ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparison of Capillary Electrophoresis and HPLC-Based Methods in the Monitoring of Moniliformin in Maize.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a corn flour certified reference material for the accurate determination of aflatoxins.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Interfungal antagonism between Trichoderma and Fusarium proliferatum - metabolomic and DNA-based analyses.Journal of applied genetics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past few decades, scientific interest in mycotoxins-fungal metabolites that pose serious concern to food safety, crop health, and both human and animal health-has increased. While major mycotoxins such as aflatoxins, ochratoxins, deoxynivalenol, fumonisins, zearalenone, citrinin, patulin, and ergot alkaloids are well studied, emerging mycotoxins remain underexplored and insufficiently investigated. Among these, moniliformin (MON) is frequently detected in maize-based food and feed; however, the absence of regulatory limits and standardized detection methods limits effective monitoring and comprehensive risk assessment. The European Food Safety Authority highlights insufficient occurrence and toxicological data as challenges to regulatory development. This study compares three analytical methods-CE-DAD, HPLC-DAD, and HPLC-MS/MS-for moniliformin detection and quantification in maize, evaluating linear range, correlation coefficients, detection and quantification limits, accuracy, and precision. Results show that CE-DAD and HPLC-MS/MS provide reliable and comparable sensitivity and selectivity, while HPLC-DAD is less sensitive. Application to real samples enabled deterministic dietary exposure estimation based on consumption, supporting preliminary risk characterization. This research provides a critical comparison that supports the advancement of improved monitoring and risk assessment frameworks, representing a key step toward innovating the detection of under-monitored mycotoxins and laying the groundwork for future regulatory and preventive measures targeting MON.
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.