Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content in Dry Fruits Samples

Collected from Local Markets of Lahore, Pakistan

Sadaf Sarfraz1*, Muhammad Ikram1, Manzar Zahra1, Shabbir Hussain2, Abdul
Barri1
1
Department of Chemistry, Lahore Garrison University, Lahore, Pakistan
2
Department of Chemistry, Khawaja Fareed University of Engineering and
Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan
ABSTRACT
This report presents an evaluation of the concentration of total aflatoxins
in a range of dry fruits obtained from local markets in Lahore, Pakistan. It
also proposes some risk mitigation strategies through detoxification. The
analysis involved appropriate techniques to accurately quantify the total
aflatoxin (AF) content in each sample. According to the findings, AFs
were not found in any of the branded dry fruit samples. However, AFB1
contamination in open samples of almonds, peanuts, apricots, walnuts,
raisins, figs, and coconut was found in concentrations exceeding the EU
guidelines. Furthermore, dry fruit samples collected from branded
companies showed no AF- contamination. These findings suggest
potentially high health risks posed by using dry fruits from open markets.
This fact further emphasizes the importance of detoxification methods for
safer consumption.
Keywords: aflatoxins (AFs), contamination, dry fruits, ELISA, local
markets, TLC
Highlights
 The research focuses on Lahore, Pakistan, making the findings directly
applicable to the local community, serving as a foundation for targeted
food safety measures.
 The report rigorously evaluates the presence and concentration of
aflatoxins in various dry fruit types commonly available in Lahore's
local markets, providing precise data on the extent of contamination.
 The study investigates and proposes practical methods to detoxify
these aflatoxin-contaminated dry fruits, offering actionable solutions to
enhance food safety.

*
Corresponding Author: [email protected]
School of Science
95
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content…

1. INTRODUCTION
Aflatoxins (AFs) are naturally occurring poisonous mutagens found in
various food products. These poisonous mutagens are considered unsafe
for both human beings and animals [1]. Aflatoxins are produced by certain
species of molds named Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus.
They are destructive for food and the expulsion of these mutagens from
edibles is very important [1]. These microorganisms produce noxious
secondary metabolites called mycotoxins via a series of synthetic and
enzymatic reactions. The accumulation of AFs in human body may lead to
cancer or may result in liver damage. Furthermore, their accumulation in
circulatory system makes human beings and animals suffer from various
hepatotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic diseases [2].
Different groups of AFs, such as B1, B2, G1, and G2, have been
identified. Among them, major genus including AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and
AFG2 are mostly found in animal feeds. AFB1 has been reported as the
most well-known and poisonous AF adversely affecting human health,
thus it is characterized as group 1 human carcinogenic compound [3].
Although different AF mutagens have been identified, yet they are closely
associated with each other showing a slight difference in their chemical
compositions.
According to one study, mycotoxins damage more than one-fourth of
the world's protein yields [4]. At present, with a continuous increase in
world’s population, there is a constant detrimental effect on natural food
resources. Any damage to food products due to the growth of AF
mutagens may generate a huge burden on various food protein supplies
and may lead to food scarcity [5]. So, AF occurrence needs to be properly
measured and steps may be taken to control its growth in order to avoid
any food damage.
Generally, in deprived states, filthy food supplies and inadequate
safety measures make health products more prone to mycotoxin growth.
For instance, hazelnut (Corylus avelanna L.), a widespread nut, is
primarily cultured on the shoreline of Black Sea. Its hard shells have a
good blockade against fungal contamination but AF development may
occur due to storage and weather conditions. Thus, there is a possibility
that reduced nutrition safety measures may lead to AF contamination [6].
Dry fruits are widely grown all around the world, especially in
Scientific Inquiry and Review
96
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
 Sarfraz et al.

Pakistan. Pathogenic fungi can adhere to dry fruits and nuts during their
cultivation, growth, ripening, overripening, handling, drying, storage, and
transportation. The most common pathogenic fungi are Aspergillus,
Fusarium, Penicillium, and Alterneria, which produce 78 toxigenic
chemicals known as mycotoxins. Various countries have set criteria for
the acceptable level of AFs in dry fruits and nuts due to their extreme
toxicity. The European Commission, for example, has set maximum
tolerable limits (MTL) of 4 and 10 g/kg for total aflatoxins in dry fruits
and nuts, respectively1. The MTL for total AFs in dry fruits and nuts is 20
g/kg, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United States of America.
The minimum toxicity level for mycotoxins in dry fruits and edible
nuts has yet to be established in Pakistan. Based on the foregoing
discussion, quick detection and quantification of AFs in dry fruits and nuts
is vital to ensure safety, quality, and the execution of hazard analyses and
critical control points (HACCP). Hence, the current study was designed to
determine the level of AFs in Pakistani dried fruits and edible nuts.
Furthermore, a comparison of the efficiency of various naturally occurring
organic compounds in detoxifying AFs was also conducted.
2. MATERIALS AND METHOD
2.1 Sample Collection
All forty (40) samples of processed and unprocessed dry fruits were
collected from various local markets in Lahore. The sample procedure was
modified to conform to the approved AOAC approach. The collected
samples were pulverized using the sample processor (Model ILP,
FBRC/AL/05) to obtain a uniform blend. Afterwards, each sample was
obtained into a final quantity of 100 g. Following this, 50g of each sample
was isolated for AF testing, as per the standard method of AF
determination. For experimental purposes, all samples were stored in
opaque plastic bags until the analysis was performed.
2.2 Extraction and Analysis of AFs
AF standard of B1, B2, G1, and G2 in acetonitrile were purchased
from Trilogy Analytical Laboratory (870 Vossbrink Dr, Washington, MO
63090, USA). Thin layer chromatographic (TLC) plates were imported

1
Commission of the European Communities
School of Science
97
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content…

from Merck (290 Concord Road Billerica Massachusetts USA). All

standards were stored in freezer at -20oC till further use. Depending on the
chemical content of the concerned food product, a variety of AF extraction
methods have been reported in the literature. In the current study, AFs
were analyzed in dry fruits using TLC plates imported from Merck (290
Concord Road Billerica Massachusetts USA), while chloroform (product
of Sigma-Aldrich UK) was employed for the extraction process. For this
purpose, 50g of each grinded sample was mixed with 25 g of
diatomaceous earth in 25 ml of water and the final volume was increased
to 150 ml using chloroform. The solution was then shaken vigorously for
30 minutes using a wrist arm shaker. The prepared sample solution was
filtered using Whatman filter paper 1. Quantitative determination of AF
was done using the method reported by [7]. ELISA (Enzyme linked
immune sorbent assay) methodology reported by [8, 9] was used to
analyze the samples [10–12].
2.3 Statistical Analysis
ANOVA was used to assess the differences in AFs concentrations in
dry fruits and edible nuts, followed by a post hoc Tukey's honest
significant difference (HSD) Test [13]. The p-value P ≤ 0.05 was used to
determine whether the mean values were substantially different. Using
SPSS software, all experimental data was reported as the mean ± standard
deviation (SD) in triplicate (IBM, PASW 117 Statistics19, USA). R2 was
calculated using regression analysis/correlation.
2.4 Detoxification Studies
To suppress pathogenic mycotoxin development in food, various
researchers have reported a variety of physical, chemical, and biological
approaches [7, 14–16]. According to a study conducted by Velazhahan
[17] , the simplest strategy to reduce mycotoxin degradation is to use a
brief procedure [17] at various levels, such as during processing and
harvesting. Furthermore, natural compounds can be used to
effectively reduce AF growth to safer levels by eliminating, degrading,
and converting them into less hazardous AFs [17].
In this study, the methods used to detoxify AF included using garlic
(Allium sativum) [17], Nigella sativa seed oil [18], citric acid [19], and
sodium bicarbonate [20].

Scientific Inquiry and Review

98
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
 Sarfraz et al.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 summarizes the natural occurrence of AF contamination in
various samples of dry fruits. The results indicated that AFs were not
found in processed/packaged dry fruit samples; however, they were found
in raw samples. According to the findings, 109 samples (77%) of the 140
unprocessed dry fruit samples were found to be contaminated with AFs at
various concentrations. The contamination ranged from 1.04 to 15.12
µg/kg, with an average of 13.9 µg/kg, which is much higher than the EU's
maximum tolerable limit (MTL = 4 and 10µg/kg, respectively) for dried
fruits and nuts. The findings revealed that AFs B2, G1, and G2 were not
found in any of the dry fruit samples, while AFB1 was found in all of
them. However, these samples met the MTL (20 μg/kg) set by the United
States and were suitable for human use.
It was discovered that the level of AF contamination in various types
of dry fruits was highly variable. For example, raisins had the highest AF
contamination, with nearly 50.0% of the samples tested positive for AFs
over the MTL limit, with a mean level of 10.1μ g/kg, respectively. AF
detection range for raisins was 5.89-14.68 μgk/g with 15 samples affected,
whereas 11 samples were within the permissible limits and the remaining
04 were not. Walnut (7.7 μg/kg), coconut (7.8 μg/kg), and apricot (7.2
μg/kg) had the lowest AF mean levels, respectively. However, according
to the findings (Table 2), the maximum quantity of AF was found in one
walnut sample (15.12 µg/kg) and the amount violated FDA and WHO
rules, as the acceptable limit is 10 µg/kg. Out of the 16 coconut samples
tested for AF, 3 samples were beyond the limit and 13 were found within
the acceptable limits. The maximum AF level in fig was 14g/kg, whereas
the maximum AF level in almonds was 11.34 μg/kg. For almonds, 12 out
of 16 contaminated samples were within permissible limits and 04 samples
were above the European standard’s permissible limits.
AF contamination level in several species of dry fruits and nuts from
many countries including Pakistan have been documented by various
studies. In this regard, [21] reported from Pakistan that AFB1 and total
AFs were found in 132 (43%) samples of dry fruits and edible nuts, out of
a total of 307 samples. Contamination ranged from 21.50 g/kg to 4.90 g/kg
on average. According to Luttfullah [22], the contamination range of AFs
in different varieties of dry fruits and nuts in Pakistan was 20% to 50%. In
contrast, the findings of the current study revealed the content of AFs
School of Science
99
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content…

(more than 70%) as substantially larger than the ones reported in prior
research [22].
According to several studies, dried raisins do not provide a suitable
surface or environment for the growth of Aspergillus flavus
and production of AFs [23]. However, in the current investigation, the
highest concentration of AFs was observed in dried raisins. This implies
that climatic factors have a significant impact on the level of AF
contamination in dried fruits and edible nuts during the growing season.
Diverse farming and harvesting practices, soil type, microbial flora, and
varied temperature and humidity all play a role in AF contamination in
dried fruits and edible nuts across the country. Additionally, poor
harvesting and management techniques, as well as mechanical damage
during harvesting, minimal curing, low-quality materials, and insufficient
storage and transit conditions, all aid the establishment of fungal diseases.
As a result, high AF levels were observed in dry fruits. Figure 1 indicates
a bar graph showing the percentage occurrence of AFs in various dry fruit
samples analyzed in this study.
Table 1. Screening of Open Samples for AFs by TLC
No. of No. of Permissibl
Sample No. of Contaminatio Max
AF Contaminated Uncontaminated e
s Samples n% µgkg-1
samples samples Limit
Almond 20 16 4 80% 14.12
Peanuts 20 15 5 75% 13.93 10 µgkg-1
Apricot 10 µgkg-1
B1 20 15 5 75% 13.10 10 µgkg-1
s
Walnuts 20 17 3 85% 15.12 10 µgkg-1
Raisins 20 15 5 75% 14.68 10 µgkg-1
Figs 20 15 5 75% 14.61 10 µgkg-1
Coconu 10 µgkg-1
20 16 4 80% 11.89
t
*AF- Aflatoxin
Table 2. Positive Open Samples eere Triplicate to Calculate Mean and SD
for AFB1 Found in Contaminated Dry Fruits Samples
Contaminated Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin conc. Aflatoxin conc.
Sample of Dry conc. Attempt Average ±
Attempt 2 Attempt 3
Fruits 1 SD (μg/kg)
(μg/kg) (μg/kg)
(Sample ID’s) (μg/kg)
Alm 2 11.87 11.08 11.34 11.43 ± 0.40
Alm 3 9.56 9.12 9.31 9.33 ± 0.22
Alm 4 8.87 8.08 8.34 8.43 ± 0.40
Alm 5 13.86 14.12 14.01 13.99 ± 0.13
Scientific Inquiry and Review
100
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
 Sarfraz et al.

Contaminated Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin conc. Aflatoxin conc.
Sample of Dry conc. Attempt Average ±
Attempt 2 Attempt 3
Fruits 1 SD (μg/kg)
(μg/kg) (μg/kg)
(Sample ID’s) (μg/kg)
Alm 7 1.55 1.04 1.87 1.49 ± 0.42
Alm 8 7.71 6.98 7.56 7.42 ± 0.38
Alm 9 6.87 6.08 6.34 6.43 ± 0.40
Alm 10 3.86 4.12 4.01 3.99 ± 0.13
Alm 12 10.55 10.04 10.87 10.49 ± 0.42
Alm 13 5.71 4.98 5.56 5.42 ± 0.38
Alm 14 3.91 3.51 3.03 3.48 ± 0.44
Alm 16 9.94 9.45 9.25 9.54 ± 0.35
Alm 17 10.89 9.56 10.05 10.16 ± 0.67
Alm 18 7.46 7.22 7.64 7.44 ± 0.21
Alm 19 6.44 6.45 6.98 6.62 ± 0.30
Alm 20 9.26 9.68 9.43 9.45 ± 0.21
Pea 1 9.95 9.71 9.45 9.70 ± 0.25
Pea 2 7.03 7.89 7.77 7.56 ± 0.46
Pea 3 12.72 12.3 12.02 12.34 ± 0.35
Pea 5 5.73 6.01 5.60 5.78 ± 0.21
Pea 6 8.56 8.48 8.24 8.42 ± 0.16
Pea 7 9.93 9.89 10.05 9.95 ± 0.08
Pea 8 8.89 8.56 8.20 8.55 ± 0.34
Pea 9 13.93 13.56 13.01 13.51 ± 0.46
Pea 11 4.73 4.32 4.25 4.43 ± 0.25
Pea 14 9.59 9.6 9.35 9.51 ± 0.14
Pea 15 9.29 9.58 9.78 9.55 ± 0.24
Pea 16 8.63 8.34 8.78 8.58 ± 0.22
Pea 17 9.26 9.68 9.43 9.45 ± 0.21
Pea 19 6.85 6.87 6.45 6.72 ± 0.23
Pea 20 11.23 11.43 11.87 11.51 ± 0.32
Apri 1 6.09 5.97 6.32 6.12 ± 0.17
Apri 4 8.77 8.13 8.97 8.62 ± 0.43
Apri 5 12.20 12.03 11.90 12.04 ± 0.15
Apri 6 9.21 8.88 9.16 9.08 ± 0.17
Apri 7 4.53 4.35 4.05 4.31 ± 0.24
Apri 9 11.14 11.71 11.47 11.44 ± 0.28
Apri 10 8.23 7.96 8.31 8.16 ± 0.18
Apri 11 1.43 1.19 1.26 1.29 ± 0.12
Apri 12 12.78 13.10 12.99 12.95 ± 0.16
Apri 13 3.37 3.63 3.11 3.37 ± 0.26
Apri 14 3.26 2.89 3.45 3.20 ± 0.28
Apri 16 9.09 9.33 9.24 9.22 ± 0.12
Apri 18 7.41 7.28 7.22 7.30 ± 0.09

School of Science
101
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content…

Contaminated Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin conc. Aflatoxin conc.
Sample of Dry conc. Attempt Average ±
Attempt 2 Attempt 3
Fruits 1 SD (μg/kg)
(μg/kg) (μg/kg)
(Sample ID’s) (μg/kg)
Apri 19 1.87 1.08 1.34 1.43 ± 0.40
Apri 20 9.56 9.12 9.31 9.33 ± 0.22
Waln 1 8.87 8.08 8.34 8.43 ± 0.40
Waln 2 12.86 13.12 13.01 12.99 ± 0.13
Waln 3 9.55 9.04 9.87 9.49 ± 0.42
Waln 4 7.71 6.98 7.56 7.42 ± 0.38
Waln 6 8.87 8.08 8.34 8.43 ± 0.40
Waln 7 14.86 15.12 14.91 14.96 ± 0.11
Waln 8 8.55 8.04 8.87 8.49 ± 0.42
Waln 10 12.71 11.98 12.56 12.42 ± 0.38
Waln 11 2.91 2.51 2.03 2.48 ± 0.44
Waln 12 4.94 4.45 4.25 4.54 ± 0.35
Waln 13 10.89 9.56 10.05 10.16 ± 0.67
Waln 14 7.46 7.22 7.64 7.44 ± 0.21
Waln 15 6.44 6.45 6.98 6.62 ± 0.30
Waln 17 9.95 9.71 9.45 9.70 ± 0.25
Waln 18 2.03 1.89 1.77 1.89 ± 0.10
Waln 19 2.72 2.30 2.02 2.34 ± 0.35
Waln 20 5.73 6.01 5.20 5.78 ± 0.21
Rais 2 6.25 5.89 5.95 6.03 ± 0.15
Rais 3 6.55 6.04 6.87 6.49 ± 0.42
Rais 4 7.71 7.98 7.56 7.75 ± 0.21
Rais 5 13.91 13.51 13.03 13.48 ± 0.44
Rais 6 8.94 8.45 8.25 8.54 ± 0.35
Rais 8 9.26 9.68 9.43 9.45 ± 0.21
Rais 9 12.85 12.87 12.45 12.72 ± 0.23
Rais 11 11.23 11.43 11.87 11.51 ± 0.32
Rais 12 10.09 9.97 10.32 10.12 ± 0.17
Rais 13 8.77 8.13 8.97 8.62 ± 0.43
Rais 15 14.26 14.68 14.43 14.45 ± 0.21
Rais 16 6.85 6.87 6.45 6.72 ± 0.23
Rais 17 11.23 11.43 11.87 11.51 ± 0.32
Rais 18 10.09 9.97 10.32 10.12 ± 0.17
Rais 19 13.77 13.13 13.97 13.62 ± 0.43
Fig 2 7.98 7.37 7.29 7.54 ± 0.30
Fig 3 12.25 12.56 12.05 12.28 ± 0.25
Fig 5 4.61 4.43 4.51 4.51 ± 0.07
Fig 6 11.46 11.22 11.64 11.44 ± 0.21
Fig 7 4.73 4.32 4.25 4.43 ± 0.25
Fig 9 9.59 9.6 9.35 9.51 ± 0.14
Scientific Inquiry and Review
102
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
 Sarfraz et al.

Contaminated Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin conc. Aflatoxin conc.
Sample of Dry conc. Attempt Average ±
Attempt 2 Attempt 3
Fruits 1 SD (μg/kg)
(μg/kg) (μg/kg)
(Sample ID’s) (μg/kg)
Fig 10 9.29 9.58 9.78 9.55 ± 0.24
Fig 12 14.59 14.61 14.35 14.51 ± 0.14
Fig 13 10.21 9.83 10.37 10.13 ± 0.27
Fig 14 9.26 9.68 9.43 9.45 ± 0.21
Fig 15 6.85 6.87 6.45 6.72 ± 0.23
Fig 16 1.23 1.43 1.87 1.51 ± 0.32
Fig 18 7.09 6.97 7.32 7.12 ± 0.17
Fig 19 8.77 8.13 8.97 8.62 ± 0.43
Fig 20 3.44 3.45 3.98 3.62 ± 0.30
Coco 1 5.95 5.05 5.45 5.48 ± 0.45
Coco 2 10.03 9.89 9.77 9.89 ± 0.13
Coco 4 4.73 4.32 4.25 4.43 ± 0.25
Coco 5 9.59 9.6 9.35 9.51 ± 0.14
Coco 6 9.29 9.58 9.78 9.55 ± 0.24
Coco 8 1.59 1.61 1.35 1.51 ± 0.14
Coco 9 10.21 9.83 10.37 10.13 ± 0.27
Coco 10 9.26 9.68 9.43 9.45 ± 0.21
Coco 11 6.85 6.87 6.45 6.72 ± 0.23
Coco 12 11.33 11.41 11.89 11.54 ± 0.24
Coco 14 10.09 9.97 10.32 10.12 ± 0.17
Coco 16 8.77 8.13 8.97 8.62 ± 0.43
Coco 17 2.19 2.73 2.36 2.42 ± 0.22
Coco 18 6.73 6.01 6.6 6.44 ± 0.38
Coco 19 3.56 3.48 3.24 3.42 ± 0.16
Coco 20 7.93 7.56 7.01 7.50 ± 0.46

86%
Percentage of contaminated Afla-

84%
82%
80%
toxin B1

78%
76%
74%
72%
70%
Almonds Peanuts Apricots Walnuts Raisins Figs Coconut
Food Samples

School of Science
103
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content…

Figure 1. Occurrence of AFs in Dry Fruit Samples

3.1 Chemical Detoxification of AFs
Several studies have proposed to recover contaminated goods
physically or chemically by lowering AFs to an acceptable level.
Biological detoxification mechanisms, such as fermentation, profoundly
change the characteristics of edibles and hence are not recommended.
Chemical detoxification procedures are appealing because of their high
efficiency and low cost. The main goal of chemical treatment is to activate
AF molecules by oxidation, hydrolysis, or addition reactions, causing AFs
to disintegrate. Keeping in view the efficacy of chemical compounds,
citric acid and sodium bicarbonate were used to detoxify AFs, while black
seed oil and garlic were found to be useful in reducing fungus in the
current study. Based on the findings, black seed oil was the most effective
decontaminating agent employed in this study. Figure 2 shows the results
of the comparative examination of the decontaminating efficacy of the
chemical agents used. Although these chemical approaches can efficiently
detoxify AFs, however, their applicability is limited due to the safety of
the degraded compounds and the removal of leftover chemicals after
treatment with detoxifying compounds. In regions where AF
contamination is common, successful detoxification methods can support
local agriculture and trade by enabling safe production and export of dry
fruits.
Table 3. Detoxification in Almonds with Natural Compounds
Aflatoxin Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin
Sr. conc. before Treatment with Natural conc. after
Sample Reduction
No Treatment Compounds Treatment
(%)
(ppb) (ppb)
1 Almond Allium sativum (Garlic) 1.32 90.65%
2 Almond Black Seed Oil 0.0 100%
14.12
3 Almond Citric Acid 3.41 75.84%
4 Almond Sodium Bicarbonate 2.70 80.87%
Table 4. Detoxification in Peanut with Natural Compounds
Aflatoxin Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin
Sr. conc. before Treatment with Natural conc. after
Sample Reduction
No Treatment Compounds Treatment
(%)
(ppb) (ppb)
1 Peanut 13.93 Allium sativum 1.50 89.23%
(Garlic)

Scientific Inquiry and Review

104
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
 Sarfraz et al.

2 Peanut Black Seed Oil 0.0 100%

3 Peanut Citric Acid 2.95 78.82%
4 Peanut Sodium Bicarbonate 2.78 80.04%
Table 5. Detoxification in Apricots with Natural Compounds
Aflatoxin Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin
Sr. conc. before Treatment with Natural conc. after
Sample Reduction
No Treatment Compounds Treatment
(%)
(ppb) (ppb)
1 Apricot Allium sativum (Garlic) 1.15 91.22%
2 Apricot Black Seed Oil 0.0 100%
13.10
3 Apricot Citric Acid 3.11 76.25%
4 Apricot Sodium Bicarbonate 2.89 77.93%

Table 6. Detoxification in Walnut with Natural Compounds

Aflatoxin Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin
Sr. conc. before Treatment with Natural conc. after
Sample Reduction
No Treatment Compounds Treatment
(%)
(ppb) (ppb)
1 Walnut Allium sativum (Garlic) 1.43 90.54%
2 Walnut Black Seed Oil 0.0 100%
15.12
3 Walnut Citric Acid 3.50 76.85%
4 Walnut Sodium Bicarbonate 2.67 82.34%

Table 7. Detoxification in Raisin with Natural Compounds

Aflatoxin Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin
Sr. conc. before Treatment with Natural conc. after
Sample Reduction
No Treatment Compounds Treatment
(%)
(ppb) (ppb)
1 Raisin Allium sativum (Garlic) 1.77 87.94%
2 Raisin Black Seed Oil 0.0 100%
14.68
3 Raisin Citric Acid 2.87 80.44%
4 Raisin Sodium Bicarbonate 2.65 81.94%

Table 8. Detoxification in Fig with Natural Compounds

Aflatoxin Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin
Sr. conc. before Treatment with Natural conc. after
Sample Reduction
No Treatment Compounds Treatment
(%)
(ppb) (ppb)
1 Fig Allium sativum (Garlic) 0.85 94.18%
14.61
2 Fig Black Seed Oil 0.0 100%

School of Science
105
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content…

3 Fig Citric Acid 3.44 76.45%

4 Fig Sodium Bicarbonate 2.71 81.45%
Table 9. Detoxification in Coconut with Natural Compounds
Aflatoxin Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin
Sr. conc. before Treatment with Natural conc. after
Sample Reduction
No Treatment Compounds Treatment
(%)
(ppb) (ppb)
1 Coconut Allium sativum (Garlic) 0.62 94.78%
2 Coconut Black Seed Oil 0.0 100%
11.89
3 Coconut Citric Acid 2.53 78.72%
4 Coconut Sodium Bicarbonate 2.12 82.16%

Allium sativum (Garlic) Black Seed Oil

Citric Acid Sodium Bicarbonate

80.80% 77.93% 81.45% 80.04% 82.16% 82.34% 81.94%

75.80% 76.25% 76.45% 78.82% 78.72% 76.85% 80.44%

% reduction

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

90.60% 91.22% 94.18% 89.23% 94.78% 90.54% 87.94%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
almond apricot fig peanut co-
conut walnut Dryraisin
fruits samples

Figure 2. Comparative Analysis of the Ability of Chemical Compounds to

Detoxify Collected Dry Fruit Samples
3.2. Conclusion
Regular consumption of AF-contaminated food might result in serious
health hazards, potentially leading to liver cancer and other health issues
due to their carcinogenic properties for the end user. Dried fruits, which
play a major role in the daily diet, are more likely to contain AFs. AFs
were not discovered in processed samples, according to the findings.

Scientific Inquiry and Review

106
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
 Sarfraz et al.

Although, they were found in 109 (39%) of the 280 samples of

unprocessed dry fruits.
AFs in agricultural commodities can be minimized by avoiding fungal
growth at the farm level. Food and feed handlers should be made aware of
improper practices that lead to AF- contamination, such as the Department
of Public Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. It is essential to employ
measures, such as good farming practices, appropriate drying, handling,
packaging, and adequate storage and transportation to increase the export
of dry fruits and edible nuts from Pakistan.
Furthermore, diverse control procedures, such as dry heating, roasting,
traditional microwave baking, gamma radiation, UV exposure, hydrogen
peroxide treatment, and storage in various climates show differing degrees
of AF count destruction and could be used as food safety measures. It is
recommended that consumers purchase dried fruits from reputable
retailers and have them processed. Furthermore, the materials should be
maintained in a cool, dry environment and any filthy, unsealed, or
damaged packing should be discarded.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the technical support and lab
facilities received from Food and Biotechnology Research Centre, PCSIR,
Laboratories, Lahore.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors of the manuscript have no financial or non-financial
conflict of interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this
manuscript.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data associated with this study will be provided by the
corresponding author upon request.
REFERENCES
1. Huwig A, Freimund S, Käppeli O, Dutler H. Mycotoxin detoxication of
animal feed by different adsorbents. Toxicol Lett. 2001;122(2):179–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-4274(01)00360-5
2. Qazi JI, Fayyaz Z. Aflatoxin contaminated foods and health risk
perspective for Pakistani population. Mycopath. 2006;4(2):27–34.
School of Science
107
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content…

3. Iqbal A, Khalil IA, Shah H. Aflatoxin contents of stored and artificially

inoculated cereals and nuts. Food Chem. 2006;98(4):699–703.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.06.034
4. Kabak B, Dobson AD, Var Il. Strategies to prevent mycotoxin
contamination of food and animal feed: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci
Nutr. 2006;46(8):593–619.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390500436185
5. Juan C, Zinedine A, Molto J, Idrissi L, Manes J. Aflatoxins levels in
dried fruits and nuts from Rabat-Salé area, Morocco. Food Control.
2008;19(9):849–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.08.010
6. Bhat R, Ramakrishna Y, Beedu S, Munshi K. Outbreak of trichothecene
mycotoxicosis associated with consumption of mould-damaged wheat
products in Kashmir Valley, India. Lancet. 1989;333(8628):35–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(89)91684-X.
7. Gratz S, Wu Q, El-Nezami H, Juvonen R, Mykkänen H, Turner P.
Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG reduces aflatoxin B1 transport,
metabolism, and toxicity in Caco-2 cells. Appl Environ Microb.
2007;73(12):3958–3964. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02944-06
8. Eslami M, Mashak Z, Heshmati A, Shokrzadeh M, Nejad ASM.
Determination of aflatoxin B1 levels in Iranian rice by ELISA method.
Toxin Rev. 2015;34(3):125–28.
https://doi.org/10.3109/15569543.2015.1074925
9. Nejad ASM, Ghannad MS, Kamkar A. Determination of aflatoxin B1
levels in Iranian and Indian spices by ELISA method. Toxin Rev.
2014;33(4):151–54. https://doi.org/10.3109/15569543.2014.942319
10. Romer TR, Campbell AD. Collaborative study of a screening method
for the detection of aflatoxins in mixed feeds, other agricultural
products, and foods. J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1976;59(1):110–117.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/59.1.110
11. Romer TR. Screening method for the detection of aflatoxins in mixed
feeds and other agricultural commodities with subsequent
confirmation and quantitative measurement of aflatoxins in positive
samples. J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1975;58(3):500–506.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/58.3.500

Scientific Inquiry and Review

108
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
 Sarfraz et al.

12. Nazir A, Asif M, Kalim I, Ahmad N, Iqbal M. Quantification of

aflatoxins in dry fruits using ELISA with reference to standards for
human consumption. Chem Intl. 2021;7(4):224–229.
13. Asghar MA, Ahmed A, Zahir E, Asghar MA, Iqbal J, Walker G.
Incidence of aflatoxins contamination in dry fruits and edible nuts
collected from Pakistan. Food Contl. 2017;78:169–175.
14. Phillips TD, Lemke SL, Grant PG. Characterization of clay-based
enterosorbents for the prevention of aflatoxicosis. Adv Exp Med Biol.
2002:157–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0629-4_16
15. Tian J, Zeng X, Zeng H, Feng Z, Miao X, Peng X. Investigations on
the antifungal effect of nerol against Aspergillus flavus causing food
spoilage. Sci World J. 2013;2013:e230795.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/230795
16. El-Aziz A, Abeer R, Mahmoud MA, Al-Othman MR, Al-Gahtani MF.
Use of selected essential oils to control aflatoxin contaminated stored
cashew and detection of aflatoxin biosynthesis gene. Sci World J.
2015;2015:e958192. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/958192
17. Velazhahan R, Vijayanandraj S, Vijayasamundeeswari A, et al.
Detoxification of aflatoxins by seed extracts of the medicinal plant,
Trachyspermum ammi (L.) Sprague ex Turrill–structural analysis and
biological toxicity of degradation product of aflatoxin G1. Food Cnt.
2010;21(5):719–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.10.014
18. Karlovsky P, Suman M, Berthiller F, et al. Impact of food processing
and detoxification treatments on mycotoxin contamination. Mycotoxin
Res. 2016;32(4):179–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12550-016-0257-7
19. Rastegar H, Shoeibi S, Yazdanpanah H, et al. Removal of aflatoxin B1
by roasting with lemon juice and/or citric acid in contaminated
pistachio nuts. Food Cont. 2017;71:279–284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.06.045
20. Samarajeewa U, Sen A, Cohen M, Wei C. Detoxification of aflatoxins
in foods and feeds by physical and chemical methods. J Food Prot.
1990;53(6):489–501. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-53.6.489
21. Masood M, Iqbal SZ, Asi MR, Malik N. Natural occurrence of
aflatoxins in dry fruits and edible nuts. Food Contl. 2015;55:62–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.02.041

School of Science
109
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024
Assessment of Total Aflatoxin Content…

22. Luttfullah G, Hussain A. Studies on contamination level of aflatoxins

in some dried fruits and nuts of Pakistan. Food Contl. 2011;22(3-
4):426–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.09.015
23. Onyeaka H, Ghosh S, Obileke K, et al. Preventing chemical
contaminants in food: Challenges and prospects for safe and
sustainable food production. Food Contl. 2024;155:e110040.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.110040

Scientific Inquiry and Review

110
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024