Every year, the food industry in the United States loses between $418 million and $1.66 billion from aflatoxin, fumonisin, and deoxynivalenol (DON) contamination in corn, wheat, and peanuts. While climate change, high temperatures, drought stress, and inadequate control strategies are some factors responsible for mycotoxin contamination and its adverse economic impact, the testing methodologies also contribute to the losses suffered by the industry.

Traditional test kit methods such as Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) are expensive, time-consuming, and demand specialized personnel training. However, the larger concern demanding attention is the likelihood of these test methods to allow contaminated samples into the food supply. Because mycotoxin contamination is spread heterogeneously across batches and individual kernels, sampling is often challenging, and it accounts for the majority of variance in mycotoxin test results. Unless multiple samples are collected across each batch, the samples may not accurately represent the entire lot, potentially leading to misclassification, and penalizing clean samples or allowing contaminated ones to persist. As a result, food safety could become compromised, and businesses could suffer losses. Inconsistent mycotoxin testing could also lead to regulatory non-compliance, product recalls, and potential lawsuits.  

This is just one of the many inherent drawbacks of traditional mycotoxin test methods. In this article, we dive deep into why these tests fail to keep up with the industry demand and are, therefore, a part of the larger problem. 

‍The Pitfalls of Traditional Mycotoxin Testing Methods:

‍1. Delayed Turnaround Time

Conventional mycotoxin testing methods involve intensive labor, extensive sample preparation, extraction, and analysis. On average, each test can take over 10 minutes per sample, translating to 40 tests per day per lab technician at a testing facility. This implies that during high toxin years, trucks must wait until their batches can be processed next, leading to increased truck waiting time. If the trucks already contain contaminated lots and are not properly managed, there could be more mold growth and increased mycotoxin contamination. 

2. Limited Sample Coverage

Given the high turnaround time per test and the contamination and business risks of keeping trucks waiting, facilities are left with only one option—to speed up the process by testing fewer samples than needed and hoping that they represent the entire batch accurately.     

 3. Complexity & Human Error

Test kit-based methods require manual intervention at every step of the process, introducing the possibility of errors throughout the procedure. Failure to weigh the sample accurately or mix the sample thoroughly, not using the right quantity of extraction solvents, not cleaning the equipment properly between samples, errors in the pipetting volumes, and not allowing enough incubation time—can all lead to erroneous results. 

 4. High Use of Consumables

ELISA-like tests require several consumables as part of the testing process. Mishandling microplates or pipettes could cause them to break or crack, rendering them unusable or leading to leakage and contamination. Sealing films could tear or get damaged during application, allowing evaporation or contamination. Besides these risks, such situations also demand reordering consumables, contributing to budget overruns.  

With food safety at stake and millions of dollars on the line, the industry needs a breakthrough solution that speeds up testing while eliminating errors and ensuring accuracy. Enter Hyperspectral Imaging.

‍How Hyperspectral Imaging Helps

Unlike chemical-based test kit methods, HSI scans entire samples using light-based spectral signatures, instantly identifying contamination across the batch. Hyperspectral Imaging (HSI) can help enhance food safety exponentially by eliminating the risks associated with traditional test methods and streamlining testing processes. (To learn more about hyperspectral imaging, read our blog here.)     

Here’s how HSI is redefining food testing:

1. Rapid Testing

Unlike ELISA or Lateral Flow, which involve several manual steps and are at least 10 minutes long, hyperspectral imaging requires no manual intervention and can deliver test results in just 30 seconds.

2. Greater Sample Coverage

Since HSI delivers test results faster by 95%, facilities can significantly increase testing. This implies that instead of running 40 tests per day, each technician at a test facility can run up to 960 tests daily, greatly increasing testing coverage and reducing batch-to-batch risk. Imagine the potential of such testing frequency for food safety and the organization’s profitability.

3. Reduces Errors

With Hyperspectral Imaging, manual intervention is only needed to grind the sample, fill it in the petridish, and scan the sample. Manual errors are eliminated from testing when using HSI. 

 4. No Use of Consumables

HSI significantly reduces consumable usage by eliminating the need for reagents, pipettes, disposable microplates, etc. Apart from initial sample preparation, no additional consumables are required for testing. The absence of consumable costs can significantly reduce operational expenses over time, making HSI a more cost-effective option for high-volume testing.

Hyperspectral imaging is not the future. Leading grain elevators, ethanol plants, and animal feed mills across the US are already adopting the technology with ImagoAI’s Galaxy. Galaxy is AOAC PTM-certified and the world’s first hyperspectral imaging-based mycotoxin testing method that delivers the world’s fastest test results. 

The industry is moving forward—are you? Schedule your call today to learn how you can stay ahead of the curve using Galaxy.

‍