## 5 Discussion
Among some of the most common biomarkers studied in animals and humans were the following: AFM\({}_{1}\), AFB\({}_{1}\)-lysin, AFB\({}_{1}\)-N\({}^{7}\)-guanine, OTA, ochratoxin A glucuronide (OTA-GlcNAc), DON, deepoxy-deoxynivalenol (DOM-1), DON-GlcNAc, AFB\({}_{1}\), AFB\({}_{2}\), AFG\({}_{1}\), AFG\({}_{2}\), T-2, HT-2, ZEN, zearalenol (ZON), \(\mu\)-ZON, \(\beta\)-ZON, FB\({}_{1}\), FB\({}_{2}\), and citrinin (CIT). [24; 55; 56; 59] Many of these biomarkers were also used in the articles analyzed here. Another factor that explains the use of several biomarkers in animal studies is the EU regulation no. 386/2009 [30], which determines the use of biomarkers to assess theefficacy of additives that aim at reducing the concentration of mycotoxins in foods, or their bioavailability to animals [31]. Eighteen types of samples were used in the studies reported here. The most frequent one was milk, which corroborates the finding of AFM\({}_{1}\) as the most detected biomarker. The high level of consumption of milk and the importance of this food in human nutrition all over the world, the carcinogenic risk posed by AFM\({}_{1}\), and the MTLs determined all over the world for this mycotoxin explain the wide interest in the analysis of its residues [16; 18]. Other popular biological samples used in biomarker quantification were liver, serum, urine, poultry exceta, and feces [3; 19; 24; 59]. The choice of both the biomarker to be studied and the sample to be collected should be based on the knowledge about toxicokinetics, biotransformation, and accumulation trends of the mycotoxin. This is especially true when the aim of biomarker quantification is to evaluate the efficacy of a decontamination, as the presence or absence of the biomarker may change as a function of toxicodynamic and toxicokinetic characteristics of the species. The findings of this review corroborate those of a previous one by [PERSON] et al. [55] on the use of biological samples in the determination of mycotoxins and their biomarkers, carried out in studies between 2005 and 2017. These authors listed samples of serum, urine, human and cow milk, liquor, feces, liver kidney, bile, muscle, spleen, heart, ovaries uterus, stomach, brain, small intestines, and lungs collected from humans, pigs, cattle, horses, fish, and rats to detect different toxins and their biomarkers. These biological materials and subjects were also found in the studies used in present review. LC-MS/MS was the most popular method, and HPLC-FLD and ELISA were frequently used [51], similar to the findings of the present review. However, in the review by [PERSON] et al. [51], the most found mycotoxins were OTA, ZEN, and DON, and not AFM\({}_{1}\) and AFB\({}_{1}\), as observed in the present review. The 17 mineral adsorbents reported in the present review showed differences in efficacy, given they were made up of a single mineral or a mixture of mineral and yeasts, or different minerals. Efficacy is linked to the affinity between the adsorbent material and the mycotoxin; affinity, in its turn, depends on polar and electrostatic interactions between the two compounds [20]. As it was not possible to standardize the different variables analyzed in this review, such as animal species, type of adsorbent, type of sample, biomarker, and analytical method, it is difficult to compare the efficacy of the different adsorbents. However, some patterns were visible and independent of the type of adsorbent. In the studies by [PERSON] et al. [36] and [PERSON] et al. [41] with the detection of AFM\({}_{1}\) in milk, the same level of mycotoxin was offered to the groups treated with mineral adsorbents or mixed mineral-yeast adsorbent. In these studies, RBTC in the treatment with the mineral adsorbent was greater than with the mixed one, showing that the mineral adsorbent was more efficient in reducing AFM\({}_{1}\) in milk. Another important finding is that there may be a direct proportion between time of adsorbent use and the RBTC.