Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Occurrence in Traditionally Smoked Chicken, Turkey and Duck Meat
An increasingly high interest is given to the sensory, nutritional, and sanogenic qualities of meat. Considering that poultry meat is nowadays the main quantitatively demanded meat for human consumption, its quality is largely verified and monitored. Toxic compounds are trace markers to be monitored...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Agriculture (Basel) 2023-01, Vol.13 (1), p.57 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | An increasingly high interest is given to the sensory, nutritional, and sanogenic qualities of meat. Considering that poultry meat is nowadays the main quantitatively demanded meat for human consumption, its quality is largely verified and monitored. Toxic compounds are trace markers to be monitored, as their health impacts often cause a high health risk for humans. We have evaluated how a traditional method of meat preservation—hot smoking with natural wood smoke—adds certain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to chicken, duck, and turkey meat. One- vs two-day smoking period and three wood types for smoking (plum, cherry, and beech) have shown that the highest concentrations of PAHs were present in duck meat, irrespective of smoking time or wood type. A higher concentration overall of PAHs was quantified when beech wood was used, followed by cherry and plum woods. Fluorene associated with beech wood gave the highest values for day 1 and day 2, followed by duck and turkey meat, respectively. Very significant differences (p < 0.001) were usually observed for duck meat when compared with chicken and turkey meat, but it was also easy to notice absolute values for Anthracene, Phenanthrene, or Fluoranthene. As expected, two-day smoking contributed to higher concentrations of PAHs in meat. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2077-0472 2077-0472 |
DOI: | 10.3390/agriculture13010057 |