You are on page 1of 9

Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 227:1191–1198

DOI 10.1007/s00217-008-0836-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in traditional
and industrial smoked beef and pork ham from Serbia
Jasna Djinovic · Aleksandar Popovic · Wolfgang Jira

Received: 9 November 2007 / Revised: 22 January 2008 / Accepted: 31 January 2008 / Published online: 15 February 2008
© Springer-Verlag 2008

Abstract Smoked beef and pork ham samples were analysed during process of smoking (after packing and storing)
for the presence of the 16 EU priority PAHs via Fast GC/
HRMS method. This study showed that there are diVerences in PAH contents between Wnal smoked beef ham
samples from traditional smokehouse (TS) (3.9 g kg¡1)
and industrial smokehouse (IS), (1.9 g kg¡1). Also there is
a diVerence in PAH contents in Wnal smoked pork ham
samples (4.9 g kg¡1, TS; 4.2 g kg¡1, IS). In beef and
pork ham samples from the same smokehouse diVerent
PAH contents were observed during smoking. The highest
content of examined PAHs in all beef and pork ham samples during smoking showed benzo[c]Xuorene (BcL) (beef
ham: from 0.3 g kg¡1 to 1.5 g kg¡1; pork ham: from
0.2 g kg¡1 to 2.1 g kg¡1).The maximum level for
benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) of 5 g kg¡1 in smoked meat products was not exceeded in any samples. Correlation statistic
analysis (P < 0.05) of obtained contents from samples both
from TS and IS showed that BaP is a good marker both for
16 EU priority PAHs and 12 IARC probably and possibly
carcinogenic PAHs (IS: RBaP/16PAHs = 0.95, RBaP/12PAHs =
0.96; TS: RBaP/16PAHs = 0.71, RBaP/12PAHs = 0.88).
J. Djinovic (&) · W. Jira
Institute for Chemistry and Physics,
Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food,
Location Kulmbach, E.-C.-Baumann-Str. 20,
95326 Kulmbach, Germany
e-mail: djjasna@yahoo.com
A. Popovic
Department of Chemistry, University of Belgrade,
PO Box 158, 11001 Belgrade, Serbia
J. Djinovic
Institute of Meat Hygiene and Technology, Kacanskog 13,
11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Keywords Smoked beef and pork ham ·
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ·
Traditional and industrial smoking

Introduction
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) consist of two or
more condensed aromatic rings and they are formed during
the incomplete combustion of organic material [1]. PAHs
generally become more lipophilic, less soluble and less volatile with increasing molecular weight. There are a lot of
diVerent types of anthropogenic sources that emit PAHs into
the atmosphere such as coal and wood burning, oil and gas
burning, agricultural Wres, etc. [2]. On the way they dissipate
through the atmosphere and become potential pollutants of
foods, vegetables and other plants like tea, etc. [3–5]. Simonich’s and Hites’s study [6] showed that 44 § 18% of the
PAHs emitted into the atmosphere from sources in the
northeast of the United States were removed by vegetation.
Meat and meat products are mainly contaminated with
PAHs during thermal processing, e.g., roasting, charcoal
grilling, and smoking [7, 8]. Smoking is one of the oldest
food preservation methods, exposing meat and meat products to thermal-generated wood smoke. Smoking is deWned
as the process of penetration of volatiles resulting from thermal destruction of wood into the surface of meat products
[9]. Smoke not only gives special taste, colour and aroma to
food, but also enhances preservation due to the dehydrating,
bactericidal and antioxidant properties of smoke [10, 11].
Today the preservative eVect of smoking is achieved by drying the surface and the creation of a microstatic condensate.
This process has been perfected continually by civilisation
in the course of time and smoking established to be a kind of
culinary art. Incomplete wood combustion during process of

123

Toxicological investigations indicated that dibenzo[a. chrysene (CHR). respectively. Serbia. during process of smoking. the temperature of the smoke was between T = 18 and 20 °C. Smoke was produced by Vemag glowing smoke generator H 504/C using beech wood. During those 15 days Samples B were smoked t = 64 h. After each sampling the meat products were placed in sterile vacuum bags (LDPE Polyethylene vacuum bags. Beef and pork ham from traditional smokehouse (Samples A) were continuously exposed by smoke during 15 days. vacuumed and placed in dark at T = ¡18 °C. The 16 EU priority PAHs that are recommended for analysis represent both 15 SCF-PAHs and JECFA PAH. Since 1 April 2005 the Commission Regulation (EC) No 208/2005 of 4 February 2005.1192 smoking can produce considerable amounts of PAH compounds [12]. Also the ScientiWc Committee on Food (SCF) recommended to the member states of European Union to analyse the contents of 15 PAH compounds. Reagents All solvents were obtained in picograde quality from Promochem (Wesel. dibenzo[a. As a control. Serbia. Smoke was produced by beech wood combustion. Zlatibor region.l]pyrene probably has a much stronger carcinogenic potential than benzo[a]pyrene [20]. Now these maximum levels are part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classiWed three PAHs of 16 examined PAHs in this study (BaA. The contents of analysed PAHs were compared between traditional and industrial smoked ham samples.h]anthracene (DhA). Cajetina. BkF. which are classiWed as priority (15 SCF-PAH) and to check the suitability of benzo[a]pyrene as a marker for the occurrence and impact of carcinogenic PAHs in food.i]perylene (BgP). Cajetina. BjF.l]pyrene is the most potent carcinogen among all polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [21]. These products were smoked both on traditional and industrial way. far from Belgrade. IcP. all products were taken before the process of smoking and they were marked as samples after 0 days of smoking. 123 Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 227:1191–1198 The aim of this study was to analyse the contents of the 16 EU priority PAHs in pork and beef ham from meat industry Zlatibor. indeno[1. Samples B were under controlled smoking program during 15 days. benzo[a]anthracene (BaA). BaP and DhA) as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) and nine (5MC. which is about 230 km southwest. DeP. benzo[j]Xuoranthene (BjF).l]pyrene (DlP). Cajetina. in February 2007. Materials and methods Food samples and sampling A total of 22 samples of pork and beef ham both from traditional and industrial smokehouses were analysed. In this case smoking was not under controlled conditions. UK). DlP was detected in environmental samples and has been characterized as the most potent carcinogenic species among all PAHs as yet tested in rodent bioassays [22]. the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommends to analyse benzo[c]Xuorene assessed to be relevant by the Joint FAO/ WHO Experts Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) [14–16]. Meat industries from Serbia are interested in following the newest EU regulations about food in order to check and improve food safety of their products. Extensive tumorigenicity studies in rodents revealed that dibenzo[a. Investigations on the penetration of PAH compounds into the inside of smoked meat products showed that nearly 99% of all PAHs were found in the outer 22% of the total weight of a cooked sausage [13]. Temperature and humidity were under outdoor conditions. benzo[a]pyrene (BaP). DiP and DlP) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) [17–19]. Samples were collected every 3 days during 15 days of smoking. The distance between smoke generator and meat samples was 3 m. benzo[b]Xuoranthene (BbF). Those are: benzo[c]Xuorene (BcL). Samples were transported on dry ice from Serbia to Germany. dibenzo[a. which provides maximum levels for benzo[a]pyrene in diVerent food groups came into force. Cambridge. benzo[k]Xuoranthene (BkF). which can be adsorbed by the surface of meat. The temperature and humidity were between T = 16–24 °C and 78–88%. This. traditional way of meat smoking is applied in practice only during the winter in meat industry Zlatibor. Packaging and transmission of samples followed Commission Directive 2005/10/EC [23]. In each cycle samples were smoked four times per 4 h. All samples were collected from meat industry Zlatibor. BbF.i]pyrene (DiP) and dibenzo[a. Germany). There are a lot of meat industries with a long tradition of producing smoked meat products in Serbia. The suitability of BaP as a marker for other PAHs was checked by applying correlation statistic analysis. Smoking was performed in four cycles.h]pyrene (DhP). the Serbian capital. Beef and pork ham from industrial smokehouse (Samples B) were smoked under controlled conditions.h. dibenzo[a. is famous for both traditional and industrial smoked meat products. dibenzo[a. DhP. benzo[g.e]pyrene (DeP). cyclopenta[c. Cryovac BB4. 5-methylchrysene (5MC). The drying material .d]pyrene (CPP). Industrial way of smoking is applied in practice during the whole year. Additionally.3-cd]pyrene (IcP).2.

Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 227:1191–1198 poly(acrylic acid).5 mL cyclohexane/ethylacetate (50:50 v/v) and Wltered through a PTFE Wlter with a pore size of 1 m. benzo[a]pyrene-13C4. Germany) and silica gel 60 (70–230 mesh) from Merck (Darmstadt. Germany). Afterwards.d. Germany). Fluorinated PAH standards (13-Xuorodibenzo[a.1 mm £ 0. at 30 °C min¡1 to T = 315 °C and at 3 °C min¡1 to T = 330 °C. teXon funnels and teXon tubes. Bio Beads S-X3 (200–400 mesh) was purchased from Bio-Rad Laboratories (Munich. 25 mm i. Germany). Germany). Seperation was performed on a TR-50MS column (10 m £ 0. benzo[a]pyrene-d12 and benzo[g. The following temperature program was used: isothermal at T = 140 °C for t = 1 min. and the eluate was dried in a nitrogen stream. Sample preparation for the analysis of meat products Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) About m = 5 g homogenised ham. at 5 °C min¡1 to T = 270 °C. m = 1 g dried deactivated silica was Wlled into commercial V = 8 mL SPE columns (12 mm i. Glass microWbre Wlters (18 mm i. 5-methylchrysene-d3. Silica. Milan. partial sodium salt-graft-poly(ethylene oxide).) were obtained from Dionex (Idstein. benzo[b]Xuoranthene13 C6. This system was modiWed with a Wtting rack. dibenzo[a. After conditioning of the columns with V = 3 mL cyclohexane the samples were applied and eluted with V = 10 mL cyclohexane. Fast GC/HRMS method Gas chromatography Fast GC/HRMS was performed using a TraceGC Ultra gas chromatograph (Thermo Fisher ScientiWc. and m = 3 g homogenised other meat products were levigated with the same amount of the drying material poly(acrylic acid).) and the SPE-Cartridges (12 mm i. benzo[k]Xuoranthene-13C6. injection volume was V = 1. at 4 °C min¡1 to T = 290 °C. at 30 °C min¡1 to T = 280 °C. The GPC column (25 mm i. The dried GPC-eluate was dissolved in V = 1 mL cyclohexane. The PTFE-Filters (1 m pore size. A PAH standard mixture containing isotope-labelled 13 ( C and 2H) PAH compounds (benzo[a]anthracene-13C6.2.).i]perylene-13C12.h]anthracene-d14. USA) and carried out with n-hexane at T = 100 °C and p = 10 MPa at a static time of t = 10 min.3-cd]pyrene-d12. Helium with a constant Xow of 0.5 L (splitless). Germany). dried for t = 12 h at T = 550 °C. The extraction was performed with an ASE 200 from Dionex (Sunnyvale.i]pyrene-13C12 in isooctane) and the recovery PAH standard mixture (benzo[a]anthracene-d12. Mass spectrometry IdentiWcation of PAH by GC/HRMS was performed using a DFS High-Resolution GC/MS (Thermo Fisher ScientiWc. V = 50 L of the PAH standard mixture containing isotope-labelled (13C and 2H) and Xuorinated PAH compounds were added as internal standard.l]pyrene and 5-Xuorobenzo[c]Xuorine in isooctane) were obtained from Biochemical Institute for Environmental Carcinogens (Grosshansdorf. Germany). was deactivated with 15% water. The remaining sample was carefully concentrated in a nitrogen stream to a volume of about V = 50 L.d. indeno[1.1 m) (Thermo Fisher ScientiWc. Solid phase extraction (SPE) This clean-up step to remove more polar substances was performed automatically with a modiWed ASPEC Xli [24]. Two static cycles were accomplished. Bremen. The Xush volume was 60% and the purge time t = 120 s. The solvent of the extract was evaporated in a water bath (T = 40 °C) using a nitrogen stream. Italy) equipped with a split/splitless injection port.i]perylene-d12 in isooctane) were obtained as single compounds from Promochem (Wesel. The resulting material was poured into V = 33 mL cells. Preparation for GC/MS analysis The dried eluate of SPE was dissolved in V = 1 mL isooctane and V = 50 L of the PAH-recovery standard mixture and transferred to a V = 1 mL tapered vial.d.h. partial sodium salt-graft-poly(ethylene oxide) was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (Munich. at 10 °C min¡1 to T = 240 °C. which were locked with glass microWber Wlters at the outlet end of the extraction cells. dibenzo[a. The solvent was removed with a rotary evaporator. Samples were eluted 1193 at a Xow rate of 5 mL min¡1 applying cyclohexane/ethylacetate (50:50 v/v) (dump time t = 0–36 min. chrysene-13C6. collect time t = 36–65 min).d. Reagent and procedural blanks were simultaneously analysed for to detect present PAH in parallel to each series of samples passing the extraction and cleanup procedures using drying material instead of real samples.) was Wlled with Bio-Beads S-X3 (weight of Wlling m = 60 g). Injection temperature was T = 280 °C. benzo[g.e]pyrene-13C6 and dibenzo[a.6 mL min¡1 was applied as carrier gas.) were purchased from Alltech (Unterhaching. Gel permeation chromatography (GPC) The evaporated ASE-extract was dissolved in V = 4.h. 123 .d. Germany).

124 0.046 0.026 0.025 0.120 0.182 0.025 0.030 0.039 0.045 0. The temperatures of the source and the transfer line were heated up to T = 280 °C and T = 300 °C.047 0.004 0.161 0.219 0.006 0.268 0.013 0.026 0.011 0.048 0.038 0.011 0.019 0. BjF.040 0.019 0.036 0.081 0.030 0.023 0. The contents of other examined PAHs in the samples from IS were not constantly higher in one type of ham.093 0.121 0.025 0.019 0.032 0.024 0. The important factor of PAH contamination is the surface/mass ratio.019 0.005 0.008 9 0.013 0. In the samples from IS the contents of BaA.004 0.281 0. BbF.049 0.128 0.013 0.529 0.013 0. DhA and IcP in pork ham samples were higher than in the beef ham samples during the process of smoking. Contents of diVerent PAHs in the investigated samples after process of smoking are shown in Fig.011 0.066 0. BcL showed the highest contents of all PAH compounds in beef and pork samples (both in TS and IS).016 0.018 ND 15 0.001 .046 0. Table 2 shows the contents of analysed PAH compounds in the pork ham samples both from TS and IS.068 0. 3.230 0.059 0.003 0.126 0.007 0.001 0.014 0.062 Samples from traditional smokehouse Samples from industrial smokehouse 3 0.062 0.049 0.006 ND 0.032 0.023 0. BaP. All samples were stored about 2 months before they were analysed.024 0.002 ND 6 0.016 0.104 0.003 0.013 0.006 0. Results present in this study describe PAH occurrence in smoked beef and pork ham samples after storage in LDPE vacuum bags in dark at T = ¡18 °C.000 (10% valley deWnition). Figure 1 shows the comparison of PAH contents in beef (Fig.008 15 1.230 0.107 0.016 0.068 0.006 0.049 0.017 0.005 0.035 0.041 0.019 0.594 0. 1a) and pork (Fig.011 0.005 0.006 0.013 0.163 0.029 0.291 ND Limit of detection. 1b) ham samples after process of smoking in TS and IS.018 ND ND 0.691 0.010 0.018 12 0.009 0.521 0.014 0. The resolution of the MS was tuned to 8. Results and discussion The contents of the 16 analysed PAHs in the beef ham samples both from traditional smokehouse (TS) and industrial smokehouse (IS) are shown in Table 1.028 0.016 0. The relative standard deviations (RSD) of all PAH compounds were below 20%.570 0.006 ND 0.092 0.793 0.005 ND ND 9 0.073 0.080 0.053 0.005 0.005 0.002 ND 12 0.030 0.025 0.301 0.043 0.018 0.214 0.038 0.026 0.1194 Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 227:1191–1198 Bremen.007 0.001 ND not detectable 123 BaA CPP CHR 5MC BbF BjF BkF BaP BgP DhA IcP DeP DhP DiP DlP 0.032 0.037 0.082 0. and from 61 to 75% for samples from IS.185 0.002 0.010 0.328 0.006 3 0.078 0.174 0.032 0. Germany) working in the electron impact (EI) positive ion mode and applying an electron energy of E = 45 eV.004 0.016 0. If we compare PAH contents in the samples from TS it could be seen that only the content of DhP in beef ham was higher than in pork ham during process of smoking.061 ND 0.796 0.008 0.032 0.014 0.240 0.209 0. A total of 22 ham samples were analysed. DhA and DlP showed the lowest content both in beef and pork ham samples from TS and IS.510 0.033 0. CHR.013 0.035 0.076 0. Some aspects of statistical analysis of the obtained contents are shown in Fig.004 0.027 0.005 0.049 0.021 0.164 0.016 ND 0. That ratio was very similar in analysed ham samples and considering that fact we could compare PAH contents between beef and pork ham samples. 2.015 0. If we consider only 12 IARC PAHs maximum content belongs to BaA. 2).047 0. The progress of the sum content of the 16 PAHs during the smoking process in beef ham samples was similar to the progress of the sum content of the 16 PAHs during smoking Table 1 Contents (g kg¡1) of the analysed PAHs in the beef ham samples Days of smoking BcL BaA CPP CHR 5MC BbF BjF BkF BaP BgP DhA IcP DeP DhP DiP DlP Sample before process of smoking 0 0. The changes of sum 16 PAHs content in analysed samples are shown in Fig.707 0.300 0. respectively.431 0.034 0.025 0. LOD (g kg¡1) PAHs BcL LOD 0.002 06 0.045 0.101 0.081 0.019 0.050 0. The contents of other examined PAHs were not constantly higher in one type of ham. 1.167 0.017 0.159 0.103 0.014 0. The recoveries ranged from 58 to 64% for samples from TS.146 0.019 0.004 0. Traditional smokehouse (TS) and industrial smokehouse (IS): the content of PAHs During process of smoking both in TS and IS contents of analysed PAHs were mostly increasing (Tables 1.026 0.447 0.027 0.027 0.

361 0.054 0.026 0.019 0.005 0.020 0.097 0.025 0.033 0.003 0.075 0.0 and 5.032 0.381 0.1% to the total content of all analysed PAHs in TS and IS.2 to 28.013 0. The sum of the PAHs content during smoking was not always higher in beef ham samples from TS (Fig.012 0.018 0.026 0. 2).584 0.003 0. the contents of 5MC and DhP were similar in beef ham samples from TS and IS (Table 1).005 15 2.026 0.079 0.037 0.002 0.6%.15 g kg¡1) is similar to their BaP content (0.053 0.045 0.406 0.007 0.070 0.060 0.074 0. 2b).005 Samples from industrial smokehouse 3 0. respectively.006 ND 0. The results reported by Jira et al.8% of 12 IARC possibly or probably Although the total content of analysed PAHs in pork sample at the end of smoking from TS was higher than in sample from IS.038 0. In the case of beef ham samples from IS the median BaP contribution was 4.396 0.311 0.225 0.011 0.011 0. In the case of pork ham samples from TS.028 0.007 0.073 0.008 0.019 0. respectively.004 0. If we compare our results for BaP in Wnal smoked pork ham with results reported by Kazerouni et al.007 0.007 0.056 0.203 0.168 0.0%) and 12.073 0.208 0.022 0.003 Samples from traditional smokehouse 3 0.001 0.023 ND ND ND 9 0.142 0.003 0.958 0.0% in samples from TS and IS.017 0.014 0.049 0.102 0.174 0.2% (with variation from 11.034 0.319 0.390 0.1 and 16.017 0.625 0.009 0.019 0.139 ND 0.020 0.027 0.032 0.0%).011 0.807 0.0% and varied from 2.006 0. In the present study it was found that DlP in TS beef ham samples contributed in general 1% to the total content of the 16 EU PAHs.002 9 0.084 0.834 0.146 0.035 0.014 0.026 0.7 to 5.021 0.007 ND 6 0.009 0.003 15 1.9% (with variation from 9. The content of DlP in pork samples from IS was 0.088 0.127 0.018 0.511 0.005 6 0.4 to 16.3% (median) (in relation to 16 EU PAHs) and varied from 3. If only probably or possibly carcinogenic 12 IARC PAHs are considered the BaP content in beef ham samples from TS and IS was on average 17.056 0.013 0.035 0.011 0.141 0. In the case of IS the PAH contents both in beef and pork ham were increasing during the whole time of examined period.048 0.047 0. [26] it could be seen that our BaP result for pork sample from TS (0.049 0.012 0.067 0.020 0.Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 227:1191–1198 1195 Table 2 Contents (g kg¡1) of the analysed PAHs in the pork ham samples Days of smoking BcL BaA CPP CHR 5MC BbF BjF BkF BaP BgP DhA IcP DeP DhP DiP DlP Sample before process of smoking 0 0.010 0.010 0.458 0. 123 .327 0.141 0.045 0. The contribution of BaP in beef ham samples from TS was 6.3 and 1. LOD (g kg¡1) PAHs BcL LOD 0.004 0. our results showed that DlP comprises in general 0.309 0.232 0. Pork ham TS–pork ham IS Comparison of the PAH contents in the same type of meat product Beef ham TS–beef ham IS The contents of analysed PAHs in the Wnal beef ham samples were higher in the samples from TS than in the samples from IS. during process of smoking this content was three times higher in IS than in TS samples (of six altogether measurements) (Fig.178 0.055 0.062 0.004 0.5% of the total content of 12 IARC PAHs.0% of the content of the 16 EU and 12 IARC PAHs. DeP.1% of the total content of 16 EU PAHs and 0.013 0.314 0.044 0.007 12 0. 2a).009 0.040 0.054 0.050 0.169 0.31 g kg¡1) is more than twofold. BaP content in pork ham sample from IS (0.037 0.021 0. respectively. Relating to the 12 IARC PAHs BaP comprises in general 13.098 0.064 0.276 0.022 0.429 0.004 ND Limit of detection.069 0.089 0.211 0.021 0.013 0.086 0.110 0.007 ND 0.019 0. [13] showed that BaP was the dominant compound within the group of other PAHs with higher carcinogenic potential (DhA.034 0.067 0.153 0. DhP.385 0.005 0.539 0.039 0.027 0.009 0. carcinogenic PAHs.001 BaA CPP CHR 5MC BbF BjF BkF BaP BgP DhA IcP DeP DhP DiP DlP 0.008 0. except for CPP and DiP.009 ND 0.107 0.0%.005 0.010 0.006 0. The median contribution of BaP in the pork ham samples during process of smoking was 4.134 0.030 0.080 0.021 0.069 0. DlP in IS beef ham samples was not detectable.7 to 12. respectively.043 0.051 0.001 ND Not detectable process in pork ham samples in TS (Fig.009 0.005 ND 0.042 0. A recent investigation [25] indicates the importance of analysing DlP because of its carcinogenic properties.13 g kg¡1).004 0.003 12 1.122 0.054 0.018 0.012 0. and 2.045 0.013 0.014 0.007 0.010 0.

3 are signiWcant (P < 0. RBaP/12PAHs = 0.88). Conclusions This study presents Wrst results concerning the contents of 16 EU priority PAH compounds in smoked hams from meat industry Zlatibor. The contribution of BaP in analysed. Figure 3 shows correlations between the content of BaP and the total content of the 16 EU priority PAHs. smoked raw ham samples was about 8% (median) and varied from approximately 6–12%. Results for BaP from this study (in relation to 16 EU PAHs) are in the range from approximately 4–6%. as well as between the content of BaP and the total content of the 12 IARC PAHs in analysed samples of beef and pork ham from TS (Fig. RBaP/12PAHs = 0. b) and IS (Fig. results indicate that BaP could be used as a marker both for 16 EU PAHs as well as for 12 probably and possibly carcinogenic PAHs in smoked meat products.05). Correlation coeYcients between BaP and the sum of the 16 EU PAHs as well as between BaP and sum of 123 Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 227:1191–1198 Fig. A comparison of PAH contents in the same types of ham in diVerent smokehouses (TS and IS) and diVerent types of ham (beef ham– pork ham) in the same smokehouse shows that PAH contents are diVerent and depend on smoking technology as well as on type of ham (pork or beef ham). d). Popovic & Jira.05) between BaP values and the obtained contents of analysed PAHs were calculated. 3a.96) are bigger than the same coeYcients in the samples from TS (RBaP/16PAHs = 0. 2 The changes of the sum of the 16 PAH contents in analysed samples during process of smoking in traditional smokehouse (TS) and industrial smokehouse (IS) (a Beef ham. the Pearson’s correlation coeYcients (R) (P < 0. Regardless of those diVerences. Popovic & Jira. 3c.1196 Fig. Cajetina.71. Statistical calculations To verify that BaP is a good marker for other PAHs in analysed smoked meat products. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in traditional and industrial smoked beef and pork ham from Serbia) DlP) [27] in smoked meat products.95. b Pork ham). . All correlations that are shown in Fig. (Djinovic. 1 The comparison of PAH contents in the beef (a) and pork (b) ham samples after process of smoking in traditional smokehouse (TS) and industrial smokehouse (IS). Serbia. (Djinovic. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in traditional and industrial smoked beef and pork ham from Serbia) 12 IARC PAHs in samples from IS (RBaP/16PAHs = 0.

15 0. Sunen E. Report No ICTIS/TR29.5 2. Arques JF.2 0. Weathers JB. Cajetina.948 BaP = -0. Casas C (2006) J Food Protect 69:2024–2028 123 . Perry R (1991) Water Air Soil Pollut 60:279–300 3.044 + 0. Maxey JA (1969) J Food Sci 34:146–148 12. Gonzalez V (2005) J Agric Food Chem 53:176–182 13. work was sponsored by a scholarship from the Government of the Republic of Serbia. Luo YM (2006) Environ Pollut 140:406–415 6.0 1.5 ∑ 16 PAHs 95% confidence 0.16 BaP BaP A 1197 0.20 0.6 0.5 3. We also thank Gorica Carapic and Miljko Nesanovic for their help in collecting samples.8 1.6 95% confidence 0.25 0. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in traditional and industrial smoked beef and pork ham from Serbia) Further work is necessary in order to get a more complete overview about PAH contents in other kind of smoked meat products from traditional and industrial smokehouses.4 1.0 ∑ 12 PAHs BaP BaP C 0. 3 Correlations between the content of BaP and the total content of the 16 EU priority PAHs. (Djinovic. summary and conclusion. Lin DH. Hites RA (1994) Nature 370:49–51 7. Centrich F.20 0.05 0 .0 0 . 8–17 February 2005. D.28 0. Jiao XC. Duran J. Coveney RM Jr.0 1. OV J Eur Union L34:3–5 15. for all the help she has given us. Afonso AM. the director of meat industry Zlatibor.28 0.00 5 . Berlin Verlag Chemie 10.0 1 .012 + 0. Field RA.708 B Traditional smokehouse (beef and pork ham) BaP = -0. Villalbi JR. OV J Eur Union L364:5–24 Acknowledgments J. Lester JN. Goldstone ME. http://www.10 0.0 3.0 4 . Chen SH. Kirk PW.12 0.6 3. Rome. Serbia. He W. Popovic & Jira.044 ∑ 16 PAHs Correlation: R = 0.10 0. Also.255 ∑ 12 PAHs Correlation: R = 0.4 ∑ 16 PAHs D Industrial smokehouse (beef and pork ham) BaP = -0. Liu WX. IEA Coal Research London 2.5 5.5 1. Emissions and eVects.5 0.882 95% confidence 0.016 + 0.2 1.24 0.5 2. 146008).077 ∑ 16 PAHs Correlation: R = 0.35 0.Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 227:1191–1198 Traditional smokehouse (beef and pork ham) BaP = 0. as well as between the content of BaP and the total content of the 12 IARC PAHs in analysed beef and pork ham samples from traditional and industrial smokehouse.0 3. Zhu LZ. Smith IM (1984) PAH from coal utilization. Martinez M.00 1 . Baek SO.0 4 .who.20 0. Djinovic’s Ph.0 2 . Zhu LZ.12 0.25 0. Ayala JH. TÓth L (1983) Chemie der Riiucherung.180 ∑ 12 PAHs Correlation: R = 0.2 0.962 0.00 0 0 . Bratzler LJ. Suarez A.8 0 .30 0.16 0.30 0. Aristimuno C. European Commission (2006) Commission Regulation No 1881/ 2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuVs. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (2005) SixtyFourth meeting.5 1.0 2 .00 0.5 4.24 0.08 0.4 0 .04 0. Jira W.048 + 0.3 5 0. Tao S. Simonich SL.5 1.2 Industrial smokehouse (beef and pork ham) 95% confidence 0. Kimko P (2005) Mol Nutr Food Res 49:637–647 8. JECFA/64/SC.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/summaries/en 16.0 0. Conde FJ. Fontcuberta M.04 0. Serrahima E. Kimko P (2002) J Chromatogr B 770:3–18 9. Republic of Serbia (Grant No. Fernandez-Galian B (2003) Food Res Int 36:111–116 11.15 0 1. Spooner ME.0 0. Speer K (2006) Fleischwirtschaft Int 4:11–17 14.5 4. European Commission (2005a) Commission Regulation No 208/ 2005 of 4 February 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 as regards polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Tu YT (2006) J Agric Food Chem 54:3658–3662 5. References 1.05 0. The authors are grateful to Spomenka Zagorac.08 0. Ziegenhals K.20 0. 4. this work was supported by the Ministry of Science.4 ∑ 12 PAHs Fig.

Luch A. Hendricks JD. p 389 18. Jacob J. Kensler TW. Platt KL. Glatt H.1198 17. Oesch F. Leece B. Jira W. Seidel A (1994) Carcinogenesis 15:2507–2516 22. supplement 7. p 41 19. Stegeman JJ. Bailey GS (2007) Carcinogenesis 28:611–624 26. Reddy AP. Lyon. vol 1–42. Hsu CH. Italy. Ramakrishna NVS. Luch A. pp 15–20 24. Lyon. Raab G. vol 65. p 33. Pereira C. overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: an updating of IARC monographs. Higginbotham S. Rothman N (2001) Food Chem Toxicol 39:423–436 27. Greenberg A. Seidel A (2006) Chem Biol Interact 161:37–48 123 Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 227:1191–1198 23. Kazerouni N. IARC (1987) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Cavalieri EL (1993) Carrinogenesis 14:875–878 21. pp 159–160 . Rogan EG. vol 46. IARC (1996) IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. European Commission (2005b) Commission Directive 2005/10/ EC of 4 February 2005 laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the oYcial control of the levels of benzo(a)pyrene in foodstuVs OYcial Journal of the European Union. Johansson SL. Schwind KH (2006) Mol Nutr Food Res 50:362–367 25. IARC (1989) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lyon. Doehmer J. Kleinhenz S. Pratt MM. L34. France 20. Raha D (1995) 15th Int Sym PAH Com Belgirate. Sinha R. Soballa VJ. Muller P. Schober W.

.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.