ArticleToxins2021
Improved Sample Selection and Preparation Methods for Sampling Plans Used to Facilitate Rapid and Reliable Estimation of Aflatoxin in Chicken Feed.
Article in Toxins, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), a toxic fungal metabolite associated with human and animal diseases, is a natural contaminant encountered in agricultural commodities, food and feed. Heterogeneity of AFB1 makes risk estimation a challenge. To overcome this, novel sample selection, preparation and extraction steps were designed for representative sampling of chicken feed. Accuracy, precision, limits of detection and quantification, linearity, robustness and ruggedness were used as performance criteria to validate this modification and Horwitz function for evaluating precision. A modified sampling protocol that ensured representativeness is documented, including sample selection, sampling tools, random procedures, minimum size of field-collected aggregate samples (primary sampling), procedures for mass reduction to 2 kg laboratory (secondary sampling), 25 g test portion (tertiary sampling) and 1.3 g analytical samples (quaternary sampling). The improved coning and quartering procedure described herein (for secondary and tertiary sampling) has acceptable precision, with a Horwitz ratio (HorRat = 0.3) suitable for splitting of 25 g feed aliquots from laboratory samples (tertiary sampling). The water slurring innovation (quaternary sampling) increased aflatoxin extraction efficiency to 95.1% through reduction of both bias (-4.95) and variability of recovery (1.2-1.4) and improved both intra-laboratory precision (HorRat = 1.2-1.5) and within-laboratory reproducibility (HorRat = 0.9-1.3). Optimal extraction conditions are documented. The improved procedure showed satisfactory performance, good field applicability and reduced sample analysis turnaround time.
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.