# A Review: Sample Preparation and Chromatographic Technologies for Detection of Aflatoxins in Foods
## 3 Chromatography
### Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry
#### 3.3.2 LC-MS for Quantitative Analysis
Sample extracts were directly analyzed by DART-Orbitrap MS without LC separation. The impact of resolution power (10,000-50,000 full width at half maximum, FWHM, at \(m/\)\(\approx\) 200) on quantitation and mass accuracy was evaluated. For aflat, the sensitivity of the DART method was poor as compared to LC-QQQ. [PERSON] et al. [291] developed an LC-HRMS method for the determination of EU regulated mycotoxins (aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, fumonisins, deoxynivalenol and zearalenone) in cereals. A single stage LC-Orbitrap was operated in full-scan mode to monitor each mycotoxin by its molecular ion and fragments generated using high energy collision dissociation (HCD). At a resolving power of 100,000 FWHM, mass accuracy of targeted mycotoxins ranged from 0.1 to 3.9 ppm. In terms of sensitivity (e.g., LODs), recoveries and repeatability, the method offered analogous performance as compared to a previously validated LC-QQQ method. Later, [PERSON] et al. [57; 262] compared quantitation on an LC-Q-Orbitrap operated in full scan and data-dependent acquisition mode, to an LC-QQQ and concluded that both LC-MS methods had sufficient sensitivity to identify and quantitate multiple mycotoxins, albeit different identification criteria were used. Using an LC-Q-Orbitrap MS, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [292] developed an LC-data independent acquisition method. In this approach, both quantitative and qualitative analyses could be conducted using collected data. For mycotoxins including aflat with available standards, they were identified and quantitated similar to conventional LC-MS analyses. Using a similar approach, [PERSON] et al. [293] developed an LC-Q-Orbitrap method, which combined target analysis and non-target screening of mycotoxins in pet food. With better resolution power, data acquisition rates and accurate mass spectra libraries, this approach is considered as a more advanced and efficient method for mycotoxin analysis. This review focuses on aflat but not multimycotoxin analysis, so the above discussion aims to use a few representative studies to illustrate major trends and challenges concerning LC-MS based mycotoxin analysis and the impact of LC-MS on aflatoxin analysis. In summary, the introduction of LC-QQQ-MS has transformed the conventional single/single class-mycotoxin-based approach to multimycotoxin identification and quantitation. LC-HRMS enables both targeted and non-target data analysis, leading to a new mycotoxin testing paradigm. As aflatoxin analysis is a multifaceted challenge, existing sampling plans, sample preparation techniques and method performance criteria (validation) should be carefully evaluated and revised if necessary so that the potential of LC-MS-based technologies could be fully reached in the coming years to increase the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity and efficiency of aflatoxin analysis. Noteworthy, rapid assays (e.g., ELISA) and LC-FLD methods are expected to compete with LC-MS, as there are substantial economic interests associated with mycotoxin analysis in the industrial market [286], stymying the existing efforts to increase the use of LC-MS that has been gaining increasing popularity among mycotoxin laboratories. Several studies compared LC-MS/MS to other analytical techniques used for aflatoxin analysis, suggesting LC-MS/MS generated comparable results compared to ELISA and LC-FLD in terms of precision and accuracy [294; 295; 296]. The choice of a method depends on many factors, including but not limited to data quality of quantitation. If mycotoxin molecular identification is required, LC-MS has been shown to be the method of choice.