ArticleFood control2020
Low-cost grain sorting technologies to reduce mycotoxin contamination in maize and groundnut.
Article in Food control, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current status of aflatoxin contamination and mitigation efforts in mozambique: a systematic review.Mycotoxin research · 2026Pooled it
- Aligning private incentives with societal goals in smallholder agriculture.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Beyond the visible lesion: mycotoxin attenuation and spatial heterogeneity in maize cobs.Mycotoxin research · 2026Article
- Aflatoxin Contamination in Agri-Food Systems: A Comprehensive Review of Toxicity, Food Security, Economic Impacts, and Sustainable Mitigation Across the Value Chain.Food science & nutrition · 2025Review
- Processing complementary foods to reduce mycotoxins in a medium scale Tanzanian mill: A hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) approach.Food control · 2024Article
- Zearalenone contamination in maize, its associated producing fungi, control strategies, and legislation in Sub-Saharan Africa.Food science & nutrition · 2024Review
- Aflatoxins Contamination in Feed Commodities: From Occurrence and Toxicity to Recent Advances in Analytical Methods and Detoxification.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- A Low-Cost, Portable Device for Detecting and Sorting Aflatoxin-Contaminated Maize Kernels.Toxins · 2023Article
- Article
- Validation and Application of a Low-Cost Sorting Device for Fumonisin Reduction in Maize.Toxins · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widespread contamination of foods by mycotoxins continues to be a public health hazard in sub-Saharan Africa, with maize and groundnut being major sources of contamination. This study was undertaken to assess the hypothesis that grain sorting can be used to reduce mycotoxin contamination in grain lots by removing toxic kernels. We tested a set of sorting principles and methods for reducing mycotoxin levels in maize and groundnut from a variety of genotypes and environments. We found that kernel bulk density (KBD) and 100-kernel weight (HKW) were associated with the levels of aflatoxins (AF) and fumonisins (FUM) in maize grain. A low-cost sorter prototype (the 'DropSort' device) that separated maize grain based on KBD and HKW was more effective in reducing FUM than AF. We then evaluated the effectiveness of DropSorting when combined with either size or visual sorting. Size sorting followed by DropSorting was the fastest method for reducing FUM to under 2 ppm, but was not effective in reducing AF levels in maize grain to under 20 ppb, especially for heavily AF-contaminated grain. Analysis of individual kernels showed that high -AF maize kernels had lower weight, volume, density, length, and width and higher sphericity than those with low AF. Single kernel weight was the most significant predictor of AF concentration. The DropSort excluded kernels with lower single kernel weight, volume, width, depth, and sphericity. We also found that visual sorting and bright greenish-yellow fluorescence sorting of maize single kernels were successful in separating kernels based on AF levels. For groundnut, the DropSort grouped grain based on HKW and did not significantly reduce AF concentrations, whereas size sorting and visual sorting were much more effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.