ReviewToxins2022
Understanding Current Methods for Sampling of Aflatoxins in Corn and to Generate a Best Practice Framework.
Review in Toxins, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Smaller laboratory sample masses yield lower measured aflatoxin concentrations in heterogeneous maize and groundnut lots.Mycotoxin research · 2026Article
- Review
- Mycotoxins in Food: Cancer Risks and Strategies for Control.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Recent Advances in the Detection of Food Toxins Using Mass Spectrometry.Chemical research in toxicology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aflatoxin contamination in corn is a significant issue, posing substantial health threats to humans and animals. Aflatoxin testing protects consumer health, ensures the safe global trade of corn, and verifies compliance with legislation; however, effective sampling procedures are essential to ensure reliable results. While many sampling procedures exist, there is no evidence to indicate which is the best approach to ensure accurate detection. Using scientific and gray literature sources, this review analyzed sampling procedures to determine an optimum approach to guide the development of standard practices. Results revealed that sampling is the major source of error in the accurate assessment of aflatoxin levels in food and crucial for obtaining reliable results. To guarantee low variability and sample bias-increased sample size and sampling frequency, the use of automatic dynamic sampling techniques, adequate storage, and homogenization of aggregate samples for analysis are advised to ensure a representative sample. However, there is a lack of evidence to support this or indicate the current utilization of the reviewed procedures. Inadequate data prevented the recommendation of sample sizes or frequency for optimum practice, and thus, further research is required. There is an urgent need to make sampling procedures fit-for-purpose to obtain accurate and reliable aflatoxin measurements.
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.