Quantitation of multiple mycotoxins and cyanogenic glucosides in cassava samples from Tanzania and Rwanda by an LCMS/MSbased multitoxin method

Abstract

A multi-mycotoxin method based on liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was used for a mycotoxin survey in 627 samples of processed cassava collected from different districts across Tanzania and Rwanda after the method performance for this matrix had been determined. Matrix effects as well as extraction efficiencies were found to be similar to most other previously investigated matrices with the exception of distinct matrix effects in the negative ionisation mode for early eluting compounds. Limits of detection were far below the regulatory limits set in the European Union for other types of commodities. Relative standard deviations were generally lower than 10% as determined by replicates spiked on two concentration levels. The sample-to-sample variation of the apparent recoveries was determined for 15 individually spiked samples during three different analytical sequences. The related standard deviation was found to be lower than 15% for most of the investigated compounds, thus confirming the applicability of the method for quantitative analysis. The occurrence of regulated mycotoxins was lower than 10% (with the exception of zearalenone) and the related limits were exceeded only in few samples, which suggests that cassava is a comparatively safe commodity as regards mycotoxins. The most prevalent fungal metabolites were emodin, kojic acid, beauvericin, tryptophol, 3-nitropropionic acid, equisetin, alternariol methylether, monocerin, brevianamide F, tenuazonic acid, zearalenone, chrysophanol, monilifomin, enniatins, apicidin and macrosporin. The related concentrations exceeded 1 mg kg–1 only in few cases. However, extremely high levels of cyanogenic plant toxins, which had been previously added to the method, were observed in few samples, pointing out the need for improved post-harvest management to decrease the levels of these compounds. ; Peer Review