Next Article in Journal
Does the Easing of COVID-19 Restrictive Measures Improve Loneliness Conditions? Evidence from Japan
Next Article in Special Issue
Using Olive Cake as a Sustainable Ingredient in Diets of Lactating Dairy Cows: Effects on Nutritional Characteristics of Cheese
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Positioning of Mobile Cranes on Construction Sites Using Nonlinear Programming with Discontinuous Derivatives
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Impact of Smoking Technology on the Quality of Food Products: Absorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by Food Products during Smoking

by
Edyta Nizio
1,
Kamil Czwartkowski
1 and
Gniewko Niedbała
2,*
1
Department of Agroengineering and Quality Analysis, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wrocław, Poland
2
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 50, 60-627 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(24), 16890; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416890
Submission received: 20 November 2023 / Revised: 4 December 2023 / Accepted: 14 December 2023 / Published: 15 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Science and Technology and Sustainable Food Products)

Abstract

:
The food industry is striving for a sustainable development of thermal food processing. Smoking is an example of a process that has grown in popularity in recent years. There is a lack of systematic knowledge in the literature regarding this undervalued process, so the purpose of this review is to analyze the state of knowledge about the methods and technologies of smoking food products and their impact on changing the quality of essential food products. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the literature on smoking processes from the past two decades was conducted. The most essential components absorbed from smoke during smoking are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In the present work, 24 PAHs are summarized, and the capability of 12 food products to absorb them is described. Analysis of the principal components of absorbed PAHs showed that some products from different groups exhibit a similar ability to absorb these compounds, mainly influenced by their physical properties. The pre-treatment practices of raw materials before smoking, the smoking raw materials used, and their quality parameters were characterized (along with the effects of smoking methods on selected product groups: fish, meats, and cheeses). In addition, the gap in research concerning the absorption of other components of smoke, e.g., phenols, alcohols, ketones, and aldehydes, which directly impact food quality, is indicated.

1. Introduction

The food industry has a key role in the sustainability of the economy. Of particular importance is the thermal processing of food. These processes should be carried out in such a way as to generate the minimum possible amount of waste, reduce the consumption of energy and non-renewable raw materials, and not introduce substances harmful to human health into food products. Thermal treatment of food imparts properties that make them safe for consumption and extend their shelf life. It involves reducing the water content and inhibiting microbial growth [1]. In addition, it increases the assimilability of nutrients and improves the texture, consistency, and physicochemical properties [2]. In addition, there is a favorable change in organoleptic characteristics, i.e., taste, aroma, and appearance. There are several basic techniques of thermal processing of food: boiling, blanching, frying, stewing, baking, grilling, roasting, drying, and smoking [3,4]. To ensure the indicated factors of sustainable development, it is necessary to conduct the mentioned processes correctly.
This review focuses on the smoking process, which involves displacing water from the raw material while saturating the aroma. As a result, it reduces the activity of water and enzymes, and the growth of microorganisms is inhibited [5]. In addition, the elevated temperature causes the chemical compounds present in the smoke (mainly phenolic derivatives, organic acids, and carbonyl compounds) to react with food ingredients, imparting flavor and aromatic properties and changing the color and texture of the product. However, smoking also causes contamination of foodstuffs with toxic and carcinogenic substances, such as PAHs, cyclic amines, and formaldehyde. Due to the harmfulness of these substances, the aim is to minimize their contribution to the product [6]. In the smoking process, it is crucial to set temperature conditions for an experimentally determined period and in suitable smoking equipment with controlled smoke levels [7].
The high content of PAHs in products is an undesirable phenomenon, as they are carcinogens and cause cardiovascular diseases. In the European Union, there are regulations about the maximum content of certain PAHs in meat and fish by legal acts (e.g., Commission Regulation (EU) No 2023/915 of 25 April 2023, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1321/2013 of 10 December 2013, Commission Regulation (EU) No 835/2011 of 19 August 2011, and European Parliament Regulation and of the Council (EC) No 2065/2003 of 10 November 2003), and this mainly applies to Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP). However, there are no regulations regarding the content of PAHs in smoked cheeses. In the cited legal acts, the maximum BaP content cannot exceed 5.0 µg/kg, while the total content of Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), Benz[a]anthracene (BaA), Benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbF), and Chrysene (Chr) may not be greater than 30.0 µg/kg [8,9,10,11]. For the sustainable development of smoking technologies, it becomes necessary to select the technological parameters of the smoking process in such a way that the products subjected to it do not pose a threat to human health. This can be ensured, e.g., by limiting the content of PAHs in smoked products [12,13]. To make this possible, it is necessary to check how individual products subjected to smoking absorb these compounds from smoke. Only then will it be possible to manipulate technological parameters to reduce their amount.
The literature needs to have a systematization of current knowledge about the smoking process, smoking technologies, their effects on various food products, and proper conduct of the process to ensure sustainable development. Recent research has described only the profile of PAHs, the texture of products, and the impact of wood type on the product’s organoleptic characteristics. However, there needs to be more research on, e.g., the content of phenols, organic acids, ketones, and other volatile smoke compounds and their effects on the product due to their crucial role in sustainable processing. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze smoking technologies’ state of the art and their impact on commonly consumed smoked food products. The study’s results made it possible to systematize the knowledge of food processing by smoking methods and placed it in sustainability development with an indication of directions for future empirical research. Answering two formulated research questions will make it likely to achieve the adopted aim of the work.
  • RQ1: How do smoking methods and raw materials affect the various products smoked for sustainable development?
  • RQ2: How does the change in the saturation of a smoked product with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons absorbed from smoke correlate with its safety for consumption?

2. State of the Art

The state of the art was analyzed using over 400 scientific articles and legal acts. As a result of a thorough content selection, 126 papers describing the results of empirical research, 9 review papers, and 4 regulations of the European Union Commission were used for the study. The cited publications were selected using Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and PubMed. Keywords in the databases were smoking methods, meat smoking, fish smoking, cheese smoking, absorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and methods of smoke production.
Based on the literature analysis, smoking technologies and their effects on the smoking product, the selection of smoking raw materials, methods of smoke production, and the impact of consuming smoking products on human health were characterized. Twenty-four polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were identified: Benz[a]anthracene (BaA), Benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbF), Benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkF), Benzo[j]fluoranthene (BjF), Benzo[g,h,i]perylene (BgP), Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), Benzo[c]fluorene (BcL), Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene (DlP), Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene (DiP), Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene (DeP), Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene (DhP), Dibenz[a,h]anthracene (DhA), Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene (IcP), Cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene (Cpp), 5-Methylchrysene (5MC), Chrysene (Chr), Pyrene (Pyr), Fluorene (Fle), Phenanthrene (Phe), Anthracene (Ant), Naphthalene (Nap), Fluoranthene (Fla), Acenaphthylene (Acl), and Acenaphthene (Ace). The results were statistically analyzed using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) in Statistica 13.3 software (StatSoft, Cracow, Poland).

2.1. Smoking Technologies Characteristics

The main effect of the smoking process is preserving food. It also imparts individual sensory properties (change in taste, aroma, and color) and causes changes in the product’s structure. The intensity of absorption of smoke components into the product depends primarily on the density of the smoke and the type of fuel from which it is produced [14]. This process slows down the oxidation of food components, especially fats. In addition, some of the compounds in the smoke have bacteriostatic, bactericidal, or fungicidal properties, which prolongs the suitability of food for consumption [15]. The type of wood determines the flavor, aroma, and color properties of processed food since during smoking, a coating, the so-called “crust” is produced on the surface, which is the result of the reaction of smoke components and product proteins (protein surface shear) [16]. An important aspect of smoking technology is the content of harmful compounds in the finished products, components of wood smoke gases, and their impact on human health. In addition, the proper selection of smoking technologies determines the reduction in waste and energy consumption. Compounds penetrating from the smoke into the product are mainly polycyclic unsaturated hydrocarbons (e.g., benzopyrenes, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene), as well as volatile carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetone), formic or acetic acid, methyl alcohol, and dioxins. The permissible content of these compounds in food products is regulated by law [17].

2.1.1. Smoking Methods

The literature most often distinguishes four basic smoking methods (Figure 1). The classification of smoking methods depends mainly on the temperature exposure of the product. The proper choice of smoking method makes it possible to reduce the content of substances penetrating from the smoke into the product, minimize the amount of smoking raw materials, and reduce energy losses.
Šimko, 2005 states that cold temperature smoking is a long-term process (1–14 days) performed in the temperature range from 15 to 25 °C and at a relative humidity of about 95% [18]. Cold smoke smoking is supposed to impart flavor to the products, significantly increase shelf life, and protect them from microorganisms [19]. The long duration of the process results in significant weight loss. It is also the least energy-intensive and waste-reducing process. The most common products smoked this way are previously untreated meats, e.g., raw hams, sausages, and fermented salami [20,21].
Smoking with warm smoke, with a temperature from 25 to 50 °C and a humidity of about 80%, takes 4 h to 2 days. This smoking method pasteurizes the raw material by heating and drying the outer layer so that the product inside retains the characteristics of the natural product. This is also a low-energy process and does not cause the product to absorb many harmful substances from the smoke. These factors are favorable for the sustainable development of smoking technologies [22].
Smoking with hot smoke at 50 to 85 °C consists of drying, proper smoking, and surface roasting. Drying removes water from the surface at 50 to 55 °C for several tens of minutes, with an entire air supply. Smoke at 45 to 60 °C is then introduced and smoked for a minimum of 100 min, causing the top layer of the product to harden and darken. During the third phase, due to temperatures ranging from 60 to 85°C, the outer layers are cut, insulating the center from moisture in the air [23,24]. Hot smoking does not cause much loss in the weight of the product and shortens the required process time, but it is an energy-intensive process that increases the absorption of harmful substances from smoke [25].
Smoking with partial roasting proceeds similarly to smoking with hot smoke. However, in the first phase, smoke is used for 20 to 40 min, with a temperature of no less than 60 °C. The inner layers of the product reach temperatures over 85 °C, resulting in partial roasting [26]. As a result of achieving such parameters, there is a significant melting of fat and evaporation of water, which translates into increased weight loss compared to previous smoking methods [27]. This method results in the most harmful substances entering the product and is the most material- and energy-intensive.
Smoking uses a smoking extract (chemical smoking) formed by pyrolysis of wood and further condensation of vapors and fractionation of the resulting condensate (a broad spectrum of phenolic compounds, carbonyl compounds, and organic acids). The resulting condensate is filtrated to remove soot and other solid impurities [28,29]. The purpose of using a smoke preparation is to impart a smoky flavor to products without using traditional techniques for this thermal treatment, which significantly speeds up production and reduces its cost [30]. Coating products with liquid smoke (LS) involves spraying, misting, and immersion in specially adapted chambers [21,31]. Spraying consists of spraying the product with the product before heat treatment. In misting, the product is in a smoking chamber with a sprayer dispensing appropriate LS doses. Immersion involves dipping the product in a diluted solution of the smoking preparation [32,33,34,35]. Proper preparation of smoke extracts is low-cost and eliminates the presence in food of most of the harmful substances that are naturally contained in smoke.

2.1.2. Pre-Smoking Treatment

Before smoking, products should undergo pre-treatment consisting of cleaning, parceling, curing, dripping, and drying. Proper raw material processing reduces smoking time, automatically reducing the cost of the entire process. In addition, it affects the parameters of the product during storage. The activity that most significantly impacts the product is curing (marinating). Curing involves mixing the food product with a curing mixture consisting of water and curing salt (NaCl, KNO2, or NaNO2), often with the addition of other agents, e.g., sugar, alcoholic beverages (wine, beer), phosphates, ascorbic acid. These additives improve the taste of the product. In addition to enhancing the taste, the curing process also affects the product’s aroma, fixing its color and slowing the oxidation process. Salt in the solution inhibits the multiplication of bacteria (pre-preservation of the product) and removes excess water [36]. The concentration of ingredients in the curing mixture and the duration of action are selected depending on the type of raw material and its properties, which the final product should have. A distinction is made between dry curing and wet curing [37,38].
Dry curing mainly involves meat and fish. It consists of adding a dry marinating mixture to a wet split product, which dissolves in the plasma, allowing the mixture’s ingredients to penetrate deep into the product [39,40].
Wet curing uses a marinating mixture with varying concentrations of curing salts and additives in two ways: temporarily immersing the product in the marinade (immersion curing) and injecting it with the curing solution [41,42].
After the curing process, the products are subjected to dripping, usually performed in a refrigerated room with a temperature of about 5 °C for 24 h. In addition, after dripping, the product can be subjected to drying at a temperature of 40 to 50 °C in a heated smoking chamber without access to moisture and smoke, significantly reducing the processing time [43,44].

2.1.3. Smokehouses and Smoking Chambers

Figure 2 shows a diagram of a traditional smokehouse. The design of the smoking device is selected depending on the smoking method, quantity, and type of products. It allows control and stabilization of the parameters of the smoking process so that it is possible to achieve the required shelf life of the products and the desired sensory characteristics [45]. An essential feature of any smoking chamber is smoke control, i.e., achieving such a flow of smoke through the chamber that it displaces air masses from inside [46,47].
The cold temperature smoking chamber design should allow maintaining a constant temperature inside it in the range of 15–25 °C. A chilling system is required if the ambient temperature significantly exceeds the desired process temperature [48]. This system consists of a cold water circuit and a fan. The desired smoke temperature is achieved through an appropriate combustion method of the smoke-forming raw material while controlling the placement of the furnace and the combustion intensity [49].
In devices designed for high-temperature smoking, it is crucial to maintain an even flow of smoke and air mixture. Due to the significant temperature difference between the smoke and the smoking raw material, the smoke may condense, leading to dead zones inside the smokehouse, which causes uneven smoking of raw materials. To eliminate this phenomenon, smokehouses with built-in fans or more than one smoke supply are constructed [50]. A particular case of high-temperature smoking devices is smoking and scalding chambers, where smoke and hot steam are delivered inside to steam the product (quick cutting of surface layers) [51].

2.2. Smoke Characteristics

2.2.1. Selection of Smoke-Forming Raw Material

Hardwood in the form of wood chips or swarf derived from deciduous trees or a liquid smoking preparation is the most often used wood in the smoking process. Coniferous wood is not suitable for smoking due to the presence of resin, which releases highly carcinogenic compounds. In addition, hardwood has a better ratio of hemicelluloses to other components, which gives a better smoking effect [52]. The moisture content of the wood also impacts the smoking effects, which should not exceed 20% to reduce PAHs emissions, as this is a necessary factor in sustainable development [53,54]. The hardness of the wood is also essential. Hardwood, because of its high density, burns slower than softwood, which means that the volatile compounds formed are slower to oxidize. As the hardness of wood increases, the efficiency of producing smoke components relevant to the smoking process also increases. Wood should be free from fungi, putrefaction, or humus processes. Table 1 presents the basic parameters of wood hardness.
The most used tree species are alder, beech, ash, maple, acacia, oak, and fruit trees such as cherry, apple, or walnut. The research so far shows that the organoleptic and physicochemical properties of smoking products are influenced not only by the hardness of the wood but also by the type of tree. It is mainly due to the composition of smoke, which depends on compounds unique to a given type of tree and the burning temperature of wood. Table 2 presents the influence of smoke from the use of wood of different kinds of trees on the organoleptic qualities of smoking products.

2.2.2. Smoke Production Methods

Smoke develops during controlled slow combustion of the smoking material, the course and effect of which depends on the access of atmospheric oxygen. There is thermal degradation of smoke-forming raw material with full access to oxygen and pyrolysis, i.e., combustion with limited access to oxygen. Differences in the parameters of the methods used to produce smoke make it possible to control its chemical composition, for which reason the organoleptic characteristics of the product change. The process of smoke production consists of two phases, during which the thermal decomposition of the smoke-forming raw material occurs first, followed by the oxidation of volatile compounds formed in the previous reaction. During the combustion of a smoke-forming material, the various compounds that make up this material burn as the temperature increases. Several methods of smoke production are known, but they belong into two groups: flame and flameless (Table 3). The proper choice of smoke production method reduces the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

2.3. Smoking Specificity of Selected Food

2.3.1. Smoking Fish

Smoking fish improves the nutrient absorption, preserves them, and gives them a specific taste, color, and aroma. The most popular fish species used in smoking are salmon, mackerel, trout, and herring. As a result of temperature and smoke, the fish are dried and saturated with smoke components, thanks to which they gain the desired characteristics [87]. Smoke should have low humidity and no tar. The process parameters, which are selected depending on the fish species, weight, and fat content, significantly impact the final effect of smoking fish [88]. Oily fish absorb more significant amounts of smoke compounds; therefore, their taste and aroma will be more intense than lean fish, which can be quickly dried out. The specific nature of fish allows it to be subjected to low- and high-temperature smoking [3,89].

2.3.2. Smoking Meat

The most common type of food products subjected to smoking is meat, cured in brine before smoking. The choice of smoking technology is dictated mainly by the kind of meat and the product’s desired sensory profile and durability [90]. Cold smoke is used for durable and semi-durable products, e.g., raw sausages, steamed sausages, bacon, or bacon. When smoking with warm or hot smoke, the surface of the products dries and becomes harder. This smoking method is suitable for perishable products like pork, poultry, and beef portions [91,92].

2.3.3. Smoking Cheese

To subject the cheese to the smoking process, it must be applicably prepared and have a compact consistency. The initial processing of this smoking raw material depends on its durability and desired taste [93]. It is recommended to smoke cheeses with high fat and water content using cold or warm smoke. However, lean, dry, and compact cheeses can also be smoked hot or with partial baking [94]. The smoking time depends on the type of cheese and may last up to several hours. Smoking cheese usually takes the shortest time compared to the smoking processes of other products [95,96].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of Chemical Compounds Found in Smoked Products

Due to the effects of smoke, many chemical substances accumulate in smoked products. Ledesma et al., 2016 indicate that products obtained in the smoking process contain toxic mutagenic and carcinogenic compounds, the level of which in the products depends on the selected smoking method, the smoke-producing raw material and its humidity, as well as the duration of the process [97]. Most of these compounds come from the group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which include over 200 substances, several of which are extremely dangerous to human health. The research of Flores et al., 2019 showed that separating these compounds from smoke is impossible during the process. However, it should not be attempted because these compounds give the products characteristic organoleptic values [98].
Additionally, due to the lipophilic properties of PAHs, an important determinant is the fat content in the product, which increases the absorption capacity of these compounds, as proven by Chen et al., 2013 [99]. According to Zhu et al., 2012, the concentration of PAHs is influenced by long-term smoking directly at the fire. The level of PAHs in smoke increases with the increase in the pyrolysis temperature of the smoke-producing raw material, and above 500 °C, the content of the PAHs increases significantly. Most PAHs are found in the outer layers of the product [100]. Du et al., 2022 claim that conducting the smoking process using modern techniques and smoking chambers allows for strict control of the parameters and composition of the produced smoke, which may reduce the content of PAHs in products [69].
Moreover, as indicated by two independent groups of researchers (Petričević et al., 2018 and Yin et al., 2021), hundreds of other substances that do not belong to the PAHs group can be identified in smoked products [101,102]. These are mainly alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, organic acids, dioxins, heterocyclic amines or nitrosamines, esters, terpenes and phenols. The literature does not describe the determination of the content of these substances in smoked products. Therefore, for this article, it was decided to compare smoked products only by the content of PAHs (Chapter 3.2). Nevertheless, the listed substances (as indicated by Shishov et al., 2020 and Albishi et al., 2019) significantly impact the physicochemical and organoleptic characteristics of smoked products [103,104]. Research by Ledesma et al., 2015 on smoked products has shown that this product is highly resistant to oxidative processes and microbiological factors due to the preservative properties of smoke with a high content of the substances mentioned above [105]. According to Erbay et al., 2013, the dominant role in this process is the antioxidant effect of phenolic compounds in smoke. The phenols in smoked meats include guaiacol, eugenol, syringe, methyl guaiacol, cresols, and dihydrogen.
Phenols are crucial in shaping the aroma of smoked meat [106]. Ahmad et al., 2005 attribute the antiseptic effect to formaldehyde, as well as acetic acid and formic acid, which lower the pH of the product, which means that the antiseptic effect does not wear off when smoking ends [107]. However, both the studies of Duma-Kocan et al., 2020 and Cheng et al., 2023 prove that the effect obtained during smoking is caused by the synergistic effect of substances contained in the smoke, process temperature, reduced water activity and compounds contained in the product [74,108]. In the past, it was believed that sensory properties depended solely on the amount of resin compounds and tar. Research by Varlet et al., 2007 showed that the formation of a characteristic crust on the product occurs due to the Maillard reaction between smoke carbonyl compounds and product proteins [75]. Somoza et al., 2005 and Flores et al., 2019 proved that, as the temperature increases and the product dries, a dark brown color develops, which is also influenced by the deposition of solid smoke particles and the polymerization of phenols on the product’s surface. Moreover, organic acids contained in smoke fix the resulting color [98,109].

3.2. Absorption of PAHs by Popular Smoked Products

Table 4 presents the PAH profiles in popular smoked products.
The research results of various groups of scientists presented in Table 4 show that, in practice, it is complicated to maintain the legally required PAH content. In relation to the results obtained from the literature to the European Union regulations mentioned in the Introduction, we noted that only rainbow trout, sausages, and poultry fall within the normal range. In other fish and meat products, the permissible contents of the aforementioned PAHs are exceeded twice or thrice [8,10]. A common feature of these products is their high fat content, which, as mentioned earlier, increases the absorption of PAHs from smoke. Admittedly, cheeses are not covered by this directive, but in relating the PAH content of cheeses to these guidelines, we noted that only mozzarella would not meet the maximum content criteria set. This is probably due to the very loose structure of this cheese, which facilitates the absorption of PAHs.
Studies by Chen et al., 2021 and Cheng et al., 2023 indicate that the content of PAHs in products depends on the duration of the smoking process. Products that require prolonged smoking and, therefore, have a higher surface area to mass ratio absorb considerably more PAHs. The solution to this problem may be to divide the products into smaller parts, which will then be smoked (parcellation) [74,102]. The same problem was dealt with by Djinovic et al., 2008, who showed that the content of PAHs in ham, bacon, and sausages initially increased evenly during cold smoke smoking, but after three days, the content of some PAHs, e.g., Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene (DiP) and Cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene (Cpp) increased–differently, for different products. They attributed this relationship to the ratio of specific surface area to the mass of individual products [123].
The analysis of Table 4 shows that cottage cheese has by far the most remarkable ability to absorb PAHs from smoke, in which the PAH content is almost three times higher (average 2018.24 µg/kg) than in bacon (average 727.15 µg/kg). It is probably due to the loose structure of the product and its consistency, which allows for the penetration of more PAHs into the product, as indicated by studies conducted by Guillén et al., 2011 and Pluta-Kubica et al., 2020 [95,136]. In turn, the least PAHs are absorbed by Italian cheese (average 16.28 µg/kg), which does not require a long-term smoking process, as described in the study by Pagliuca et al., 2003 [137].
The content of PAHs in smoked products can be manipulated by modifying the pre-treatment of products and the technological parameters of the smoking process. At the stage of product pre-treatment, Chen et al., 2013 showed that adding sugar to the marinade can even double the content of PAHs in the products [99]. Yurchenko et al., 2005 indicate that fish marinated in oil absorb many PAHs because oil makes these compounds migrate more easily into the product [114]. Mihalca et al., 2011 claim that the degree of fragmentation of the smoke-producing raw material plays an essential role in the final content of PAHs in the product. The use of highly fragmented wood chips significantly reduces the content of PAHs [121]. Pöhlmann et al., 2012 proved that smoking at elevated temperatures contributes to increasing the content of PAHs in products and forming more complex compounds with more aromatic rings and higher molecular weight, which are much more harmful to human health [125].
Based on the analysis of the main components of the PAH content in popular smoked products (Figure 3), we found that of the PAHs selected for study, thirteen are present in all analyzed products. Among them, Fluorene (Fle), Phenanthrene (Phe), Anthracene (Ant), and Naphthalene (Nap) have the largest share. As Li et al., 2016 pointed out, these compounds have potent carcinogenic effects, meaning that smoked products should not be part of a person’s daily diet [139]. The analysis of the principal components showed that some products from different groups have similar abilities to absorb and accumulate PAHs from smoke, as indicated by tests conducted by Khalili et al., 2023 and Fasano et al., 2016 [122,132]. Based on the available data, we found that mozzarella has a similar ability to adsorb PAHs as fish (salmon, rainbow trout, herring), which is probably due to the soft structure of this type of cheese. It may be indicated by research conducted by Esposito et al., 2015 [93]. In turn, Djinovic et al., 2008 claim that the main factor causing the accumulation of PAHs is the ratio of the product’s specific surface area to its mass [123]. Ledesma et al., 2015 claim that the high porosity of the product favors the accumulation of PAHs in meat, which is the reason for the much higher content of these compounds in bacon than in sausages or poultry [105]. However, the examined literature did not explain why the absorption of PAHs by mackerel is much higher than among the other fish discussed. Other products from different groups with similar PAH absorption capacities include sausages, poultry, Italian cheese, and hard cheese. Studies conducted by Coroian et al., 2023 and Pagulica et al., 2003 on poultry and Italian cheese show that this phenomenon is influenced by the salinity of the curing mixture [131,137].

4. Conclusions

The sustainability-smoking process gives products unique organoleptic properties and should be able to reduce the absorption of harmful substances from smoke. In addition, reducing the energy intensity of the process and the smoking of raw materials is crucial for the environment. Traditional smoking methods increase many substances that negatively affect human health. Based on currently available data, cold temperature smoking results in a lower accumulation of PAHs compared to other methods. However, this is also the most time-consuming process. To improve and preserve the organoleptic qualities of the raw product and reduce the time-consuming process, the recommended form of smoking is hot smoking. An increase in the combustion temperature of the raw material significantly increases the presence of substances harmful to human health in the product. Therefore, choosing a method of generating smoke depends on reducing the combustion temperature of the raw material as much as possible by reducing the pressure in the combustion chambers, using gases supporting smoking, and/or using pressure-pressed chips of the smoke-generating raw material. An essential element is the correct preliminary processing of products. In particular, select a curing mixture with appropriate salinity and do not use marinades rich in fats. The article also shows that the use of hardwood helps reduce the content of PAHs in smoke. The ability to adsorb smoke components is mainly influenced by the physical properties of smoked products (e.g., structure, water, and fat content) and the product’s specific surface area ratio to its mass and porosity.
Smoke products contain many additional substances (phenols, aldehydes, ketones, terpenes, alcohols, acids) that are absorbed into them from the smoke. Their synergistic effect shapes the qualities of the final product. Only the content of PAHs is well described in the literature. Therefore, future empirical research should include an attempt to determine the remaining smoke components in smoked products. Additionally, research on smoked vegetarian and vegan products is lacking. It is necessary to subject these products to the smoking process and check how the plant products absorb the smoke components. In conclusion, sustainable development of smoking technologies should involve reducing energy intensity and the consumption of raw materials. These conditions are met by the low-temperature smoking process, which is the recommended method of smoking food.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.N.; methodology, E.N. and G.N.; software, K.C.; validation, K.C. and G.N.; formal analysis, E.N. and G.N.; investigation, E.N. and G.N.; resources, E.N.; data curation, E.N. and G.N.; writing—original draft preparation, E.N. and G.N.; writing—review and editing, K.C. and G.N.; visualization, E.N. and K.C.; supervision, E.N. and G.N.; project administration, E.N. and K.C.; funding acquisition, K.C. and G.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bax, M.-L.; Aubry, L.; Ferreira, C.; Daudin, J.-D.; Gatellier, P.; Rémond, D.; Santé-Lhoutellier, V. Cooking temperature is a key determinant of in vitro meat protein digestion rate: Investigation of underlying mechanisms. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 2569–2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bhat, Z.F.; Morton, J.D.; Bekhit, A.E.; Kumar, S.; Bhat, H.F. Thermal processing implications on the digestibility of meat, fish and seafood proteins. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 4511–4548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Singh, L.; Varshney, J.G.; Agarwal, T. Polycyclic Aromatic hydrocarbons’ formation and occurrence in processed food. Food Chem. 2016, 199, 768–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Goñi, S.M.; Salvadori, V.O. Prediction of cooking times and weight losses during meat roasting. J. Food Eng. 2010, 100, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Racovita, R.C.; Secuianu, C.; Ciuca, M.D.; Israel-Roming, F. Effects of smoking temperature, smoking time, and type of wood sawdust on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon accumulation levels in directly smoked pork sausages. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 9530–9536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Arvanitoyannis, I.S.; Kotsanopoulos, K.V. Smoking of fish and seafood: History, methods and effects on physical, nutritional and microbiological properties. Food Bioprocess. Technol. 2012, 5, 831–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Onopiuk, A.; Kołodziejczak, K.; Szpicer, A.; Wojtasik-Kalinowska, I.; Wierzbicka, A.; Półtorak, A. Analysis of factors that influence the PAH profile and amount in meat products subjected to thermal processing. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 115, 366–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. European Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on Maximum Levels for Certain Contaminants in Food. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/915/oj (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  9. European Commission Regulation (EU) 1321/2013 of 10 December 2013 on Establishing the Union List of Authorized Smoke Flavoring Primary Products for Use as such in or on Foods and/or for the Production of Derived Smoke Flavorings. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2013/1321/oj (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  10. European Commission Regulation (EU) 835/2011 of 19 August 2011 Amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as Regards Maximum Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Foodstuffs. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/835/oj (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  11. European Parliament Regulation and of the Council (EC) No 2065/2003 of 10 November 2003 on Smoke Flavorings Used or Intended for Use in or on Foods. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/2065/2021-03-27 (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  12. Fardet, A.; Rock, E. Ultra-Processed Foods and Food System Sustainability: What Are the Links? Sustainability 2020, 12, 6280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Krarup Hansen, K.; Sara, R.B.M.E.; Smuk, I.A.; Brattland, C. Sámi Traditional Knowledge of Reindeer Meat Smoking. Food Ethics 2022, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Plaza-Bolaños, P.; Frenich, A.G.; Vidal, J.L. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food and beverages. Analytical methods and trends. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 6303–6326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stockfelt, L.; Sallsten, G.; Olin, A.-C.; Almerud, P.; Samuelsson, L.; Johannesson, S.; Molnar, P.; Strandberg, B.; Almstrand, A.-C.; Bergemalm–Rynell, K.; et al. Effects on airways of short–term exposure to two kinds of wood smoke in a chamber study of healthy humans. Inhal. Toxicol. 2012, 24, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Da Porto, C.; Moret, S.; Soldera, S. A study on the composition of distillates obtained from smoked marc. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 563, 396–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kafouris, D.; Koukkidou, A.; Christou, E.; Hadjigeorgiou, M.; Yiannopoulos, S. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in traditionally smoked meat products and charcoal grilled meat in Cyprus. Meat Sci. 2020, 164, 108088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Šimko, P. Factors affecting elimination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from smoked meat foods and liquid smoke flavorings. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2005, 49, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mastanjević, K.; Kartalović, B.; Puljić, L.; Kovačević, D.; Habschied, K. Influence of Different Smoking Procedures on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Formation in Traditional Dry Sausage Hercegovačka kobasica. Processes 2020, 8, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iko Afé, O.H.; Douny, C.; Kpoclou, Y.E.; Igout, A.; Mahillon, J.; Anihouvi, V.; Hounhouigan, J.; Scippo, M.-L. Insight about methods used for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons reduction in smoked or grilled fishery and meat products for future re–engineering: A systematic review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 141, 111372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gómez-Estaca, J.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Montero, P.; Sopelana, P.; Guillén, M.D. Oxidative stability, volatile components and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons of cold–smoked sardine (Sardina pilchardus) and dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus). LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 44, 1517–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, K.-M.; Chiang, P.-Y. Effects of smoking process on the aroma characteristics and sensory qualities of dried longan. Food Chem. 2019, 287, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bienkiewicz, G.; Tokarczyk, G.; Czerniejewska–Surma, B.; Suryn, J. Changes in the EPA and DHA content and lipids quality parameters of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum) and carp (Cyprinus carpio, L.) at individual stages of hot smoking. Heliyon 2019, 5, 02964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sokamté Tégang, A.; Mbougueng, P.D.; Mouafo Téné, H.; Douanla Nodem, N.F.; Sachindra, N.M.; Tatsadjieu Ngoune, L. Application of the spice Afrostyrax lepidophyllus Mildbr as a biopreservative and seasoning agent for hot smoked fillets of Pangasius hypophthalmus. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 10, 100449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Raffray, G.; Sebastian, P.; Collignan, A. Simulation model for the optimization of a radiant plate hot–smoking process. J. Food Eng. 2015, 147, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Baten, M.A.; Won, N.E.; Mohibbullah, M.; Yoon, S.-J.; Sohn, J.H.; Kim, J.-S.; Choi, J.-S. Effect of hot smoking treatment in improving sensory and physicochemical properties of processed Japanese Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus niphonius. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 3957–3968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Stołyhwo, A.; Sikorski, Z.E. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked fish—A critical review. Food Chem. 2005, 91, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Theobald, A.; Arcella, D.; Carere, A.; Croera, C.; Engel, K.-H.; Gott, D.; Gürtler, R.; Meier, D.; Pratt, I.; Rietjens, I.M.; et al. Safety assessment of smoke flavouring primary products by the European Food Safety Authority. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 27, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shao, W.; Campbell, Y.L.; Phillips, T.W.; Freeman, C.; Zhang, X.; Hendrix, J.D.; To, K.V.; Dinh, T.; Rogers, W.D.; Schilling, M.W. Using liquid smoke to control infestations of the ham mite, Tyrophagus putrescentiae, on dry-cured hams during aging. Meat Sci. 2023, 200, 109139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Racioppo, A.; Speranza, B.; Pilone, V.; Stasi, A.; Mocerino, E.; Scognamiglio, G.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R. Optimizing liquid smoke conditions for the production and preservation innovative fish products. Food Biosci. 2023, 53, 102712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Montazeri, N.; Himelbloom, B.H.; Oliveira, A.C.; Leigh, M.B.; Crapo, C.A. Refined liquid smoke: A potential antilisterial additive to cold–smoked sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 812–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xin, X.; Bissett, A.; Wang, J.; Gan, A.; Dell, K.; Baroutian, S. Production of liquid smoke using fluidised–bed fast pyrolysis and its application to green lipped mussel meat. Food Control 2021, 124, 107874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xin, X.; Dell, K.; Udugama, I.A.; Young, B.R.; Baroutian, S. Transforming biomass pyrolysis technologies to produce liquid smoke food flavouring. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 125368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Martin, E.M.; O’Bryan, C.A.; Lary, R.Y.; Griffis, C.L.; Vaughn, K.L.; Marcy, J.A.; Ricke, S.C.; Crandall, P.G. Spray application of liquid smoke to reduce or eliminate Listeria monocytogenes surface inoculated on frankfurters. Meat Sci. 2010, 85, 640–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tuesta-Chavez, T.; Monteza, J.; Silva Jaimes, M.I.; Ruiz-Pacco, G.A.; Changanaqui, K.; Espinoza-Suarez, J.B.; Alarcon, H.; Osorio-Anaya, A.M.; Valderrama-Negrón, A.C.; Sotomayor, M.D. Characterization and evaluation of antioxidant and antimicrobial capacity of prepared liquid smoke–loaded chitosan nanoparticles. J. Food Eng. 2022, 319, 110912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Pan, D.; Geng, F.; Zhou, C.; Cao, J. Insight into the relationship between microorganism communities and flavour quality of Chinese dry–cured boneless ham with different quality grades. Food Biosci. 2022, 50, 102174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huang, Y.; Li, H.; Huang, T.; Li, F.; Sun, J. Lipolysis and lipid oxidation during processing of Chinese traditional smoke–cured bacon. Food Chem. 2014, 149, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kjällstrand, J.; Petersson, G. Phenolic antioxidants in alder smoke during industrial meat curing. Food Chem. 2001, 74, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tian, X.; Li, Z.; Li, K.; Wu, Z.; Ren, R.; Wang, H.; Zeng, C. Flavor release from traditional dry–cured pork during oral processing. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2023, 12, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, F.; Shen, L.; Shi, X.; Deng, Y.; Qiao, Y.; Wu, W.; Xiong, G.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Ding, A.; et al. Characterization of flavor perception and characteristic aroma of traditional dry–cured fish by flavor omics combined with multivariate statistics. LWT 2023, 173, 114240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bjørnevik, M.; Cardinal, M.; Vallet, J.-L.; Nicolaisen, O.; Arnarson, G.Ö. Effect of salting and cold–smoking procedures on Atlantic salmon originating from pre- or post rigor filleted raw material. Based on the measurement of physicochemical characteristics. LWT 2018, 91, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kang, J.; Tang, S.; Liu, R.H.; Wiedmann, M.; Boor, K.J.; Bergholz, T.M.; Wang, S. Effect of curing method and freeze–thawing on subsequent growth of Listeria monocytogenes on cold–smoked salmon. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 1619–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Astruc, T.; Vénien, A.; Clerjon, S.; Favier, R.; Loison, O.; Mirade, P.-S.; Portanguen, S.; Rouel, J.; Lethiec, M.; Germond, A. Effect of dry salt versus brine injection plus dry salt on the physicochemical characteristics of smoked salmon after filleting. Heliyon 2022, 8, 11245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cardinal, M.; Cornet, J.; Sérot, T.; Baron, R. Effects of the smoking process on odour characteristics of smoked herring (Clupea harengus) and relationships with phenolic compound content. Food Chem. 2006, 96, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kalasee, W. Improvement soot particles separation equipments for rubber smoking chamber. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2009, 9, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sikorski, Z.; Sinkiewicz, I. Smoking: Traditional. In Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, 2nd ed.; Dikeman, M., Devine, C., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tahir, M.; Salengke, S.; Mursalim; Metusalach; Caesarendra, W. Performance of smokehouse designed for smoking fish with the indirect method. Processes 2020, 8, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Birkeland, S.; Røra, A.M.; Skåra, T.; Bjerkeng, B. Effects of cold smoking procedures and raw material characteristics on product yield and quality parameters of cold smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fillets. Food Res. Int. 2004, 37, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cardinal, M.; Knockaert, C.; Torrissen, O.; Sigurgisladottir, S.; Mørkøre, T.; Thomassen, M.; Vallet, J.L. Relation of smoking parameters to the yield, colour and sensory quality of smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Food Res. Int. 2001, 34, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sérot, T.; Baron, R.; Knockaert, C.; Vallet, J.L. Effect of smoking processes on the contents of 10 major phenolic compounds in smoked fillets of herring (Cuplea harengus). Food Chem. 2004, 85, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sebastian, P.; Bruneau, D.; Collignan, A.; Rivier, M. Drying and smoking of meat: Heat and mass transfer modeling and experimental analysis. J. Food Eng. 2005, 70, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stumpe-Vīksna, I.; Bartkevičs, V.; Kukāre, A.; Morozovs, A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in meat smoked with different types of wood. Food Chem. 2008, 110, 794–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hitzel, A.; Pöhlmann, M.; Schwägele, F.; Speer, K.; Jira, W. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and phenolic substances in meat products smoked with different types of wood and smoking spices. Food Chem. 2013, 139, 955–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. García–Falcón, M.S.; Simal-Gándara, J. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoke from different woods and their transfer during traditional smoking into chorizo sausages with collagen and tripe casings. Food Addit. Contam. 2005, 22, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, L.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Q.; Xia, X.; Wang, Y.; Kong, B. Effect of different types of smoking materials on the flavor, heterocyclic aromatic amines, and sensory property smoked chicken drumsticks. Food Chem. 2022, 367, 130680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Karunanithy, C.; Muthukumarappan, K.; Gibbons, W.R. Extrusion pretreatment of pine wood chips. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2012, 167, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Esteves, B.; Videira, R.; Pereira, H. Chemistry and ecotoxicity of heat–treated pine wood extractives. Wood Sci. Technol. 2010, 45, 661–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kapu, N.S.; Trajano, H.L. Review of hemicellulose hydrolysis in softwoods and bamboo. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2014, 8, 857–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ding, Y.; Ezekoye, O.A.; Lu, S.; Wang, C.; Zhou, R. Comparative pyrolysis behaviors and reaction mechanisms of hardwood and softwood. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 132, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Silvy, N.; Shamim Reza, M.; Nazim Uddin, M.; Akther, M. Comparison between different components of some available hardwood and softwood in Bangladesh. J. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2018, 4, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  61. Konnerth, J.; Kluge, M.; Schweizer, G.; Miljković, M.; Gindl-Altmutter, W. Survey of selected adhesive bonding properties of nine European softwood and hardwood species. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2016, 74, 809–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Borůvka, V.; Novák, D.; Šedivka, P. Comparison and analysis of radial and tangential bending of softwood and hardwood at static and dynamic loading. Forests 2020, 11, 896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lykidis, C.; Nikolakakos, M.; Sakellariou, E.; Birbilis, D. Assessment of a modification to the Brinell method for determining solid wood hardness. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 961–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. de Assis, A.; Alexandre, R.; Ballarin, A. Dynamic hardness of wood—Measurements with an automated portable hardness tester. Holzforschung 2017, 5, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Saldaña, E.; Saldarriaga, L.; Cabrera, J.; Behrens, J.H.; Selani, M.M.; Rios-Mera, J.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J. Descriptive and hedonic sensory perception of Brazilian consumers for smoked bacon. Meat Sci. 2019, 147, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Del Toro-Gipson, R.S.; Rizzo, P.V.; Hanson, D.J.; Drake, M.A. Consumer perception of smoked Cheddar cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 1560–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kostyra, E.; Baryłko-Pikielna, N. Volatiles composition and flavour profile identity of smoke flavourings. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006, 17, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Guo, J.; Wang, Q.; Chen, C.; Yu, H.; Xu, B. Effects of different smoking methods on sensory properties, free amino acids and volatile compounds in bacon. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 2984–2993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Du, H.; Liu, Q.; Chen, Q.; Xia, X.; Xu, M.; Kong, B. Effect of woodchip types on heterocyclic aromatic amine formation and quality characteristics of smoked bacon. Food Biosci. 2022, 47, 101709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cho, W.-H.; Choi, J.-S. Sensory quality evaluation of superheated steam-treated chicken leg and breast meats with a combination of marination and hot smoking. Foods 2021, 10, 1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Swaney-Stueve, M.; Talavera, M.; Jepsen, T.; Severns, B.; Wise, R.; Deubler, G. Sensory and consumer evaluation of smoked pulled pork prepared using different smokers and different types of wood. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 640–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Baten, A.M.; Won, N.E.; Sohn, J.H.; Kim, J.-S.; Mohibbullah, M.; Choi, J.-S. Improvement of sensorial, physicochemical, microbiological, nutritional and fatty acid attributes and shelf life extension of hot smoked half–dried Pacific saury (Cololabis saira). Foods 2020, 9, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sharma, C.; Swaney-Stueve, M.; Severns, B.; Talavera, M. Using correspondence analysis to evaluate consumer terminology and understand the effects of smoking method and type of wood on the sensory perception of smoked meat. J. Sens. Stud. 2019, 34, 12535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cheng, Y.; Leible, M.; Weiss, J.; Gibis, M. The impact of temperature-controlled smoldering smoking on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines contents in Frankfurter–type sausages. Food Chem. 2023, 423, 136258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Varlet, V.; Prost, C.; Sérot, T. Volatile aldehydes in smoked fish: Analysis methods, occurrence and mechanisms of formation. Food Chem. 2007, 105, 1536–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ekonomou, S.I.; Parlapani, F.F.; Kyritsi, M.; Hadjichristodoulou, C.; Boziaris, I.S. Preservation status and microbial communities of vacuum–packed hot smoked rainbow trout fillets. Food Microbiol. 2022, 103, 103959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Rigling, M.; Höckmeier, L.; Leible, M.; Herrmann, K.; Gibis, M.; Weiss, J.; Zhang, Y. Characterization of the aroma profile of food smoke at controllable pyrolysis temperatures. Separations 2023, 10, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Seraj, M.; Chen, Q.; Jones, J.R. Food smoke generation by frictional heating. Wood Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Luo, G.; Chandler, D.S.; Anjos, L.C.; Eng, R.J.; Jia, P.; Resende, F.L. Pyrolysis of whole wood chips and rods in a novel ablative reactor. Fuel 2017, 194, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, Q.; Kang, J.; Wang, Y.; Feng, Y. Superheated steam similarity simulation on longitudinal distribution of maximum smoke temperature rise in tunnel fires. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2023, 37, 101550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Heo, H.S.; Park, H.J.; Dong, J.-I.; Park, S.H.; Kim, S.; Suh, D.J.; Suh, Y.-W.; Kim, S.-S.; Park, Y.-K. Fast pyrolysis of rice husk under different reaction conditions. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2010, 16, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chua, K.J.; Chou, S.K. Low–cost drying methods for developing countries. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 14, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, W.; Dong, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, H.; Wang, S. Reduction of the Heterocyclic Amines in Grilled Beef Patties through the Combination of Thermal Food Processing Techniques without Destroying the Grilling Quality Characteristics. Foods 2021, 10, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ledesma, E.; Rendueles, M.; Díaz, M. Contamination of meat products during smoking by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Processes and prevention. Food Control 2016, 60, 64–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Essumang, D.K.; Dodoo, D.K.; Adjei, J.K. Effect of smoke generation sources and smoke curing duration on the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in different suites of fish. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 58, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Shokin, G.; Shokina, Y. Modern Methods and Devices for Obtaining Technological Smoke: Review. KnE Life Sci. 2020, 5, 836–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Assogba, M.F.; Iko Afé, O.H.; Ahouansou, R.H.; Anihouvi, D.G.; Kpoclou, Y.E.; Djago, D.; Douny, C.; Igout, A.; Mahillon, J.; Hounhouigan, D.J.; et al. Performances of the barrel kiln used in cottage industry for fish processing and effects on physicochemical characteristics and safety of smoked fish products. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 851–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Goulas, A.E.; Kontominas, M.G. Effect of salting and smoking–method on the keeping quality of chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus): Biochemical and sensory attributes. Food Chem. 2005, 93, 511–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Waldenstrøm, L.; Gaarder, M.Ø.; Lerfall, J. Sensory methodology in product optimization of cold smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) processed with atomized purified condensed smoke. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 4650–4667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Gedela, S.; Gamble, R.K.; Macwana, S.; Escoubas, J.R.; Muriana, P.M. Effect of inhibitory extracts derived from liquid smoke combined with postprocess pasteurization for control of Listeria monocytogenes on ready–to–eat meats. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 2749–2756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kim, H.-W.; Choi, J.-H.; Choi, Y.-S.; Kim, H.-Y.; Lee, M.-A.; Hwang, K.-E.; Song, D.-H.; Lee, J.-W.; Kim, C.-J. Effects of kimchi and smoking on quality characteristics and shelf life of cooked sausages prepared with irradiated pork. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 548–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rozentāle, I.; Stumpe-Vīksna, I.; Začs, D.; Siksna, I.; Melngaile, A.; Bartkevičs, V. Assessment of dietary exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons form smoked meat products produced in Lativa. Food Control 2015, 54, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Esposito, M.; Citro, A.; Marigliano, L.; Urbani, V.; Seccia, G.; Marotta, M.P.; De Nicola, C. Influence of different smoking techniques on contamination by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in traditional smoked Mozzarella di Bufala Campana. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2015, 68, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Naccari, C.; Galceran, M.T.; Moyano, E.; Cristani, M.; Siracusa, L.; Trombetta, D. Presence of heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAs) in smoked “Provola” cheese from Calabria (Italy). Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Guillén, M.D.; Palencia, G.; Ibargoitia, M.L.; Fresno, M.; Sopelana, P. Contamination of cheese by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in traditional smoking. Influence of the position in the smokehouse on the contamination level of smoked cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 1679–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shakeel-Ur-Rehman; Farkye, N.Y.; Drake, M.A. The effect of application of cold natural smoke on the ripening of cheddar cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 1910–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Ledesma, E.; Laca, A.; Rendueles, M.; Díaz, M. Texture, colour and optical characteristics of a meat product depending on smoking time and casing type. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 65, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Flores, M.; Mora, L.; Reig, M.; Toldrá, F. Risk assessment of chemical substances of safety concern generated in processed meats. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Chen, S.; Kao, T.H.; Chen, C.J.; Huang, C.H.; Chen, B.H. Reduction of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in meat by sugar–smoking and dietary exposure assessment in Taiwan. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 7645–7653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Zhu, Y.; Peng, Z.; Wang, M.; Wang, R.; Rui, L. Optimization of extraction procedure for formaldehyde assay in smoked meat products. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2012, 28, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Petričević, S.; Marušić Radovčić, N.; Lukić, K.; Listeš, E.; Medić, H. Differentiation of dry–cured hams from different processing methods by mean volatile compounds, physico–chemical and sensory analysis. Meat Sci. 2018, 137, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Yin, X.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Kong, B. Influences of smoking in traditional and industrial conditions on flavour profile of Harbin red sausages by comprehensive two–dimensional gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Foods 2021, 10, 1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Shishov, A.; Gagarionova, S.; Bulatov, A. Deep eutectic mixture membrane–based microextraction: HPLC–FLD determination of phenols in smoked food samples. Food Chem. 2020, 314, 126097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Albishi, T.; Banoub, J.H.; de Camargo, A.C.; Shahidi, F. Date palm wood as a new source of phenolic antioxidants in preparation of smoked salmon. J. Food Biochem. 2018, 43, 12760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ledesma, E.; Rendueles, M.; Díaz, M. Characterization of natural and synthetic casings and mechanism of BaP penetration in smoked meat products. Food Control 2015, 51, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Erbay, Z.; Koca, N. Kinetics of total phenolic content and total color difference during liquid smoking of Kashar cheese. Int. J. Food Prop. 2013, 16, 852–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ahmad, S.; Anzar, A.; Srivastava, A.K.; Srivastava, P.K. Effect of curing, antioxidant treatment, and smoking of Buffalo meat on pH, total plate count, sensory characteristics, and shelf life during refrigerated storage. Int. J. Food Prop. 2005, 8, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Duma-Kocan, P.; Rudy, M.; Gil, M.; Stanisławczyk, R. The influence of temperature differences in smoking chamber and furnace and smoking time on the quality of medium–ground sausages. Molecules 2020, 25, 5515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Somoza, V. Five years of research on health risks and benefits of Maillard reaction products: An update. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2005, 49, 663–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wretling, S.; Eriksson, A.; Eskhult, G.A.; Larsson, B. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Swedish smoked meat and fish. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2010, 23, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Racovita, R.C.; Secuianu, C.; Israel-Roming, F. Quantification and risk assessment of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in retail smoked fish and smoked cheeses. Food Control 2021, 121, 107586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Visciano, P.; Perugini, M.; Amorena, M.; Ianieri, A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fresh and cold–smoked Atlantic salmon fillets. J. Food Prot. 2006, 69, 1134–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sonego, E.; Bhattarai, B.; Duedahl-Olesen, L. Detection of nitrated, oxygenated and hydrogenated polycyclic aromatic compounds in smoked fish and meat products. Foods 2022, 11, 2446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Yurchenko, S.; Mölder, U. The determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked fish by gas chromatography mass spectrometry with positive–ion chemical ionization. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2005, 18, 857–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Cunha, S.C.; Siminel, D.; Guárdia, M.D.; de Alda, M.L.; López-Garcia, E.; Muñoz, I.; Ferreira, R.; Eljarrat, E.; Fernandes, J.O. Effect of processing smoked salmon on contaminant contents. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2021, 153, 112276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Abou-Arab, N.M.; Abd-EL-Samea, M.S.; Malhat, F.M.; El-Taher, S.M. Detection of some potential carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked fish. Glob. J. Agric. Food Saf. Sci. 2014, 1, 346–356. [Google Scholar]
  117. Iwegbue, C.M.; Bassey, F.I.; Agbozu, I.; Aganbi, E.; Obi, G. Concentrations and risks of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoke-cured fish products in Nigeria. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2016, 73, 827–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Asamoah, E.K.; Nunoo, F.K.; Addo, S.; Nyarko, J.O.; Hyldig, G. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in fish smoked using traditional and improved kilns: Levels and human health risk implications through dietary exposure in Ghana. Food Control 2021, 121, 107576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Aksun Tümerkan, E.T. Investigations of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and elemental profile of smoked fish. Molecules 2022, 27, 7015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Visciano, P.; Perguini, M.; Conte, F.; Amorena, M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) processed by traditional flue gas smoking and by liquid smoke flavourings. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 1409–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Mihalca, G.L.; Tiţa, O.; Tiţa, M.; Mihalca, A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in smoked fish from three smoke-houses in Braşov county. J. Agroaliment. Process. Technol. 2011, 17, 392–397. [Google Scholar]
  122. Khalili, F.; Shariatifar, N.; Dehghani, M.H.; Yaghmaeian, K.; Nodehi, R.N.; Yaseri, M.; Moazzen, M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in meat, poultry, fish and related product samples of Iran: A risk assessment study. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2023, 21, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Djinovic, J.; Popovic, A.; Jira, W. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in different types of smoked meat products from Serbia. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mastanjević, K.; Puljić, L.; Kartalović, B.; Grbavac, J.; Grbavac, M.J.; Nadaždi, H.; Habschied, K. Analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Heregovački pršut—traditionally smoked prosciutto. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Pöhlmann, M.; Hitzel, A.; Schwägele, F.; Speer, K.; Jira, W. Content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and phenolic substances in Frankfurter–type sausages depending on smoking conditions using glow smoke. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kartalovic, B.; Okanovic, D.; Babic, J.; Djordevic, V.; Jankovic, S.; Cirkovic, M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked ham. Procedia Food Sci. 2015, 5, 144–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Chen, L.; Liu, R.; Wu, M.; Yu, H.; Ge, Q.; Zhang, W. Nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked–cured bacon (Larou) of artisanal and industrial origin. Foods 2021, 10, 2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Farqueza, M.J.; Laranjo, M.; Alves, S.; Fernandes, M.H.; Agulheiro-Santos, A.; Fernandes, M.J.; Potes, M.H.; Elias, M. Dry-cured meat products according to the smoking regime: Process optimization to control polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Foods 2020, 9, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Gomes, A.; Santos, C.; Almeida, J.; Elias, M.; Roseiro, L.C. Effect of fat content, casing type and smoking procedures on PAHs contents of Portuguese traditional dry fermented sausages. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 58, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Alsadat Mirbod, M.; Hadidi, M.; Huseyn, E.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in smoked meat sausages: Effects of smoke generation source, smoking duration, and meat content. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42, 60921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Coroian, C.O.; Coroian, A.; Becze, A.; Longodor, A.; Mastan, O.; Radu-Rusu, R.-M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) occurrence in traditionally smoked chicken, turkey and duck meat. Agriculture 2023, 13, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Fasano, E.; Yerba-Pimentel, I.; Martínez-Carballo, E.; Simal-Gándara, J. Profiling, distribution and levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in traditional smoked plant and animal foods. Food Control 2016, 59, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Suchanová, M.; Hajšlová, J.; Tomaniová, M.; Kocourek, V.; Babička, L. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked cheese. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008, 88, 1307–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Guillén, M.D.; Sopelana, P. Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 556–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Węgrzyn, E.; Grześkiewicz, S.; Popławska, W.; Głód, B.K. Modified analytical method of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, using SEC for sample preparation and RP-HPLC with fluorescence detection. Application to different food samples. Acta Chromatogr. 2006, 17, 233–264. [Google Scholar]
  136. Pluta-Kubica, A.; Filipczak-Fiutak, M.; Domagała, J.; Duda, I.; Migdał, W. Contamination of traditionally smoked cheeses with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and biogenic amines. Food Control 2020, 112, 107115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Pagulica, G.; Gazzotti, T.; Zironi, E.; Serrazanetti, G.P.; Mollica, D.; Rosmini, R. Determination of high molecular mass polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a typical Italian smoked cheese by HPLC-FL. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 5111–5115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Polak-Śliwińska, M.; Paszczyk, B.; Śliwiński, M. Evaluation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked cheeses made in Poland by HPLC method. Molecules 2022, 27, 6909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Li, J.; Dong, H.; Li, X.; Han, B.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, D. Quantitatively assessing the health risk of exposure to PAHs from intake of smoked meats. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 124, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Types of smoking.
Figure 1. Types of smoking.
Sustainability 15 16890 g001
Figure 2. Traditional smokehouse scheme.
Figure 2. Traditional smokehouse scheme.
Sustainability 15 16890 g002
Figure 3. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the load graph and the score plot of data from groups of popular smoked products for selected PAHs.
Figure 3. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the load graph and the score plot of data from groups of popular smoked products for selected PAHs.
Sustainability 15 16890 g003
Table 1. Basic types of wood hardness main parameters.
Table 1. Basic types of wood hardness main parameters.
Soft WoodHard WoodReferences
Main parameters
[%]
Cellulose47.05 ± 10.6949.98 ± 10.82[55,56,57,58,59,60]
Hemicellulose21.92 ± 12.7521.16 ± 6.30
Lignin24.90 ± 8.6221.06 ± 8.04
Water±12.15±12.03[61,62,63,64]
Density [kg/m3]±516±660
Hardness [MPa]±30±71.5
Table 2. Impact of different types of smoking materials on the organoleptic features.
Table 2. Impact of different types of smoking materials on the organoleptic features.
Type of Smoking MaterialsSmoking EffectReferences
AcaciaYellow color, sweet flavor [65]
AlderDark yellow to brown in color, mild
flavor and aroma with no bitterness
[66]
AshGolden color, ripe aroma, and preferability
flavor, burns quickly, and roasts product
[67]
BeechGolden color, mild flavor, sweet aroma[49,68,69]
MapleMild and slightly sweet taste, golden color[66]
OakHoney flavor with a slight bitterness, brown color[26,69,70,71,72,73]
WalnutDark yellow color, specific aroma[70,72]
Apple treeMild smoke with subtle fruit
flavor, dark brown color
[55,69,70,71,72,73]
Cherry treeSubtle fruit flavor with little
bitterness, dark brown color
[70,72]
Table 3. Smoke production methods.
Table 3. Smoke production methods.
MethodMethod DescriptionReferences
Flame methods
SmolderingThe crushed wood smoke-generating raw material pyrolysis at 400–80 0°C. The greater the degree of fragmentation, the lower the pyrolysis temperature. The smoke is not thick; smoky substances dominate it. A byproduct is the formation of tar.[74,75]
CombustionIt takes place in an open fireplace with an entire supply of oxygen. The smoke produced is thick and dry. A flame is visible during combustion. The combustion temperature is very high (even >1000 °C). The smoke mainly contains CO2 and water steam. The share of smoking substances is negligible. The distance of the fireplace from the smoking chamber depends on the desired process temperature.[76,77]
Flameless methods
Frictional
heating
The friction force generated by moving a wooden element along a metal surface converts kinetic energy into thermal energy. The temperature achieved in this way does not exceed 500 °C. The resulting smoke is not thick but has many smoky substances.[78,79]
SteamingExposing wood chips to superheated steam heated to a temperature of 400 °C with a pressure of 0.13 MPa, which, together with the smoke, condenses on the product’s surface. Thanks to this, the product absorbs moisture and heat simultaneously, thus remaining juicier.[20,80]
Fluidized smoke generatorSimultaneous occurrence of the thermal decomposition of wood chips and the oxidation of particles in the fluidized state. Air is introduced into the smoking chamber and heated to 300 °C. This method has much greater efficiency in creating dry and thick smoke with a high content of smokable substances.[81,82]
Two-stepSmoke develops due to pyrolysis in the presence of CO2 or N2 and then mixed with oxygen, which causes the smoke to burn out, making it denser and richer in smokeable substances.[83,84]
SmeltingPyrolysis of sawdust compressed into blocks. The advantage of this method is the constant parameters of the smoke generated and the possibility of using waste from the wood industry.[85,86]
Table 4. PAH profiles in popular smoked products.
Table 4. PAH profiles in popular smoked products.
Smoked FoodPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons [µg/kg]
BaABbFBkFBjFBgPBaPBcLDlPDiPDePDhPDhAIcP
FishSalmon47.66
± 47.36
4.13
± 3.94
2.13
± 2.08
2.25
± 1.95
5.51
± 5.26
4.85
± 4.55
ndnd0.25
± 0.25
0.35
± 0.35
0.25
± 0.25
0.53
± 0.28
4.33
± 4.08
Herring25.58
± 12.41
4.30
± 4.26
5.45
± 5.25
2.80
± 2.50
13.70
± 13.40
14.70
± 7.05
nd0.25
± 0.25
1.50
± 1.00
0.85
± 0.35
0.75
± 0.25
1.05
± 0.75
6.80
± 6.50
Mackerel19.68
± 19.48
19.22
± 19.03
13.74
± 13.64
4.10
± 3.80
6.09
± 5.89
7.81
± 7.71
nd0.25
± 0.25
0.25
± 0.25
0.55
± 0.25
nd5.91
± 5.71
6.01
± 5.81
Rainbow trout6.60
± 6.30
5.11
± 5.08
3.49
± 3.19
2.25
± 1.95
9.63
± 9.56
4.21
± 4.15
ndnd0.25
± 0.25
0.35
± 0.35
0.25
± 0.25
0.55
± 0.25
2.71
± 2.69
MeatHam38.28
± 38.23
11.97
± 11.94
9.36
± 9.34
9.36
± 9.34
9.52
± 9.49
18.51
± 18.49
4.50
± 4.40
0.25
± 0.25
0.40
± 0.40
0.85
± 0.85
0.30
± 0.30
1.55
± 1.55
10.31
± 10.28
Bacon14.48
± 14.33
5.12
± 5.06
6.26
± 6.01
3.51
± 3.49
4.52
± 4.28
7.97
± 7.90
5.40
± 5.20
0.25
± 0.25
0.41
± 0.40
0.51
± 0.50
0.25
± 0.25
1.37
± 1.31
5.16
± 5.12
Sausage4.07
± 3.76
0.34
± 0.28
0.15
± 0.15
0.19
± 0.11
1.43
± 1.26
0.54
± 0.36
2.65
± 2.15
0.01
± 0.01
0.03
± 0.02
0.02
± 0.01
0.01
± 0.01
1.69
± 1.56
0.89
± 0.78
Poultry1.21
± 0.91
0.15
± 0.15
1.23
± 0.85
nd0.15
± 0.15
0.45
± 0.15
ndndndndndndnd
CheeseMozzarella20.58
± 20.36
27.82
± 25.79
4.47
± 3.25
nd1.01
± 0.96
12.91
± 10.32
ndndndndnd2.33
± 2.25
0.23
± 0.20
Curd4.87
± 4.63
2.30
± 2.19
1.18
± 1.02
nd0.97
± 0.93
2.29
± 1.21
ndndndndnd0.41
± 0.39
1.17
± 1.12
Italian1.37
± 1.32
0.24
± 0.20
0.17
± 0.13
nd0.18
± 0.17
0.52
± 0.48
ndndndndnd0.21
± 0.21
0.26
± 0.23
Hard cheese1.14
± 0.96
0.02
± 0.02
0.02
± 0.01
nd0.04
± 0.02
0.46
± 0.41
ndndndndnd0.01
± 0.01
nd
Smoked foodPolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [µg/kg]References
Cpp5MCChrPyrFlePheAntNapFlaAclAce
FishSalmon9.65
± 9.35
nd7.79
± 7.74
1.70
± 0.50
45.17
± 44.77
20.48
± 18.48
5.45
± 3.55
30.20
± 27.60
28.66
± 26.66
10.97
± 10.87
10.97
± 10.87
[99,110,111,112,113,114,115]
Herring34.70
± 34.40
0.85
± 0.55
12.46
± 12.25
1.90
± 0.50
2.58
± 2.22
14.15
± 4.35
4.25
± 0.85
5.35
± 0.75
2.94
± 0.84
7.93
± 7.38
0.90
± 0.40
[110,111,113,114,116]
Mackerel29.45
± 29.15
nd20.30
± 20.00
36.95
± 36.85
18.74
± 16.03
27.23
± 26.01
66.09
± 65.00
47.95
± 47.85
37.93
± 35.83
11.69
± 11.59
15.99
± 15.82
[110,111,113,114,117,118]
Rainbow trout9.65
± 9.35
nd7.82
± 7.78
31.14
± 24.74
17.75
± 17.75
1.75
± 1.75
15.62
± 15.60
52.92
± 52.89
8.52
± 8.51
5.31
± 5.29
15.35
± 15.35
[110,118,119,120,121,122]
MeatHam49.31
± 49.20
0.16
± 0.14
35.74
± 35.66
3.71
± 3.11
22.48
± 21.78
13.66
± 13.44
114.07
± 113.90
10.33
± 9.60
13.50
± 12.70
19.78
± 19.31
10.16
± 9.65
[17,99,110,123,124]
Bacon17.02
± 16.89
0.16
± 0.15
16.75
± 16.55
1.75
± 0.75
79.11
± 78.41
253.19
± 249.89
59.70
± 59.30
88.19
± 69.57
25.59
± 24.78
170.64
± 154.36
2.40
± 2.40
[17,110,113,125,126,127]
Sausage0.50
± 0.38
0.47
± 0.44
2.41
± 2.05
7.81
± 5.99
51.47
± 47.79
20.23
± 11.83
3.11
± 2.58
134.14
± 111.97
7.17
± 5.38
172.49
± 149.72
59.45
± 38.33
[17,123,128,129,130]
Poultry0.15
± 0.15
nd1.97
± 1.57
1.81
± 1.53
18.81
± 18.21
47.10
± 45.90
2.23
± 1.83
10.25
± 9.21
5.02
± 4.71
6.88
± 5.38
2.35
± 1.45
[99,110,131]
CheeseMozzarellandnd5.48
± 5.35
0.70
± 0.10
5.35
± 0.35
9.85
± 2.15
1.30
± 0.10
7.85
± 5.15
1.35
± 0.15
nd1.25
± 0.15
[93,132,133]
Curdndnd3.71
± 3.59
33.73
± 32.27
200.38
± 198.32
395.97
± 390.04
95.06
± 94.25
604.66
± 592.34
47.22
± 45.87
600.18
± 536.25
24.14
± 22.89
[95,134,135,136]
Italianndnd0.89
± 0.75
0.84
± 0.58
1.66
± 0.82
4.02
± 1.93
1.22
± 0.89
2.47
± 1.68
1.34
± 0.92
0.56
± 0.43
0.33
± 0.15
[111,137]
Hard cheesendnd0.50
± 0.40
2.00
± 1.40
10.05
± 8.95
14.30
± 10.20
4.75
± 3.65
29.75
± 25.32
3.50
± 2.10
nd4.90
± 3.20
[133,138]
nd—not detected.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nizio, E.; Czwartkowski, K.; Niedbała, G. Impact of Smoking Technology on the Quality of Food Products: Absorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by Food Products during Smoking. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416890

AMA Style

Nizio E, Czwartkowski K, Niedbała G. Impact of Smoking Technology on the Quality of Food Products: Absorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by Food Products during Smoking. Sustainability. 2023; 15(24):16890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416890

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nizio, Edyta, Kamil Czwartkowski, and Gniewko Niedbała. 2023. "Impact of Smoking Technology on the Quality of Food Products: Absorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by Food Products during Smoking" Sustainability 15, no. 24: 16890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416890

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop