Protecting Consumer Health by Developing an Electrochemical Immunosensor for the Detection of Banned Antibiotic Residues in Honey

2021 ◽  
Vol MA2021-01 (55) ◽  
pp. 1366-1366
Author(s):  
Valerie Gaudin ◽  
Céline Hédou ◽  
Christophe Soumet ◽  
Eric Verdon
Antibiotics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adla Jammoul ◽  
Nada El Darra

Antibiotic residue in chicken is a human health concern due to its harmful effects on consumer health. This study aims at screening the antibiotic residues from 80 chicken samples collected from farms located in different regions of Lebanon. An optimized multi-class method for identification and quantification of 30 antibiotics from four different chemical classes (sulfonamides, tetracyclines, quinolones, and beta-lactams) has been developed by using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. The evaluation of antibiotics residues in 80 chicken muscles samples has shown that 77.5% of samples were at least contaminated with antibiotics residues, out of which 53.75% were exposed to co-occurrence of multidrug residues. The screening of the four antibiotics families has shown that ciprofloxacin (quinolones) represents the highest occurrence percentage (32.5%), followed by amoxicillin (β-lactams) (22.5%) and then tetracyclines (17.5%). Means of sarafloxacin, amoxicillin, and penicillin G residues levels were above the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) recommended limit according to the European Union EC. This study revealed that chicken samples collected from Lebanese farms contain antibiotic residues. Guidelines for prudent use of antimicrobials agents for chicken should be adopted to reduce the prevalence of resistant Salmonella in chicken.


2020 ◽  
Vol MA2020-01 (27) ◽  
pp. 1967-1967
Author(s):  
Valerie Gaudin ◽  
Celine Hedou ◽  
Christophe Soumet ◽  
Eric Verdon

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-58
Author(s):  
H. S. Alnaemi

     Fate of AflatoxinM1 in soft white cheese and its by-product (whey) and in yogurt locally made from raw sheep's and goat's milk experimentally inoculated with 0.05 and 0.5 µg/l AflatoxinM1 were investigated using ELISA technique. Results reported that AflatoxinM1 was concentrated in cheese at levels significantly higher than that recorded in the raw milk that used for its processing, with a significant decrease in AflatoxinM1 levels in its by-product (whey) comparable to the raw milk used in manufacturing at both inoculated levels. Yogurt produced from raw sheep's milk at second inoculated level exerted AflatoxinM1concentration significantly lower than that present in the milk. Significant differences in AflatoxinM1distribution in cheese and whey produced from sheep's milk comparable to their counterparts produced from goat's milk were recorded. Finally, results revealed the efficacious role of the various dairy manufacturing processes in AflatoxinM1 distribution and the necessity to issue of local legislations concerning the maximum permissible limits for AflatoxinM1 in milk in order to stay within the universal permissible levels for AflatoxinM1 in dairy products to provide greater protection for consumer health. 


2015 ◽  
pp. 692-696
Author(s):  
Remi Aubry ◽  
Laurence Gasnot

A study was carried out in six beet sugar factories in France during the 2012/13 sugar campaign. The objective was to assess the optimal dosage of formaldehyde solutions at specific process stages and in different existing factory set-ups in order to obtain the desired effect on microbial populations, without interference with the quality of the products. In addition harmlessness regarding consumer health was to be demonstrated. A series of experiments was conducted resulting in new data allowing refreshment of common knowledge and references existing regarding the use of formaldehyde solutions in the sugar industry. The effectiveness and convenience for controlling microbiological activity in beet sugar manufacture was assessed. Formaldehyde reduces sugar losses and protects in-process products without harming their further use, such as for ethanol production.


2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-116
Author(s):  
Heba Fahim ◽  
Fahim shaltout ◽  
Mohamed A. El shatter
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document