Mycotoxin Research

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 105–113 | Cite as

Deoxynivalenol loads in matched pair wheat samples in Belgium: comparison of ELISA VERATOX kit against liquid chromatography

  • Emmanuel K. Tangni
  • Jean-Claude Motte
  • Alfons Callebaut
  • Anne Chandelier
  • Marnix De Schrijver
  • Luc Pussemier
Original Paper


A comparison of matched pairs deoxynivalenol (DON) loads in wheat samples via VERATOX for DON 5/5 performed by two laboratories against two liquid chromatographic methods (LC-MS/MS and HPLC-UV) used by two other laboratories was carried out using biometrical and sum of ranking differences (SRD) procedures. The Lin’s Concordance correlation coefficients, the average discrepancies, the limits of agreement and the SRD between ELISA and reference values showed good overall agreement between VERATOX for DON 5/5 and reference methods for the two datasets. The VERATOX kits are valuable for quantitative screening and even for an initial exposure assessment in situations when there are practical or economical reasons not to use sophisticated methods such as HPLC or GC methods (with or without MS). However, networking of laboratories using this rapid method and laboratories with reference analytical methods should be encouraged.


Deoxynivalenol Wheat VERATOX Liquid chromatography Confirmation Agreement 



Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient


Compare of Ranks with Random Numbers


Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay


High pressure liquid chromatography


Limits of agreement


Root of mean square error


Sum of ranking differences


Normalized SRD values



The support of the Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (AFSCA-FAVV) to CODA-CERVA as National Reference Laboratory (NRL) for mycotoxins is acknowledged here.

Conflict of interest statement

No institutional, personal or financial conflict of interest exists for the authors, NEOGEN Corporation and Belgian laboratories involved in the present evaluation.


  1. Abouzied MM, Askegard SD, Bird CB, Miller BM (1995) Development of a rapid quantitative ELISA for determination of the mycotoxin fumonisin in food and feed. J Clin Lig Ass 18:145–149Google Scholar
  2. Alldrick AJ, Van Egmond HP, Solfrizzo M (2009) Commercial use of rapid mycotoxin test kits: significance and potential harmonization issues. World Mycotoxin J 2(2):215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Analyse-It Software (2008) Method evaluation software computer software for Windows, Release 2.11 (Mariakerke, Belgium). Leeds, UK)Google Scholar
  4. Anselme M, Tangni EK, Pussemier L, Motte JC, Van Hove F, Schneider YJ, Van Peteghem C, Larondelle Y (2006) Comparison of ochratoxin A and deoxynivalenol loads of organically and conventionally produced beers sold on the Belgian market. Food Add Cont 23:910–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger U, Oehme M, d Khun F (1999) Quantitative determination and structure elucidation of type A- and B-trichothecenes by HPLC/Ion trap multiple mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem 47:4240–4245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biselli S, Hummert C (2005) Development of a multicomponent method for Fusarium toxins using LC-MS/MS and its application during a survey for the context of T-2 toxin and deoxynivalenol in various feed and food samples. Food Add Contam 22:752–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 76:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346:1085–1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Meth Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Combleet PJ, Gochman N (1979) Incorrect least-squares regression coefficient in method comparison analysis. Clin Chem 25:432–438Google Scholar
  11. Dewitte K, Fierens C, Stöckl D, Thienpont LM (2002) Application of the Bland–Altman Plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice. Clin Chem 48:799–801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (2006a) Commission Regulation (EC) No 401/2006 of 23 February 2006 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of mycotoxins in foodstuffs. Off J Eur Union L70:12–34Google Scholar
  13. EC (2006b) European Commission regulation N° 1881/2006 of December 19 2006, setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Off J Eur Union L 364:5–24Google Scholar
  14. EC (2006c) uropean Commission recommendation 2006/576/EC, of August 17 2006, on the presence of deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, ochratoxin A, T2 and HT2 and fumonisins in products intended for animal feeding. Off J Eur Union L 229:7–9Google Scholar
  15. Flajs D, Domijan A-M, Ivic´ D, Cvjetkovic´ B, Peraica M (2009) ELISA and HPLC analysis of ochratoxin A in red wines of Croatia. Food Cont 20:590–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franek M, Diblikova I, Vass M, Kotkova L, Stastny K, Frgalova K, Hruska K (2006) Validation of a monoclonal antibody-based ELISA for the furazolidone metabolite (AOZ) in eggs using various sample preparation. Vet Med 51:248–257Google Scholar
  17. Goryacheva IY, Rusanova TY, Burmistrova NA, De Saeger S (2009) Immunochemical methods for the determination of mycotoxins. J Anal Chem 64:768–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haber M, Barnhart H (2008) A general approach to evaluating agreement between two observers or methods of measurements from quantitative data with replicated measurements. Stat Meth Med Res 17:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Héberger K (2010) Sum of ranking differences compares methods or models fairly. Trends Anal Chem 29:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Héberger K, Kollar-Hunek K (2010) Sum of ranking differences for method and its validation: comparison of ranks with random numbers. J Chemometr. doi: 10.1002/cem.1320 Google Scholar
  21. Hook S, Williams R (2004) Investigating the possible relationship between pink grains and Fusarium mycotoxins in 2004 harvest feed wheat. In: HGCA Project Report 354. Available at: []
  22. International Organization for Standardization (1999) ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  23. Krska R, Welzig E, Boudra H (2007) Analysis of Fusarium toxins in feed. Anim Feed Sci Technol 137:241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulisek ES, Hazebroek JP (2000) Comparison of extraction buffers for the detection of fumonisin B1 in corn by immunoassay and high-performance liquid chromatography. J Agric Food Chem 48:65–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lattanzio VMT, Pascale M, Visconti A (2009) Current analytical methods for trichothecene mycotoxins in cereals. Trends Anal Chem 28:758–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin L (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268Google Scholar
  27. Lin L, Hedayat AS, Sinha B, Yang M (2002) Statistical Methods in assessing agreement: models, issues and tools. J Am Stat Assoc 97:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matrella R, Monaci L, Milillo MA Palmisano F, Tantillo MG (2006) Ochratoxin A determination in paired kidneys and muscle samples from swines slaughtered in southern Italy. Food Cont 17:114–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McBride GB (2005) A proposal for Strength-of-agreement criteria for Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient in: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Client Report MOH05201, Using Statistical Methods for Water Quality Management: Issues, Problems and Solutions. Wiley, New York, pp 19–29Google Scholar
  30. MedCalc® Software, Statistics for biomedical research software (Release (2008) Computer software for Windows (Mariakerke, Belgium)Google Scholar
  31. Meiring HD, van der Heeft E, ten Hove GJ, de Jong APJM (2002) Nanoscale LC-MS: technical design and applications to peptide and protein analysis. J Sep Sci 25:557–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nilfer D, Boyacolu D (2002) Comparative study of three different methods for the determination of aflatoxins in tahini. J Agric Food Chem 50:3375–3379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nuryono N, Noviandi CT, Böhm J, Razzazi-Fazeli E (2005) A limited survey of zearalenone in Indonesian maize-based food and feed by ELISA and high performance liquid chromatography. Food Contr 16:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson PH, Stöckl D, Blaabjerg O, Pedersen B, Birkemose E, Thienpont L, Flensted J, Kjeldsen J (1997) Graphical interpretation of analytical data from comparison of a field method with a reference method by use of difference plots. Clin Chem 43:2039–2046Google Scholar
  35. Pussemier L, Piérard J-Y, Anselme M, Tangni EK, Motte J-C, Larondelle Y (2006) Development and application of analytical methods for the determination of mycotoxins in organic and conventional wheat. Food Add Cont 23:1208–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shelby RA, Rottinghaus GE, Minor HC (1994) Comparison of thin-layer chromatography and competitive immunoassay methods for detecting fumonisin on maize. J Agric Food Chem 42:2064–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sutikno T, Abouzied MM, Azcona-Olivera JI, Hart LP, Pestka JJ (1996) Detection of fumonisins in Fusarium cultures, corn, and corn products by polyclonal antibody-based ELISA: relation to fumonisin B1 detection by liquid chromatography. J Food Prot 59:645–651Google Scholar
  38. Sydenham EW, Shephard GS, Thiel PG, Bird C, Miller BM (1996) Determination of fumonisins in corn: evaluation of competitive immunoassay and HPLC techniques. J Agric Food Chem 44:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tangni EK, Motte JC, Callebaut A, Pussemier L (2010) Cross reactivity of antibodies in some commercial deoxynivalenol test kits against some fusariotoxins. J Agric Food Chem. doi: 10.1021/jf103025e PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Thakur RA, Smith JS (1996) Determination of fumonisins B1 and B2 and their major hydrolysis products in corn, feed, and meat, using HPLC. J Agric Food Chem 44:1047–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zachariasova M, Hajslova J, Kostelanska M, Poustka J, Krplova A, Cuhra P, Hochel I (2008) Deoxynivalenol and its conjugates in beer: A critical assessment of data obtained by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 625:77–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zheng MZ, Richard JL, Binder J (2006) A review of rapid methods for the analysis of mycotoxins. Mycopathologia 161:261–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mycotoxin Research and Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuel K. Tangni
    • 1
  • Jean-Claude Motte
    • 1
  • Alfons Callebaut
    • 1
  • Anne Chandelier
    • 2
  • Marnix De Schrijver
    • 3
  • Luc Pussemier
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Safety of the Food Chain, Unit of Toxins and Natural componentsVeterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (CODA-CERVA)TervurenBelgium
  2. 2.Department Biological Control and Plant Genetic ResourcesWalloon Agricultural Research Centre (CRA-W)GemblouxBelgium
  3. 3.Food and Feed Quality (FFQ) LaboratoriumMerksemBelgium

Personalised recommendations