Exposure risk to carbonyl compounds and furfuryl alcohol through the consumption of sparkling wines/Risco da exposicao a compostos carbonilicos e alcool furfurilico atraves do consumo de espumantes.
These compounds may be formed from sugars and amino acids, especially during fermentation (RIBEREAU-GAYON et al., 2006). In addition, acrolein and furfural may be released to the environment and contaminate grapes during incomplete combustion processes (petrochemical fuels, wood, cigarette smoking among others) (KENNISON et al., 2007; BURCHAM, 2017). In a previous study, the occurrence of carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, furfural and EC) was reported in all stages of vinification, including grapes and the respective wines (FERREIRA et al., 2018). However, toxic levels were reduced throughout Merlot vinification and only the exposure to acrolein revealed represent risk to consumer's health. In another approach, LAGO et al. (2017) verified that the advancement of ripeness degree and increasing grape maceration time seems to result in higher concentrations of these carbonyl compounds in Syrah wines. Regarding the consumption of these wines, the exposure to acrolein and ethyl carbamate could pose risk to consumer health.
The occurrence of FA and carbonyl compounds (acetaldehyde, acrolein, EC, formaldehyde and furfural) was studied in this research with the objective of verifying, for the first time, the risk of exposure to these compounds through consumption of sparkling wines. Sparkling wines from 21 different wineries of Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil, were evaluated. Samples were analyzed in triplicate and total acidity, pH and alcohol content were verified according the ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTIS (1995), since these parameters can influence the efficiency of HS-SPME (FERREIRA et al., 2019). The median values of acidity (108meq [L.sup.-1]), pH (3.1) and alcohol (12%) of samples were used in the preparation of the model solution of sparkling wine to perform the calibration curves of toxic compounds. This approach was followed to minimize matrix effects in the analysis quantification.
The estimated daily intake (EDI) and characterization of the exposure risk were obtained following the protocols of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2010),as reported in previous studies (LAGO et al., 2017; FERREIRA et al., 2018; DACHERY et al. 2017). The EDI was expressed in [micro]g [kg.sup.-1] of body weight (BW) per day and calculated as follows:
EDI = [concentration of toxic compound ([micro]g [mL.sup.-1]) x sparkling wine consumption (mL [day.sup.-1])]/ body weight (kg)]
The concentration of toxic compounds was obtained through headspace solid phase microextraction associated with gas chromatography with quadrupole mass spectrometric detection in selected-ion monitoring mode (HS-SPME-GC/ qMS-SIM) according previous validated method (FERREIRA et al., 2019).
The consumption of sparkling wine used in the calculation of EDI was 300mL, considering that: (i) the maximum daily alcohol intake should not exceed 30g (equivalent to 39mL of ethanol), as established by the Health Agencies of several countries, including the United States of America, France, Macedonia, New Zealand, Romania, Switzerland, Uruguay and released by the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD, 2018), and that (ii) the evaluated sparkling wines presented ethanol content between 11.5 and 12.5% (v/v). Furthermore, VAZQUEZ-AGELL et al. (2007) reported that daily consumption of 300mL of Chardonnay sparkling wine may prevent atherosclerosis due to its polyphenol content.
The Brazilian average weight of 66.5kg, according to Analysis of Personal Food Consumption done by Brazilian government (IBGE, 2011), was used in the EDI calculation.
Acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde and ethyl carbamate are genotoxic compounds and margin of exposure (MOE) must be used in risk characterization considering the benchmark dose lower confidence limit (BMDL10) as toxicological parameter in the in the calculation:
MOE = BMDL10 ([micro]g [kg.sup.-1] BW [day.sup.-1])/ EDI ([micro]g [kg.sup.-1] BW [day.sup.-1])
BMDL10 corresponds to the lowest limit of the 95% confidence interval of the dose required to give a 10% increase in the occurrence of a toxic effect compared to the control. BMDL10 values were: 56, 0.36, 0.25 and 28mg [kg.sup.-1] of body weight per day were used for acetaldehyde (LACHENMEIER et al., 2009), acrolein (ATSDR, 2007), EC (SCHLATTER et al., 2010) and formaldehyde (MONAKHOVA et al., 2012), respectively, as already mentioned in a previous study (FERREIRA et al. 2018).
MOE values below 10,000 indicated that the compound poses a potential health risk (WHO, 2010). In contrast, furfural and furfuryl alcohol are non-genotoxic compounds; and therefore, has a safe ingestion parameter set by JECFA (acceptable summative daily intake (ADI) of 500pg [kg.sup.-1] BW) (JECFA, 2000). Risk characterization for these two furan-containing compounds was carried out comparing the EDI with its ADI, where risk may exist if the estimated intake exceeds the ADI.
Carbonyl compounds and furfuryl alcohol were reported in all samples. Table 1 presents the levels, EDI and MOE of these compound found in sparkling wines under study. EC and formaldehyde were not included in table 1, as these compounds were found at low levels in all samples (not quantifiable since these values were between the LOD and LOQ of the method, 0.4 and 1[micro]g [L.sup.-1], respectively for both compounds), indicating no risk to consumer health. The occurrence of these compounds was reported for the first time in sparkling wines in the present study. The same exposure risk assessment approach adopted for the samples under study was used to verify if the levels of these compounds reported in the literature would pose a risk to consumers' health. In still wines, EC was reported, for example, in samples from China (13.7[micro]g [L.sup.-1]) (ZHANG et al 2014) and Portugal (54.1[micro]g [L.sup.-1]) (PERESTRELO et al. 2010), which exposure would result in MOE values of 4167 and 1042, respectively; and therefore, with health risk potential according to the threshold of World Health Organization (MOE<10,000) (WHO, 2010). Formaldehyde was found in wines from South Korea and Germany at average levels of 40.9[micro]g [L.sup.-1] (JEONG et al. 2015) and 130[micro]g [L.sup.-1] (JENDRAL et al. 2011), resulting in MOE values of 155,556 and 47,457, respectively; i.e., with no potential for risk to health.
Acetaldehyde, furfural and acrolein were also reported at low levels (concentrations lower than LOQ of the method: 1.5, 1.4 and 1.0[micro]g [L.sup.-1] and higher than LOD: 0.8; 0.5 and 0.7[micro]g/Lin 57, 71 and 76% of samples, respectively), which do not pose a health risk. In the other samples, the levels of acetaldehyde and furfural ranged from 5.2 to 50.5 and 10.5 to 41[micro]g [L.sup.-1], respectively (Table 1). Levels of these compounds were used for the calculation of the possible exposure, resulting in low EDI ranging from 0.023 to 0.247 and 0.047 to 0.185[micro]g [kg.sup.-1] of BW for acetaldehyde and furfural, respectively. Since acetaldehyde is genotoxic, the MOE was used to characterize the risk, which presented values higher than 10,000 (ranging from 2,387,179 to 226,521, as shown in table 1), indicating that the exposure to this aldehyde does not pose a health risk.
In the case of furfural (non-genotoxic), the EDI has also indicated no health risk, since EDI was lower than the ADI established by JECFA (2000). The same was verified for furfuryl alcohol found at levels from 10.4 to 42[micro]g [L.sup.-1], which correspond to EDI of 0.047 to 0.189[micro]g [kg.sup.-1] of BW, respectively; and therefore, also lower than the ADI (500pg [kg.sup.-1] of BW). Regarding the occurrence of these compounds reported in literature, only acetaldehyde was previously verified in sparkling wines (WEBBER et al., 2017), which levels was higher (up 60mg [L.sup.-1], which indicate risk for consumers' health) than those reported in this study.
Levels (20.3 to 36.7 [micro]g [L.sup.-1]) and EDI (0.092 to 166[micro]g [kg.sup.-1] of BW) of acrolein found in 24% of the samples under study were sufficient to represent risk to health (MOE values between 3931 and 2174, respectively; i.e, lower than WHO threshold (10,000) (WHO, 2010). This aldehyde was reported for the first time in sparkling wine and has rarely been evaluated in still wines in the literature. In still wines from South African, BAUER et al. (2012) have not detected acrolein and in German wines. KACHELE et al. (2015) reported acrolein in still wines at lower levels (0.7[micro]g [L.sup.-1]) than those verified in this study; and therefore without potential to cause health risk (MOE: 120,000 obtained using the same exposure approach adopted for the sparkling wines under study).
Levels of acetaldehyde, EC, formaldehyde, furfural and furfuryl alcohol reported in all sparkling wines do not pose a risk to the health of consumers. However, the occurrence of acrolein deserves attention. This compound was the only whose exposure indicates concern due to the levels detected and its possibility of reacting with the biological nucleophilic targets such as proteins, RNA and DNA, causing cellular dysfunction and/or mutagenicity. In our previous studies, acrolein was found in still wines elaborated using Syrah grapes from Sao Francisco Valley (LAGO et al., 2017) and Merlot from Campanha Gaucha (FERREIRA et al., 2018) in sufficient quantities to result risk to human health. This compound was also present in grapes used to winemaking (FERREIRA et al., 2019). Therefore, the environmental contamination of grapes with acrolein due to incomplete combustion processes (petrochemical fuels and wood) or photo oxidation of hydrocarbon found in air may be related the occurrence of this aldehyde in wines.
The role of precursors, fermentation, type of sparkling and storage in the acrolein levels should be elucidated to predict strategies focused on reducing the occurrence of this compound. In addition, it is important to mention that the evaluation of levels of carbonyl compounds and furfuryl alcohol, as well as the monitoring of levels of ochratoxin A and pesticide residues can be important tools for the quality control of wines.
Returned by the author 03.08.19
This study was funded by National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq), CNPq project Pq 425755/2016-9), the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) and Research Support Foundation of Rio Grande do Sul (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS), Edital Pesquisador Gaucho, Project 1995-2551/13-7).
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.
The authors contributed equally to the manuscript.
AMBAW, A. et al. Acrolein-mediated neuronal cell death and alpha-synuclein aggregation: Implications for Parkinson's disease. Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, v.88, p.70-82, 2018. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcn.2018.01.006>. Accessed: May, 14, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.mcn.2018.01.006.
ARTS, J.H.E., et al. Subacute (28-day) toxicity of furfural in Fischer 344 rats: A comparison of the oral and inhalation route. Food and Chemical Toxicology, v.42, p.1389-1399, 2004. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.03.014>. Accessed: Jun. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.03.014.
ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTIS. Methods of analysis of AOAC International, 16.ed. Arlington: AOAC, 1995. p.777-801 Available from: <https://law.resource.org/pub/ us/cfr/ibr/002/aoac.methods.1.1990.pdf>. Accessed: May, 14, 2018.
ATSDR. Agency for toxic substances and disease registry, toxicological profile for acrolein. US. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007; Available from: <https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=557&tid=102>. Accessed: Nov. 27, 2018.
BAUER,R.; KOSSMANNJ. Influenceofenvironmentalparameters on production of the acrolein precursor 3-hydroxypropionaldehyde by Lactobacillus reuteri DSMZ 20016 and its accumulation by wine lactobacilli, International Journal of Food Microbiology, v.137, n.28, 2010. Available from: <https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.10.012>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.10.012.
BURCHAM, P.C. Acrolein and human disease: untangling the knotty exposure scenarios accompanying several diverse disorders. Chemical Research in Toxicology, v.30, p. 145-161, 2017. Available from: <https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs. chemrestox.6b00310> Accessed: May, 14, 2018. doi: 10.1021/acs. chemrestox.6b00310.
DACHERY, B. et al. Exposure risk assessment to ochratoxin A through consumption of juice and wine considering the effect of steam extraction time and vinification stages. Food and Chemical Toxicology, v.109, p.237-244, 2017. Available from: <http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.09.013>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.09.013.
ERIKSSON, C. J. P. Genetic-epidemiological evidence for the role of acetaldehyde in cancers related to alcohol drinking. In V. Vasiliou, S. Zakhari, H. Seitz, J. Hoek (Eds.), Biological Basis of Alcohol-Induced Cancer. New york: Springer. (2015). Available from: <https://link. springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-09614-8_3>. Accessed: May, 14, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09614-8_3.
FERREIRA, D.C. et al. Carbonyl compounds in different stages of vinification and exposure risk assessment through Merlot wine consumption. Food Additives and Contaminants, v.35, p.2315-2331, 2018. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2018.153 9530> Accessed: Jan. 7, 2019. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2018.1539530.
FERREIRA, D.C. et al. Development of a method for determination of target toxic carbonyl compounds in must and wine using HSSPME-GC/MS-SIM after preliminary GC*GC/TOFMS analyses. Food Analytical Methods, v.12, 108-120, 2019. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12161-018-1343-6>. Accessed: Jan. 7, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s12161-018-1343-6.
IARD. International Alliance for Responsible Drinking. Available from: <http://www.iard.org/policy-tables/drinking guidelines-general-population/>. Accessed: Jun. 12, 2018.
IBGE. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. 2011. Available from: <https://ww2.ibge.gov.br/home/>. Accessed: Nov. 27, 2018.
JENDRAL, J. A. et al. Formaldehyde in alcoholic beverages: Large chemical survey using purpald screening followed by chromotropic acid spectrophotometry with multivariate curve resolution, International Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 2011, Article ID 797604. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/797604>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1155/2011/797604.
JEONG, HS. et al. Validation and determination of the contents of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde in foods. Toxicological Research, v.31, p.73-278, 2015. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.5487/ TR.2015.31.3.273>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.5487/ TR.2015.31.3.273.
JECFA. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, 2000. Available from: <http://apps.who.int/food-additives-contaminants-jecfa-database/chemical.aspx?chemID=3695> Accessed: Mar. 20, 2018.
KACHELE, M. et al. NMR investigation of acrolein stability in hydroalcoholic solution as a foundation for the valid HS-SPME/ GC-MS quantification of the unsaturatedaldehyde in beverages. Analytica Chimica Acta, 2014, 820, 112. Available from: <https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2014.02.030>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2014.02.030.
KENNISON, K. R. et al. Smoke-derived taint in wine: effect of postharvest smoke exposure of grapes on the chemical composition and sensory characteristics of wine, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, v.55, p.10897, 2007. Available from: <https:// doi.org/10.1021/jf072509k>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1021/jf072509k.
LAGO, L. O. et al. Influence of ripeness and maceration of the grapes on levels of furan and carbonyl compounds in wine-Simultaneous quantitative determination and assessment of the exposure risk to these compounds, Food Chemistry, v.230, p.594-603, 2017. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodchem.2017.03.090>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j. foodchem.2017.03.090.
LACHENMEIER, D.W., et al. Carcinogenicity of acetaldehyde in alcoholic beverages: risk assessment outside ethanol metabolism. Addiction, v.104, p.533-550, 2009. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02516.x>. Accessed: Nov. 27, 2018.
LIU, H. et al. Ethyl carbamate induces cell death through its effects on multiple metabolic pathways. Chemico-Biological Interactions, v.277, p.21-32, 2017. Available from: <https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0009279717304520?via%3Dihub>. Accessed: May, 14, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2017.08.008.
MONAKHOVA, Y.B. et al. The margin of exposure to formaldehyde in alcoholic beverages. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, v.63, p.227-237, 2012. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.2478/10004-1254-63-2012-2201>. Accessed: Nov. 27, 2018.
OSMAN, A.S. et al. Carvedilol can attenuate histamine-induced paw edema and formaldehyde-induced arthritis in rats without risk of gastric irritation. International Immunopharmacology, v.50, p.243-250, 2017. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j. intimp.2017.07.004>. Accessed: May, 14, 2018.
PERESTRELO, R. et al. Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography with time-of-flight mass spectrometry combined with solid phase microextraction as a powerful tool for quantification of ethyl carbamate in fortified wines. The case study of Madeira wine, Journal of Chromatography, v.1217, p.3441-3445, 2010. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chroma.2010.03.027>. Accessed: Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.03.027.
RIBEREAU-GAYON, D. et al. Handbook of Enology: The Microbiology of Wine and Vinifications. 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England, 2006.
SACHSE, B.et al. Bioactivation of food genotoxicants 5-hydroxymethylfurfural and furfuryl alcohol by sulfotransferases from human, mouse and rat: a comparative study. Archives of Toxicology, v.90, n.1, p. 137-48, 2016. Available from: <https:// link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-014-1392-6>. Accessed: May, 14, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s00204-014-1392-6.
SCHLATTER, J.et al. Application of the margin of exposure (MOE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic Example: Ethyl carbamate. Food and Chemical Toxicology, v.48, p.S63-S68, 2010. Available from: <http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.fct.2009.10.032. Accessed: Nov. 27, 2018.
VAZQUEZ-AGELL, M. et al. Inflammatory markers of atherosclerosis are decreased after moderate consumption of Cava (sparkling wine) in men with low cardiovascular risk. The Journal of Nutrition, v.137, n.10, p.2279-2284, 2007. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/137.10.2279>. Accessed: May, 14, 2018. doi: 10.1093/jn/137.10.227.
WEBBER, V.et al. Effect of glutathione during bottle storage of sparkling wine. Food Chemistry, v.216, p.254-259, 2017. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.08.042>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.08.042.
World Health Organization (WHO), Human Health Risk Assessment Toolkit: Chemical, 2010. Available from: <http:// www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/ra_toolkit/en/>. Accessed: Jun. 12, 2018.
ZHANG, J. et al. Simultaneous determination of ethyl carbamate and urea in alcoholic beverages by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with fluorescence detection. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, v.62, p.2797, 2014. Available from: <https://doi. org/10.1021/jf405400y>. Accessed: Jul. 12, 2018. doi: 10.1021/jf4054.
Gabriela Pelizza Peterie (1) Karolina Cardoso Hernandes (1) Luana Schmidt (1) Julia Barreto Hoffmann Maciel (1) Claudia Alcaraz Zini (2) Juliane Elisa Welke (1)* (iD)
(1) Instituto de Ciencia e Tecnologia de Alimentos (ICTA), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), 91501970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. E-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org.* Corresponding author.
(2) Instituto de Quimica (IQ), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Table 1--Levels [+ or -] standard deviation ([micro]g [L.sup.-1]), estimated daily intake (EDI, [micro]g [kg.sup.-1] of body weight) and margin of exposure (MOE, calculated only for genotoxic compounds including acetaldehyde and acrolein) of the toxic compounds reported in the sparkling wines analyzed by HS-SPME-GC-MS-SIM. EC and formaldehyde were not included in the Table, since these compounds were found at levels between the LOD and LOQ of the method (0.4 and 1[micro]g [L.sup.-1], respectively, for both compounds) in all samples. Acetaldehyde N. (a) Level EDI MOE 1 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 2 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 3 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 4 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 5 12.4 [+ or -] 0.0 0.056 1001075 6 50.5 [+ or -] 1.7 0.228 245809 7 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 8 37.9 [+ or -] 3.7 0.171 327529 9 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 10 31.1 [+ or -] 0.8 0.140 399143 11 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 12 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 13 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 14 30.5 [+ or -] 8.7 0.138 406995 15 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 16 5.2 [+ or -] 1.6 0.023 2387179 17 15.1 [+ or -] 4.0 0.068 822075 18 54.8 [+ or -] 8.9 0.247 226521 19 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 20 <LOQ <0.007 >8331096 21 10.2 [+ or -] 1.6 0.046 1216993 Acrolein N. (a) Level EDI MOE 1 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 2 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 3 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 4 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 5 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 6 33.1 [+ or -] 1.7 0.149 2411 7 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 8 33.4 [+ or -] 0.3 0.151 2389 9 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 10 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 11 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 12 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 13 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 14 28 [+ or -] 1.8 0.126 2850 15 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 16 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 17 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 18 36.7 [+ or -] 3.0 0.166 2174 19 20.3 [+ or -] 2.4 0.092 3931 20 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 21 <LOQ <0.009 >40101 Furfural Furfuryl alcohol N. (a) Level EDI Level EDI 1 <LOQ <0.006 15.8 [+ or -] 2.0 0.071 2 <LOQ <0.006 11.1 [+ or -] 0.1 0.050 3 12.9 [+ or -] 0.1 0.058 42 [+ or -] 3.9 0.189 4 <LOQ <0.006 14.4 [+ or -] 0.8 0.065 5 <LOQ <0.006 13.7 [+ or -] 1.4 0.062 6 15.6 [+ or -] 3.3 0.070 15.8 [+ or -] 1.7 0.071 7 <LOQ <0.006 14.4 [+ or -] 1.7 0.065 8 41.0 [+ or -] 0.4 0.185 13.9 [+ or -] 0.8 0.063 9 <LOQ <0.006 11.9 [+ or -] 0.7 0.054 10 32.1 [+ or -] 0.3 0.145 17.9 [+ or -] 0.5 0.081 11 <LOQ <0.006 13.4 [+ or -] 0.3 0.060 12 <LOQ <0.006 16.2 [+ or -] 0.6 0.073 13 <LOQ <0.006 13.6 [+ or -] 0.2 0.061 14 14.4 [+ or -] 3.0 0.065 15.5 [+ or -] 0.6 0.070 15 <LOQ <0.006 21. 9 [+ or -] 1.7 0.099 16 <LOQ <0.006 17.8 [+ or -] 0.3 0.080 17 <LOQ <0.006 14.2 [+ or -] 1.0 0.064 18 10.5 [+ or -] 3.4 0.047 20.3 [+ or -] 3.4 0.092 19 <LOQ <0.006 22.5 [+ or -] 2.9 0.102 20 <LOQ <0.006 10.4 [+ or -] 1.7 0.047 21 <LOQ <0.006 33.5 [+ or -] 4.0 0.151 (a) Sample number. LOQ: limit of quantification of HS-SPME-GC/MS-SIM method for acetaldehyde, furfural and acrolein was 1.5, 1.4 and 1.0[micro]g [L.sup.-1], respectively, according to the validation procedure previously reported by Ferreira et al. (2019).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||FOOD TECHNOLOGY|
|Author:||Peterle, Gabriela Pelizza; Hernandes, Karolina Cardoso; Schmidt, Luana; Maciel, Julia Barreto Hoffma|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2019|
|Previous Article:||Leukoencephalomalacia in horses associated with immature corn consumption/Surto de leucoencefalomalacia em equinos associado ao consumo de milho...|
|Next Article:||Outbreak of multidrug resistant Salmonella Typhimurium in calves at a veterinary hospital in Brazil/Surto de Salmonella Typhimurium multirresistante...|