## 3 Results and Discussion  
The overall results of this study and the number of total samples subdivided by concentration ranges are displayed in Figure 4. An AFM\({}_{1}\) level greater than 5 ng/kg (quantification limit value of the ELISA method) was detected in 553 of the 1017 analyzed samples (54.4%). As also shown in Figure 3, most of these samples present a concentration range between 5 and 50 ng/kg. AFM\({}_{1}\) levels greater than 50 ng/kg were detected in 70 samples (6.9%), with 49 non-compliant responses (4.8%), while 21 samples (2.1% of total samples), although above 50 ng/kg, taking into account the measurement of uncertainty (9.2%) complied with the legal limit. Another significant finding arises by comparing the data obtained for raw milk with those of pasteurized or UHT milk. Figure 5 shows the AFM\({}_{1}\) percentages of samples as associated with concentration ranges of raw and processed milk. As shown, a higher percentage of samples with AFM\({}_{1}\) level below 10 ng/kg (89.7%) was observed for processed milk versus raw milk (67.2%); therefore, the processed milk was characterized by lower AFM\({}_{1}\) levels (one-way ANOVA, \(p\) = 0.05). This trend is well appreciable from the graph shown in Figure 4, where the percentage of raw milk samples increases with the increase in AFM\({}_{1}\) concentration. With regard to the non-compliant samples found, 49 milk samples (4.8%) showed a concentration of AFM\({}_{1}\) above the legal limits, i.e., greater than 0.050 ug/kg, taking into account the measurement of uncertainty. Table 2 shows in detail the number of these samples and their characteristics, including concentration values, type, and province of origin. We first noted that four samples showed a quite high AFM\({}_{1}\) concentration, exceeding 0.20 ug/kg. These samples all came from the province of Foggia; three samples were raw milk and only one pasteurized. We also verified that almost all of the non-compliant samples were composed of raw milk. Indeed, only two samples of pasteurized milk with concentrations above the legal limit were registered, both collected from the province of Foggia. Figure 4: Concentration ranges (ng/kg) of AFM\({}_{1}\) in analyzed samples. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample \(n\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Milk Type**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AFM\({}_{1}\) Concentration Values**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Year of**} \\  & & **(ug/kg \(\pm\) Measurement Uncertainty)** & **Province of Origin** & **Sampling/Analysis** \\ \hline
1 & RAW & 0.216 +/ - 0.030 & FOGGIA & 2012 \\
2 & RAW & 0.062 +/ - 0.010 & BARI & 2012 \\
3 & RAW & 0.552 +/ - 0.070 & FOGIA & 2012 \\
4 & RAW & 0.065 +/ - 0.009 & BARI & 2012 \\
5 & RAW & 0.099 +/ - 0.014 & TARANTO & 2012 \\
6 & RAW & 0.162 +/ - 0.021 & TARANTO & 2012 \\
7 & RAW & 0.095 +/ - 0.013 & FOGIA & 2012 \\
8 & PASTEURIZED & 0.162 +/ - 0.022 & FOGIA & 2012 \\
9 & RAW & 0.070 +/ - 0.009 & BARI & 2012 \\  
OGIA & 2014 \\
46 & PASTEURIZED & 0.401 +/ - 0.055 & FOGIA & 2015 \\
47 & RAW & 0.067 +/ - 0.009 & BARI & 2017 \\
48 & RAW & 0.066 +/ - 0.009 & BARI & 2019 \\
49 & RAW & 0.182 +/ - 0.025 & MATERIALS & 2023 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Non-compliant samples: type, concentration value, and province of origin. Figure 5: Comparison of AFM\({}_{1}\) levels of raw and processed milk. Blue rods: processed milk samples; orange rods: raw milk samples. Figure 6 shows the distribution of non-compliant samples as subdivided by province of origin. Some provinces, particularly Foggia and Brindisi, are characterised by a number of analyzed samples that are very different from other six provinces. For this reason, the results were evaluated in percentage and not absolute terms. The province of Potenza recorded 18.1% of non-compliances (19 non-compliant samples out of 105 analyzed), followed by the provinces of Bari and Taranto, which accounted for 10.2% and 8.7% of non-compliances, respectively.