Objective

Comparison was done between high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detection and quantification of aflatoxin B₁ (AFB₁) in feed samples. The two procedures were standardized and validated before the actual experiment. Five concentrations (0, 5, 10, 20 and 30 ppb) of feed samples were used for both methods. For the HPLC technique, the samples were extracted in acetonitrile/water (90/10) solution, cleaned-up using solid phase extraction (SPE) column, and derivatized by water/trifluoroacetic acid/glacial acetic acid (35/10/5) solution before instrument analysis. The samples were extracted in 70% methanol for the ELISA technique.

Results

The two tests showed very strong linearity with correlation coefficient value of > 0.99 using standard solutions. The mean recovery rate was 92.42% (with relative standard deviation (RSD) of 5.97) and 75.64% (RSD = 34.88) for HPLC and ELISA, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in recovery rate between the two methods. There was a positive correlation (r = 0.84) between them which indicated that the two techniques can be used to detect and quantify aflatoxin B₁ in feed samples. However, there were variations among replicates for the ELISA method, which shows that this method is more applicable for screening purposes.

Background

Aflatoxins (AFs) are common feed contaminants and are one of the common causes of toxin-related pet food poisoning and recalls.

Objective

Currently, there are no validated methods for the detection and quantitation of AFs in biological matrices to diagnose AF exposure in live animals. Following a successful intra-laboratory method development to quantify AFB1 and AFM1 in animal urine by HPLC with fluorescence detection (HPLC-FLD), the present study was conducted to extensively evaluate the method performance in an unbiased manner using blinded samples.

Methods

The evaluation included two stages. First, the performance was verified in the method-originating laboratory in a single-laboratory blinded method test (BMT-S) trial followed by a multi-laboratory blinded method test (BMT-M) trial.

Results

In both trials, accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility were satisfactory confirming the relatively good ruggedness and robustness of the method and ensuring that it will perform as expected if used by other laboratories in the future.

Conclusions

We extensively evaluated the performance of a quantitative method to detect AFB1 and AFM1 in animal urine by HPLC-FLD by two different laboratories in two separate BMT-S and BMT-M trials. Both BMT results demonstrated the satisfactory accuracy and precision of the method. It is now available to be adopted by other diagnostic laboratories for purposes of diagnosing AF intoxication in animals.

Highlights

A simple urine-based diagnostic test method using HPLC-FLD that originated in a single laboratory now has passed a multi-laboratory evaluation and is now available to be shared with other diagnostic laboratories for purposes of diagnosing AF intoxication in animals so better treatment can be rendered.