].

    Since fungal growth, germination, and mycotoxin production are governed by environmental factors and are prevalent under a set of optimal conditions, climate change and the shift in temperature and humidity might have varied effects on mycotoxin production. For example, some mycotoxins that are normally produced at low temperatures might not be produced as the later shift to higher levels, while others that are dominant in sub-tropical and tropical areas such as aflatoxins might start to be produced in usually temperate regions due to the expected increase in temperature in those areas and this was previously evident in Italy where a set of hot and dry episodes in 2003 and 2004 induced the colonization of Aspergillus flavus and the production of aflatoxins [44,45]. Therefore, each mycotoxin will be affected in different ways according to the prevalence of their optimal production conditions.

    Climate change can also affect global mycotoxin contamination indirectly through (1) the increase of pest and insect populations, global spread, and attacks, (2) early maturing and ripening of crops, (3) decreased plant resilience, and (4) change in host pathology upon the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere [40,43,46].

    But since fungi tend to adapt to change it is complex to accurately determine the effect of climate change on mycotoxins and further studies need to be done in this domain [40].

    Climate change can also affect harvest and drying since unexpected heavy rains due to extreme weather conditions cause farmers to harvest immature kernels and store them without drying, therefore increasing the risk of mycotoxin contamiantion. On the other hand, in regions where warm conditions are predicted to dominate, faster crop growth cycles and earlier harvest are expected leading to reduced drying needs before storage [47].

    As climate change progresses storage of food becomes an important measure to mitigate probable shortages due to decreased agricultural yields. However, environmental changes accompanied by warm and humid weathers can heavily affect storage and cause unfavorable interactions between different factors leading to accelerated grain deterioration. Storage problems are mostly expected in developing countries especially on-farm storage sites where storage conditions are not well controlled. In warm climates fungi such as Aspergillus flavus are expected to become the most threatening since they survive in high temperatures and cause mycotoxin production such as aflatoxins, and in regions with high humidity and damp atmospheres, the risk of fungal invasion in stored grains also increase [47]. Amid changed environmental conditions and with reduced grains quality that are expected to be less resistant to fungal attacks, factors that induce fungal growth and mycotoxin production will prevail in storage including the formation of hotspots in storage, an increase of intra-granular CO2, increased grain respiration leading to an elevated aw in stored grains. In addition to that, insect attacks might further worsen the case of contamination by damaging the crops rendering them more prone to fungal attack [47].

    Therefore, under any climatic conditions, it is highly crucial to store crops and grains in controlled storage facilities that maintain a safe temperature and humidity levels and provide proper aeration systems to maintain grain quality and protect it from fungal attacks and mycotoxin contamination. (Further details on proper storage conditions are more explicated in the article).

    Mycotoxins production in nature is unavoidable and most foods consequently are at a risk of being contaminated. The destruction of contaminated crops results in huge economic losses, so mycotoxin control through the food chain is essential. Mycotoxins are very diverse and can be produced at several stages, by several fungi, and on several crops, so a single control strategy for all mycotoxins cannot be adopted and applied universally. However, some practices can be implemented to avoid their entry and minimize their frequency in food products. Currently, no method is available for total control of mycotoxins, and the development of a food safety program concerning contamination control is complex. A successful approach might be to adopt an integrated food safety system that involves proper quality practices at each stage of production to minimize mycotoxins frequency in the end product (Figure 1). Such practices would include applying proper measures during pre-harvest, harvest, drying, storage, and processing [48].

    Figure 1.  Proper practices to minimize mycotoxin contamination along the food chain.

    The majority of fungi are considered as phytophathogens as they infect the plants on the field [9], so management of contamination during pre-harvest is extremely important since it presents the first route of mycotoxin introduction into food. Generally, fungi that dominate on the field are species of Fusarium spp., Cladosporium spp., and Alternaria spp. On the other hand, Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium spp. can be found on field but at low rates and in general, the extent of contamination is expected to be higher wherever climatic conditions are in principle favorable to mycotoxin contamination [49]. While it is impossible to completely prevent mycotoxin development at pre-harvest, it is still extremely important to develop strategies that aim at reducing contamination during this phase. Those strategies should be of a high priority since decreasing the inoculum concentration at pre-harvest is considered crucial to the quality of the subsequent product. Therefore, in order to adopt proper strategies, a sufficient understanding of the toxigenic fungi, type of crops, field management, and harvesting practices should be applied [50]. In the field, many factors can contribute to mycotoxins presence such as drought stress, insect infestation, heat, poor soil fertility, and delayed harvesting…[50,51] Proper field practices include field preparation and management before planting, and field and crop management after planting.

    Field preparation before planting is crucial to control fungal attack and mycotoxin contamination and it includes; tilling and deep plowing, crop rotation, timing the production cycle, and the use of high-quality seeds or disease-resistant cultivars.

    Tilling and deep plowing are essential to remove any remaining plant material. Previous crop residues that persist on the ground eventually deteriorate and harbor soil-borne fungi increasing their readiness to invade any new crops. So plowing buries the debris underground making them inaccessible to fungal inhabitation [52]. Tilling may also increase water availability to crops by minimizing the compressed layers of soil [53]. On the other hand, crop rotation prevents fungal species build-up [50,51] and it has been shown that mycotoxin contamination is higher in plots where the same crops are grown over consecutive years [52] since molds that might be well-established on a plant can prevail from a year to another if the same kind was planted continuously [54]. Planning the dates of planting and timing the production cycle are crucial as well to achieving vigorous crops at harvest. It is specifically critical to plan this cycle ahead of time to prevent early or late maturing of the plant and avoid the harvest at a time of rainfall or high relative humidity [52,54]. Seeds used for planting are of extreme importance too, since they are the foundation of any new crop. Therefore, good seed quality contributes to the growth of healthy plants that can withstand fungal attacks. Seeds must be inspected to ensure the absence of any disease or pest attack, otherwise, they will not germinate or they will be prone to fungal invasions that will successively increase the risk of mycotoxin contamination. Using resistant cultivars, on the other hand, may present a successful approach to prevent disease and control toxin contamination. At present, there are no totally resistant varieties, but partially resistant ones exist that can be used, but those do not provide protection against all genera of fungi. Partially resistant seeds are also mostly effective in cooler temperature climates, while, the resistance is needed to a bigger extent in tropical and sub-tropical regions where fungal infections are more frequent [52]. Resistant seeds may not be available in markets and they are more expensive than regular ones, so farmers in developing countries may not have access to those seeds which affects the quality of their product. Alternatively, farmers resort to farm-saved seeds, and this practice would be safe in case the seeds were stored at appropriate temperature and humidity conditions that protect them from infection.

    After planting, facilitating the growth of healthy plants by implementing proper field practices and reducing stress on the crops minimizes fungal growth and mycotoxins production. This stage includes the use of fertilizers, appropriate irrigation methods, weed and insect control, chemical control, and biological control [50,51].

    The use of fertilizers improves plant health and maintains its resistance towards disease and fungi. Nutrient availability is very important for plant vigor and lack of proper plant nutrition leads to breaking in the stem of the plant making it more exposed to fungal invasion. So, in case nutrients were deficient in the soil, fertilizers can be used to increase soil fertility. However, fertilizer application must be accurate in timing and quantity since over-application may expose the plant into further stress making it more prone to pest and mold attacks. Heavy application may also be hazardous on human health since fertilizers contain, in addition to essential nutrients, heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic that might accumulate in the plant or contaminate underground water. Exposure to fertilizers by farmers can also lead to many respiratory and dermal health problems such as cough, chest tightness, difficulty breathing, skin rashes, and dermatitis [55].

    Appropriate irrigation can also prevent mycotoxins accumulation and it includes two main aspects; irrigation timing and method. Proper timing can prevent drought stress that results in plant cracking and facilitates fungal spores' entrance. The irrigation method, in which splashing is controlled is also essential to prevent fungal spreading [52]. Weed and insect control is also crucial to prevent disease in crops and further fungal invasion. Weeds contribute to contamination by acting as reservoirs of fungal inoculum and by competing for water and nutrients with the crops hence rendering them weak [56]. Therefore, weed removal should be continuously practiced. Insects, on the other hand, can cause fungal dissemination and make the grains more vulnerable to infection by causing physical damage. Hence, it is important to keep the area clean from plant debris, since removing any residual plants or vegetable matters makes food unavailable for rodents and reduces pest attack possibilities. The application of insecticides at appropriate doses, as well, can help control the frequency of attack.

    Although the presence of fungi is not a definite indicator of mycotoxin contamination, their presence may imply an increased risk of contamination in case suitable conditions for mycotoxin production were found. Therefore, early detection of filamentous fungi in crops that allows for corrective measures is crucial. Methods to detect filamentous fungi need to be accurate, rapid, and reliable. Some types of methods are available mainly the mycological methods and the proteomic and genomic techniques [57]. Mycological methods involve common culturing techniques performed through multiple steps including culture, isolation, and identification. This process requires different media and incubation settings of time and temperature and may require subsequent methods to isolate mycotoxins produced and assess the toxicity of the filamentous fungi. Mycological methods are generally time-consuming and labor-intensive. On the other hand, proteomic and genomic techniques identify filamentous fungi at the molecular level and according to El Khoury et al. "the development of molecular biology techniques for the genetic differentiation of species has resulted in substantial advances in taxonomy due to their sensitivity and specificity" [58]. Genomic methods include techniques such as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) in which the DNA sequence of filamentous fungi is compared to sequences attained and deposited in the Gene bank to identify the fungal species tested. The success of the PCR method depends highly on the reliability of the reference gene sequence. And due to the high sensitivity of the PCR method, the detection of specific target DNA-molecules is allowed even in a complex mixture that allows the exact identification of the filamentous fungi present [59].

    Hence, when filamentous fungi are identified at early stages decontamination methods could be applied on the field to prevent germination and growth of fungal species and prevent subsequent ycotoxin production.

    Chemical control through using fungicides is at present the most effective way to control fungal invasion and subsequent mycotoxin contamination [9]. However, studies regarding fungicides are controversial; while many studies showed their effectiveness, others considered that at some instances fungicides can stimulate mycotoxin production and present a threat due to the healthy visual appearance it implies on mycotoxin contaminated crops [60]. Additionally, fungicide is a type of pesticide, and their use has been correlated with health and environmental risks. Uncontrolled intensive application of pesticides has been particularly reported in developing countries resulting in high exposure either through skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion of contaminated food and/ or water. Accordingly, pesticides can be metabolized, excreted, deposited, and/ or accumulated in human bodies causing several health effects [61]. In fact, several studies and experimental data linked pesticide exposure to cancer at different sites and to toxic effects on the nervous, reproductive, respiratory, endocrine, and immune systems [62]. Pesticide health outcomes depend on several factors including its type, exposure route and duration, and the health status of the exposed individual. For example, pesticide residues may be specifically dangerous on susceptible groups such as infants, pregnant women, elderly, and immunosuppressed people. Exposure to pesticides, as well, might compromise possible additive and/ or synergistic effects due to the application of several types on crops and plants rather than a single one [61].

    Biological control includes the application of harmless fungal species that serve to compete with toxic fungi and inhibit their pathogenic activity. Although this measure is not very practical, but it presents a safer alternative for chemical control methods. The idea behind this control is to introduce a strain of non-harmful biological agents such as bacteria or yeasts to compete with the pathogenic fungi for resources and reduce its growth and its mycotoxin producing ability. For example, non-aflatoxigenic strains of Aspergillus spp. are applied as biocontrol agents to compete with aflatoxigenic strains and prevent their domination and the subsequent production of aflatoxins [63]. According to Dorner, upon the application of non-aflatoxin producing strain of Aspergillus parasiticus to the field soil, significant decrease in aflatoxin contamination levels was achieved [64]. Also, in a previous study, aflatoxin contamination decreased significantly upon the application of atoxigenic strains of Aspergillus flavus to cotton rows in Arizona [65].

    But despite its evident benefits, this method has several limitations that might discourage its use. First, non-toxic fungal strains, even though help in reducing mycotoxin contamination, may produce other toxic metabolites that may prove harmful to humans. Second, those strains could lead to an underestimation of mycotoxin contamination since they can affect metabolic pathways of fungi and lead to modified mycotoxin derivatives production. Third, the biocontrol agent used might impact other microorganisms found in nature. Lastly, mycotoxin production ability can be transferred from a parent fungi to a descendant one through the crossing of non-toxigenic strains with toxigenic ones leading to the possible reproduction of successive toxin-producing fungi [63].

    Harvest is a critical stage for mycotoxin control in which moisture content becomes the most important parameter for crop protection. To decide harvest time, it is very important to take into consideration three factors including the predominant climatic conditions, the possibility of insect, pest, rodents, and bird's infestation, and the availability of drying amenities and storage warehouses. In ideal cases, harvest must start after a period of dry weather, but in many circumstances around some regions in the world, this option is not practical. So many crops might be harvested in wet weather conditions making them more susceptible to fungal growth and mycotoxin contamination, or, in a different scenario, some crops may be kept for longer times on the field which increases the risk of fungal attack and of insects, pests, rodents, and birds' attacks. Harvest must be performed in a rapid way but it is also crucial to avoid mechanical damage during the process, especially, when using heavy equipment like tractors. Similarly, it is essential to visually examine the crops and check for any symptoms of fungal disease and accordingly separate the contaminated from the healthy ones. It is also very essential to check for the cleanliness and hygiene of the equipment used for harvesting so no fungal cross-contamination takes place from one batch to another.

    Grains and crops are sometimes harvested with high moisture contents requiring therefore appropriate drying to be stored safely. Drying is an old practice that is used to protect agricultural produce from fungal infection and avoid thereby economic losses. This process may begin prior to harvest and continue until storage, and it is very important to reach the desired moisture content during drying to avoid the risk of fungal invasion at subsequent stages. Preferably, to prevent fungal attack, drying must be performed at the fastest rate possible, but this might be influenced by many factors including harvest practices and crop nature; as for example, the maize kernels covered by leaves dry at a slower rate than exposed sorghum heads [52]. Upon completion of drying, the crops must be transferred as soon as possible to storage.

    Sun-drying was the most popular way of drying crops for a long time. However, in many cases it might not be practical and safe enough since ambient weather conditions may allow extending drying times, increasing, therefore, the risk of fungal attack specifically in large batches. This way, as well, may not be suitable in areas dominated by fluctuating weather conditions since there is always a risk of mold inhabitation due to sudden rainfalls. Some farmers, during sun-drying, tend to place the crops on the soil making them more prone to fungal infection, but this can be solved by placing a barrier or a platform between the soil and the harvested crops. Another technique used is solar drying that also depends on the sun to generate heat that warms the air used for drying in the system. This procedure can be affected by many factors including geographical location, crop size, and the size of production. Alternatively, mechanical drying could be used in which warm dry air is forced into the product hence achieving the desired result at faster rates. For large mass production drying can be executed using superheated steam drying or infrared radiation [66].

    As agriculture is advancing and the human population is growing, the yield of production is increasing, creating the need to store cereals, seeds, and grains in silos or storage facilities for long periods of time. As mentioned previously, it is extremely important to take serious measures that limit fungal invasion and mycotoxin contamination before any product reaches storage since the key to a safe and efficient storing process is the introduction of uncontaminated foods. Otherwise, if the product to be stored is highly contaminated little can be done to prevent further accumulation of fungi or mycotoxins [51]. In storage, several techniques can be applied to prevent fungal infection and germination and to keep the product in a sound condition, while on the other hand any mishandling of the product can lead to rapid deterioration of quality. Several numbers of fungi can inhabit stored grains, but mainly fungal species of low frequency in the field become of significant importance during storage such as Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium spp., while field fungi that require high aw become of less importance [67,68]. Major damage can be created by storage fungi including; mycotoxin production, quality reduction, nutritional losses, and heating initiation [9]. The conditions found in storage that led to fungal growth may not always be inductive to mycotoxin production, and similarly, the absence of fungi may not be a guarantee of the absence of mycotoxins from the commodity since toxins tend to persist even after the fungi disappears. Many factors affect fungal growth and their ability to germinate in storage, most importantly aw and temperature. Mainly storage fungi are capable of growing at a relative humidity of 70 to 90% [9], and they can thrive over a temperature range of 10–40 ℃ with the optimum temperature at a range of 25–35 ℃ [69]. In addition to aw and temperature, other factors also affect storage safety including; grain physical condition, grain nutrient composition, inter-granular air level, microbial interactions between different species in a bulk system such as bacteria and yeasts, usage of inhibiting materials such as chemical preservatives, storage time and the hygienic conditions [9]. Those factors interact during storage, exert significant effects on each other, and influence the extent of colonization. Fortunately, the conditions in the stored grain could be more controlled than those in the field and the stability of the product can be preserved using several methods. And since aw and temperature are the most critical measures of storage safety, ideally both must be monitored and controlled. Accordingly, relative humidity must be maintained below 70% over the whole period of storage and products must be preserved at low temperatures since this can reduce fungal activity and keep the product safe for the desired storage period. The product temperature is a good indicator of storage quality and any fluctuations could lead to the respiration of the grain and condensation resulting in internal pockets of increased aw in the stored product. Subsequently, upon the increase of aw, xerophytic fungi retain their capability to grow, and their metabolic processes, afterward, lead to the production of water resulting in wetter substrates that can support a broader range of fungal growth [13]. Fungal activity leads as well to metabolic heat that raises the temperature hence supporting the growth of more fungi.

    Therefore, storage is a very critical stage along the food chain that could affect subsequent product safety and quality, and it is very crucial to keep the conditions of storage strictly monitored and controlled over the whole storing span. Effective temperature and humidity monitoring and aeration systems in storage facilities are recommended so any problem is storage can be detected at an early stage when interventions could still be effective. Quality checks must be performed regularly, and this may include visual assessments for any signs of damage, pest attack, or mold growth, in addition to microbiological and chemical assessments through periodically collecting representative samples from the bulk and assessing it for quality parameters including, temperature, moisture content, and microorganism contamination. Pest invasion must also be prevented since their attack can increase moisture levels, lead to physical damage of the crop, and cause fungal dissemination. In general, many measures can be taken to assure the safety of the product through using good storage practices summarized in Table 4.

    Table 4.  Good storage practices to reduce fungal and mycotoxin contamination [9,13].
    Element Measures
    Grain Check for appropriate physical conditions prior to storage Check that appropriate moisture content is achieved before storage Check for the presence of disease or fungal infections
    Storage facilities Check soundness and suitability Perform weatherproofing Ensure sanitation of building and equipment Remove previous crop residues Install impermeable moisture barriers on floors
    Insect, rodents, and birds prevention Apply insecticide to building before use Use insect and rodent trapping Seal any holes in the building to prevent the entry of rodents and birds
    Maintenance and monitoring Install devices to measure temperature and moisture Calibrate devices regularly Monitor the presence of pest infestation Monitor any physical damage or signs of disease in crops
    Quality assessment Assess visually the presence of any pest infestation Assess visually the presence of any physical damage or fungal invasion Perform periodic microbiological and chemical assessments
    Record keeping Record data Retain tested samples

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Controlling mycotoxins in the early stages along the food chain and its primary prevention at critical points in the field and during harvest and storage are very crucial [70,71]. As this approach remains the best one to preserve the quality of food and protect it from mycotoxin contamination, it may not always be certainly effective and mycotoxins may appear in the subsequent food commodities that are destined for use in food processing or in animal feed. Therefore, several methods for decontamination and detoxification of mycotoxins have been developed, but despite that, there is no single technique that has proved effective against the wide array of mycotoxins that might occur simultaneously in a food commodity [9]. For a single method to be effective and successful, it must be a comprehensive one comprising many properties [9]. First, this method should be able to completely destroy, inactivate, or remove the toxin along with any residual fungal spores. At the same time, it must preserve the nutritional value and the technological properties of the commodity. This method shall be preferably integrated into the food processing system in a cost-effective way that is easily operated without damaging the equipment and without posing any danger on the workers or the environment. Finally, this method must be approved by regulatory organizations for food production purposes. So far, the methods developed comprise techniques that may be able to remove or decontaminate mycotoxins in food products through physical, chemical, biological means, or through an integrated approach combining more than one technique. Those methods have not proven to be totally effective and they might possess many advantages and disadvantages (Table 5).

    Table 5.  Different decontamination means of mycotoxins in food, their advantages, and disadvantages [70,71,72,73,74].
    Physical decontamination Chemical decontamination Biological decontamination
    Examples Sorting Sieve cleaning Density segregation Washing De-hulling Steeping Extrusion cooking Steam heating Infrared heating Microwave heating Radio frequency heating Irradiation Cold plasma Photocatalytic detoxification Organic acids Hydrochloric acid Ammonium hydroxide Hydrogen peroxide Sodium bisulphite Chlorinating agents Ozone Formaldehyde Natural substances such as herbs, spices, and their extracts Bacteria Yeasts Mold Algae
    Advantages Effective against some mycotoxins Low change in food properties Does not involve usage of chemicals Effective against some mycotoxins Affordable Effective against some mycotoxins Inexpensive Environment friendly Does not involve usage of chemicals
    Disadvantages Impractical Might be limited to large-scale industries with sophisticated equipment Time-consuming Expensive In case of thermal treatment possible changes in color and food quality Possible health effects Formation of toxic byproducts Enhancing bioavailability of masked mycotoxins Time consuming Environmentally toxic Time consuming Impractical More effective in controlled laboratory settings

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Physical control techniques comprise the separation of damaged or contaminated crops from healthy ones and they include methods like sorting, sieve cleaning, density segregation, washing, de-hulling, and steeping that help reduce the concentration of mycotoxins. In this process water soluble mycotoxins can be partially removed from the outer surface of the grain using water or water solutions, however, before using this method the solubility of the mycotoxin should be considered [72].

    Physical decontamination also comprises destroying of mycotoxins through heat treatment and irradiation [73]. Thermal processes such as steam, infrared, microwave, radiofrequency, and extrusion heating developed as innovative decontamination approaches [74]. Heat treatments that combine the ultimate time/temperature conditions may present the most important intervention for mycotoxin control, however, many mycotoxins are very heat stable [70] and require, to be destroyed, very high temperatures and long processing durations that may not be achievable in conventional food production processes. Thermal methods and due to the application of high temperatures might change the physical qualities of food including color, it may impose burn like characteristics to certain spots on the food items especially the surfaces and edges, and it may degrade heat-sensitive nutrients [74].

    On the other hand, non-thermal treatments such as irradiation may be effective through partially lowering mycotoxin contamination since they absorb the radiation energy [72] and it may be practical in large scale industries. However, there is public distrust of irradiated food products and this method is still not widely applied since radiation can penetrate cells and cause DNA damage leading to mutations. Despite that, the European Commission approved the dose of 10 kGy as the maximum allowable dose applied on food after FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee demonstrated that this level does not pose a danger to human health [72].

    A novel physical method that is of recent interest to researchers is the use of non-thermal techniques such as cold plasma for fungal and mycotoxin removal. Cold plasma is an ionized gas that contains partially ionized atoms and molecules with approximately zero net charge [75]. Treatment by cold plasma was shown in many studies to cause fungal cell wall and DNA destruction allowing intracellular component leakage [75,76,77,78,79]. Other studies on the cold plasma effect on mycotoxins showed that they were either partially or completely destroyed at a rapid rate [75,80,81,82]. The mechanism of mycotoxin destruction efficiency is related to the molecular structure of mycotoxins, the plasma chemical nature, and their subsequent interaction and according to Misra et al. "destruction could be related to the free radicals produced during the treatment, or the presence of UV photons, ozone, or reactive ions and electrons" [75]. Cold plasma treatment is distinctive from traditional methods since it allows for rapid decontamination at ambient temperature and pressure conditions without altering the food quality [23,75]. Nevertheless, some studies showed that cold plasma treatment might affect lipids in food, and since it is a surface treatment with low penetration ability it might not be practical in the large-scale industry especially when treating irregularly shaped food or bulk material [83]. Further studies are also needed to discover if this treatment has any cytotoxic effects [83].

    Another non-thermal emerging technique that can be used for the removal of mycotoxins is the photocatalytic detoxification of mycotoxins in foods. This process comprises a chemical reaction induced by the absorption of photons by a solid photocatalyst which results in oxidation/ reduction reactions on the surface of the photocatalytic material causing the formation of free radicals that interact with contaminants such as mycotoxins and aids in degrading or converting them to less toxic compounds through oxidation reactions [84]. Many studies have already established the effect of photocatalytic detoxification on mycotoxins [84,85,86,87,88,89]. This process is efficient, economically feasible, and environmentally convenient, however, analysis of application must be carried out to check for changes in food quality including nutritional and sensorial ones, and to check for any possible chemical or toxin residues following the treatment [84].

    Although physical techniques seem acceptable since there would be limited change afterwards in the properties of the commodity, there usage is still considered unpractical and limited only to large scale industries since they might be time-consuming and expensive.

    Chemical methods employ chemical compounds treatments with acids, alkalis, reducing and oxidizing agents, that are either of organic or synthetic nature. Those chemicals are used to detoxify mycotoxins upon their addition to the food commodity. According to Karlovsky et al. "chemicals can be introduced to food through mixing, packing, fumigation, or immersion" [73]. Chemical agents involved in this technique include; organic acids, ammonium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen peroxide, sodium bisulphite, chlorinating agents, ozone, formaldehyde, and natural substances such as herbs, spices, and their extracts [71,73].

    Chemical treatment has shown to be effective in the removal of some mycotoxins, however, the chemicals used are mainly weak ones and the majority of mycotoxins might be resistant to them. As for strong chemicals, particularly acids, they cannot be used in food treatment since their usage leads to various toxic effects such as the formation of other chemical compounds [72]. Chemical transformation might also lead to the production of other mycotoxin metabolites and the release of mycotoxins from masked and entrapped forms hence increasing their bioavailability [90].

    Treatment with ozone was shown to be promising since it can degrade mycotoxins through reacting with bonds in the mycotoxin chemical structure especially double bonds in mycotoxins such as AFB1. Ozone can be applied in gaseous form avoiding the increase in moisture; however, ozone treatment might require a prolonged time to be effective and it may cause oxidation of fat components hence affecting food quality. By-products might also be formed during the process so safety of such treatment must be taken into consideration [91].

    As many of the chemical treatments have proved affordable and effective against mycotoxins, their usage is still banned by the European Union in foods since they can pose some health risks due to possible toxic byproducts generated in the process, and according to European Commission regulation, "foodstuff containing mycotoxins shall not be deliberately detoxified by chemical treatments" [13,92]. While in other regions around the world chemical treatments are only approved for certain mycotoxins, mainly AFB1 in feedstuffs [72]. Chemical treatment usage is also time-consuming and may disturb the environment.

    Biological means of decontamination apply microorganisms such as; bacteria, yeasts, molds, and algae. Biological decontamination became specifically demanded after the trend to avoid physical and chemical methods and use natural substance treatments instead. The microorganisms used in biological means may be able to bind, degrade, or modify mycotoxins into less toxic substances in certain foods animal feed through acetylation, glucosylation, deamination, hydrolysis, or decarboxylation [71]. For example, OTA can be transformed into phenylalanine by the action of some plants, bacteria, yeasts, or mold [93]. Some microorganisms and enzyme systems can be added as well to animal feed that allows the detoxification or degradation of the mycotoxin in the gastrointestinal tracts of ruminants.

    Lactic acid bacteria and yeasts are most used in decontamination as they are able to reduce mycotoxins by binding them onto the cell surface or by transforming them into less toxic products [72]. Enzymatic catalysis is also used and they have promising potential in mycotoxin contamination, however, more studies are needed to prove their efficacy and safety.

    Biological methods are inexpensive and present no risk to the environment since no chemical substances are used. However, their use can be time-consuming and impractical in some cases. Many biological means, as well, proved to be effective only in laboratory settings so further studies are needed to test their efficacy in food. Another major drawback is the limited ability to decontaminate multiple mycotoxins simultaneously [90].

    Food processing is a procedure that comprises the application of any physical, chemical, or biological technique to alter the food quality or shelf-life and make it more suitable for human consumption. Some processes are used to remove or decrease organisms in food commodities such as bacteria, microbes, and molds. Mycotoxins, on the other hand, are affected differently through food processing since their presence depends on multiple factors including their very high stability [94] and resistance to temperature, the presence of other constituents including enzymes, the pH and moisture content of the food product, in addition to the temperature. Processing of a food product may involve complex actions, and at each stage mycotoxins concentration can be affected in different ways; it either decreases, increases, or remains stable. For many commodities, such as cereals, the complex processing procedure may lead to a final product that has lower mycotoxin concentration than the raw crop used. While, in other processes such as cheese making, mycotoxins could become more concentrated in the final cheese product than it was in the raw milk. Since one of the aims of processing is to reduce mycotoxins in food, a thorough understanding of the mycotoxins' reaction to processing, the processing procedure itself, and the conditions of the food commodity is extremely crucial to achieve the desired results and maximize mycotoxin removal. Several effects on different mycotoxins by food processing techniques used are summarized in Table 6.

    Table 6.  Sample of some processing methods and their effect on different mycotoxins.
    Commodity Processing method Processing details Mycotoxin Result
    Barley Cleaning Physical removal of infested kernels OTA Decreased by 2–3% [95,96]
    Kernels, seeds, and nuts Cleaning Physical removal of infested kernels Aflatoxins Decreased by 40–80% [95,97]
    Barley and corn Washing 3 washings with distilled water DON ZEN Decreased by 65–9% Decreased by 2–61% [73]
    Cocoa beans Mechanical shelling Hand shelling Removal of cocoa bean shells OTA Decreased by 48% Decreased between 50–100% [73]
    Whole wheat Dry-milling Milling into component fractions OTA Reduced OTA in white flour Increased OTA in bran and offal [96]
    Small grain cereals Milling Milling into component fractions DON Increased in bran Decreased in flour [73,98]
    Dough Fermentation Artificially contaminated dough covered with damp cloth and fermented at 30 ℃ for 15 mins OTA No change [73,99]
    Bread Baking Artificially contaminated dough baked at 244 ℃ for 25 mins OTA No significant reduction [96]
    Corn-meal muffins Baking Baked at 218 ℃ for 20–25 mins Aflatoxins Decreased by 13% [9,100]
    Rice Ordinary cooking Pressure cooking Cooked at 160 ℃ for 20 mins in a commercial electric cooker with 200 mL of distilled water Cooked at 160 ℃ for 20 mins in a commercial electric pressure cooker fixed at 15 lb/in2 (0.10 MPa) AFB1 Decreased by 34% Decreased by 70% [73,101]
    Maize grits Extrusion cooking Cooked in three extrusion barrels at temperatures of 120,140, & 160ۃ and three moisture contents of the corn grits 18, 22, & 26%, mixing and non-mixing mode were also applied for different barrels ZEN Decreased by 65–83% [73,102]
    Maize grits Extrusion cooking or roasting Corn grits spiked with FB1 at a level of 5 μg/g were extruded in a co-rotating twin-screw extruder at different temperatures (140,160,180 and 200 ℃) and screw speeds (40, 80,120 and 160 rpm) Fumonisins Decreased by 34–95% [95] Decreased with increased temperature and decreased screw speed
    Beer Brewing A single-temperature infusion mash was used (65 ℃ for 60 min), with no addition of exogenous brewing enzymes. Then, the worts were boiled for 1 h. Hopping was achieved using liquid CO2 hop extracts. Fermentation was done using an ale yeast at 18 ℃ for 4 days. After a three-day warm maturation at 13 ℃, the beer was cooled to 3 ℃, and the yeast was harvested. The beer was conditioned for 6–8 d at 0 ℃, then bottled and stored at 0 ℃. OTA Decreased by 68–87% [103]
    Cocoa beans Roasting Cocoa beans artificially contaminated with aflatoxins at a concentration of 220.7 ng/g were roasted at 250 ℃ for 15 minutes Aflatoxins Decreased by 71% [104]
    Coffee Roasting and grounding Cooked in a commercial pressure cooker, using a home stove for 45 minutes at 115 ℃ and 13 psi. OTA Decreased by 84% [73,105]
    Pistachio nuts Roasting with lemon juice and/or citric acid Roasting at 90,120, or 150 ℃ for 30 min and 60 min in an electrical oven AFB1 Decreased by 76.6%–93.1% [73,106]
    Milk Pasteurization Pasteurized at 95 ℃ for 3 minutes AFM1 No change [107]
    Cheese curd Cheese processing Milk inoculated with a starter culture and incubated at a temperature of 35 ℃ for 20 mins. Rennet was then added and the curd was ready after 45 mins. The curd was the cut and left for 6h for drainage and then they were kept at 16 ℃ for about 7 days until their pH dropped to 4.6. AFM1 AFM1 concentration was 4 times higher in curd than milk [73,108]
    Cheese Cheese processing Milk samples and manufactured cheese samples were collected directly from manufacturers. AFM1 AFM1 concentration was higher in cheese than milk [73]
    Yogurt Milk fermentation Starter culture was added to 10 L of milk and fermented at 42 ℃ until pH 4.0 and 4.6 were achieved in different batches. AFM1 Decreased by 13% at pH 4.6 Decreased by 22% at pH 4.0 [73,109]
    Maize Microwave treatment Treated at 2450 Hz applied on a 2 g moist corn samples until temperatures of 150–175 ℃ were achieved. DON Decreased by 40% [73]
    Apple juice and cider UV treatment Using a commercial UV machine that is composed of a stainless steel outer unit containing three inner chambers of quartz tubes connected in sequence. Apple juice was pumped through a thin layer between the outer steel unit and inner quartz tubes. The juice's UV exposure was calculated by the following equation: UV dose (mJ/ cm2) = irradiance x exposure time (Test operated at 0 to 99.4 mJ/ cm2) Patulin Decreased by 5–73% Increase in reduction value was shown with increased UV dose [110]
    Vegetable oil UV exposure Naturally and a fortified contaminated corn oil were exposed to sunlight for 30 weeks ZEN Decreased up to 90% by isomerization of natural trans-ZEN into cis-ZEN [73]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Mycotoxins occur as natural contaminants, and they are present worldwide in crops, food products, and animal feed. Mycotoxins total exclusion is unattainable, and control and decontamination methods do not guarantee mycotoxin-free commodities. Their presence and dispersal along the markets due to trade, as well, made it impossible to ban mycotoxins completely from food. Instead, many countries have resorted to set levels that ensure consumer protection and food safety and keep the exposure to mycotoxins as low as possible. In this context, tolerances, guidelines, and residue levels have been set in several countries [9] and maximum admissible levels have been established for mycotoxins that occur in several food commodities especially ones traded and consumed extensively. The number of countries adopting mycotoxin regulations worldwide increased over time, and more recent detailed regulations have been enforced globally with a special emphasis on official sampling procedures and analytical methods [9]. According to FAO, "In 2002, at least 100 countries had mycotoxin regulations for food and/or feed world-wide, and the total population in these countries, by the time, represented approximately 90% of the world's inhabitants" [9].

    In general, food legislations must serve to protect the economic interests of both food producers and traders. So ideally, it is preferable to harmonize regulations, especially in countries with trade contracts such as the European Union or MERCUSOR (trade agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela), and adapt an international food safety standard regarding mycotoxins. While in fact, mycotoxin regulations around the world vary significantly and the absence of a unified and transparent approach led to a wide range of disparities in guidelines with several differences in maximum admissible levels set between different countries. Additionally, in many developing countries especially ones facing food availability issues, regulations may not be present or present but not enforced.

    Regulations serve as a safeguard for food markets from contaminated imported commodities. In many cases, commodities are rejected due to food safety threats, for example, according to the European Commission Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed "RASFF" annual report, mycotoxins were the primary hazard in border rejection from non-EU countries in 2018 with a total of 569 notifications [111]. The results of strict regulations, while retaining the benefits of the importing country, may create an economic imbalance and affect exporting countries that can face difficulties finding new markets or maintaining their usual ones. This may also lead to the abundance of foods contaminated with mycotoxins in local markets especially in developing countries that are the main contributors to mycotoxin contamination world-wide, specifically countries where hot climate is dominant. In developing countries, there is also a lack in regulations, monitoring, and supervision leading to more mycotoxin contamination. In this part of the world food shortage may be already a problem so drastic measures can cause scarcity of food and extreme prices, so according to Egmond and Jonker, "regulatory philosophy should not jeopardize the availability of some basic commodities at reasonable prices" [9,112]. And therefore, to reach realistic protection, regulations must be derived from the cooperation between all stakeholders based on experiences from science, consumers, industry, and policymakers [9].

    Quantifying mycotoxin concentration is one of the most important steps of controlling it in food and feed, and it is used in regulatory activities, quality assurance, decision making, and research. Sampling presents the first part of mycotoxin quantification that is based on drawing a representative sample of the whole lot and assuming that the mycotoxin concentration it contains is equal to that in the bulk. To attain a proper sample a specific procedure is usually followed: first, a bulk sample is collected from a lot, then this bulk sample is reconstituted through blending and mixing, and finally, a test sample is drawn out of it to be used in the analysis (Figure 2).

    Figure 2.  Test sample collection procedure.

    Improper sampling methods could lead to wrong estimations of mycotoxin concentrations and subsequent misclassifications of the lots. Eventually, this would lead to undesirable economic and health consequences. Fortunately, mycotoxin-sampling plans can be designed in a way that decreases error of estimation although no mycotoxin concentration can be determined with a 100% certainty. A mycotoxin-sampling plan is defined by two pillars: analytical procedure to be used for quantification and a determined accept/reject limit [113]. The sampling plan must be characterized with both accuracy and precision, where accuracy is defined as the closeness of measured mycotoxin concentration in a sample to the true one in the bulk, and precision as the closeness of concentrations in measured replicate samples to each other [113]. Generally, most mycotoxins are heterogeneously distributed, and sampling should be done randomly, hence, giving every individual item in bulk an equal chance to be chosen [13]. Two errors can be introduced in case sampling was done in the wrong ways: bias and variability that are associated with accuracy and precision, respectively.

    Bias is introduced when a sample is drawn using equipment and procedures that decrease the chance of any item in the bulk of being selected. For example, if the sample was collected from a single location, too many contaminated particles may be collected or may be missed otherwise. Therefore, to avoid bias appropriate equipment that are regularly checked for their quality must be used in sampling, and small sample portions should be taken from several locations in the lot and mixed together in order to reconstitute the sample. Variability, on the other hand, may appear due to differences in mycotoxin distribution among the particles in a lot, therefore increasing a sample size may improve precision.

    Samples can be either drawn from a static lot that is contained in storage containers, bins, or bags or from a dynamic lot that is defined as any commodity transferred through a moving stream. Generally, it is easier to obtain a more representative sample from dynamic lots [113]. Different methods to collect proper samples from the two types of lots are presented in Table 7.

    Table 7.  Sample collection methods from static vs. dynamic lots [9,13].
    Static lots Dynamic lots
    In a single container A probing device should be used to collect samples from different locations in the lot according to a probing pattern.
    The probe must be able to reach the bottom of a container, should not decrease the chance of any item from being selected, and should not alter any item contained in the lot.
    Small parts of a sample should be collected at pre-determined and frequent, time intervals throughout the whole flow period.
    Sampling can be executed manually or automatically using programmed equipment such as cross-cut samplers.
    In separate containers or bags The bulk sample should consist of many sub-samples taken from many containers dispersed along the storage.
    In a container with limited access The sample should be collected when the food product is being placed into the container, or when being discharged.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Upon establishing sampling criteria much care must be taken to ensure that the interests of the buyer and the seller are maintained fairly. Two types of mistakes may occur in case mycotoxin concentrations were not assessed properly due to errors in the sampling plan (Figure 3). First is the false-positive error, where safe lots that contain mycotoxin concentrations within the acceptance limits may test bad and get rejected by the buyer. This is referred to as the seller's risk since an economic loss will result to the supplier due to this error. Second is the false-negative error, where contaminated lots may test negative and get accepted. And this is known as the buyer's risk since accepting a bad lot may cause health and economic consequences knowing that this product could be incorporated into further food processes.

    Figure 3.  Mycotoxin analysis decision errors due to sampling mistakes.

    Following proper sampling, analysis presents an essential and primary step in controlling mycotoxins. Suitable analysis that provides accurate and precise results are required for many reasons; first to help control mycotoxin contamination and decrease admission of contaminated food commodities into a country, second to establish proper food safety control strategies regarding mycotoxins such as HACCP, and third to confirm the results of the control strategy followed. Proper analysis procedures are also required in research projects that provide reliable information on mycotoxin contamination allowing, therefore, for the right decision making.

    Analytical procedures are characterized by different criteria, namely; speed and cost of analysis, technical skills required to perform the method, and the type of data they provide i.e. qualitative or quantitative. According to Richard et al. "the most desirable method incorporates all three: they are rapid, easy to use, and quantitative" [13]. But in fact, this kind of perfect method is not available and the choice of the procedure to be used requires an assessment of the analysis's purpose to determine the relative importance of every aspect and make compromises accordingly. Until now, mycotoxin analysis methods established are complex and time-consuming since they require major sample extraction and cleanup prior to quantification. In the first phase of extraction, shaking or blending are used to pull out mycotoxins from the solid phase into an organic solvent (liquid phase). The choice of the organic solvent to be used for each commodity depends on its ability to extract the desired mycotoxin and its suitability with the test procedure; safety measures and the cost of wasted solvent are also taken into consideration. After that, the liquid phase, in which the mycotoxin is evenly distributed, is separated from the solid matrix through filtration or centrifugation. Next, cleanup is executed and it implicates further isolation of the toxin from the extract. Clean-up is usually performed using solid-phase extraction (SPE) that might be designed to trap either the mycotoxin or the impurities. Immunoaffinity column (IAC) is an example of SPE; in which attached to a solid phase are antibodies specific to mycotoxins that work on binding them while allowing the rest of the sample to pass through. Then mycotoxins are eluted after that using an organic solvent that denatures the antibodies resulting in a pure mycotoxin-solvent solution. This solution is then incorporated into the last step of analysis. In this phase, many chromatographic methods can be used such as thin-layer chromatography (TLC), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), gas chromatography (GC), and mass spectrometry (MS) to quantify a mycotoxin concentration. HPLC is the most used method because of its high precision, selectivity, and sensitivity [114] although it is expensive, time-consuming, and requires for operation highly skilled technicians.

    Other rapid methods that need minimal or no clean-up are available such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). This method relies on antigen-antibody specific and selective reactions. In principle, anti-mycotoxin antibodies are added to be captured by immobilized antibodies bound to the microtiter plate of ELISA, after that samples are added in order for targeted mycotoxins to get bound by anti-mycotoxin antibodies. Then a substrate/ chromogen is added that binds to available antibody sites, followed by a stop solution that causes a color change in the wells of the plate. Lastly, a photometric absorbance measurement is done and the mycotoxin concentration is computed from the attained absorbance.

    ELISA compromises many benefits since it is rapid, simple, cost-effective, and efficient. But despite that, such methods remain less reliable and accurate due to the high risk of false-positive or false-negative results, and due to the instability of the reagents supplied and the need for their proper refrigerated storage at all times to maintain quality [115]. Accordingly, ELISA has been established as a qualitative screening method [116], and any sample result that proves to be contaminated using the ELISA test must be further confirmed by more vigorous chromatographic techniques such as HPLC [117].

    Mycotoxin contamination is prevalent so future strategies must concentrate on the need to control fungal contamination and mycotoxin production along all the food chain starting from production till the food reaches the customers. The synergistic toxic effects of mycotoxins occurring simultaneously in food should be considered, as well as the probable presence of masked mycotoxins. Conventional screening methods that are reliable, convenient, rapid, and cheap are needed, and the development of methods that quantify masked mycotoxins is of extreme importance. More research, exposure assessments, and safety evaluations are needed to evaluate the potential toxicity of masked mycotoxins and mycotoxin byproducts. Further research on the safety of physical, chemical, and biological decontamination methods are needed, and strategies that combine an integrated decontamination approach must be developed to maximize mycotoxin removal from food to the most possible extent.

    Regarding climate change, it is very crucial to conduct researches that quantitatively estimate the impacts on fungi and mycotoxins. According to Medina et al. future research should focus on discovering how mycotoxin production patterns would change and how some secondary mycotoxins could become primary ones with the emergence of climate change [40]. Research must also focus on the shift of mycotoxin contamination according to regions and aid in discovering the current agricultural control practices' effectiveness on mycotoxin control in changed climate conditions.

    Mycotoxin contamination in food might not be inevitable and its presence could threaten the food security of many countries especially developing ones. However, the implementation of proper methods from the beginning of the food chain until the end including all stages of production like planting, harvest, drying, storage, processing, packaging, transport… helps to decrease the level of contamination and maintain it below the tolerable levels assigned by different countries. Strict recommendations that preserve the benefit of the consumer in the first place need to be enforced and rapid and reliable analysis methods to determine fungal and mycotoxin contamination must be applied to ensure food safety.

    The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] Zain ME (2011) Impact of mycotoxins on humans and animals. J Saudi Chem Soc 15: 129–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jscs.2010.06.006
    [2] Freire FDCO, da Rocha MEB (2016) Impact of mycotoxins on human health. In: Mérillon JM, Ramawat K. (Eds), Fungal metabolites. Reference Series in Phytochemistry. Springer, Cham, 239–261.
    [3] Kabak B (2009) The fate of mycotoxins during thermal food processing. J Sci Food Agric 89: 549–554. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3491
    [4] Bennett JW, Klich M (2003) Mycotoxins. Clin Microbiol Rev 16: 497–516. doi: 10.1128/CMR.16.3.497-516.2003
    [5] Alshannaq A, Yu JH (2017) Occurrence, toxicity, and analysis of major mycotoxins in food. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14: 632. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14060632
    [6] Umesha S, Manukumar HMG, Chandrasekhar B, et al. (2017) Aflatoxins and food pathogens: impact of biologically active aflatoxins and their control strategies. J Sci Food Agric 97: 1698–1707. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.8144
    [7] Reverberi M, Ricelli A, Zjalic S, et al. (2010) Natural functions of mycotoxins and control of their biosynthesis in fungi. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87: 899–911. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2657-5
    [8] Benkerroum N (2016) Mycotoxins in dairy products: A review. Int Dairy J 62:63–75. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2016.07.002
    [9] Magan N, Olsen M (2004) Mycotoxins in food detection and control. Cambridge: CRC.
    [10] Milani J (2013) Ecological conditions affecting mycotoxin production in cereals: A review. Vet Med-CZECH 58: 405–411. doi: 10.17221/6979-VETMED
    [11] Pitt JI (2000) Toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins. Br Med Bull 56: 184–192. doi: 10.1258/0007142001902888
    [12] Marin S, Ramos AJ, Cano-Sancho G (2013) Mycotoxins : Occurrence, toxicology, and exposure assessment. Food Chem Toxicol 60: 218–237. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2013.07.047
    [13] Richard JL, Payne GA, Desjardins AE, et al. (2003) Mycotoxins: Risks in plant, animal and human systems. CAST Task Force Rep 139: 101–103.
    [14] Kochiieru Y, Mankevičienė A, Cesevičienė J, et al. (2020) The influence of harvesting time and meteorological conditions on the occurrence of Fusarium species and mycotoxin contamination of spring cereals. J Sci Food Agric 100: 2999–3006. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.10330
    [15] Perdoncini M, Sereia M, Scopel F, et al. (2019) Growth of fungal cells and the production of mycotoxins. Cell growth. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.86533.
    [16] Smith MC, Madec S, Coton E, et al. (2016) Natural co-occurrence of mycotoxins in foods and feeds and their in vitro combined toxicological effects. Toxins (Basel) 8: 94. doi: 10.3390/toxins8040094
    [17] Doohan FM, Brennan J, Cooke BM (2003) Influence of climatic factors on Fusarium species pathogenic to cereals. Eur J Plant Pathol 109: 755–768. doi: 10.1023/A:1026090626994
    [18] Leslie JF, Bandyopadhyay R, Visconti A (2008) Mycotoxins: Detection methods, management, public health and agricultural trade. Wallingford: CAB International.
    [19] Mannaa M, Kim KD (2017) Influence of temperature and water activity on deleterious fungi and mycotoxin production during grain storage. Mycobiology 45: 240–254. doi: 10.5941/MYCO.2017.45.4.240
    [20] Joubrane K, Mnayer D, El Khoury A, et al. (2020) Co-occurrence of Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and Ochratoxin A (OTA) in Lebanese stored wheat. J Food Prot 83: 1547–1552. doi: 10.4315/JFP-20-110
    [21] Dix NJ, Webster J (1995) Fungi of extreme environments. Fungal Ecology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 322–340.
    [22] Kamil OH, Lupuliasa D, Draganescu D, et al. (2011) Interrelations of drying heat and survival of different fungal spores within the tablets formulation. Stud Univ Vasile Goldiş 21: 339–342.
    [23] Thanushree MP, Sailendri D, Yoha KS, et al. (2019) Mycotoxin contamination in food: An exposition on spices. Trends Food Sci Technol 93: 69–80. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.08.010
    [24] Palacios-cabrera H, Taniwaki MH, Hashimoto JM, et al. (2005) Growth of Aspergillus ochraceus, a. carbonarius and a. niger on culture media at different water activities and temperatures. Braz J Microbiol 36: 24–28.
    [25] Pardo E, Matin S, Ramos AJ, et al. (2005) Effect of water activity and temperature on mycelial growth and Ochratoxin A production by isolates of Aspergillus ochraceus on irradiated green coffee beans. J Food Prot 68: 133–138. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-68.1.133
    [26] Grigoryan KM, Hakobyan LL (2015) Effect of water activity, ph and temperature on contamination level of dried vine fruite by filamentous fungi during storage. Proc of the Yerevan State Univ Chemistry and Biology 23–28.
    [27] Lahouar A, Marin S, Crespo-sempere A, et al. (2016) Effects of temperature, water activity and incubation time on fungal growth and aflatoxin B1 production by toxinogenic Aspergillus flavus isolates on sorghum seeds. Rev Argent Microbiol 48: 78–85.
    [28] Vylkova S (2017) Environmental pH modulation by pathogenic fungi as a strategy to conquer the host. PLoS Pathog 13: e1006149. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006149
    [29] Wang YB, Zhang WG, Fu LL (2017) Food Spoilage Microorganisms: Ecology and Control. CRC Press.
    [30] Brzonkalik K, Hümmer D, Syldatk C, et al. (2012) Influence of pH and carbon to nitrogen ratio on mycotoxin production by Alternaria alternata in submerged cultivation. AMB Express 2: 28. doi: 10.1186/2191-0855-2-28
    [31] Nicholson P (2004) Rapid detection of mycotoxigenic fungi in plants, Mycotoxins in Food 111–136.
    [32] Greeff-laubscher MR, Beukes I, Marais GJ (2019) Mycotoxin production by three different toxigenic fungi genera on formulated abalone feed and the effect of an aquatic environment on fumonisins. Mycology 11: 105–117. doi: 10.1080/21501203.2019.1604575
    [33] Kokkonen M, Jestoi M, Rizzo A (2005) The effect of substrate on mycotoxin production of selected Penicillium strains. Int J Food Microbiol 99: 207–214. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.08.014
    [34] Özcelik S, Özcelik N (2004) Interacting effects of time, temperature, pH and simple sugars on biomass and toxic metabolite production by three Alternaria spp. Mycopathologia 109: 171–175. doi: 10.1007/BF00436806
    [35] Duran R, Cary JW, Calvo AM (2010) Role of the osmotic stress regulatory pathway in morphogenesis and secondary metabolism in filamentous fungi. Toxins (Basel) 2: 367–381. doi: 10.3390/toxins2040367
    [36] Hamad H, Mehmet A, Ismael H, et al. (2015) The effect of some sugars on the growth of Aspergillus niger. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Doğa Bilim Derg 17: 7. doi: 10.18016/ksujns.28479
    [37] Liu J, Sun LH, Zhang NY, et al. (2016) Effects of nutrients in substrates of different grains on Aflatoxin B 1 production by Aspergillus flavus. Biomed Res Int 2016: 7232858.
    [38] Uppala SS, Bowen KL, Woods FM (2013) Pre-harvest aflatoxin contamination and soluble sugars of peanut. Peanut Sci 40: 40–51. doi: 10.3146/PS12-9.1
    [39] Van der Fels-Klerx HJ (Ine), Liu C, Battilani P (2016) Modelling climate change impacts on mycotoxin contamination. World Mycotoxin J 9: 1–10.
    [40] Medina A, Rodríguez A, Magan N (2015) Climate change and mycotoxigenic fungi: Impacts on mycotoxin production. Curr Opin Food Sci 5: 99–140. doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2015.11.002
    [41] Miraglia M, De Santis B, Brera C (2008) Climate change: Implications for mycotoxin contamination of foods. J Biotechnol 136: S715. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.07.1702
    [42] Battilani P, Rossi V, Giorni P, et al. (2012) Modelling, predicting and mapping the emergence of aflatoxins in cereals in the EU due to climate change. Scientific report submitted to EFSA.
    [43] Medina A, Akbar A, Baazeem A, et al. (2017) Climate change, food security and mycotoxins: Do we know enough? Fungal Biol Rev 31: 143–154.
    [44] Giorni P, Battilani P, Magan N (2008) Effect of solute and matric potential on in vitro growth and sporulation of strains from a new population of Aspergillus flavus isolated in Italy. Fungal Ecol 1: 102–106. doi: 10.1016/j.funeco.2008.07.001
    [45] Valencia-Quintana R, Milić M, Jakšić D, et al. (2020) Environmental research and public health review environment changes, Aflatoxins, and health issues, a Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17: 7850. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217850
    [46] Paterson RRM (2011) Further mycotoxin effects from climate change. Food Res Int 44: 2555–2566. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.05.038
    [47] Moses JA, Jayas DS, Alagusundaram K (2015) Climate change and its implications on stored food grains. Agric Res 4: 21–30. doi: 10.1007/s40003-015-0152-z
    [48] Lopez-Garcia R, Park DL, Phillips TD (1999) Integrated mycotoxin management systems, 1999. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/x2100t/x2100t07.htm.
    [49] Joubrane K, El Khoury A, Lteif R, et al. (2011) Occurrence of aflatoxin B1 and ochratoxin A in Lebanese cultivated wheat. Mycotoxin Res 27: 249–257. doi: 10.1007/s12550-011-0101-z
    [50] Mannaa M, Kim KD (2017) Control strategies for deleterious grain fungi and mycotoxin production from preharvest to postharvest stages of cereal crops: A Review. Life Sci Nat Resour Res 25: 13–27.
    [51] Mahuku G, Nzioki HS, Mutegi C, et al. (2019) Pre-harvest management is a critical practice for minimizing a fl atoxin contamination of maize. Food Control 96: 219–226. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.08.032
    [52] Food and Agriculture Organization (2007) On-farm mycotoxin control in food and feed grain. Avaliable from: http://www.fao.org/3/a1416e/a1416e.pdf.
    [53] Munkvold G (2014) Crop management practices to minimize the risk of mycotoxins contamination in temperate‐zone maize. In: Leslie JF, Logrieco AF. (Eds), Mycotoxin Reduction in Grain Chain. 59–77.
    [54] Rose LJ, Okoth S, Flett BC, et al. (2019) Preharvest management strategies and their impact on mycotoxigenic fungi and associated mycotoxins. Fungi and Mycotoxins. Rijeka: IntechOpen.
    [55] Nganchamung T, Robson M (2017) Chemical fertilizer use and acute health effects among chili farmers in Ubon Ratchathani province, Thailand. J Heal Res 31.
    [56] Reboud X, Eychenne N, Délos M, et al. (2016) Withdrawal of maize protection by herbicides and insecticides increases mycotoxins contamination near maximum thresholds. Agron Sustain Dev 36: 43. doi: 10.1007/s13593-016-0376-8
    [57] Rodríguez A, Rodríguez M, Andrade MJ, et al. (2015) Detection of filamentous fungi in foods. Curr Opin Food Sci 5: 36–42. doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2015.07.007
    [58] El Khoury A, Atoui A, Rizk T, et al. (2011) Differentiation between Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus from Pure Culture and Aflatoxin-Contaminated Grapes Using PCR-RFLP Analysis of aflR-aflJ Intergenic Spacer. J Food Sci 76: 247–253. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02153.x
    [59] Atoui A, El Khoury A, Kallassy M, et al. (2012) Quantification of Fusarium graminearum and Fusarium culmorum by real-time PCR system and zearalenone assessment in maize. Int J Food Microbiol 154: 59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.12.022
    [60] Simpson DR, Weston GE, Turner JA, et al. (2001) Differential control of head blight pathogens of wheat by fungicides and consequences for mycotoxin contamination of grain. Eur J Plant Pathol 107: 421–431. doi: 10.1023/A:1011225817707
    [61] Nicolopoulou-Stamati P, Maipas S, Kotampasi C, et al. (2016) Chemical pesticides and human health: The urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. Front public Heal 4: 148.
    [62] Blair A, Ritz B, Wesseling C, et al. (2014) Pesticides and human health. Occup Environ Med DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2014-102454.
    [63] Kagot V, Okoth S, Boevre MD, et al. (2019) Biocontrol of aspergillus and fusarium mycotoxins in Africa: benefits and limitations. Toxins (Basel) 11: 109. doi: 10.3390/toxins11020109
    [64] Dorner JW (2004) Biological control of Aflatoxin crop contamination. J Toxicol - Toxin Rev 23: 425–450. doi: 10.1081/TXR-200027877
    [65] Cotty PJ (1994) Influence of field application of an atoxigenic strain of aspergillus flavus on the population of a flavus infecting cotton bolls and on the aflatoxin content of cottonseed. Phytopathology 84: 1270–1277. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-84-1270
    [66] Chiewchan N, Mujumdar AS, Devahastin S (2015) Application of drying technology to control Aflatoxins in foods and feeds: A review. Dry Technol 33: 1700–1707. doi: 10.1080/07373937.2015.1068795
    [67] Wambacq E, Vanhoutte I, Audenaert K, et al. (2016) Occurrence, prevention and remediation of toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins in silage: a review. J Sci Food Agric 96: 2284–2302. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7565
    [68] Scudamore KA, Livesey CT (1998) Occurrence and significance of mycotoxins in forage crops and silage: a review. J Sci Food Agric 77: 1–17. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199805)77:1<1::AID-JSFA9>3.0.CO;2-4
    [69] Magan N, Aldred D, Sanchis V (2004) The role of spoilage fungi in seed deterioration. Mycology series. 21: 311–323.
    [70] Pankaj SK, Shi H, Keener KM (2018) A review of novel physical and chemical decontamination technologies for a flatoxin in food. Trends Food Sci Technol 71: 73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.11.007
    [71] Hojnik N, Cvelbar U, Tavčar-Kalcher G, et al. (2017) Mycotoxin decontamination of food : Cold " classic " decontamination. Toxins (Basel) 9: 151. doi: 10.3390/toxins9050151
    [72] Pleadin J, Frece J, Markov K (2019) Mycotoxins in food and feed. Adv Food Nutr Res 89: 297–345. doi: 10.1016/bs.afnr.2019.02.007
    [73] Karlovsky P, Suman M, Berthiller F, et al. (2016) Impact of food processing and detoxification treatments on mycotoxin contamination. Mycotoxin Res 32: 179–205. doi: 10.1007/s12550-016-0257-7
    [74] Deng LZ, Sutar PP, Mujumdar AS, et al. (2021) Thermal decontamination technologies for microorganisms and mycotoxins in low-moisture foods. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 12.
    [75] Misra NN, Yadav B, Roopesh MS, et al. (2019) Cold plasma for effective fungal and Mycotoxin control in foods: Mechanisms, inactivation effects, and applications. Compr Rev food Sci Food Saf 18: 106–120. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12398
    [76] Suhem K, Matan N, Nisoa M, et al. (2012) Inhibition of Aspergillus flavus on agar media and brown rice cereal bars using cold atmospheric plasma treatment. Int J Food Microbiol 161: 107–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.12.002
    [77] Dasan BG, Boyaci IH, Mutlu M (2017) Nonthermal plasma treatment of Aspergillus spp. spores on hazelnuts in an atmospheric pressure fluidized bed plasma system: Impact of process parameters and surveillance of the residual viability of spores. J Food Eng 196: 139–149.
    [78] Lee GJ, Sim GB, Choi EH, et al. (2015) Optical and structural properties of plasma-treated Cordyceps bassiana spores as studied by circular dichroism, absorption, and fluorescence spectroscopy. J Appl Phys 117: 023303. doi: 10.1063/1.4905194
    [79] Deng LZ, Mujumdar A, Pan ZL, et al. (2019) Emerging chemical and physical disinfection technologies of fruits and vegetables: a comprehensive review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 60: 1–28.
    [80] Basaran P, Basaran-Akgul N, Oksuz L (2008) Elimination of Aspergillus parasiticus from nut surface with low pressure cold plasma (LPCP) treatment. Food Microbiol 25: 626–632. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2007.12.005
    [81] Park BJ, Takatori K, Sugita-Konishi Y, et al. (2007) Degradation of mycotoxins using microwave-induced argon plasma at atmospheric pressure. Surf Coatings Technol 201: 5733–5737. doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.07.092
    [82] Ouf SA, Basher AH, Mohamed AH (2014) Inhibitory effect of double atmospheric pressure argon cold plasma on spores and mycotoxin production of Aspergillus niger contaminating date palm fruits. J Sci Food Agric 95: 204–210.
    [83] Gavahian M, Cullen PJ (2020) Cold plasma as an emerging technique for mycotoxin-free food: Efficacy, mechanisms, and trends. Food Rev Int 36: 193–214. doi: 10.1080/87559129.2019.1630638
    [84] Murugesan P, Brunda DK, Moses JA, et al. (2020) Photolytic and photocatalytic detoxification of mycotoxins in foods. Food Control 123: 107748. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107748
    [85] Liu R, Jin Q, Huang J, et al. (2011) Photodegradation of Aflatoxin B1 in peanut oil. Eur Food Res Technol 232: 843–849. doi: 10.1007/s00217-011-1452-6
    [86] Mao J, He B, Zhang L, et al. (2016) A structure identification and toxicity assessment of the degradation products of aflatoxin B1 in peanut Oil under UV irradiation. Toxins (Basel) 8: 332. doi: 10.3390/toxins8110332
    [87] Tripathi S, Mishra HN (2010) Enzymatic coupled with UV degradation of aflatoxin B1 in red chili powder. J Food Quality 33: 186–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.2010.00334.x
    [88] Ibarz R, Garvín A, Azuara E, et al. (2015) Modelling of ochratoxin A photo-degradation by a UV multi-wavelength emitting lamp. LWT - Food Sci Technol 61: 385–392. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.12.017
    [89] Magzoub RAM, Yassin AAA, Abdel-Rahim AM, et al. (2018) Photocatalytic detoxification of aflatoxins in Sudanese peanut oil using immobilized titanium dioxide. Food Control 95: 206–214. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.08.009
    [90] Patriarca A, Fernandez Pinto V (2017) Prevalence of mycotoxins in foods and decontamination. Curr Opin Food Sci 14: 50–60. doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2017.01.011
    [91] Deng LZ, Tao Y, Mujumdar AS, et al. (2020) Recent advances in non-thermal decontamination technologies for microorganisms and mycotoxins in low-moisture foods. Trends Food Sci Technol 106: 104–112. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.10.012
    [92] European Norm (2006) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Union 49: 5–25.
    [93] Colovic R, Puvača N, Cheli F, et al. (2019) Decontamination of mycotoxin-contaminated feedstuffs and compound feed. Toxins (Basel) 11: 617. doi: 10.3390/toxins11110617
    [94] Milani J, Maleki G (2014) Effects of processing on mycotoxin stability in cereals. J Sci Food Agric 94: 2372–2375. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6600
    [95] Bullerman LB, Bianchini A (2007) Stability of mycotoxins during food processing. Int J Food Microbiol 119: 140–146. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.07.035
    [96] Scudamore KA, Banks J, MacDonald SJ (2003) Fate of ochratoxin A in the processing of whole wheat grains during milling and bread production. Food Addit Contam 20: 1153–1163. doi: 10.1080/02652030310001605979
    [97] Park DL (2002) Effect of processing on Aflatoxin. Adv Exp Med Biol 504: 173–179. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0629-4_17
    [98] Cheli F, Rossi L, Pinotti L, et al. (2013) Effect of milling procedures on mycotoxin distribution in wheat fractions: A review. LWT - Food Sci Technol 54: 307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2013.05.040
    [99] Vidal A, Marín S, Morales H, et al. (2014) The fate of deoxynivalenol and ochratoxin A during the breadmaking process, effects of sourdough use and bran content. Food Chem Toxicol 68: 53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.03.006
    [100] Stoloff L, Trucksess MW (1981) Effect of boiling, frying, and baking on recovery of aflatoxin from naturally contaminated corn grits or cornmeal. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 64: 678–680.
    [101] Park JW, Kim YB (2006) Effect of pressure cooking on aflatoxin B1 in rice. J Agric Food Chem 54: 2431–2435. doi: 10.1021/jf053007e
    [102] Ryu D, Hanna MA, Bullerman LB (1999) Stability of zearalenone during extrusion of corn grits. J Food Prot 62: 1482–1484. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-62.12.1482
    [103] Baxter ED, Slaiding IR, Kelly B (2001) Behavior of Ochratoxin A in brewing. J Am Soc Brew Chem 59: 98–100.
    [104] Méndez-Albores A, Campos-Aguilar AZ, Moreno-Martínez E (2013) Physical and chemical degradation of B-aflatoxins during the roasting and dutching of cocoa liquor. J Agric Sci Technol 15: 557–567.
    [105] Milanez TV, Leitão MFF (1996) The effect of cooking on ochratoxin A content of beans, variety 'Carioca'. Food Addit Contam 13: 89–93. doi: 10.1080/02652039609374383
    [106] Rastegar H, Shoeibi S, Yazdanpanah H, et al. (2016) Removal of aflatoxin B1 by roasting with lemon juice and/or citric acid in contaminated pistachio nuts. Food Control 71: 271–284.
    [107] Jasutiene I, Garmiene G, Kulikauskiene M (2006) Pasteurisation and fermentation effects on Aflatoxin M1 stability. Milchwissenschaft 61: 75–79.
    [108] Govaris A, Roussi V, Koidis PA, et al. (2001) Distribution and stability of aflatoxin M1 during processing, ripening and storage of Telemes cheese. Food Addit Contam 18: 437–443. doi: 10.1080/02652030120550
    [109] Govaris A, Roussi V, Koidis PA, et al. (2002) Distribution and stability of aflatoxin M1 during production and storage of yoghurt. Food Addit Contam 19: 1043–1050. doi: 10.1080/0265203021000007831
    [110] Assatarakul K, Churey JJ, Manns DC, et al. (2012) Patulin reduction in apple juice from concentrate by UV radiation and comparison of kinetic degradation models between apple juice and Apple Cider. J Food Prot 75: 717–724. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-429
    [111] European Commission (2018) The rapid alert system for food and feed 2018 annual report.
    [112] Barkai-Golan R, Paster N (2008) Mycotoxins in Fruits and Vegetables. Elsevier.
    [113] Whitaker TB (2006) Sampling foods for mycotoxins. Food Addit Contam 23: 50–61. doi: 10.1080/02652030500241587
    [114] Beyene AM, Du XW, Schrunk DE, et al. (2019) High - performance liquid chromatography and Enzyme - Linked Immunosorbent Assay techniques for detection and quantification of aflatoxin -B1 in feed samples : A comparative study. BMC Res Note 12: 492. doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4538-z
    [115] Sakamoto S, Putalun W, Vimolmangkang S, et al. (2018) Enzyme - linked immunosorbent assay for the quantitative / qualitative analysis of plant secondary metabolites. J Nat Med 72: 32–42. doi: 10.1007/s11418-017-1144-z
    [116] Zhang L, Dou XW, Zhang C, et al. (2018) A review of current methods for analysis of mycotoxins in herbal medicines. Toxins (Basel) 10: 65. doi: 10.3390/toxins10020065
    [117] Rahman HU, Yue XF, Yu QY, et al. (2019) Specific antigen-based and emerging detection technologies of mycotoxins. J Sci Food Agric 99: 4869–4877. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9686
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Wipada Siri-anusornsak, Oluwatobi Kolawole, Warapa Mahakarnchanakul, Brett Greer, Awanwee Petchkongkaew, Julie Meneely, Christopher Elliott, Kanithaporn Vangnai, The Occurrence and Co-Occurrence of Regulated, Emerging, and Masked Mycotoxins in Rice Bran and Maize from Southeast Asia, 2022, 14, 2072-6651, 567, 10.3390/toxins14080567
    2. Alexandra Costina Avîrvarei, Liana Claudia Salanță, Carmen Rodica Pop, Elena Mudura, Antonella Pasqualone, Ofelia Anjos, Natalia Barboza, Jessie Usaga, Cosmin Pompei Dărab, Cristina Burja-Udrea, Haifeng Zhao, Anca Corina Fărcaș, Teodora Emilia Coldea, Fruit-Based Fermented Beverages: Contamination Sources and Emerging Technologies Applied to Assure Their Safety, 2023, 12, 2304-8158, 838, 10.3390/foods12040838
    3. Izabela Podgórska-Kryszczuk, Ewa Solarska, Monika Kordowska-Wiater, Reduction of the Fusarium Mycotoxins: Deoxynivalenol, Nivalenol and Zearalenone by Selected Non-Conventional Yeast Strains in Wheat Grains and Bread, 2022, 27, 1420-3049, 1578, 10.3390/molecules27051578
    4. D. V. Yarynka, T. A. Sergeyeva, E. V. Piletska, R. P. Linnik, M. Z. Antonyuk, O. O. Brovko, S. A. Piletsky, A. V. El’skaya, Validation of aflatoxin B1 MIP membrane-based smartphone sensor system for real sample applications, 2021, 37, 02337657, 346, 10.7124/bc.000A60
    5. Bernat Borràs-Vallverdú, Antonio J. Ramos, Carlos Cantero-Martínez, Sonia Marín, Vicente Sanchis, Jesús Fernández-Ortega, Influence of Agronomic Factors on Mycotoxin Contamination in Maize and Changes during a 10-Day Harvest-Till-Drying Simulation Period: A Different Perspective, 2022, 14, 2072-6651, 620, 10.3390/toxins14090620
    6. Somenath Das, Abhinanda Ghosh, Arpan Mukherjee, Nanoencapsulation-Based Edible Coating of Essential Oils as a Novel Green Strategy Against Fungal Spoilage, Mycotoxin Contamination, and Quality Deterioration of Stored Fruits: An Overview, 2021, 12, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2021.768414
    7. Felipe Penagos-Tabares, Ratchaneewan Khiaosa-ard, Marlene Schmidt, Eva-Maria Bartl, Johanna Kehrer, Veronika Nagl, Johannes Faas, Michael Sulyok, Rudolf Krska, Qendrim Zebeli, Cocktails of Mycotoxins, Phytoestrogens, and Other Secondary Metabolites in Diets of Dairy Cows in Austria: Inferences from Diet Composition and Geo-Climatic Factors, 2022, 14, 2072-6651, 493, 10.3390/toxins14070493
    8. Josemar Gonçalves de Oliveira Filho, Guilherme da Cruz Silva, Mariana de Paula Gomes, Tainara Leal de Sousa, Marcos David Ferreira, Mariana Buranelo Egea, External application of RNA interference (RNAi): an innovative tool for controlling fungi during food storage, 2022, 47, 22147993, 100872, 10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100872
    9. Raquel Torrijos, Tiago de Melo Nazareth, Pilar Vila-Donat, Jordi Mañes, Giuseppe Meca, Use of Mustard Extracts Fermented by Lactic Acid Bacteria to Mitigate the Production of Fumonisin B1 and B2 by Fusarium verticillioides in Corn Ears, 2022, 14, 2072-6651, 80, 10.3390/toxins14020080
    10. Oleh Hrytsev, Oleg Liudvinovskyi, Julia Shevchenko, Veronika Dzhagan,  Larysa Skivka, Comparative assessment of spray nozzles efficacy in the control of fusarium head blight in the barley crops using developed quantitative PCR assay, 2021, 2504-5695, 9, 10.21303/2504-5695.2021.001873
    11. Mohamed A. Gab-Allah, Kihwan Choi, Byungjoo Kim, Type B Trichothecenes in Cereal Grains and Their Products: Recent Advances on Occurrence, Toxicology, Analysis and Post-Harvest Decontamination Strategies, 2023, 15, 2072-6651, 85, 10.3390/toxins15020085
    12. Huimin Li, Yang Zhang, Congcong Gao, Qi Gao, Yudou Cheng, Min Zhao, Junfeng Guan, Mycotoxin Production and the Relationship between Microbial Diversity and Mycotoxins in Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd cv. Huangguan Pear, 2022, 14, 2072-6651, 699, 10.3390/toxins14100699
    13. Hannah Mugure Kamano, Michael Wandayi Okoth, Wambui-Kogi Makau, Patrick Kuloba, Nduhiu Gitahi, Storage conditions and postharvest practices lead to aflatoxin contamination in maize in two counties (Makueni and Baringo) in Kenya, 2022, 7, 2391-9531, 910, 10.1515/opag-2021-0054
    14. Izabela Podgórska-Kryszczuk, Biological Control of Aspergillus flavus by the Yeast Aureobasidium pullulans In Vitro and on Tomato Fruit, 2023, 12, 2223-7747, 236, 10.3390/plants12020236
    15. L. Manyes, G. Font, 2023, 9780323908160, 492, 10.1016/B978-0-12-821848-8.00147-5
    16. Oluwasola Abayomi Adelusi, Sefater Gbashi, Janet Adeyinka Adebo, Adeola Oluwakemi Aasa, Oluwaseun Mary Oladeji, Glory Kah, Oluwafemi Ayodeji Adebo, Rumbidzai Changwa, Patrick Berka Njobeh, Seasonal and Geographical Impact on the Mycotoxigenicity of Aspergillus and Fusarium Species Isolated from Smallholder Dairy Cattle Feeds and Feedstuffs in Free State and Limpopo Provinces of South Africa, 2023, 15, 2072-6651, 128, 10.3390/toxins15020128
    17. Deepa N, Premila N. Achar, Marikunte Y. Sreenivasa, Current Perspectives of Biocontrol Agents for Management of Fusarium verticillioides and Its Fumonisin in Cereals—A Review, 2021, 7, 2309-608X, 776, 10.3390/jof7090776
    18. Julián Andrés Gómez-Salazar, Karla Ruiz-Hernández, María Marcela Martínez-Miranda, Katherin Castro-Ríos, Postharvest strategies for decontamination of aflatoxins in cereals, 2021, 8755-9129, 1, 10.1080/87559129.2021.2013254
    19. Paola De Santis, Dejene K. Mengistu, Yosef Gebrehawaryat Kidane, Rose Nankya, Barbara De Santis, Gabriele Moracci, Francesca Debegnach, Riccardo Marsiglia, Massimo Reverberi, Negligible Levels of Mycotoxin Contamination in Durum Wheat and Groundnuts from Non-Intensive Rainfed Production Systems, 2021, 13, 2071-1050, 10309, 10.3390/su131810309
    20. A.O. Aasa, O.A. Adelusi, F.F. Fru, O.M. Areo, P.B. Njobeh, Preliminary screening of toxigenic fungi and mycotoxin contamination: A case of agricultural products in Ivory Coast, 2022, 1, 2772753X, 100132, 10.1016/j.focha.2022.100132
    21. Tiziri Badji, Noël Durand, Farida Bendali, Isabelle Piro-Metayer, Abdellah Zinedine, Jalila Ben Salah-Abbès, Samir Abbès, Didier Montet, Amar Riba, Catherine Brabet, In vitro detoxification of aflatoxin B1 and ochratoxin A by lactic acid bacteria isolated from Algerian fermented foods, 2023, 179, 10499644, 105181, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2023.105181
    22. Jagoda Kępińska-Pacelik, Wioletta Biel, Alimentary Risk of Mycotoxins for Humans and Animals, 2021, 13, 2072-6651, 822, 10.3390/toxins13110822
    23. Rouaa Daou, Maha Hoteit, Khlood Bookari, Karine Joubrane, Lydia Rabbaa Khabbaz, Ali Ismail, Richard G. Maroun, André el Khoury, Public health risk associated with the co-occurrence of aflatoxin B1 and ochratoxin A in spices, herbs, and nuts in Lebanon, 2023, 10, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1072727
    24. Mian Muhammad Awais, Ujala Mehtab, Muhammad Irfan Anwar, Muhammad Raza Hameed, Masood Akhtar, Ahmad Raza, Riffat Aisha, Faqir Muhammad, Muhammad Kashif Saleemi, Ahad Fayyaz, Mitigation potential of individual and combined dietary supplementation of local Bentonite Clay and Distillery Sludge against Ochratoxin-A induced toxicity in broilers, 2022, 18, 1746-6148, 10.1186/s12917-022-03466-3
    25. Rouaa Daou, Jean Claude Assaf, André El Khoury, 2022, Chapter 1, 978-1-80356-884-3, 10.5772/intechopen.108534
    26. Ana Rita Santos, Filipa Carreiró, Andreia Freitas, Sílvia Barros, Carla Brites, Fernando Ramos, Ana Sanches Silva, Mycotoxins Contamination in Rice: Analytical Methods, Occurrence and Detoxification Strategies, 2022, 14, 2072-6651, 647, 10.3390/toxins14090647
    27. Jagoda Kępińska-Pacelik, Wioletta Biel, Mycotoxins—Prevention, Detection, Impact on Animal Health, 2021, 9, 2227-9717, 2035, 10.3390/pr9112035
    28. Felipe Penagos-Tabares, Ratchaneewan Khiaosa-ard, Veronika Nagl, Johannes Faas, Timothy Jenkins, Michael Sulyok, Qendrim Zebeli, Mycotoxins, Phytoestrogens and Other Secondary Metabolites in Austrian Pastures: Occurrences, Contamination Levels and Implications of Geo-Climatic Factors, 2021, 13, 2072-6651, 460, 10.3390/toxins13070460
    29. Manuela Zadravec, Ksenija Markov, Tina Lešić, Jadranka Frece, Danijela Petrović, Jelka Pleadin, Biocontrol Methods in Avoidance and Downsizing of Mycotoxin Contamination of Food Crops, 2022, 10, 2227-9717, 655, 10.3390/pr10040655
    30. Li Lu, Saowaluck Tibpromma, Samantha C. Karunarathna, Ruvishika S. Jayawardena, Saisamorn Lumyong, Jianchu Xu, Kevin D. Hyde, Comprehensive Review of Fungi on Coffee, 2022, 11, 2076-0817, 411, 10.3390/pathogens11040411
    31. Thomas Hartinger, Iris Kröger, Viktoria Neubauer, Johannes Faas, Barbara Doupovec, Dian Schatzmayr, Qendrim Zebeli, Zearalenone and Its Emerging Metabolites Promptly Affect the Rumen Microbiota in Holstein Cows Fed a Forage-Rich Diet, 2023, 15, 2072-6651, 185, 10.3390/toxins15030185
    32. Hamed Faraji, Farideh Tabatabaee Yazdi, Nematollah Razmi, The influence of ultraviolet radiation on aflatoxin producing Aspergillus species' isolated from Iranian rice, 2022, 9, 22147500, 1528, 10.1016/j.toxrep.2022.07.007
    33. Chinaza Godswill Awuchi, Erick Nyakundi Ondari, Ifie Josiah Eseoghene, Hannington Twinomuhwezi, Ikechukwu Otuosorochi Amagwula, Sonia Morya, 2022, Chapter 2, 978-1-83969-878-1, 10.5772/intechopen.100207
    34. Habiba Iliyasu Atta, 2023, 9780323961226, 17, 10.1016/B978-0-323-96122-6.00008-6
    35. Lars P. Kiær, Odette D. Weedon, Laurent Bedoussac, Charlotte Bickler, Maria R. Finckh, Benedikt Haug, Pietro P. M. Iannetta, Grietje Raaphorst-Travaille, Martin Weih, Alison J. Karley, Supply Chain Perspectives on Breeding for Legume–Cereal Intercrops, 2022, 13, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2022.844635
    36. Mohd Azuar Hamizan Rahman, Jinap Selamat, Nik Iskandar Putra Samsudin, Khozirah Shaari, Norlia Mahror, Joshua Mark John, Antagonism of nonaflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus isolated from peanuts against aflatoxigenic A. flavus growth and aflatoxin B 1 production in vitro , 2022, 10, 2048-7177, 3993, 10.1002/fsn3.2995
    37. Nii Korley Kortei, Peter Oman Ayiku, John Nsor-Atindana, Leslie Owusu Ansah, Michael Wiafe-Kwagyan, Vincent Kyei-Baffour, Isaac Delali Kottoh, George Tawia Odamtten, Toxicogenic fungal profile, Ochratoxin A exposure and cancer risk characterization through maize (Zea mays) consumed by different age populations in the Volta region of Ghana, 2023, 226, 00410101, 107085, 10.1016/j.toxicon.2023.107085
    38. Bilal Murtaza, Xiaoyu Li, Liming Dong, Muhammad Kashif Saleemi, Mazhar Iqbal, Saima Majeed, Ashiq Ali, Gen Li, Bowen Jin, Lili Wang, Yongping Xu, In-vitro assessment of a novel plant rhizobacterium, Citrobacter freundii, for degrading and biocontrol of food mycotoxin deoxynivalenol, 2023, 227, 00410101, 107095, 10.1016/j.toxicon.2023.107095
    39. Nikolay Chebyshev, Assiya Ansabayeva, Ekaterina Mironova, Anastasia Kazak, Distribution of Fusarium in Barley Crops: Pcr, 2022, 1556-5068, 10.2139/ssrn.4129843
    40. Abla A. M. Farghl, Mostafa M. El-Sheekh, Amany A. El-Shahir, Seaweed extracts as biological control of aflatoxins produced by Aspergillus parasiticus and Aspergillus flavus, 2023, 33, 2536-9342, 10.1186/s41938-023-00696-x
    41. Syeda Hira Bukhari, Muhammad Asif Asghar, Farman Ahmed, Suraiya Jabeen, The production of aflatoxin B1 by Aspergillus parasiticus in peanuts and walnuts under the influence of controlled temperature and water activity, 2023, 19, 1556-3758, 551, 10.1515/ijfe-2023-0116
    42. Mati Ur Rahman, Xiaomin Zhong, Muhammad Uzair, Ben Fan, Application of fungi as biological control strategies for nematode management in horticultural crops, 2024, 6, 2524-4167, 10.1186/s42483-024-00257-6
    43. Abdul Rashid Hudu, Francis Addy, Gustav Komla Mahunu, Abdul‐Halim Abubakari, Nelson Opoku, Zearalenone contamination in maize, its associated producing fungi, control strategies, and legislation in Sub‐Saharan Africa, 2024, 12, 2048-7177, 4489, 10.1002/fsn3.4125
    44. Rachid Sabbahi, Khalil Azzaoui, Larbi Rhazi, Alicia Ayerdi-Gotor, Thierry Aussenac, Flore Depeint, Mustapha Taleb, Belkheir Hammouti, Factors Affecting the Quality of Canola Grains and Their Implications for Grain-Based Foods, 2023, 12, 2304-8158, 2219, 10.3390/foods12112219
    45. Viorica Maria Corbu, Irina Gheorghe-Barbu, Andreea Ștefania Dumbravă, Corneliu Ovidiu Vrâncianu, Tatiana Eugenia Șesan, Current Insights in Fungal Importance—A Comprehensive Review, 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 1384, 10.3390/microorganisms11061384
    46. Fernanda Cosme, Miguel Ribeiro, Luís Filipe-Ribeiro, Fernando M. Nunes, 2024, Chapter 2, 978-0-85466-272-2, 10.5772/intechopen.1005454
    47. P. Llorens, A. Juan-García, C. Juan, J.C. Moltó, A. Pena, L.J.G. Silva, Mycotoxins contamination and their possible mitigation strategies in plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs): A review, 2024, 62, 22124292, 105230, 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.105230
    48. Elizabeth Harumi Nabeshima, Paulo Eduardo da Rocha Tavares, Ana Lúcia da Silva Corrêa Lemos, Sílvia Cristina Sobottka Rolim de Moura, Emerging ingredients for clean label products and food safety, 2024, 27, 1981-6723, 10.1590/1981-6723.016023
    49. Silvia Dominguez, Jérémie Théolier, Rouaa Daou, Samuel B. Godefroy, Maha Hoteit, André El Khoury, Stochastic health risk assessment of aflatoxin M1 in cow's milk among Lebanese population, 2024, 193, 02786915, 115042, 10.1016/j.fct.2024.115042
    50. Waseela Ashraf, Abdul Rehman, Masood Rabbani, Waseem Shaukat, Jia-Sheng Wang, Aflatoxins posing threat to food safety and security in Pakistan: Call for a one health approach, 2023, 180, 02786915, 114006, 10.1016/j.fct.2023.114006
    51. Elena Efremenko, Nikolay Stepanov, Olga Senko, Aysel Aslanli, Olga Maslova, Ilya Lyagin, Using Fungi in Artificial Microbial Consortia to Solve Bioremediation Problems, 2024, 12, 2076-2607, 470, 10.3390/microorganisms12030470
    52. Jovana Kos, Bojana Radić, Radmila Radović, Bojana Šarić, Pavle Jovanov, Ljubiša Šarić, Aflatoxins in maize, milk and dairy products from Serbia, 2024, 1939-3210, 1, 10.1080/19393210.2024.2335656
    53. Bismark Opoku, Enoch A. Osekre, George P. Opit, Augustine Bosomtwe, Georgina Bingham, Assessment of platforms for the reduction of mycotoxin contamination in heaped maize cobs, 2023, 103, 0022474X, 102140, 10.1016/j.jspr.2023.102140
    54. Zheng Qu, Xianfeng Ren, Zhaolin Du, Jie Hou, Ye Li, Yanpo Yao, Yi An, Fusarium mycotoxins: The major food contaminants, 2024, 3, 2097-1699, 176, 10.1002/mlf2.12112
    55. Faith Ouma, Kaushik Luthra, Abass Oduola, Griffiths G. Atungulu, Investigating safe storage conditions to mitigate aflatoxin contamination in rice, 2024, 163, 09567135, 110529, 10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.110529
    56. Diego Zamudio, Marjorie A. Killerby, Robert C. Charley, Eric Chevaux, Pascal Drouin, Renato J. Schmidt, Jhon Bright, Juan J. Romero, Factors affecting nutrient losses in hay production, 2024, 0142-5242, 10.1111/gfs.12685
    57. Angassa Tesfaye, Mohammed Yusuf Kurtu, Yesihak Yusuf Mummed, Abdi Mohammed, Aflatoxins Levels in Concentrate Feeds Collected from Specialized Dairy Farms and Local Markets in Selected Urban Centers of Eastern Ethiopia, 2024, 16, 2072-6651, 418, 10.3390/toxins16100418
    58. Daniela Martins, Ana Lemos, João Silva, Marta Rodrigues, João Simões, Mycotoxins evaluation of total mixed ration (TMR) in bovine dairy farms: An update, 2024, 10, 24058440, e25693, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25693
    59. Angassa Tesfaye, Abdi Mohammed, Mohammed Yusuf, Yesihak Yusuf, Aspergillus species contamination in concentrate feeds collected from specialized dairy farms and local markets in selected urban centers of eastern Ethiopia, 2024, 8, 2571-581X, 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1407497
    60. Iyiola O. Owolabi, Yves Waché, Awanwee Petchkongkaew, 2024, 9780323952415, 385, 10.1016/B978-0-323-95241-5.00030-7
    61. Iqra Naeem, Amir Ismail, Muhammad Riaz, Mubashir Aziz, Kashif Akram, Muhammad A. Shahzad, Mavra Ameen, Sher Ali, Carlos A.F. Oliveira, Aflatoxins in the rice production chain: A review on prevalence, detection, and decontamination strategies, 2024, 188, 09639969, 114441, 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114441
    62. Marta Ferreira, Catarina Ramos-Oliveira, Rui Magalhães, Nicole Martins, Rodrigo O.A. Ozório, José Manuel Salgado, Isabel Belo, Aires Oliva-Teles, Helena Peres, Fermented agar by-product and sunflower cake mixture as feedstuff for European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), 2024, 315, 03778401, 116048, 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.116048
    63. Marco Lapris, Michela Errico, Gabriele Rocchetti, Antonio Gallo, The Potential of Multi-Screening Methods and Omics Technologies to Detect Both Regulated and Emerging Mycotoxins in Different Matrices, 2024, 13, 2304-8158, 1746, 10.3390/foods13111746
    64. Felipe Penagos-Tabares, Mubarik Mahmood, Muhammad Zafar Ullah Khan, Hafiz Muhammad Amjad Talha, Muhammad Sajid, Kanwal Rafique, Saima Naveed, Johannes Faas, Juan Ignacio Artavia, Michael Sulyok, Anneliese Müller, Rudolf Krska, Qendrim Zebeli, Co-occurrence of mycotoxins and other fungal metabolites in total mixed rations of cows from dairy farms in Punjab, Pakistan, 2023, 39, 0178-7888, 421, 10.1007/s12550-023-00502-5
    65. Michał Lach, Katarzyna Kotarska, Negative Effects of Occurrence of Mycotoxins in Animal Feed and Biological Methods of Their Detoxification: A Review, 2024, 29, 1420-3049, 4563, 10.3390/molecules29194563
    66. Payal Mandal, Olga Lanaridi, Benedikt Warth, Kausar M. Ansari, Metabolomics as an emerging approach for deciphering the biological impact and toxicity of food contaminants: the case of mycotoxins, 2024, 64, 1040-8398, 9859, 10.1080/10408398.2023.2217451
    67. Kinza Mukhtar, Brera Ghulam Nabi, Sadia Ansar, Zuhaib F. Bhat, Rana Muhammad Aadil, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah, Mycotoxins and consumers’ awareness: Recent progress and future challenges, 2023, 232, 00410101, 107227, 10.1016/j.toxicon.2023.107227
    68. Öykü TOPTAŞ, Gonca ERKÖSE GENÇ, Yaygın Mikotoksinler: Aflatoksinler, Okratoksin A, Fumonisinler, Deoksinivalenol ve Zearalenon, 2023, 12, 2146-328X, 87, 10.46971/ausbid.1087818
    69. Rouaa Daou, André El Khoury, Ali Atoui, 2024, 9781394160792, 155, 10.1002/9781394160839.ch7
    70. Letícia Aliberti Galego Alves da Silva, Karim Cristina Piacentini, Elem Tamirys dos Santos Caramês, Nathalia Cristina Cirone Silva, Simona Wawroszová, Sylvie Běláková, Liliana de Oliveira Rocha, Quantitative PCR (qPCR) for estimating the presence of Fusarium and its mycotoxins in barley grains , 2023, 40, 1944-0049, 1369, 10.1080/19440049.2023.2250474
    71. Charles Mannara, Lucy Gicuku Njue, George Ooko Abong’, António Raposo, Assessment of the Awareness of Public Health Officers on Food Safety Legislation Governing School Feeding Program and Quality of Maize From School Suppliers in Turkana County, 2024, 2024, 2356-6868, 10.1155/2024/8858559
    72. Thomas Thomidis, Argyris Farmakis, Ioanna Prodromou, Maria Paresidou, Pre- and post-storage applications of rhamnolipids and cyprodinil + fludioxonil against Aspergillus section Nigri population and ochratoxin A contamination of grapes , 2024, 46, 0706-0661, 456, 10.1080/07060661.2024.2341895
    73. Muhammad Qasim, Jie Su, Ali Noman, Ting Ma, Waqar Islam, Dilbar Hussain, Muhammad Rizwan, Muhammad Salman Hameed, Khalid Ali Khan, Hamed A. Ghramh, Liande Wang, Xiaoqiang Han, Citrus psyllid management by collective involvement of plant resistance, natural enemies and entomopathogenic fungi, 2024, 197, 08824010, 107047, 10.1016/j.micpath.2024.107047
    74. Liliana Luca, Daniela Pauliuc, Mircea Oroian, Honey microbiota, methods for determining the microbiological composition and the antimicrobial effect of honey – A review, 2024, 23, 25901575, 101524, 10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101524
    75. Tadewos Hadero Medalcho, Kebede Abegaz, Engida Dessalegn, Juan Mate, Aflatoxin B1 Detoxification Potentials of Garlic, Ginger, Cardamom, Black Cumin, and Sautéing in Ground Spice Mix Red Pepper Products, 2023, 15, 2072-6651, 307, 10.3390/toxins15050307
    76. Miguel Ángel González-Curbelo, Bulent Kabak, Occurrence of Mycotoxins in Dried Fruits Worldwide, with a Focus on Aflatoxins and Ochratoxin A: A Review, 2023, 15, 2072-6651, 576, 10.3390/toxins15090576
    77. Olukayode Olugbenga Orole, Timothy Olubisi Adejumo, Tobias Link, Ralf Thomas Voegele, Molecular identification of endophytes from maize roots and their biocontrol potential against toxigenic fungi of Nigerian maize, 2023, 106, 0036-8504, 10.1177/00368504231186514
    78. Izabela Podgórska-Kryszczuk, Urszula Pankiewicz, Assessment of the Fungistatic Properties of Calendula officinalis L. Water Extract and the Effect of Its Addition on the Quality of Wheat Bread, 2023, 13, 2076-3417, 7286, 10.3390/app13127286
    79. Bhavitha K.C., Madhubalaji Chegu krishnamurthi, Praveena Bhatt, Prasanna Vasu, Sandeep N. Mudliar, Potential of gaseous ozone to inhibit Aspergillus flavus and detoxify aflatoxin B1 in agar and broth media (solid and liquid food states) at different growth phases, 2024, 2, 29498244, 100275, 10.1016/j.foohum.2024.100275
    80. Ladi Peter Mshelia, Jinap Selamat, Nik Iskandar Putra Samsudin, Strategies for controlling and decontaminating mycotoxins in foods and feeds: A review, 2023, 30, 2231-7546, 1351, 10.47836/ifrj.30.6.01
    81. Chenchen Zhang, Zheng Qu, Jie Hou, Yanpo Yao, Contamination and Control of Mycotoxins in Grain and Oil Crops, 2024, 12, 2076-2607, 567, 10.3390/microorganisms12030567
    82. Gareeballah Osman Adam, Ji Hyun Ryu, 2024, 9780128244722, 99, 10.1016/B978-0-12-824472-2.00004-X
    83. Maria Antonietta Carrera, Esther Miguel, Amadeo R. Fernández-Alba, María Dolores Hernando, First survey on the presence of mycotoxins in commercial bee pollen sourced from 28 countries, 2023, 152, 09567135, 109816, 10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109816
    84. Ids B. Lemmink, Leonie V. Straub, Toine F.H. Bovee, Patrick P.J. Mulder, Han Zuilhof, Gert IJ. Salentijn, Laura Righetti, 2024, 110, 9780443294181, 67, 10.1016/bs.afnr.2024.05.001
    85. Cherotich Cheruiyot, Michael W. Okoth, George O. Abong’, Sarah W. Kariuki, Zheng-Fei Yan, Knowledge, Attitudes, and Food Safety Practices of Informal Market Maize Grain Vendors and Consumers in Meru County, Kenya, 2024, 2024, 2356-7015, 10.1155/ijfo/6592430
    86. Yanshen Li, Xinru Li, Xin Mao, Chaofan Yuan, Yanli You, Jiqiang Zhao, Shuang Zhou, Yongning Wu, Effect of UV-C irradiation treatment on mycotoxins production in Fusarium species inoculated wheat seeds during wheat germination, 2024, 03088146, 142369, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.142369
    87. Jesus A. Maguey-Gonzalez, Juan D. Latorre, Lauren Laverty, Inkar Castellanos-Huerta, Awad A. Shehata, Wolfgang Eisenreich, Guillermo Tellez-Isaias, 2024, Chapter 12, 978-3-031-70479-6, 235, 10.1007/978-3-031-70480-2_12
    88. Masoud Memar, Elena A. Nemilostiva, Fereshteh Mehri, Mehrdad Ahmadi, Farshid Soleimani, Ali Reza Darvishi Divanmorad, Zoha Heidarinejad, Leila Monjazeb Marvdashti, Yadolah Fakhri, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah, Assessment of prevalence, concentration, and risks of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic Ochratoxin A and Aflatoxins in corn ( Zea mays ) in Iran , 2025, 0306-7319, 1, 10.1080/03067319.2024.2446646
    89. Christian Kosisochukwu Anumudu, Chiemerie T. Ekwueme, Chijioke Christopher Uhegwu, Chisom Ejileugha, Jennifer Augustine, Chioke Amaefuna Okolo, Helen Onyeaka, A Review of the Mycotoxin Family of Fumonisins, Their Biosynthesis, Metabolism, Methods of Detection and Effects on Humans and Animals, 2024, 26, 1422-0067, 184, 10.3390/ijms26010184
    90. Andreea Puşcaş, Anda Tanislav, Maria-Ioana Socaciu, Elena Andruţa Mureşan, Cristina Anamaria Semeniuc, Emoke Pall, Alina Maria Truță, Vlad Mureşan, Application of response surface methodology in the formulation of spreadable creams from beechnut seeds as sustainable ingredient, 2025, 1082-0132, 10.1177/10820132241307999
    91. Dilek Akyıl, Afyonkarahisar’da Yerel Marketlerden Alınan Antep Fıstıklarında (Pistacia vera L.) Fungus İzolasyonu, Aflatoksin ve Okratoksin A. Varlığının Belirlenmesi, 2025, 25, 2149-3367, 39, 10.35414/akufemubid.1505021
    92. Yehia A.-G. Mahmoud, Nehal E. Elkaliny, Omar A. Darwish, Yara Ashraf, Rumaisa Ali Ebrahim, Shankar Prasad Das, Galal Yahya, Comprehensive review for aflatoxin detoxification with special attention to cold plasma treatment, 2025, 0178-7888, 10.1007/s12550-025-00582-5
    93. Mengyao Xue, Zheng Qu, Antonio Moretti, Antonio F. Logrieco, Haiyan Chu, Qi Zhang, Changpo Sun, Xianfeng Ren, Li Cui, Qinglin Chen, Yi An, Chengjun Li, Huan Zhong, Zhiyan Cao, Feng Wang, Yuebing Sun, Lili Wang, Jie Hou, Chenchen Zhang, Mengmeng Yang, Yiming Ding, Yanpo Yao, Peiwu Li, Yong‐Guan Zhu, Aspergillus Mycotoxins: The Major Food Contaminants, 2025, 2198-3844, 10.1002/advs.202412757
    94. Birhane Atnafu, Alemayehu Chala, Fikre Lemessa, Wakuma Bayissa, Abdi Mohammed, Chemeda Abedeta Gerbaba, Effectiveness of storage facilities in managing toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins associated with stored maize (Zea mays L.) in Ethiopia, 2025, 111, 0022474X, 102561, 10.1016/j.jspr.2025.102561
    95. Suryakant Manik, S. Shreedevasena, Asharani Patel, Sujit Kumar Bishi, Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Licon Kumar Acharya, 2025, chapter 18, 9798369382011, 407, 10.4018/979-8-3693-8201-1.ch018
    96. Rouaa Daou, Layal Karam, Reine Antoun, Sana Obeid, Tamara Dahboul, André El Khoury, From Cow’s Milk to Cheese, Yogurt, and Labneh: Evaluating aflatoxin M 1 fate in Traditional Lebanese Dairy Processing and the Efficacy of Regulations through a Risk Assessment Approach , 2025, 1944-0049, 1, 10.1080/19440049.2025.2474155
    97. Tarun Kumar Patel, 2025, chapter 17, 9798369382011, 377, 10.4018/979-8-3693-8201-1.ch017
    98. Mohaddeseh Asafari, Rajat Nag, Zahra Hashami, Mansooreh Taghizadeh, Fatemeh Hemmati, Hedayat Hosseini, Rohollah ferdosi, Moein Bashiry, How widespread and concerning is Ochratoxin A in wheat and flour? A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2025, 09567135, 111288, 10.1016/j.foodcont.2025.111288
    99. Diah Chandra Aryani, Yusra Egayanti, Apriyanto Dwi Nugroho, A. Boing Sitanggang, M. Gavahian, D. Agyei, Strategy to minimize the risk of rejection due to mycotoxin contamination: Case for Indonesian nutmeg, 2025, 169, 2117-4458, 02004, 10.1051/bioconf/202516902004
    100. Hosam Elhalis, Exploring Fungal Mycelium for Sustainable Food Solutions: From Biomass Utilization to Byproduct Innovation, 2025, 8755-9129, 1, 10.1080/87559129.2025.2493734
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(24456) PDF downloads(3303) Cited by(83)

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(7)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog