aDepartment of Microbiology, Nutrition Health Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Hamadan, Iran
bDepartment of Nutrition and Food Safety, Nutrition Health Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Hamadan, Iran
Copyright ©2019, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Location | Samples | No. of samples | Detection method | Positive samples (%) | Range (μg/kg ) | Contaminated milk sample (%) > 0.05 μg/kg | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kenya | PM | 53 | ELISA | NR | 0.0076 – 0.21 | 26 (49.1%) | Lindahl et al [50] |
UHT | 55 | NR | < LOD - 0.47 | 16 (29.1%) | |||
|
|||||||
China | PM | 131 | ELISA | 120 (91.6) | < 0.005 – 0.3523 | 78 (59.5%) | Xiong et al [29] |
UHT | 111 | 58 (52.3) | < 0.005 – 0.0725 | 2 (1.80%) | |||
|
|||||||
China | PM | 38 | ELISA | 18 (47.4) | 0.005 – 0.263 | 0 | Li et al [36] |
UHT | 193 | 138 (71.5) | 0.007 – 0.040 | 23 (11.9%) | |||
|
|||||||
Pakistan | UHT | 60 | HPLC | 42 (70) | LOD - 0.3029 | 21 (35%) | Iqbal et al [1] |
|
|||||||
Iran | PM | 220 | ELISA | 187 (85) | 0.0054 – 0.5122 | 154 (70%) | Tajic et al [28] |
UHT | 140 | 93 (66.4) | 0.0058 – 0.5084 | 76 (54.2%) | |||
|
|||||||
Brazil | PM | 30 | ELISA | 16 | ND - 0.064 | NR | dos Santos et al [51] |
|
|||||||
Italy | UHT | 31 | HPLC | 18 (58.1) | 0.009 – 0.026 | 0 | Armorini et al [38] |
|
|||||||
Iran | PM | 20 | HPLC | NR | 0.008 – 0.231 | 1 (5%) | Taherabadi et al [52] |
|
|||||||
Jordan | PM | 30 | ELISA | 30 (100) | 0.0146 – 0.21678 | 12 (40%) | Omar [31] |
|
|||||||
Iran | PM | 30 | ELISA | 4 (13.3) | NR | 4 (13.3%) | Rouhi et al [32] |
|
|||||||
Brazil | PM | 7 | ELISA | 7 (100.0) | 0.01 – 0.03 | 2 (28.6%) | Sifuentes dos Santos et al [27] |
UHT | 28 | 28 (100.0) | 0.01 – 0.08 | 5 (71.4%) | |||
|
|||||||
Kosovo | UHT | 94 | ELISA | 74 (78.7) | 0.00502 – 0.06226 | 4 (4.2%) | Rama et al [34] |
|
|||||||
Croatia | UHT | 706 | ELISA | 706 (100) | 0.00398 – 0.1835 | (9.64%) | Bilandzic et al [30] |
|
|||||||
Iran | PM | 80 | ELISA | 77 (96.25) | NR | 20 (16%) | Moosavy et al [33] |
|
|||||||
Pakistan | UHT | 84 | HPLC | 35 (41.6) | LOD – 0.88 | 20 (23.8%) | Iqbal et al [39] |
|
|||||||
India | PM | 7 | HPLC | 3 (42.9) | 0.0018–0.0038 | 3 (42.9%) | Siddappa et al [37] |
Sample type | N | Positive (%) | Mean | SD | AFM1 concentration (μg/kg) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Undetectable < 0.005 (%) | 0.005–0.050 (%) | > 0.050 (%) | Range | |||||
Pasteurized milk | 63 | 55 (87.30) | 0.040 | 0.033 | 8 (12.70) | 34 (53.97) | 21 (33.33) | < 0.005–0.120 |
UHT milk | 25 | 21 (84) | 0.037 | 0.029 | 4 (16) | 14 (56) | 7 (28) | < 0.005–0.098 |
Total | 88 | 76 (86.36) | 0.039 | 0.032 | 12 (13.64) | 48 (54.54) | 28 (31.82) | < 0.005–0.120 |
Location | Samples | No. of samples | Detection method | Positive samples (%) | Range (μg/kg ) | Contaminated milk sample (%) > 0.05 μg/kg | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kenya | PM | 53 | ELISA | NR | 0.0076 – 0.21 | 26 (49.1%) | Lindahl et al [ |
UHT | 55 | NR | < LOD - 0.47 | 16 (29.1%) | |||
| |||||||
China | PM | 131 | ELISA | 120 (91.6) | < 0.005 – 0.3523 | 78 (59.5%) | Xiong et al [ |
UHT | 111 | 58 (52.3) | < 0.005 – 0.0725 | 2 (1.80%) | |||
| |||||||
China | PM | 38 | ELISA | 18 (47.4) | 0.005 – 0.263 | 0 | Li et al [ |
UHT | 193 | 138 (71.5) | 0.007 – 0.040 | 23 (11.9%) | |||
| |||||||
Pakistan | UHT | 60 | HPLC | 42 (70) | LOD - 0.3029 | 21 (35%) | Iqbal et al [ |
| |||||||
Iran | PM | 220 | ELISA | 187 (85) | 0.0054 – 0.5122 | 154 (70%) | Tajic et al [ |
UHT | 140 | 93 (66.4) | 0.0058 – 0.5084 | 76 (54.2%) | |||
| |||||||
Brazil | PM | 30 | ELISA | 16 | ND - 0.064 | NR | dos Santos et al [ |
| |||||||
Italy | UHT | 31 | HPLC | 18 (58.1) | 0.009 – 0.026 | 0 | Armorini et al [ |
| |||||||
Iran | PM | 20 | HPLC | NR | 0.008 – 0.231 | 1 (5%) | Taherabadi et al [ |
| |||||||
Jordan | PM | 30 | ELISA | 30 (100) | 0.0146 – 0.21678 | 12 (40%) | Omar [ |
| |||||||
Iran | PM | 30 | ELISA | 4 (13.3) | NR | 4 (13.3%) | Rouhi et al [ |
| |||||||
Brazil | PM | 7 | ELISA | 7 (100.0) | 0.01 – 0.03 | 2 (28.6%) | Sifuentes dos Santos et al [ |
UHT | 28 | 28 (100.0) | 0.01 – 0.08 | 5 (71.4%) | |||
| |||||||
Kosovo | UHT | 94 | ELISA | 74 (78.7) | 0.00502 – 0.06226 | 4 (4.2%) | Rama et al [ |
| |||||||
Croatia | UHT | 706 | ELISA | 706 (100) | 0.00398 – 0.1835 | (9.64%) | Bilandzic et al [ |
| |||||||
Iran | PM | 80 | ELISA | 77 (96.25) | NR | 20 (16%) | Moosavy et al [ |
| |||||||
Pakistan | UHT | 84 | HPLC | 35 (41.6) | LOD – 0.88 | 20 (23.8%) | Iqbal et al [ |
| |||||||
India | PM | 7 | HPLC | 3 (42.9) | 0.0018–0.0038 | 3 (42.9%) | Siddappa et al [ |
AFM1 = aflatoxin M1; UHT = ultra-high temperature.
ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; HPLC = high-performance liquid chromatography; LOD = limit of detection; ND = not detected; NR = not reported; PM = pasteurized milk; UHT = ultra high temperature milk.