Table 1 Comparative analysis of mycotoxin detection technologies: Suitability across aample materials, conditions, cost considerations and sensitivity of each method

TLC

Cost-effective and can be used for the screening of several samples. needs sample preparation

Low sensitivity and poor accuracy

(Yang et al. 2014; Singh and Mehta 2020)

LC

For high polarity, non-volatile, and thermally labile MTs

LC–MS/MS offers excellent selectivity and sensitivity, greater assurance of analyte identification, and can be used for the detection of multi-mycotoxins

(Yang et al. 2020; Pascale et al. 2019)

GC

Due to the minimal volatility and strong polarity of the analytes, GC is not frequently utilized in the analysis of MTs. Additionally, the derivatization Process is necessary for their transformation into volatile derivatives. volatile MTs like TCTC and patulin have been identified and quantified using gas chromatography (GC) in conjunction with flame ionization (FID), electron capture (ECD), or MS detector

The method can be derivatized to a chemical that is volatile enough to be applied to gas chromatography and is very Sensitive and specific to MTs

(Alshannaq and Yu 2017; Pereira et al. 2014; Singh and Mehta 2020)

ELISA

Quick and easy screening procedures for the on-site MTs analysis, accurate detection, Effective for routine monitoring, especially in resource-limited settings. In comparison to chromatographic techniques like HPLC or TLC, it requires less sample volume, fewer clean-up steps and is a high-throughput test

Cross reactivity (less specificity and sensitivity)

(Al-Jaal et al. 2019; Urusov et al. 2010; Singh and Mehta 2020; Thway a Salimi-Moosavi 2014)

LFIA

Quick results, economic and is suitable for large-scale on-site screening. sample clean-up can be neglected. It is used for the identification of OTA, ZEN, DON, T-2 toxin, and AFs

Less sensitive

(Krska and Molinelli 2009; Goryacheva et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2020)

Biosensors

Rapid screening strip tests, easy and inexpensive sample analysis, reproducibility, stability, and on-site testing of samples, possible for recycling use. Require sample clean up

High sensitivity and real-time analysis are the main advantages of optical biosensors

(Tüdös et al. 2003; Pirinçci et al. 2018; Logrieco et al. 2005; Chen and Wang 2020)

Electronic nose

It can pick up a variety of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It can be used to detect OTA in dry-cured pork, AFs, and fumonisins in maize, and DON in wheat bran

Apples, oranges, strawberries, and peaches are some fruits in which the application of this technique has been successfully implemented for the detection of fungi that produce mycotoxins

Unique fingerprint for each food, characteristic of its taste and aroma. Less sensitive to low quantities of MTs

(Camardo et al. 2021; Lippolis et al. 2016, 2018; Ottoboni et al. 2018; Jia et al. 2019)

Infrared spectroscopy

No need for preparation of samples

Less sensitive compared to other techniques

(Pettersson and Aberg 2003)

Fluorescent polarization

Used to identify ZEN in corn, DON in wheat-based products, AFB1 in maize), and OTA in rice

Does not require preanalytical steps like washing many times as done in ELISA

Comparatively to HPLC, the FP method has lower accuracy and sensitivity (antibodies' cross-reactivity with food matrix components)

(Zhang et al. 2017; Lippolis et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2018a, b; Huang et al. 2020; Alshannaq and Yu 2017)

Capillary electrophoresis

Only small sample quantities can be evaluated

Lacks sensitivity

(Maragos 1998)

Aggregation induced emission

The on-site detection of food contaminations and the simple operation make the application of AIE dyes very effective

Highly sensitive AIE dyes showed high affinity to aptamers and fluoresce through the process of dye aggregation

(Zhu et al. 2019)