Abstract Peanut is an important economic crop and oil crop in China. It is vulnerable to infection by Aspergillus flavus during production， storage， transportation and processing， causing aflatoxin （AFT） contamination. This paper introduced the status and characteristics of AFT contamination in China， analyzed the infection pathways and influencing factors of A. flavus， and discussed the prevention and control technology of AFT contamination in peanuts from the view of the use of beneficial microorganisms.
　　Key words Aflatoxin contamination； Aspergillus flavus； Peanut； Influencing factors； Control
　　China is one of the major peanut producing countries in the world， with an average annual planting area reaching 5 million hm2 and harvested area accounting for 20% of the world’ total. The average annual output of peanuts is 17 million t in China， accounting for 40% of the world’s total peanut output； and the annual export is 700 000 t， accounting for 47% of the world’s total trade in peanuts. Its planting area， output， and export volume of China rank among the top in the world[1]. Therefore， the sustainable and healthy development of China’s peanut planting industry is an important guarantee for the smooth development of China’s peanut and even the world’s peanut-related industries. It is also of great significance for promoting China’s economic development and maintaining social stability.
　　During the growth， storage and transportation of peanuts， it is vulnerable to infection by Aspergillus flavus， leading to aflatoxin （AFT） contamination. Aflatoxins are the secondary metabolites produced by A. flavus and A. parasiticus， with acute and chronic toxicity， mutagenicity， carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. At least 14 different aflatoxins are produced in nature， in which Aflatoxin B1 is considered the most toxic aflatoxin with the toxicity of 10 times that of potassium cyanide， 68 times that of arsenic， and carcinogenicity of 10 000 times that of hexachloro-cyclohexane soprocide （HCH）. Therefore， it is classified as a class I carcinogen by the World Health Organization （WHO） and can cause great harm to human health[2-3]. Peanut aflatoxin contamination is a worldwide problem. It is the most important risk factor for peanuts’ safe consumption and export and has received widespread attention. Therefore， it is of important significance to promote the healthy development of peanut industry to understand the characteristics of peanut aflatoxin contamination， master the main infection routes of A. flavus to peanuts， and explore the prevention and control technology of peanut aflatoxins. This paper discussed the prevention and control technology peanut aflatoxin contamination from the aspects of the use of beneficial microorganisms. 　　Status and Characteristics of Peanut Aflatoxin Contamination in China
　　In China， aflatoxins are mainly found in agricultural products and foods related with peanuts， corn， rice， rape. Aflaxtoxin contamination occurs throughout China. Zhang et al.[4] detected the content of aflatoxin B1 in 486 samples collected from the 18 major peanut producing areas in China， and the data showed that the content of aflatoxin B1 was 0.02-54.20 μg/kg in agricultural products and 0.41-36.54 μg/kg in peanut oil. Liu et al.[5] found that the contamination rate of aflatoxins reached up to 24.2% in the peanut samples collected in many provinces across China， and the detection rate was highest in the samples collected in Yunnan with the rate reaching 100% and 24.3% in peanut oil and peanuts. Ding[6] conducted a random inspection of peanuts collected in 2009 and 2010 from different regions of China， and the results showed that the detection rate of AFT B1 was 21.7% of the collected peanuts with the average content of 6.82 μg/kg and a maximum of 743.41 μg/kg. Moreover， the average content of total aflatoxins was 40.34 μg/kg， and the maximum was 5 271.41 μg/kg， which greatly exceeded the national limit standard of 20 μg/kg in China. Aflatoxin contamination has caused huge economic losses to China’s peanut production and processing related industries， which has seriously affected the sustainable and healthy development of peanut industry in China.
　　Once contaminated by aflatoxins， the contaminated peanuts will cause huge economic losses to both the producing and exporting countries， and they will seriously threaten the health of humans and animals. The survey results showed that AFT contamination not only is common in peanuts and their products， but also show great differences between different regions in China. In general， AFT contamination becomes worse and worse from north to south， and the contamination degree is light in the peanut-producing areas in north and northeast China， while the AFT contamination is generally severe in the Yangtze River basin and the southern regions in China. In the north， the contamination A. flavus of mainly occurs in the process of harvesting， storage， and shelling of peanuts， while in the south， the contamination mainly occurs during the production， storage and transportation. The main reason lies in the differences in climate conditions in northern and southern China， and the high temperature and humidity and long rainy season favors the growth of A. flavus on peanuts and the production of AFT[7-10]. 　　Factors Affecting Aflatoxin Production in Peanuts
　　Environmental conditions for the growth and toxin production of A. flavus
　　Aflatoxins are metabolites produced by A. flavus or A. parasiticus， and they are one of the most common mycotoxins. A. flavus has strong adaptability and is widely distributed in soil， air and crops. As long as there are suitable growth conditions and suitable hosts， spores of A. flavus can germinate， grow and multiply， and thus produce AFT. A. flavus has no strict requirements on the growth conditions for growth and toxigenicity. The suitable temperature for its growth is 10-37 ℃ with pH value ranging from 2 to 9， and the suitable temperature for toxigenicity is 12-37℃ with pH value ranging from 3 to 8[11]. Significantly different in the growth from other crops， peanuts flower above the ground while develop and bear fruits under ground， which greatly increases the contacting period between peanut pods and soil microorganisms， making them more susceptible to infection by A. flavus. According to the different periods of infection and toxin production of A. flavus， AFT contamination is classified into pre-harvest and post-harvest contamination.
　　Main factors affecting AFT contamination before harvest
　　Resistant variety Peanut AFT contamination degree has important correlation with the resistance of cultivars. The resistances of the variety to the infection of A. flavus mainly include the following： first， resistance to A. flavus infection. It is very difficult for A. flavus strains to germinate and grow on the peanut varieties with such resistance. Second， resistance to the toxin production of A. flavus. In other words， the peanuts can inhibit the production of AFT after infected by A. flavus strains. The peanut seeds with resistances to the infection and toxin production of A. flavus can reduce AFT contamination[6].
　　Drought stress Drought and high temperature stresses are the main factors affecting AFT infection in peanut at later growth stage. When the peanuts are exposed to arid environment 3-7 weeks before harvest， the AFT content in peanut seeds can be increased by more than 30 times， and the degree of drought is directly proportional to the production rate of A. flavus. In other words， the toxin production rate of A. flavus increases with the drought becoming more and more severe. However， with the continuous intensification of drought， the water content in peanut seeds would continue to decline， and A. flavus cannot grow， when it is impossible for the A. flavus to produce toxins in the infected peanuts. Drought stress can affect the production of aflatoxins， which is closely related to the synthesis of a phytoalexin "（e）-stilbene" in peanut seeds. When the peanut seed has high water content， peanut seeds can produce this phytoalexin and inhibit A flavus infection and AFT contamination， and when the water content is low in peanut seeds， the metabolic activity would be weakened， and the synthesis of （e）-stilbene would be inhibited， thus， A. flavus can normally grow and produce toxins， thereby contaminating peanuts[11]. 　　Pest and disease damage Underground pest damage and other disease infections can increase the infection of A. flavus and AFT contamination. Underground pests can inflict wounds on peanut pods， creating favorable conditions for the infection of A. flavus. At the same time， underground pests can directly transfer A. flavus strains to peanuts. Therefore， the AFT content in the pods damaged by underground pests is generally high. In addition， certain diseases can increase the degree of infection of peanuts by A. flavus， resulting in increased AFT contamination.
　　Peanut maturity and harvest time The timely harvested peanuts have low infection rate of A. flavus and light AFT contamination， while the delayed harvested peanuts show high A. flavus infection rate and heavy AFT contamination. The A. flavus infection and AFT contamination rates are different for the peanut pods with different maturity. Over-matured pods have a higher contamination rate of A. flavus than mature or immature pods， especially if the water content is less than 30%， the pods are easily infected by A. flavus[12-13].
　　Main factors affecting AFT contamination after harvest
　　Damage during harvesting or storage and transport of peanuts In the process of peanut harvesting， storage， transportation， and shelling， improper practices can cause peanut pods damage and kernels damage， causing the infection of A. flavus. A. flavus is easy to infect from damaged peanut wounds， and then quickly spreads throughout the kernel and produces AFT， increasing the probability of AFT contamination.
　　Not timely drying of peanuts after harvest Peanuts usually have high water content when they are just harvested， and generally have a water content of 45% or more. If cannot be timely dried， the harvested peanuts are susceptible to infection by A. flavus. The harvested peanuts with higher water content tend to have higher the degree of infection of A. flavus and more severe AFT contamination. During peanut drying， when the water content drops below 30%， the pods will stop producing the phytoalexin "（e）-stilbene"， and then the peanut pods would have no natural resistance to AFT， making them vulnerable to the infection of A. flavus. Therefore， timely drying is critical to the generation of AFT contamination.
　　Effects of storage conditions The conditions during the storage period can significantly affect the degree of peanut AFT contamination. Storage environment temperature and humidity， storage time， pests and diseases have an important impact on A. flavus infection and AFT production. A. flavus infection rate and AFT contamination tend to be higher if there are too many infected， broken and damaged pods， and if the pests are severe and the pods are severely damaged. Peanut pods can easily absorb moisture from the air and become wetting-back. When the water content is higher than 10% and the temperature exceeds 20 ℃， the reproduction rate of A. flavus is accelerated and the chance of AFT contamination is greatly increased. AFT contamination will become more severe with the increase of humidity and temperature. The relative humidity of the air should be maintained at 52%-65%， which can maintain the quality of peanuts and prevent the growth of A. flavus. Long storage time can reduce the resistance of peanuts， making them more likely to suffer AFT contamination. 　　Agricultural Biotechnology2018
　　Use of Beneficial Microorganisms for Biological Control of A. flavus Infection and Toxin Contamination
　　Peanuts are the agricultural products most susceptible to AFT contamination. In order to reduce the possibility of human exposure to aflatoxins， various measures have been taken to control the growth of A. flavus and inhibit the formation of AFT. Physical methods and chemical degradation methods are not accepted by the general public due to incomplete treatment and high cost. The use of antagonistic microorganisms and their metabolites is a highly efficient， low-risk method for removing toxins. Studies have shown that many bacteria and fungi can inhibit the infection of A. flavus and degrade aflatoxins， which provides an important way to solve the bottleneck problem of AFT contamination.
　　Fungal biocontrol agents
　　Atoxigenic A. flavus and A. parasiticus The use of atoxigenic strains of A. flavus and A. parasiticus can effectively prevent AFT production in agricultural products before harvest， and has been widely used. Researchers in China， the United States， Australia， and other countries have selected atoxigenic strains of A. flavus that can effectively inhibit AFT production. These strains can reduce the number of field-producing strains by more than 95%. The U.S. Environmental Defense Fund has also registered two atoxigenic strains of A. flavus to prevent peanut AFT contamination， which have been extensively tested in experimental fields in several states in U.S.[15-16]. It has found that it is very effective to reduce AFT contamination before harvest by introducing A. flavus and A. parasiticus in field to replace the original toxigenic strains in the soil to control the microbial community. At present， the atoxigenic strains of A. flavus and A. parasiticus are mainly applied in the way of soaking seeds before sowing or directly spraying the spore suspension into the soil. Although the effect is obvious， the cost is high. In recent years， solid-state fermentation of cereals is used to incubate spores， or microbial inoculums are made， which has greatly reduced the application cost and improved the application level[15-17].
　　Yeast It has found that many genera in yeast can inhibit the growth of A. flavus. Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a significant ability to degrade aflatoxins， and the AFB content in the feed after the addition of S. cerevisiae has significantly reduced. Moreover， S. cerevisiae is found to be effective in degrading B1， B2， G1， and G2. In addition， research results at home and abroad show that yeast culture residues can significantly inhibit the toxic effects of aflatoxins in the production of broiler breeders. Adding these culture residues to the daily diet containing AFT could significantly improve the hatching rate of hatching eggs[18-21]. 　　Other fungi Studies have found that fungi such as Pleurotus ostreatus， Phoma medicaginis， Aspergillus niger can significantly inhibit the growth of A. flavus and the production of toxins. P. ostreatus can produce an extracellular enzyme with a molecular weight of 90 kD， which can significantly inhibit the growth of A. flavus and effectively degrade AFT B1. P. medicaginis cell extracts can produce a thermostable enzyme， which is capable of degrading 99% of AFT B1. Some researchers have isolated and purified an extracellular enzyme with a molecular weight of 90 kDa from the product of P. ostreatus， suggesting that this enzyme can break the lactonic ring of aflatoxins and thus degrade the toxins. Chen et al. found that the A. niger extract BDA could degrade aflatoxins in peanut oil. The detoxification effect of this active substance is high and tests have shown that it is an enzymatic reaction[22-25]. Aflatoxin-detoxifizyme is a highly efficient substance that degrades aflatoxin so far. It is an enzyme extracted from edible fungi and has high safety. However， the production of this enzyme needs to be further improved and there is still a certain way to go to make it widely used in production.
　　Bacterial biological control agents
　　Lactic acid bacteria Many strains of Lactobacillus are reported to have the capacity to absorb aflatoxins. Cao et al.[26] found that the cultures of Lactobacillus curvii contained volatile Lactic acid （VFA） and lactic acid which could significantly inhibit the growth of A. flavus and produce toxins， promising with significant control effect. Farber et al.[27] found that lactic acid bacteria were able to adsorb AFT B1 effectively， which reduced the concentration of AFT B1 in the sample. The simultaneous culture of Lactococcus lactis and A. flavus could significantly inhibit the production of aflatoxins. Although lactic acid bacteria can adsorb aflatoxins， this adsorption may be reversible and may easily cause toxin residues[28-30]. Furthermore， lactic acid bacteria belong to anaerobic bacteria， and it is difficult to guarantee the anaerobic environment during practical application， which limits the practical application of lactic acid bacteria as antagonistic bacteria.
　　Bacillus Bacillus is the one of the most studied species in the use of beneficial microorganisms to control A. flavus and toxin contamination at home and abroad， mainly B. pumilus， B. subtilis， B. cereus and B. megaterium. It has found that the fermentation broth of B. pumilus has an important effect on the production of AFT from A. parasiticus. Research showed that metabolite produced by B. pumilus could inhibit the production of aflatoxins. It was confirmed that the metabolite was not organic acid or hydrogen peroxide by adjusting the pH of fermentation broth and adding catalase. It could be synthesized in a wide range of temperature and pH， and had a certain degree of thermal stability， promising with a good application prospects. Chinese scholars isolated and screened a strain of bacteria that showed an antagonistic effect on A. flavus when co-cultured with A. flavus. The fermentation broth of this bacterium exhibited an activity of inhibiting A. flavus after the fractional precipitation of ammonium sulfate saturation. The inhibitory rate of A. flavus was 91.3% after the protein crude extract was autoclaved at 121 ℃ for 20 min. Studies have found that B. cereus， B. subtilis， and B. megaterium have significant inhibitory effects on the growth of A. flavus and the production of aflatoxins. These beneficial microorganisms can produce heat-resistant active substances that have a good inhibitory effect on A. flavus. If these active substances can be purified and identified， and their active substances can be used for the control of aflatoxin contamination， they can bring huge benefits to the production of crops[31-33]. 　　Other beneficial bacteria Flavobacterium aurantiacum is a type of biocontrol bacteria that was studied earlier. As early as in the 1960s and 1970s， the study found that the cell culture of F. aurantiacum could remove aflatoxin B1 from the aqueous solution， and the ability to remove aflatoxin B1 of the dead was affected by temperature and pH. However， aflatoxin B1 absorbed by the living cells could not be extracted by liquid phase， and the cell concentration also influenced the removal ability of aflatoxin B1. High temperature inactivated cultures could not remove aflatoxin B1 from the buffer. Myxococcus fulvus is another kind of beneficial microorganism widely used in inhibiting A. flavus and aflatoxin contamination. Both are a class of aerobic gram-negative coryneform bacteria widely found in soil. The extracellular products secreted by them could decompose different biological macromolecules and whole microorganisms， and the products have been found to be an enzyme. The optimization of enzyme production conditions has provided reference for the future large-scale fermentation. The cell-free extract of Rhodococcus erythropolis could significantly reduce aflatoxin B1 in foods and feeds， and the degradation rate could reach up to 82.5%[34-37].
　　Active metabolites of antagonistic microbes Peanut is a nutrient-rich substrate that is very conducive to the production of aflatoxins. The use of beneficial microorganisms to inhibit aflatoxin production is a very effective measure and method. A large number of studies have shown that many kinds of microorganisms can inhibit the production of aflatoxins， and it may be some metabolically active substances that play an important role in the inhibition. However， due to the large variety of microbial metabolites， most have not yet finalized the active substances. Lactic acid bacteria are a kind of widely studied microorganism which can inhibit toxins. Lactic acid bacteria can inhibit the growth of mold and toxin formation by forming organic acids or producing antibacterial substances[26-28]. Streptomyces avermitilis can produce a substance with similar structure to blasticidin， called aflastatin， which can completely inhibit the production of aflatoxins by A. parasiticus at a concentration of 0.5 μg/ml. At present， there are not many reports on actinomycetes inhibiting A. flavus. Liu[38] and Abdukerin[38] found that actinomycetes can produce antibiotics with higher antibacterial activity， which have certain effects on inhibiting A. flavus. In general， although these microorganisms show obvious effects on inhibiting the growth of A. flavus and production of toxins under laboratory conditions， they have not been widely applied in practice due to the restrictions of environmental conditions and lagging preparation development. 　　Outlook
　　The effective prevention and control of peanut AFT contamination is a worldwide problem， and it has become a major hidden issue that restricts the development of China’s peanut industry. Taking effective control measures before AFT production is effective， time-saving， labor-saving and low-cost. On the other hand， detoxifying AFT after the production has low effectiveness， high cost and can affect the quality. The use of antagonistic beneficial microorganisms to control the contamination of aflatoxin contamination is a highly efficient and less dangerous method for removing toxins， which has been favored by researchers in recent years. It has found that many bacteria and fungi can inhibit the infection of A. flavus and degrade aflatoxins， which is an important way to solve the bottleneck problem of aflatoxin contamination.
　　Although some important progress has been made in the study of the use of beneficial microorganisms to prevent and control AFT contamination， there are still many deficiencies in current research. Most studies in China focus more on the selection of bio-control bacteria under laboratory conditions， but the research on their antibacterial and detoxifying components is still lacking. If the study can go deeper on the active metabolic components， it will undoubtedly accelerate the progress of research on biological control. At the same time， there is a big gap between indoor and field production， and beneficial microorganisms with certain control effects are screened indoors， but the field effect is not necessarily satisfactory. In particular， these beneficial microbial strains are susceptible to mutations in field trials， reducing their control effectiveness and limiting their practical application. However， the biological control of AFT contamination is an environmentally friendly method with a wide range of application prospects， and it is bound to become a hot spot for future AFT research.
　　References
　　[1] HU DQ， PANG GX， ZHANG ZY， et al. The prevention and control of aflatoxin contamination on export peanut products[J]. Journal of Peanut Science， 2011， 40（1）：36-38.
　　[2] WANG N， PAN ZL， YANG JL， et al. Study on the method for determination of aflatoxin in peanuts[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences， 2008， 36（24）： 10305-10310.
　　[3] ZENG Y， SUN GF， MAO L. Analysis of prevention and control of aflatoxin in peanut with HACCP principle[J]. Acta Universitatis Medicinalis Nanjing， 2007， 27（4）： 402-405. 　　[4] ZHANG C， YUE TL， GAO ZP， et al. Research advance on the determination of aflatoxin B1 in food[J]. Academic Periodical of Farm Products Processing， 2008， 7： 18-22.
　　[5] LIU X. Strengthen research work of exposure and control of mycotoxin[J]. Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine， 2006， 40： 307-308.
　　[6] DING XX. Study on post-harvest peanut aflatoxins contamination and risk assessment in China[D]. Beijing： Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2011.
　　[7] ZHANG JC， JIANG C， LI SL， et al. Peanut aflatoxin contamination status and prevention and control technology[J]. Crops， 2006（1）： 67-68.
　　[8] GAO XF， YIN SA， JI R. Contamination of aflatoxins in peanuts from some regions in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health， 2011， 27（5）： 541-542.
　　[9] LI XL， LI Y， HOU TL， et al. Peanut aflatoxin contamination level and distribution in Liaoning Province[J]. Journal of Inspection and Quarantine， 2009， 19（4）：55-57.
　　[10] PANG GX， DING LX， JIANG J， et al. Investigation and analysis of aflatoxin contamination in peanut plantation in Qingdao area[J]. Inspection and Quarantine Science， 2009， 18（2）：64-65.
　　[11] LI JH. Impact factor and detoxification of aflatoxin in peanuts[D]. Beijing： Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2009.
　　[12] ZHANG JC， JIANG C， LI SL， et al. Peanut aflatoxin contamination status and prevention and control techniques[J]. Crops， 2009， （1）： 67-68.
　　[13] HE LH， BIN JH. Advances of study on the prevention and control of Aspergillus flavus in peanut[J]. Seed， 2004， 23（12）：39-45.
　　[15] CARDWELL KF， HENRY SH. Risk of exposure to and mitigation of effect of aflatoxin on human health： a west Aftican example[J]. Toxin Reviews， 2008， 23（2-3）： 213-235.
　　[16] PITT JI， HOCKING AD. Mycotoxins in Australia： biocontrol of aflatoxin in peanuts[J]. Mycopathologia， 2006， 162（3）： 233-243.
　　[17] YIN YN， YAN LY， JIANG JH， et al. Biological control of aflatoxin contamination of crops[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University， 2008， 9 （10）： 787-792.
　　[18] HUA SS， BAKER JL， FLORES-ESPIRITU M. Interactions of saprophytic yeasts with a nor mutant of Aspergillus flavus[J]. Applied & Environmental Microbiology， 1999， 65（6）： 2738-2740.
　　[19] MASOUD W， KALTOFT CH. The effects of yeasts involved in the fermentation of Coffea Arabica in east Africa on grown and ochratoxin A （OTA） production by Aspergillus ochraceus[J]. International Journal of Food Microbiology， 2006， 106（2）： 229-234. 　　[20] KUSUMANINGTYAS E， WIDIASTUTI R， MARYAM R. Reduction of aflatoxin B1 in chicken feed by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae， Rhizopus oligosporus and their combination[J]. Mycopathologia， 2006， 62：307-311.
　　[21] KATHRYN HE， STEVEN LK， RAYMOND D， et al. Toxin-binding properties of cytochrome P450 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Kluyveromyces marxianus[J]. Biotechnology Letters， 2000， 22： 3-8.
　　[22] GINTEROVA A， POLSTER M， JANOTKOVA O. The relationship between Pleurotus ostreatus and Aspergillus flavus and the production of aflatoxin[J]. Folia Microbiologica， 1980， 25： 332-336.
　　[23] MOTOMURA M， TOYOMASU T， MIZUNO K， et al. Purification and characterization of an aflatoxin degradation enzyme from Pleurotus ostreatus[J]. Microbiological Research， 2003， 158： 237-242.
　　[24] LIU DL， YAO DS， LIANG R， et al. Detoxification of aflatoxin B1 by enzymes isolated from Armillariella tabescens[J]. Food and Chemical Toxicology， 1998， 36： 563-574.
　　[25] LIU DL， YAO DS， LIANG YQ. Production， purification， and characterization of an intracellular aflatoxin-detoxifizyme from Armillariella tabescens （E-20）[J]. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2001， 39： 461-466.
　　[26] CAO DM， ZHANG HY， HE CH， et al. Inhibition of growth and aflatoxin production of Aspergillus flavus by Lactobacillus curvatus HB02[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University， 2008， 31（3）： 125-129.
　　[27] FARBER P， BROST I， ADAM R， et al. HPLC based method for the measurement of the reduction of aflatoxin B1 by bacterial cultures isolated from different African foods[J]. Mycotoxin Research， 2000， 16： 141.
　　[28] PELTONEN K， EL-NEZAMI H， HASKARD C， et al. Aflatoxin B1 binding by dairy strains of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria[J]. Journal of Dairy Science， 2001， 84： 2152-2156.
　　[29] EL-NEZAMI H， MYKKANEN H， KANKAANPAA P， et al. Ability of Lactobacillus and Propionibacterium strains to remove aflatoxin B from the chicken duodenum[J]. Journal of Food Protection， 2000， 63： 549-552.
　　[30] PIERIDES M， EL-NEZAMI H， PELTONEN K， et al. Ability of dairy strains of lactic acid bacteria to bind alfatoxin M1 in a food model[J]. Journal of Food Protection， 2000， 63： 645-650.
　　[31] EMARA HA. Production of aflatoxin by Aspergillus parasiticus and its control[J]. Mycotoxin Research， 1997， 13（1）： 51.
　　[32] MUNIMBAZI C， BULLERMAN LB. Inhibition of aflatoxin production of Aspergillus parasiticus NRRL 2999 by Bacillus pumilus[J]. Mycopathologia， 1997， 140：163-169. 　　[33] CIEGLER A， LILLEHOJ EB， PETERSON RE， et al. Microbial detoxification of aflatoxin[J]. Applied Microbiology， 1996， 14： 934-939.
　　[34] LINE JE， BRACKETT RE， WILKINSON RE. Evidence for degradation of aflatoxin B1 by Flavobacterium aurantiacum[J]. Journal of Food Protection， 1994， 57： 788-791.
　　[35] SMILEY RD， DRAUGHON FA. Preliminary evidence that degradation of aflatoxin B1 by Flavobacterium aurantiacum is enzymatic[J]. Journal of Food Protection，2000， 63： 415-418.
　　[36] TENIOLA OD， ADDO PA， BROST IM. Degradation of aflatoxin B（1） by cell-free extracts of Rhodococcus erythropolis and Mycobacterium fluoranthenivorans sp. Nov. DSM44556 （T）[J]. International Journal of Food Microbiology， 2005， 105（2）： 111-117.
　　[37] GUAN S， JI C， ZHOU T， et al. Aflatoxin B1 degradation by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and other microbes selected using coumarin medium[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences， 2008， 9： 1489-1503.
　　[38] LIU S， LU ZX， LV FX， et al. The identification and antimicrobial activity of a marine actinomycete[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University， 2007， 30（4）： 124-129.
　　[39] ABDUKERIN RYM， DILSCHAT THT， KURAX MMTH. Study on antibiotic synthesis conditions of XSS040811 strain of actinomycete in Shanshan Desert， Turpan， Xinjiang[J]. Arid Zone Research， 2008 ， 25：114-117.