MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W123581135 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/92.2.496

Incomplete Recoveries of Fumonisins Present in Naturally Contaminated Corn Foods from an Immunoaffinity Column

2009· article· en· W123581135 on OpenAlexaff
Keum Soon Oh, Peter Scott, Soo‐Hyun Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryElutionCorn starchFumonisinMethanolChromatographyFumonisin B1Corn mealMycotoxinContaminationStarchFood scienceMealBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following previous observations of apparent instability of fumonisin B1 in corn starch and corn meal, immunoaffinity column (IAC) cleanup, of the type used in the analysis of commercial starch-containing corn foods for fumonisins, was investigated. Foods analyzed for naturally occurring fumonisins B1, B2, and B3 included corn flour (3 different products), corn meal, and corn flakes. In 2 series of experiments, fractions were eluted by gravity or vacuum from narrow- or wide-bore Fumonitest IACs either with 2 x 2 mL methanol, followed by 2 mL methanol-water (8 + 2, v/v), or with 2 mL methanol, then 2 mL methanol-water (8 + 2, v/v). The ratio (%) of fumonisin B1 concentration in the first methanol eluate to the total concentration measured from all eluates in most cases varied from 25-70%. Incomplete recoveries were also observed for fumonisins B2 and B3. It is concluded that there can be a major underestimation of naturally occurring fumonisins in methods using only methanol elution for IAC cleanup, as in AOAC INTERNATIONAL Official Method 2001.04 (accuracy of these methods had been determined only by spiking the food with fumonisins). Elution with 2 x 2 mL methanol-water (8 + 2, v/v) was chosen as a practical procedure; means of 81-98% of the total fumonisin B1 concentration were found in the first eluate, except for corn flakes and 2 experiments with corn meal.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207