Results of mycotoxin occurrence in wheat in 2015 (modified from Ref. [22]).
Abstract
Latest estimates for world cereal production in 2015 and EU‐28 production in 2014 are approximately 2540 and 323 mil tons, respectively. The FAO estimated that the global wheat consumption is about 66 kg/per capita. Among the most important risks associated with wheat consumption are mycotoxins. It has been estimated that up to 25% of the world's crops grown for food and feed may be contaminated with mycotoxins. Despite efforts in controlling fungal growth, mycotoxin co‐contamination represents an unavoidable risk, occurring pre‐ and postharvest and resulting in reduced nutritional value and possible risks for human and animal health. In addition to health risks, mycotoxins have a detrimental effect on the quality and the processing performance of wheat. Mitigation measures to manage the challenge of mycotoxins in wheat include strategies at pre‐ and postharvest. Preharvest events are predominantly dictated by environmental factors and good agronomic/cultural practices, whereas storage and processing are the major areas where contamination can be prevented at postharvest. Integrating as many management options as possible may minimize the risk of mycotoxin contamination in wheat and wheat products.
Keywords
- wheat
- mycotoxins
- mitigation strategies
- preharvest
- postharvest
1. Introduction
Cereals and cereal by‐products constitute a major part of the daily human and animal diet. Latest estimates for world cereal production in 2015 and EU‐28 in 2014 are approximately 2540 and 323 mil tons, respectively [1]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), rice, maize, and wheat are staple foods for 4 bn people and make up about 60% of the world's food energy intake [2]. The FAO estimated that the global consumption for wheat is about 66 kg/per capita [3]. Among the most important risks associated with cereal consumption are mycotoxins, heavy metals, pesticide residues, and alkaloids. Richard et al. [4] estimated annual losses of $932 million in stored grain in the United States due to mycotoxin contamination. Cereal and cereal products can be contaminated with mycotoxins produced by a variety of fungi that colonize crops in the field or postharvest [5–8]. Mycotoxins are toxic secondary fungal metabolites that can cause a variety of adverse health effects in humans and animals, depending on the type of mycotoxin and the contamination levels. There are 300–400 mycotoxins known today. However, for practical consideration in food manufacturing, because of their worldwide occurrence and concern regarding human and animal diseases, the number is considerably less. The most important mycotoxins in wheat are mainly
Mycotoxin regulations have been established in more than 100 countries, and the maximum acceptable limits vary greatly from country to country. The globalization of the trade in agricultural commodities and the lack of legislative harmonization have contributed significantly to the discussion about the awareness of mycotoxins entering the food supply chain. The European Union harmonized regulations for the maximum levels of mycotoxins in food and feed [23, 24]. Moreover, two EFSA scientific opinions recommended that the presence of modified and emerging mycotoxins must be considered by the European legislation in the near future [25, 26].
Fungal growth and mycotoxin contamination can occur during several steps of the food supply chain. Despite efforts in controlling fungal growth, mycotoxin co‐contamination represents an unavoidable risk, occurring pre‐ and postharvest and resulting in reduced nutritional value and possible risks for human and animal health. In addition to health risks, fungal growth and mycotoxins have a detrimental effect on the quality and the processing performance of wheat.
Many factors with pre‐ and postharvest origins must be taken into account to manage the challenge of mycotoxins in wheat. Preharvest events are predominantly dictated by environmental factors and good agronomic/cultural practices, whereas storage and processing are the major areas where contamination can be prevented at postharvest level. The aim of this chapter is to present an overview of the most recent findings on wheat mycotoxin contamination and of the main pre‐ and postharvest strategies as mitigation measures, focusing on those more consolidated and used by the wheat industry chain. Other promising measures, but still studied at research level, will be presented with papers and reviews to which the reader is directed for specific insights.
2. Mycotoxin occurrence in wheat
The major mycotoxins occurring in wheat, at levels of potential concern for human and animal health, are
Results from worldwide mycotoxin occurrence studies indicate that DON is the most common mycotoxin contaminant of wheat and wheat‐based products. Moreover, results highlighted the presence of considerable differences regarding the type and prevalence of mycotoxin contamination in different regions of the world, confirming that contamination is strongly dependent on regional climatic conditions [10, 14, 17–22]. Differences in mycotoxin occurrence and concentration between distant geographical areas are uncontroversial. Within each geographical area, seasonal and local weather conditions during critical crop growing stages are of great importance to explain the variation in mycotoxin occurrence. In general, environmental conditions, such as excessive moisture, temperature extremes, humidity, drought conditions, insect damage, crop systems, and some agronomic practices, can cause stress and predispose wheat in the field to mold and determine the severity of mycotoxin contamination [20, 30–32]. Moreover, the high variability in the occurrence and level of mycotoxins may be the results of several factors, such as the years of the surveys, the annual weather fluctuations, and the storage conditions (Figure 2).
Data on the occurrence of
Another important point highlighted from studies on the worldwide mycotoxin occurrence in wheat and cereals is that the levels of detected mycotoxins are extremely variable. Average levels of mycotoxin contamination may be low and rarely exceed risk threshold levels, but as the content range is very wide, several samples may exceed the maximum or recommended levels for mycotoxin contamination (Table 1) [11, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 34].
Mycotoxins | Contaminated samples, % (n of tested samples) | Content, average of positive (ppb) | Maximum level (ppb) | EU maximum levels* (ppb) |
---|---|---|---|---|
DON | 68 (770) | 960 | 15976 | UW: 1250 W: 750 |
ZEA | 37 (645) | 98 | 3274 | UW: 100 W: 75 |
T‐2 | 22 (342) | 21 | 163 | T‐2+HT‐2** UW: 100 W: 50 |
FUM | 14 (331) | 356 | 5334 | – |
AFLA | 16 (396) | 5 | 161 | 4 |
OTA | 14 (278) | 3 | 9 | UW: 5 W: 3 |
Another important point highlighted from mycotoxin researches is that mycotoxin co‐contamination is more the rule than the exception. Several studies reported a high incidence of multi‐mycotoxin contamination in cereals and agricultural commodities [10, 14, 17–22]. A recent survey showed that in 2015, 46% of wheat samples were co‐contaminated by two to six mycotoxins [35]. A study carried out in Italy showed that at least 80% of wheat samples were contaminated with one mycotoxin, while two mycotoxins were found in 27% of contaminated samples; 38% of the analyzed samples were contaminated with three or more mycotoxins [36]. Multi‐mycotoxin contamination is a topic of great concern, as co‐contaminated samples, although at lower levels than those indicated by EU regulations, might still exert adverse effects on animals due to additive/synergistic interactions of the mycotoxins.
A further scenario is represented by the climate changes. Estimates suggest that climate change will reduce wheat production globally by 29–34% by 2050 in developing countries [37]. This will have a great impact on food security. In terms of food safety and mycotoxin contamination, although aflatoxin is the mycotoxin that is most likely to increase under near‐future climate scenario, problems concerning also
In terms of mycotoxin contamination, new issues for cereal safety include both emerging mycotoxins and modified forms [15, 16, 25, 26, 40]. Mycotoxin contamination by emerging
3. Strategies to mitigate mycotoxin contamination
Fungi can invade, colonize, and produce mycotoxins during either preharvest or postharvest stages [5–8]. Therefore, to properly manage mycotoxin contamination in wheat, the primary strategy is the prevention, by reducing fungi proliferation in field and during storage [48–51]. Commonly and usually, mycotoxinogenic fungi are divided into two groups: preharvest (mainly
There are several possibilities for mitigating mycotoxin contamination. Preharvest events are predominantly dictated by environmental factors and good agronomic/cultural practices. Conditions, such as excessive moisture, temperature extremes, humidity, drought conditions, insect damage, crop systems, and some agronomic practices, can cause stress and predispose plants in the field to mold and determine the severity of mycotoxin contamination [5, 31, 53].
4. Preharvest mitigation measures and management
One of the main wheat diseases associated with mycotoxin contamination is
Irrigation management is another critical point to mitigate preharvest mycotoxin contamination. All plants in the field need adequate water supply. Drought stress and also an excess irrigation are favorable conditions for
The chemical control of fungal infection and mycotoxin contamination may be only partly effective; therefore, biological control as an additional strategy has been considered and evaluated [53]. The efficacy of bacterial and fungal antagonist against
The use of biological control strategies to reduce mycotoxin challenge in wheat can be especially useful in organic production where synthetic fungicides cannot be used. The increased demand for organically produced food asks for scientific assessments of the safety of products from different farming systems, such as organic
Although no significant differences have been found in the majority of mycotoxin comparisons, several studies showed a tendency of a lower mycotoxin content in organically than in conventionally produced wheat. Moreover, results indicate that organic systems appear generally able to maintain mycotoxin contamination at low levels, despite no use of fungicides. The inconsistency of the results confirm that several preharvest factors, such as those previously described, may have more influence on the mycotoxin levels than the type of farming.
To conclude, there are several preharvest practices and management approaches to reduce the risk of mycotoxin contamination in wheat, whose combination in an integrated strategy represents the best mitigation measure. All preharvest practices can be controlled, while climatic and environmental conditions cannot. Computer models, integrating field parameters and weather variables (temperature, rainfall, and moisture level) have been developed to predict the occurrence and risk of
5. Harvest and postharvest mitigation measures and management
Controlling harvest and storage conditions is critical to effectively prevent mold growth and mycotoxin production in wheat postharvest. Harvesting strategies, moisture, water activity (Aw), temperature, storage period, contamination rate, broken grains, insect presence, and oxygen rate are the main critical points to manage in order to mitigate the mycotoxin risks postharvest [48, 50–52, 99].
T, °C | pH | Optimal Aw | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species (mycotoxins) | G | TP | G | TP | G | TP |
Range: 10–43 Optimum: 32–35 |
12–40 | Range: 2.1–11.2 Optimum: 3.5–8.0 |
Range: 3.5–8.0 Optimum: 6.0 |
0.84 | 0.87 | |
Range: 10–43 Optimum: 32–35 |
12–40 | Range: 2.1–11.2 Optimum: 3.5–8.0 |
Range: 3.5–8.0 Optimum: 6.0 |
0.80 | 0.82 | |
24–26 | 24–26 | 2.4 at 30°C and 3.0 at 25°C and 37°C | 2.4–3.0 | 0.90 | 0.90 | |
Range: 0–31 Optimum: 20 |
4–20 | Range: 2.0–10.0 Optimum: 6.0–7.0 |
n.a. | 0.80 | 0.86 |
In wheat, positive relationships between dry matter losses caused by
Strategy | Effects | References |
---|---|---|
Physical decontamination Sorting, dehulling, debranning, milling, irradiation, heating, or combined approaches Inorganic or organic mycotoxin binders |
Removing of highly contaminated fractions or mycotoxin repartitioning from bulk wheat Reduced food mycotoxin bioavailability |
[8, 105–112] [113–116] |
Chemical decontamination | Conversion of mycotoxins via chemical reactions | [48, 51, 80, 106–118] |
Microbial based methods | Microbial transformation, biodegradation | [51, 84, 106, 119, 120] |
Jard et al. [120] underlined that the decontaminating approaches must consider several topics concerning safety issues: they must not generate toxic products, ensure the nutritional value of the food, and should not induce negative modification for food processing.
A wide variety of chemical decontamination processes including oxidation, reduction, ammonization, alkalization, acidification, and deamination has been reported [48, 121]. These methods have some limitations concerning safety issues, efficacy coupled with cost and regulatory implication. The use of chemical methods for the decontamination of cereals that exceed the mycotoxin threshold limits are not allowed in the European Union [122]. In the United States of America, only ammonization is licensed for detoxifying aflatoxins [123, 124]. In addition to chemical methods, natural plant extracts and spices are known to prevent mold growth and mycotoxin production. In recent years, the use of essential oils as natural food preservatives to control mold and mycotoxin contamination is gaining interest [117]. Several essential oils have been found to be effective in controlling growth of several
Currently, many researches have been carried out to evaluate the possible use of biological agents or biological transformations for mycotoxin detoxification, as an alternative to the chemical one. This approach includes fungal, microbial, and enzymatic degradation of mycotoxins. Several very recent reviews on this topic can be found in the literature to which the reader is directed for specific insights [84, 118, 119, 127, 128]. Despite the many publications on this topic, this promising approach is still at a research level and far from an immediate outcome and application in practice for mycotoxin detoxification of food at industrial level. More research is needed to fully understand mycotoxin biotransformation mechanisms, to evaluate the toxicity of metabolites and the feasibility of application in wheat industry. All these topics must be considered and evaluated keeping in mind the existing regulatory issues for food safety.
Physical decontamination reducing mycotoxins in wheat can be carried out during industrial processing. For the wheat milling industry, the precise knowledge of the fate of mycotoxins during milling is vital and may provide a sound technical basis to conform to legislation requirements, support risk management and regulatory bodies in order to reduce human and animal exposure to mycotoxins, and reduce the risk of severe adverse market and trade repercussions. Wheat sorting, cleaning, debranning, and milling influence mycotoxin repartitioning in wheat milling fractions entering the food chain. The effects of wheat milling and thermal processes on the fate of mycotoxins have been extensively studied [8, 33, 105–112, 121, 129–133]. Published data confirm that milling reduces mycotoxin concentration in fractions used for human consumption, but concentrates mycotoxins into fractions commonly used as animal feed. Physical and mechanical processes, such as sorting and cleaning prior to milling, reduce mycotoxin contamination in wheat by removing kernels with extensive mold growth, broken kernels, fine materials, and dust. The results indicate that the effect of pre-milling processes and the efficiency of mycotoxin removal are extremely variable. The concentration of mycotoxins in cleaned wheat ranges from 7 to 63% for DON, from 7 to almost 100% for NIV, and from 7 to 40% for ZEA, of the contamination level in unclean grains [28, 134, 135]. A reduction of 62 and 53% of T-2 and HT-2, respectively, has been reported in wheat grains after cleaning [136]. Several factors may be involved in this response, such as the initial condition of the grains, the type and extent of the contamination, and the type and efficiency of the cleaning process. Debranning before cleaning is used in industrial processing to enhance the milling performance of wheat and the degree of refinement of flour and semolina [137]. Debranning before milling further reduces the level of mycotoxin content in wheat grain. As for the cleaning and sorting procedures, the effect of debranning and the efficiency of mycotoxin removal are extremely variable. A reduction of DON in debranned wheat ranging from 15 to 78% has been reported [134, 138–140]. Despite the high variability in removal efficiency of mycotoxin, overall results indicate that the physical processes that are carried out before milling (such as sorting, cleaning, and debranning) are very efficient methods to reduce wheat mycotoxin content before milling. As in cleaning and debranning, in the milling process there is no step that destroys mycotoxins; however, mycotoxin contamination may be redistributed in milling fractions [141–143].
Overall results regarding the efficacy of mycotoxin reduction/repartition wheat industrial processing showed a high variability and sometimes appear conflicting. This is related to the type of mycotoxins, the level and extent of fungal contamination, and a failure to understand the complexity of the milling technology. The knowledge of mycotoxin repartitioning in wheat milling fractions is largely limited to DON, using different approaches (artificially vs. naturally contaminated wheat; wide range of mycotoxin contamination levels; laboratory; semi‐industrial; and industrial milling), but there is still a lack of data for other mycotoxins. Fewer data are available regarding the distribution of other mycotoxins and modified mycotoxins in milling fractions [45, 142–146], but a similar scenario has been found, such as mycotoxins concentration in milling fractions intended for animal feed.
6. Conclusions and future perspectives
Mycotoxins in wheat represent a significant health risk to animal health and significant issues for a safe food supply chain. Regarding this topic, mycotoxin regulations have been established in more than 100 countries, and maximum acceptable limits have been fixed for food and feed. Mycotoxin co‐contamination in wheat is a reality, and future attention should be paid not only to the mycotoxins believed to be the most likely to occur, but also to emerging and modified mycotoxins. The co‐occurrence of several mycotoxins, with specific chemical traits and modes of action, is a serious health problem because of potential additive and/or synergistic effects. The impact of mycotoxins entering the food chain could increase in the next future. Most predictions indicate that the climate change scenarios, with global warming, could affect agriculture and increase the threat from fungal invasion of crops. Regarding this topic, there is a need to improve predictive models for mycotoxin contamination in wheat, integrating field parameters and weather variables.
Strategies to mitigate and reduce mycotoxin contamination in wheat include approaches at pre‐ and postharvest levels. The efficacy of each mitigating approach is highly variable depending on several factors, such as the type of approach, the type and level of mycotoxin contamination, the crop variety and agronomic practices, storage condition, etc. Integrating as many management options as possible is the key to minimize the risk of mycotoxin contamination in wheat and wheat products. However, it must be underlined that even if pre‐ and postharvest practices can be controlled, there is an unpredictable factor that influence mycotoxin occurrence in wheat, namely the climatic and environmental conditions. Therefore, despite efforts to control and reduce fungal and mycotoxin contamination, wheat mycotoxin contamination is unavoidable and unpredictable and postharvest decontaminating approaches can offer the last resort. The use of these strategies must not be detrimental for the wheat quality and safety, and must comply with the existing regulatory requirements.
The high variability in the efficacy of mitigating strategies increases awareness and ongoing surveillance for mycotoxins. At industrial level, an effective approach to manage the mycotoxin challenge in wheat requires regular, effective, economical, and straight forward wheat sampling and analytical diagnostic tools which can be used to monitor mycotoxin contamination, rapidly identify material below specified standards, and make justified management decisions regarding what to do with wheat lots that may be contaminated with mycotoxins. Sampling is the greatest source of error in quantifying mycotoxin contamination because of the difficulty in obtaining samples from large grain consignments and of the uneven distribution of mycotoxins within a commodity [147]. The Commission Regulation 401/2006/EC provides precise details regarding the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of mycotoxins in foodstuffs [148]. The development of rapid methods for use in the field represents a future challenge, but such methods would allow for “decision‐making” regarding the safe use of wheat and wheat by‐products. Moreover, more research on the development and application of multi‐mycotoxin analytical methods should be encouraged in order to obtain a more accurate picture of the extent of multi‐mycotoxin contamination.
References
- 1.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Cereal Supply and Demand Brief. In: FAO Cereal Supply and Demand Situation. 2016. Available from: http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/ [Accessed: 2016‐10‐17]. - 2.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Staple food: What do people eat? Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/u8480e/u8480e07.html [Accessed: 2016‐10‐17]. - 3.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Livestock commodities. In: World agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. An FAO perspective. 2003. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e05b.html [Accessed: 2016‐10‐17]. - 4.
Richard JL, Payne GA. Mycotoxins: Risks in Plant, Animal, and Human Systems. CAST Council of Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa, USA, Task Force Report, ISBN 1-887383-22-0, ISSN 0194-4088, No. 139. 2003. 199 p. - 5.
Coulombe RA, Jr. Biological action of mycotoxins. J Dairy Sci. 1993;76:880–91. - 6.
Scudamore KA, Livesey CT. Occurrence and significance of mycotoxins in forage crops and silage: A review. J Sci Food Agr. 1998;77:1–17. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097‐0010(199805)77:1<1::AID‐JSFA9>3.0.CO;2‐4 - 7.
Storm IMLD, Sørensen JL, Rasmussen RR, Nielsen KF, Thrane U. Mycotoxins in silage. Stewart Post‐harvest Rev. 2008;4:1–12. doi:10.2212/spr.2008.6.4 - 8.
Cheli F, Pinotti L, Rossi L, Dell'Orto V. Effect of milling procedures on mycotoxin distribution in wheat fractions: A review. LWT ‐ Food Sci Technol. 2013;54:307–314. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2013.05.040 - 9.
Placinta CM, D'Mello JPF, Macdonald AMC. A review of worldwide contamination of cereal grains and animal feed with Fusarium mycotoxins. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1999;78:21–37. - 10.
SCOOP Task 3.2.10 (April 2003) ‐ Collection of occurrence data of Fusarium toxins in food and assessment of dietary intake by the population of EU member states. Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/scoop/task3210.pdf - 11.
Binder EM, Tan LM, Chin LJ, Handl J, Richard J. Worldwide occurrence of mycotoxins in commodities, feeds and feed ingredients. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2007;137:265–82. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.06.005 - 12.
Zinedine A, Soriano JM, Moltó JC, Mañes J. Review on the toxicity, occurrence, metabolism, detoxification, regulations and intake of zearalenone: An oestrogenic mycotoxin. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007;45:1–18. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2006.07.030 - 13.
Neuhof T, Koch M, Rasenko T, Nehls I. Occurrence of zearalenone in wheat kernels infected with Fusarium culmorum. World Mycotoxin J. 2008;1:429–435. doi:10.3920/WMJ2008.1055 - 14.
Rodrigues I, Naehrer K. A three‐year survey on the worldwide occurrence of mycotoxins in feedstuffs and feed. Toxins. 2012;4:663–675. doi:10.3390/toxins4090663 - 15.
Jestoi M. Emerging Fusarium mycotoxins fusaproliferin, beauvericin, enniatins, and moniliformin: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2008;48:21–49. doi:10.1080/10408390601062021 - 16.
Berthiller F, Crews C, Dall'Asta C, De Saeger S, Haesaert G, Karlovsky P, et al. Masked mycotoxins: A review. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57:165–86. doi:10.1002/mnfr.201100764 - 17.
Streit E, Schatzmayr G, Tassis P, Tzika E, Marin D, Taranu I, et al. Current situation of mycotoxin contamination and co‐occurrence in animal feed—Focus on Europe. Toxins. 2012;4:788–809. doi:10.3390/toxins4100788 - 18.
Schatzmayr G, Streit E. Global occurrence of mycotoxins in the food and feed chain: Facts and figures. World Mycotoxin J. 2013;6:213–222. doi:10.3920/WMJ2013.1572 - 19.
Grenier B, Oswald I. Mycotoxin co‐contamination of food and feed: Meta‐analysis of publications describing toxicological interactions. World Mycotoxin J. 2014;3:285–313. doi:10.3920/WMJ2011.1281 - 20.
Streit E, Naehrer K, Rodrigues I, Schatzmayr G. Mycotoxin occurrence in feed and feed raw materials worldwide: Long‐term analysis with special focus on Europe and Asia. J Sci Food Agric. 2013;93:2892–99. doi:10.1002/jsfa.6225 - 21.
Streit E, Schwab C, Sulyok M, Naehrer K, Krska R, Schatzmayr G. Multi‐mycotoxin screening reveals the occurrence of 139 different secondary metabolites in feed and feed ingredients. Toxins. 2013;5:504–23. doi:10.3390/toxins5030504 - 22.
Mycotoxin Survey 2015. Biomin survey report. Available from: http://info.biomin.net/acton/attachment/14109/f‐018d/1/‐/‐/l‐0009/l‐0009:106a/MTX_Report2015_4S_EN_0316_SMS.pdf [Accessed: 2016–10‐17]. - 23.
Cheli F, Gallo R, Battaglia D, Dell'Orto V. EU legislation on feed related issues: An update. Ital J Anim Sci. 2013;12:295–312. doi:10.4081/ijas.2013.e48 - 24.
Cheli F, Battaglia D, Gallo R, Dell'Orto V. EU legislation on cereal safety: An update with a focus on mycotoxins. Food Control. 2014;37:315–325. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.059 - 25.
EFSA. Scientific opinion on the risks for human and animal health related to the presence of modified forms of certain mycotoxins in food and feed. EFSA J. 2014;12:3916–4023. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3916 - 26.
EFSA. Scientific Opinion on the risks to human and animal health related to the presence of beauvericin and enniatins in food and feed. EFSA J. 2014;12:174–183. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3802 - 27.
Wang JH, Wieser H, Pawelzik E, Weinert J, Keutgen AJ, Wolf GA. Impact of the fungal protease produced by Fusarium culmorum on the protein quality and breadmaking properties of winter wheat. Eur Food Res Technol. 2005;220:552–559. doi:10.1007/s00217‐004‐1112‐1 - 28.
Lancova K, Hajslova J, Kostelanska M, Kohoutkova J, Nedelnik J, Moravcova H, et al. Fate of trichothecene mycotoxins during the processing: Milling and baking. Food Addit Contam Part A. 2008;25:650–659. doi:10.1080/02652030701660536 - 29.
Siuda R, Grabowski A, Lenc L, Ralcewicz M, Spychaj‐Fabisiak E. Influence of the degree of fusariosis on technological traits of wheat grain. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2010;45;2596–2604. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2621.2010.02438.x - 30.
Hussein HS, Brasel JM. Toxicity, metabolism, and impact of mycotoxins on human and animals. Toxicology. 2001;167:101–34. doi:10.1016/S0300‐483X(01)00471‐1 - 31.
Munkvold GP. Crop management practices to minimize the risk of mycotoxins contamination in temperate‐zone maize. In: Leslie JF, Logrieco A. editors. Mycotoxin Reduction in Grain Chains. Wiley-Blackwell: 2014. 59–77 pp. - 32.
Cotty PJ, Jaime‐Garcia R. Effect of climate on aflatoxin producing fungi and aflatoxin contamination. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007;119:109–15. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.07.060 - 33.
Visconti A, Pascale M. An overview on Fusarium mycotoxins in the durum wheat pasta production chain. Cereal Chem. 2010;87:21–27. doi:10.1094/CCHEM‐87‐1‐0021 - 34.
Marin S, Ramos AJ, Cano‐Sancho G, Sanchis V. Mycotoxins: Occurrence, toxicology, and exposure assessment. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;60:218–237. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2013.07.047 - 35.
Pancosma SA. Pancosma & Associates’ 2015 survey: Threat of multi‐mycotoxin contamination. 2015. Available from: http://en.engormix.com/MA‐mycotoxins/articles/pancosma‐associates‐2015‐survey‐t3648/p0.htm [Accessed: 2016‐10‐17]. - 36.
Alkadri D, Rubert J, Prodi A, Pisi A, Mañes J, Soler C. Natural co‐occurrence of mycotoxins in wheat grains from Italy and Syria. Food Chem. 2014;157:111–118. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.01.052 - 37.
Hellin J, Shiferaw B, Cairns JE, Reynolds M, Ortiz‐Monasterio I, Banziger M, et al. Climate change and food security in the developing world: Potential of maize and wheat research to expand options for adaptation and mitigation. J Dev Agric Econ. 2012;4:311–21. doi:10.5897/JDAE11.112 - 38.
Marroquín‐Cardona AG, Johnson NM, Phillips TD, Hayes AW. Mycotoxins in a changing global environment: A review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2014;69:220–230. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2014.04.025 - 39.
Wu F, Mitchell NJ. How climate change and regulations can affect the economics of mycotoxins. World Mycotoxin J. 2016;0:1–12. doi:10.3920/WMJ2015.2015 - 40.
Mortensen A, Granby K, Eriksen FD, Cederberg TL, Friis‐Wandall S, Simonsen Y, et al. Levels and risk assessment of chemical contaminants in byproducts for animal feed in Denmark. J Environ Sci Heal B. 2014;49:797–810. doi:10.1080/03601234.2014.938546 - 41.
Berthiller F, Dall'Asta C, Schuhmacher R, Lemmens M, Adam G, Krska R. Masked mycotoxins: Determination of a deoxynivalenol glucoside in artificially and naturally contaminated wheat by liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2005;53:3421–3425. doi:10.1021/jf047798g - 42.
Sasanya JJ, Hall C, Wolf‐Hall C. Analysis of deoxynivalenol, masked deoxynivalenol, and Fusarium graminearum pigment in wheat samples, using liquid chromatography‐UV‐mass spectrometry. J Food Prot. 2008;71:1205–1213. - 43.
Berthiller F, Dall'Asta C, Corradini R, Marchelli R, Sulyok M, Krska R, et al. Occurrence of deoxynivalenol and its 3‐beta‐D‐glucoside in wheat and maize. Food Addit Contam A. 2009;26:507–511. doi:10.1080/02652030802555668 - 44.
Galaverna G, Dall'Asta C, Mangia M, Marchelli R. Masked mycotoxins: An emerging issue for food safety. Czech J Food Sci. 2009;27:89–92. - 45.
Kostelanska M, Dzuman Z, Malachova A, Capouchova I, Prokinova E, Skerikova A, et al. Effects of milling and baking technologies on levels of deoxynivalenol and its masked form deoxynivalenol‐3‐glucoside. J Agric Food Chem. 2011;59:9303–12. doi:10.1021/jf202428f - 46.
Lattanzio VM, Visconti A, Haidukowski M, Pascale M. Identification and characterization of new Fusarium masked mycotoxins, T2 and HT2 glycosyl derivatives, in naturally contaminated wheat and oats by liquid chromatography‐high‐resolution mass spectrometry. J Mass Spectrom. 2012;47:466–75. doi:10.1002/jms.2980 - 47.
Mirocha CJ, Xie W, Filho ER. Chemistry and detection of Fusarium mycotoxins. In: Leonard KJ, Bushnell WR, Editors.Fusarium Head Blight of Wheat and Barley. APS Press, St. Paul, 2003. pp. 144–164. - 48.
Kabak B, Dobson AD, Var I. Strategies to prevent mycotoxin contamination of food and animal feed: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2006;46:593–619. doi:10.1080/ 10408390500436185 - 49.
Magan N, Aldred D. Post‐harvest control strategies: Minimizing mycotoxins in the food chain. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007;119:131–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.07.034 - 50.
Choudhary AK, Kumari P. Management of mycotoxin contamination in preharvest and postharvest crops: Present status and future prospects. J Phytol. 2010;2:37–52. - 51.
Magan N, Aldred D, Mylona K, Lambert RJW. Limiting mycotoxins in stored wheat. Food Addit Contam A. 2010;27:644–650. doi:10.1080/19440040903514523 - 52.
Atanda SA., Aina JA, Agoda SA, Usanga OE, Pessu PO. Mycotoxin management in agriculture: A review. J Anim Sci Adv. 2012;2:250–260. - 53.
Wegulo SN, Stephen Baenziger P, Hernandez Nopsa J, Bockus WW, Hallen‐Adams H. Management of Fusarium head blight of wheat and barley. Crop Protection. 2015;73:100–7. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2015.02.025 - 54.
Reyneri A. The role of climatic condition on mycotoxin production in cereal. Vet Res Comm. 2006;30:87–92. doi:10.1007/s11259‐006‐0018‐8 - 55.
Snijders CH. Resistance in wheat to Fusarium infection and trichothecene formation. Toxicol Lett. 2004;153:37–46. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.04.044 - 56.
Góral T, Stuper‐Szablewska K, Buśko M, Boczkowska M, Walentyn‐Góral D, Wiśniewska H, et al. Relationships between genetic diversity and Fusarium toxin profiles of winter wheat cultivars. Plant Pathol J. 2015;31:226–44. doi:10.5423/PPJ.OA.03.2015.0038 - 57.
Munkvold GP. Cultural and genetic approaches to managing mycotoxins in maize. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2003;41:99–116. doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.052002.095510 - 58.
Gilbert J, Haber S. Overview of some recent research developments in Fusarium head blight of wheat. Can J Plant Pathol. 2013;35:149–174. doi:10.1080/07060661.2013.772921 - 59.
Kubo K, Kawada N, Fujita M. Evaluation of Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat and the development of a new variety by integrating type I and II resistance. Jpn Arg Res Q. 2013;47:9–19. doi:10.6090/jarq.47.9 - 60.
Edwards SG. Influence of agricultural practices on Fusarium infection of cereals and subsequent contamination of grain by trichothecene mycotoxins. Toxicol Lett. 2004;153:29–35. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.04.022 - 61.
Dill‐Macky R, Jones RK. The effect of previous crop residues and tillage on Fusarium head blight of wheat. Plant Dis. 2000;84:71–6. doi:10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.1.71 - 62.
Schmidt W, Nitzsche O. Reducing risk in maize rotations: Rotating tillage and cultivar choice. Mais. 2004;32:8–11. - 63.
Obst A, Lepschy‐von Gleissenthall J, Beck R. On the etiology of Fusarium head blight of wheat in South Germany—Preceding crops, weather conditions for inoculum production and head infection, proneness of the crop to infection and mycotoxin production. Cereal Res Commun. 1997;25:699–703. - 64.
Smith DR, White DG. Diseases of corn. In: Sprague GF, Dudley JW, Editors. Corn and Corn Improvement, 3rd ed., Agronom. Ser. 18. Am Soc Agron, Madison, WI. 1988. pp. 687–766. - 65.
Fernandez M, Stolhandeske‐Dale S, Zentner RP, Pearse P. Progress in management of Fusarium head blight. In: Proceedings of the Second Canadian Workshop onFusarium Head Blight. 2001. pp. 110–113. - 66.
Steinkellner S, Langer I. Impact of tillage on the incidence of Fusarium spp. in soil. Plant Soil. 2004;267:13–22. doi:10.1007/s11104‐005‐2574‐z - 67.
Yuen GY, Schoneweis SD. Strategies for managing Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol accumulation in wheat. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007;119:126–130. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.07.033 - 68.
Codex Alimentarius Commission 2002. Proposed draft code of practice for the prevention (reduction) of mycotoxin contamination in cereals, including annexes on ochratoxin A, zearalenone, fumonisins strategies to prevent mycotoxin contamination of food and animal feed 613 and trichothecenes, CX/FAC 02/21, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. - 69.
Lemmens M, Buerstmayr H, Krska R, Schuhmacher R, Grausgruber H, Ruckenbauer P. The effect of inoculation treatment and long‐term application of moisture on Fusarium head blight symptoms and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat grains. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2004;110:299–308. doi:10.1023/B:EJPP.0000019801.89902.2a - 70.
Culler MD, Miller‐Garvin JE, Dill‐Macky R. Effect of extended irrigation and host resistance on deoxynivalenol accumulation in Fusarium ‐infected wheat. Plant Dis. 2007;91:1464–72. doi:10.1094/PDIS‐91‐11‐1464 - 71.
Cowger C, Patton‐Ozkurt J, Brown‐Guedira G, Perugini L. Post‐anthesis moisture increased Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol levels in North Carolina winter wheat. Phytopathology. 2009;99:320–7. doi:10.1094/PHYTO‐99‐4‐0320 - 72.
Gautam P, Dill‐Macky R. Free water can leach mycotoxins from Fusarium infected wheat heads. J Phytopathol. 2012;60:484–90. doi:10.1111/j.1439‐0434.2012.01928.x - 73.
Hernandez Nopsa JF, Thomas‐Sharma S, Garrett KA. Climate change and plant disease. In: Alfen NV, Editor. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. Elsevier, San Diego. 2014. pp. 232–243. - 74.
Haidukowski M, Pascale M, Perrone G, Pancaldi D, Campagna C, Visconti A. Effect of fungicides on the development of Fusarium head blight, yield and deoxynivalenol accumulation in wheat inoculated under field conditions withFusarium graminearum andFusarium culmorum. J Sci Food Agric. 2005;85:191–8. doi:10.1002/jsfa.1965 - 75.
McMullen M, Bergstrom G, De Wolf E, Dill‐Macky R, Hershman D, Shaner G, et al. A unified effort to fight an enemy of wheat and barley: Fusarium head blight. Plant Dis. 2012;96:1712–28. doi:10.1094/PDIS‐03‐12‐0291‐FE - 76.
Yoshida M, Nakajima T, Tomimura K, Suzuki F, Arai M, Miyasaka A. Effect of the timing of fungicide application on Fusarium head blight and mycotoxin contamination in wheat. Plant Dis. 2012:96:845–851. doi:10.1094/PDIS‐10‐11‐0819 - 77.
Scarpino V, Reyneri A, Sulyok M, Krska R, Blandino M. Effect of fungicide application to control Fusarium head blight and 20Fusarium and Alternaria mycotoxins in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). World Mycotoxin J. 2015;8:499–510. doi:10.3920/WMJ2014.1814 - 78.
Paul PA, Lipps PE, Hershman DE, McMullen MP, Draper MA, Madden LV. Efficacy of triazole‐based fungicides for Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol control in wheat: A multivariate meta‐analysis. Phytopathology. 2008;98:999–1011. doi:10.1094/PHYTO‐98‐9‐0999 - 79.
Wegulo SN, Bockus WW, Hernandez Nopsa J, De Wolf ED, Eskridge KM, Peiris KHS, Dowell FE. Effects of integrating cultivar resistance and fungicide application on Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol in winter wheat. Plant Dis. 2011;95:554–560. doi:10.1094/PDIS‐07‐10‐0495 - 80.
Velluti A, Sanchis V, Ramos AJ, Egido J, Marín S. Inhibitory effect of cinnamon, clove, lemongrass, oregano and palmarose essential oils on growth and fumonisin B1 production by Fusarium proliferatum in maize grain. Int J Food Microbiol. 2003;89:145–54. doi:10.1016/S0168‐1605(03)00116‐8 - 81.
López‐Malo A, Maris Alzamora S, Palou E. Aspergillus flavus growth in the presence of chemical preservatives and naturally occurring antimicrobial compounds. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005;99:119–28. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.08.010 - 82.
Reddy KRN, Nurdijati SB, Salleh B. An overview of plant‐derived products on control of mycotoxigenic fungi and mycotoxins. Asian J Plant Sci. 2010;9:126–133. doi:10.3923/ajps.2010.126.133 - 83.
Dambolena JS, López AG, Meriles JM, Rubinstein HR, Zygadlo JA. Inhibitory effect of 10 natural phenolic compounds on Fusarium verticillioides. A structure‐property‐activity relationship study. Food Control. 2012;28:163–170. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.05.008 - 84.
Reddy KRN, Farhana NI, Salleh B, Oliveira CAF. Microbiological control of mycotoxins: Present status and future concerns. In: Méndez‐Vilas A. Editor. Current research, technology and education topic in applied microbiology and microbial biotechnology. Formatex: 2010. p. 1078–86. - 85.
Zhao Y, Selvaraj JN, Xing F, Zhou L, Wang Y, et al. Antagonistic action of Bacillus subtilis strain SG6 on Fusarium graminearum . PLoS One. 2014;9:e92486. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092486 - 86.
Schisler DA, Khan NI, Boehm MJ, Slininger PJ. Greenhouse and field evaluation of biological control of Fusarium head blight on durum wheat. Plant Dis. 2002;86:1350–6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092486 - 87.
Schisler DA, Khan NI, Boehm MJ, Lipps PE, Slininger PJ, Zhang S. Selection and evaluation of the potential of choline‐metabolizing microbial strains to reduce Fusarium head blight. Biol Control. 2006;39:497–506. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2006.08.007 - 88.
Palazzini, JM, Ramirez ML, Torres AM, Chulze SN. Potential biocontrol agents for Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol production in wheat. Crop Prot. 2007;26:1702–10. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2007.03.004 - 89.
Schisler DA, Slininger PJ, Boehm MJ, Paul PA. Co‐culture of yeast antagonists of Fusarium head blight and their effect on disease development in wheat. Plant Pathol J. 2011;10:128–37. doi:10.3923/ppj.2011.128.137 - 90.
Matarese F, Sarrocco S, Gruber S, Seidl‐Seiboth V, Vannacci G. Biocontrol of Fusarium head blight: Interactions between Trichoderma and mycotoxigenicFusarium . Microbiology. 2012;158:98–106. doi:10.1099/mic.0.052639‐0 - 91.
Xue AG, Chen YH, Voldeng HD, Fedak G, Savard ME, Langle T, et al. Concentration and cultivar effects on efficacy of CLO‐1 biofungicide in controlling Fusarium head blight of wheat. Biol Control. 2014;73:2–7. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.02.010 - 92.
Wachowska U, Glowacka K. Antagonistic interactions between Aureobasidium pullulans andFusarium culmorum , a fungal pathogen of wheat. Bio Control. 2014;59:635–645. doi:10.1007/s10526‐014‐9596‐5 - 93.
Brodal G, Hofgaard IS, Eriksen GS, Bernhoft A, Sundheim L. Mycotoxins in organically versus conventionally produced cereal grains and some other crops in temperate regions. World Mycotoxin J. 2016;0:1–16. doi:10.3920/WMJ2016.2040 - 94.
Schaafsma EW, Hooker DC. Climatic models to predict occurrence of Fusarium toxins in wheat and maize. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007;119:116–125. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.08.006 - 95.
van der Fels‐Klerx HJ, Kandhai MC, Booij CJH. A conceptual model for identification of emerging risks, applied to mycotoxins in wheat‐based supply chains. World Mycotoxin J. 2008;1:13–22. doi:10.3920/WMJ2008.x002 - 96.
Prandini A, Sigolo S, Filippi L, Battilani P, Piva G. Review of predictive models for Fusarium head blight and related mycotoxin contamination in wheat. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009;47:927–931. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2008.06.010 - 97.
Rossi V, Manstretta V. Ruggeri M. A multicomponent decision support system to manage Fusarium head blight and mycotoxins in durum wheat. World Mycotoxin J. 2015;8:629–40. doi:10.3920/WMJ2015.1881 - 98.
Giroux ME, Bourgeois G, Dion Y, Rioux S, Pageau D, Zoghlami S, et al. Evaluation of forecasting models for Fusarium head blight of wheat under growing conditions of Quebec, Canada. Plant Dis. 2016;100:1192–1201. doi:10.1094/PDIS‐04‐15‐0404‐RE - 99.
Salgado JD, Wallhead M, Madden LV, Paul PA. Grain harvesting strategies to minimize grain quality losses due to Fusarium head blight in wheat. Plant Dis. 2011;95:1448–1457. doi:10.1094/PDIS‐04‐11‐0309 - 100.
Salgado JD, Madden LV, Paul PA. Efficacy and economics of integrating in‐field and harvesting strategies to manage Fusarium head blight of wheat. Plant Dis. 2014;98:1407–21. doi:10.1094/PDIS‐01‐14‐0093‐RE - 101.
Atalla MM, Hassanein NM, El–Beih AA, Yousef AY. Mycotoxin production in wheat grains by different Aspergilli in relation to different relative humidities and storage periods. Nahrung. 2003;47: 6–10. - 102.
Jouany JP. Methods for preventing, decontaminating and minimizing the toxicity of mycotoxins in feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2007;137:342–62. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.06.009 - 103.
Fleurat‐Lessard F. Qualitative reasoning and integrated management of the quality of stored grain: A promising new approach. J Stored Prod Res. 2002;38:191–218. doi:10.1016/S0022‐474X(01)00022‐4 - 104.
Cheli F, Campagnoli A, Dell'Orto V. Fungal populations and mycotoxins in silages: From occurrence to analysis. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2013;183:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.01.013 - 105.
Tibola CS, Cunha Fernandes JM, Guarienti EM. Effect of cleaning, sorting and milling processes in wheat mycotoxin content. Food Control. 2016;60:174–9. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.07.031 - 106.
Grenier B, Loureiro‐Bracarense AP, Leslie JF, Oswald IP. Physical and chemical methods for mycotoxin decontamination in maize. In: J. F.Leslie and A. F. Logrieco, Editors. Mycotoxin Reduction in Grain Chains, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. 2014. - 107.
Scudamore KA, Baillie H, Patel S, Edwards SG. Occurrence and fate of Fusarium mycotoxins during commercial processing of oats in the UK. Food Addit Contam. 2007;24:1374–85. doi:10.1080/02652030701509972 - 108.
Braghini R, Rocha LO, Pozzi CR, Frizzarin A, Reis TA, Corrêa B. Effect of gamma radiation on growth and mycotoxin production of Alternaria alternata. Fungal Genom Biol. 2015;5:1–5. doi:10.4172/2165‐8056.1000128 - 109.
Savi GD, Piacentini KC, Scussel VM. Ozone treatment efficiency in Aspergillus andPenicillium growth inhibition and mycotoxin degradation of stored wheat grains (Triticum aestivum L.). J Food Process Pres. 2015;39:940–8. doi:10.1111/jfpp.12307 - 110.
Calado T, Venâncio A, Abrunhosa L. Irradiation for mold and mycotoxin control: A review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2014;13:1049–61. doi:10.1111/1541‐4337.12095 - 111.
Freitas‐Silva O, Venâncio A. Ozone applications to prevent and degrade mycotoxins: A review. Drug Metabolism Rev. 2010;42:612–20. doi:10.3109/03602532.2010.484461 - 112.
Murata H, Mitsumatsu M, Shimada N. Reduction of feed‐contaminating mycotoxins by ultraviolet irradiation: An in vitro study. Food Addit Contam Part A. 2008;25:1107–10. doi:10.1080/02652030802057343 - 113.
Li Z, Yang ZB, Yang WR, Wang SJ, Jiang SZ, Wu YB. Effects of feed‐borne Fusarium mycotoxins with or without yeast cell wall adsorbent on organ weight, serum biochemistry, and immunological parameters of broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2012;91:2487–2495. doi:10.3382/ps.2012‐02437 - 114.
Vekiru E, Fruhauf S, Sahin M, Ottner F, Schatzmayr G, Krska R. Investigation of various adsorbents for their ability to bind Aflatoxin B1. Mycotoxin Res. 2007;23:27–33. doi:10.1007/BF02946021 - 115.
Díaz‐Llano G, Smith TK. Effects of feeding grains naturally contaminated with Fusarium mycotoxins with and without a polymeric glucomannan mycotoxin adsorbent on reproductive performance and serum chemistry of pregnant gilts. J Anim Sci. 2006;84:2361–6. doi:10.2527/jas.2005‐699 - 116.
Avantaggiato G, Solfrizzo M, Visconti A. Recent advances on the use of adsorbent materials for detoxification of Fusarium mycotoxins. Food Addit Contam. 2005;22:379–88. doi:10.1080/02652030500058312 - 117.
Prakash B, Kedia A, Mishra PK, Dubey NK. Plant essential oils as food preservatives to control moulds, mycotoxin contamination and oxidative deterioration of agri‐food commodities—Potentials and challenges. Food Control. 2015;47:381–91. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.07.023 - 118.
Hathout A, Aly S, Ibrahim M. Detoxification of ochratoxin A by lactic acid bacteria. In: Prevention of mycotoxin exposure and detoxification. 36th Mycotoxin Workshop. 2014. p. 112 - 119.
Vanhoutte I, Audenaert K, De Gelder L. Biodegradation of mycotoxins: Tales from known and unexplored worlds. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:51. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00561 - 120.
Jard G, Liboz T, Mathieu F, Guyonvarc'h A, Lebrihi A. Review of mycotoxin reduction in food and feed: From prevention in the field to detoxification by adsorption or transformation. Food Addit Contam Part A. 2011;28:1590–1609. doi:10.1080/19440049.2011.595377 - 121.
Kaushik G. Effect of processing on mycotoxin content in grains. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55:1672–83. doi:10.1080/10408398.2012.701254 - 122.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Off J Eur Union L. 2006;364:5–24. - 123.
FDA Mycotoxin Regulatory Guidance. A guide for grain elevators, feed manufacturers, grain processors and exporters. 2011. Available from: https://www.ngfa.org/wp‐content/uploads/NGFAComplianceGuide‐FDARegulatoryGuidanceforMycotoxins8‐2011.pdf [Accessed: 2016‐10‐17]. - 124.
Karlovsky P, Suman M, Berthiller F, De Meester J, Eisenbrand G, Perrin I, et al. Impact of food processing and detoxification treatments on mycotoxin contamination. Mycotoxin Res. 2016;32:179–205. doi:10.1007/s12550‐016‐0257‐7 - 125.
Sumalan RM, Alexa E, Poiana MA. Assessment of inhibitory potential of essential oils on natural mycoflora and Fusarium mycotoxins production in wheat. Chem Central J. 2013;7:1–12. doi:10.1186/1752‐153X‐7‐32 - 126.
Gömöri C, Nacsa‐Farkas E, Kerekes EB, Kocsubé S, Vágvölgyi C, Krisch J. Evaluation of five essential oils for the control of food‐spoilage and mycotoxin producing fungi. Acta Biol Szeg. 2013;57:113–116. - 127.
He J, Zhou T, Young JC, Boland GJ, Scott PM. Chemical and biological transformations of trichothecene mycotoxins in human and animal food chains: A review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2010;21:67–76. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2009.08.002 - 128.
Karlovsky P. Biological detoxification of the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol and its use in genetically engineered crops and feed additives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011;91:491–504. doi:10.1007/s00253‐011‐3401‐5 - 129.
Bullerman LB, Bianchini A. Stability of mycotoxins during food processing. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007;119:140–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.07.035 - 130.
Kabak B. The fate of mycotoxins during thermal food processing. J Sci Food Agric. 2009;89:549–554. doi:10.1002/jsfa.3491 - 131.
Kushiro M. Effects of milling and cooking processes on the deoxynivalenol content in wheat. Int J Mol Sci. 2008;9:2127–2145. doi:10.3390/ijms9112127 - 132.
Scudamore KA. Fate of Fusarium mycotoxins in the cereal industry: Recent UK studies. World Mycotoxin J. 2008;1:315–323. doi:10.3920/WMJ2008.x034 - 133.
Scudamore KA, Patel S. The fate of deoxynivalenol and fumonisins in wheat and maize during commercial breakfast cereal production. World Mycotoxin J. 2008;1:437–448. doi:10.3920/WMJ2008.1059 - 134.
Cheli F, Campagnoli, Ventura V, Brera C, Berdini C, Palmaccio E, Dell'Orto V. Effect of industrial processing on the distributions of deoxynivalenol, cadmium and lead in durum wheat milling fractions. LWT‐Food Sci Technol. 2010;43:1050–7. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2010.01.024 - 135.
Edwards SG, Dickin ET, MacDonald S, Buttler D, Hazel CM, Patel S, Scudamore K. Distribution of Fusarium mycotoxins in UK wheat mill fractions. Food Addit Contam Part A. 2011;28:1694–1704. doi:10.1080/19440049.2011.605770 - 136.
Pascale M, Haidukowski M, Lattanzio VMT, Silvestri M, Ranieri R, Visconti A. Distribution of T‐2 and HT‐2 toxins in milling fractions of durum wheat. J Food Protect. 2011;74:1700–7. doi:10.4315/0362‐028X.JFP‐11‐149 - 137.
Dexter JE, Wood PJ. Recent applications of debranning of wheat before milling. Trends Food Sci Technol. 1996;7:35–41. doi:10.1016/0924‐2244(96)81326‐4 - 138.
Aureli G, D'Egidio MG. Efficacy of debranning on lowering of deoxynivalenol (DON) level in manufacturing processes of durum wheat. Tecnica Molit. 2007;58:729–733. - 139.
Rios G, Pinson‐Gadais L, Abecassis J, Zakhia‐Rozis N, Lullien‐Pellerin V. Assessment of dehulling efficiency to reduce deoxynivalenol and Fusarium level in durum wheat grains. J Cereal Sci. 2009;49:387–392. doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2009.01.003 - 140.
Sovrani V, Blandino M, Scarpino V, Reyneri A, Coïsson JD, Travaglia F, et al. Bioactive compound content, antioxidant activity, deoxynivalenol and heavy metal contamination of pearled wheat fractions. Food Chem. 2012;135:39–46. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.04.045 - 141.
Thammawong M, Okadome H, Shiina T, Nakagawa H, Nagashima H, Nakajima T, et al. Distinct distribution of deoxynivalenol, nivalenol, and ergosterol in Fusarium ‐infected Japanese soft red winter wheat milling fractions. Mycopathologia. 2011;172:323–330. doi:10.1007/s11046‐011‐9415‐9 - 142.
Tibola CS, Fernandes JMC, Guarienti EM, Nicolau M. Distribution of Fusarium mycotoxins in wheat milling process. Food Control. 2015;53:91–5. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.01.012 - 143.
Thammawong M, Okabe M, Kawasaki T, Nakagawa H, Nagashima H, Okadome H, Nakajima T, Kushiro M. Distribution of deoxynivalenol and nivalenol in milling fractions from Fusarium ‐infected Japanese wheat cultivars. J Food Prot. 2010;73:1817–1823. - 144.
Schwake‐Anduschus C, Proske M, Sciurba E, Muenzing K, Koch M, Maul R. Distribution of deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, and their respective modified analogues in milling fractions of naturally contaminated wheat grains. World Mycotoxin J. 2015;8:433–443. doi:10.3920/WMJ2014.1818 - 145.
Vaclavikova M, Malachova A, Veprikova Z, Dzuman Z, Zachariasova M, Hajslova J. ‘Emerging’ mycotoxins in cereals processing chains: Changes of enniatins during beer and bread making. Food Chem. 2013;136:750–7. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.08.031 - 146.
Pinotti L, Ottoboni M, Giromini C, Dell'Orto V, Cheli F. Mycotoxin contamination in the EU feed supply chain: A focus on cereal byproducts. Toxins. 2016;8:45. doi:10.3390/toxins8020045 - 147.
Cheli F, Campagnoli A, Pinotti L, Fusi E, Dell'Orto V. Sampling feed for mycotoxins: Acquiring knowledge from food. Int J Anim Sci. 2009;8:5–22. doi:10.4081/ijas.2009.5 - 148.
European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 401/2006 of 23 February 2006 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of mycotoxins in foodstuffs. Off J L. 2006;70:12–34.