Next Article in Journal
Recent Advances in the Health Benefits and Application of Tangerine Peel (Citri Reticulatae Pericarpium): A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Physicochemical and Biological Treatment on Structure, Functional and Prebiotic Properties of Dietary Fiber from Corn Straw
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons’ Impact on Crops and Occurrence, Sources, and Detection Methods in Food: A Review

1
College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
2
Jiangsu Taihu Area Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Suzhou 215106, China
3
Suzhou Vocational University Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, Suzhou 215104, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Foods 2024, 13(13), 1977; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13131977
Submission received: 27 May 2024 / Revised: 20 June 2024 / Accepted: 20 June 2024 / Published: 22 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Food Quality and Safety)

Abstract

:
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) represent a category of persistent organic pollutants that pose a global concern in the realm of food safety due to their recognized carcinogenic properties in humans. Food can be contaminated with PAHs that are present in water, air, or soil, or during food processing and cooking. The wide and varied sources of PAHs contribute to their persistent contamination of food, leading to their accumulation within these products. As a result, monitoring of the levels of PAHs in food is necessary to guarantee the safety of food products as well as the public health. This review paper attempts to give its readers an overview of the impact of PAHs on crops, their occurrence and sources, and the methodologies employed for the sample preparation and detection of PAHs in food. In addition, possible directions for future research are proposed. The objective is to provide references for the monitoring, prevention, and in-depth exploration of PAHs in food.

1. Introduction

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are hydrophobic compounds that contain two or more fused aromatic rings in their molecular structure. They are prevalent pollutants found in various environmental matrices such as air, water, and soil [1,2,3,4]. To date, over 100 types of PAHs have been identified in the environment at substantial concentrations [5]. Of the numerous PAH compounds, 16 PAHs have been identified as priority pollutants for environmental regulation and control by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) due to its significant cancer-causing potential has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and is frequently employed as an indicator for PAH contamination [6]. Table 1 presents the principal physical–chemical properties of the 16 priority PAHs, with their structures depicted in Figure 1. These compounds are highly persistent, and recent studies have documented their widespread occurrence in various food products globally [7,8,9,10]. It is widely confirmed that PAHs are toxic to human health, which can cause severe health issues such as carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects [11,12,13,14]. Consequently, the level of PAHs in food is a matter of public concern, given that food consumption represents the major route of PAH exposure for the general populace, particularly non-smokers and non-occupationally exposed individuals [15]. Many nations have implemented regulatory directives to control the concentrations of PAHs in food via the establishment of maximum levels for BaP and/or PAH4 (BaP + BaA + BbF + Chr) in different food products, as detailed in Table 2. Thus, the monitoring of PAH levels in food products is essential for compliance with regulatory standards and for ensuring that people are not exposed to PAH concentrations that are detrimental to their health.
Over the past decade, methods for PAH analyses in food have been extensively developed and evaluated worldwide. Due to the complexity of food-related samples, the quantification of PAHs in such matrices often requires the use of a sample preparation procedure followed by chromatographic separation prior to detection. Gas chromatography and liquid chromatography (GC and LC, respectively) are prominent techniques used to determine PAHs in food [16], while some other technologies such as immunoassays and sensors are also utilized [17,18]. Owing to the low levels and dynamic variations in PAHs in food samples, the methodologies applied for their detection are constantly evolving. There have been excellent review papers focusing on the determination of PAHs in food. For example, Meng et al. [19] provided an overview of pretreatment methods for detecting PAHs in edible oils. Bansal et al. [20] reviewed the quantification techniques for the estimation of PAHs in food products. However, these reviews do not cover the impact of PAHs on crops and their occurrence and sources in food. This review aims to discuss the up-to-date knowledge on the impacts of PAHs on crops, the occurrence and sources of PAHs in food, and sample preparation and analytical techniques for determining PAHs in food, in order to provide valuable references for monitoring, prevention, and in-depth exploration of PAHs in food.
Table 2. Maximum levels for BaP and PAH4 in food of different nations.
Table 2. Maximum levels for BaP and PAH4 in food of different nations.
NationTypes of FoodBaP
(μg/kg)
PAH4
(μg/kg)
Ref.
European UnionOil and fats intended for direct human consumption or use as an ingredient in food2.010.0[21]
Cocoa bean and derived products5.030.0
Coconut oil intended for direct human consumption or use as an ingredient in food2.020.0
Smoked meat and smoked meat products2.012.0
Muscle meat of smoked fish and smoked fishery
products
2.012.0
Smoked sprats and canned smoked sprats; bivalve mollusks (fresh, chilled or frozen)5.030.0
Bivalve mollusks (smoked)6.035.0
Processed cereal-based food and baby food for infants
and young children
1.01.0
Infant formulae and follow-on formulae, including infant milk and follow-on milk1.01.0
Dietary foods for special medical purposes intended specially for infants1.01.0
ChinaCereals/cereal products2.0[22]
Meats/meat products5.0
Aquatic foods/aquatic food products5.0
Milk and dairy products10.0
Oils and fats and their products10.0
KoreaDried and smoked fish10.0[23]
CanadaOlive pomace oils 3.0[24]
BrazilOlive pomace oils2.0[25]
—, no data.

2. Impacts of PAHs on Crops

Crops, during their growth period, are inevitably exposed to and accumulate contaminants such as PAHs from the surrounding environment. Limited research has indicated that PAHs can impact crop growth influencing major physiology including germination, morphology, photosynthesis, and enzyme activity [26,27,28]. Li et al. conducted a hydroponic experiment to explore the impacts of BaP on the growth and antioxidant enzyme activities of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings. The study revealed that wheat seedlings treated with 54 mg/L of BaP exhibited a dramatical decrease in biomass and plant height compared to the control (CK), with both above-ground fresh mass and below-ground dry mass being suppressed. Moreover, under BaP stress, the superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity presented a trend of increase–decrease–increase and was lower than that in CK, whereas the peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) activities decreased after an initial increase [29]. Similarly, Wang et al. investigated the effects of Fluo and BaP on growth, physiological performance, and quality of rape (Brassica chinensis), as well as their patterns of accumulation in stem and leaves. They found that the accumulated concentrations of Fluo and BaP in rapes increased with the levels of Fluo and BaP in the soil. The accumulations of Fluo in stems and leaves varied significantly (p < 0.05) among treatments with different rates of Fluo addition. When compared to CK, the accumulation of BaP in rapes significantly increased in treatments with 5.0 and 10.0 mg/kg of BaP, with the highest amount of accumulation at 10 mg/kg still below the national food security standard. Low concentrations of Fluo and BaP had positive effects on leaf length, leaf width and above-ground biomass; while high concentrations had negative effects. As the levels of Fluo and BaP increased, plant height and photosynthetic rate significantly decreased compared to CK. The chlorophyll content initially increased at lower concentrations but declined at higher concentrations. The study also found that the reduced vitamin C was inhibited by Fluo, with the lowest levels observed at 5.0 mg/kg of Fluo. On the other hand, the reduced vitamin C varied irregularly with BaP treatments; it increased slightly at 0.5 mg/kg of BaP and was lowest at 5.0 mg/kg of BaP compared with CK [30]. Further, Cai et al. reported that Pyr had significant effects on root dry weight but little effect on shoot dry weight and plant height of Chinese cabbage. The whole plant dry weight decreased with the reduction in root dry weight. High concentrations of Pyr (>201.3 mg/kg) resulted in retarded growth, delayed seed germination, decreased leaf area, decreased shoot height, chlorosis, and ultimately lower yields [31].
Interestingly, despite being hazardous pollutants, PAHs have been found to potentially enhance the quality and yield of crops within a specific concentration range. When B. parachinensis was treated with 600 μg/kg of PAHs through root hydroponics, there was an increase in its cellulose, vitamin C, and soluble protein levels. Similarly, leaf smear treatment with the same dose of PAHs enhanced both the single plant weight and soluble sugar content in B. parachinensis, while facilitating the accumulation of organic matter, resulting in higher yields and improved food quality [32]. PAH treatment also affects enzyme activities in B. parachinensi. For instance, a low-concentration (73.9 μg/kg) PAH treatment enhances the activities of CAT and POD, whereas a medium-concentration (147.8 μg/kg) treatment increases the SOD activities [33]. These alterations contribute to a reduction in the accumulation of PAHs in B. parachinensi and an improvement in its quality [33]. However, the mechanism of action remains poorly understood. Previous studies propose that the structural similarity between PAHs and hormones like phytoglucomannan may be responsible for their growth-promoting actions [34]. The impacts of PAHs on crops are intricate, and limited studies have been conducted to date. Therefore, further and more in-depth studies are required in this area.

3. Sources of PAHs in Food

As environmental contaminants, PAHs can enter our food system through a variety of pathways [35], as depicted in Figure 2. Due to their recalcitrance to breakdown and long-range migration ability, PAHs persistently contaminate the environments essential for crop cultivation, such as air, water, and soil, and enter food crops through root uptake or via leaf absorption, and subsequently accumulate within the food chain [36]. Leaf absorption has been shown to be the main pathway for plants to assimilate PAHs [37,38,39]. Over 40% of the PAHs released into the atmosphere come into contact with plant leaves through wet and dry deposition [40] and are effectively accumulated in plant leaf cuticles, which are hydrophobic lipid structures [41]. Stomata, tiny pores on the leaf surface responsible for gas exchange, serve as the main entry points for PAHs. They are the most active and prominent components of plant tissues for adsorbing these contaminants. PAHs can either adhere to stomatal openings or be directly absorbed through the stomatal pores, thereby gaining access to the plant’s internal tissues [42]. Typically, PAH concentrations in plant leaves are twice as high or even higher compared to plant roots [39,43]. Also, there is considerable variation in PAH levels among different types of vegetables, with leafy vegetables having the highest concentrations, followed by root and fruit vegetables [44]. This disparity can be attributed to the larger surface area of the leafy parts, which facilitates atmospheric deposition. Aquatic creatures, such as fish, shellfish, and shrimp, are also susceptible to PAH exposure through water and sediment, resulting in bioaccumulation [45,46]. When these plants or animals are used as raw materials in food processing, they can contaminate the food and pose severe health risks to humans.
PAHs also occur in food as a result of certain processing and cooking methods such as frying, grilling, baking, barbecuing, and smoking. During these high-temperature (150–400 °C) thermal processes, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates in the food are pyrolyzed, oxidized, and polymerized to produce PAHs [36]. One study reported that that pan frying caused lower levels of BaP (1.39 versus 1.62 μg/kg) and PAH4 (5.58 versus 5.73 μg/kg) in beef meat than barbecuing [47]. The total concentration of 16 EPA PAHs increased nearly three times during the frying of fish slices, with some PAHs such as Nap, Fluo, and Pyr showing a five-fold increase [48]. A two- to six-fold increment was observed in PAH levels when flour was baked [49]. Similarly, the level of BaP increased from 30.56% in uncooked food to 61.52% in cooked ones [50]. Previous studies revealed that the amounts of PAHs formed in food products are affected by multiple factors [23,51,52,53,54], such as the inherent properties of food materials (e.g., pH, composition, and moisture), cooking duration, and the heat source (e.g., coal, gas, wood, electrical) and temperature used. For instance, among different roasting techniques (charcoal, gas, and electric), charcoal roasting was reported to contribute significantly to PAH formation [55,56,57]. In the case of gas roasting, the PAH4 content in beef surpassed the EU-regulated limits when the temperature exceeded 300 °C [58]. The pH of marinating sauces used in grilling chicken affects PAH formation. A sauce with a pH of 7.51 significantly promotes PAH formation, with the PAH4 content increasing more than four-fold compared to a sauce with a pH of 5.35 [59]. According to a recent study, the moisture content of firewood positively correlated with PAH generation during the production of katsuobushi, a traditional smoked-dried bonito in Japan [23].
Furthermore, the migration of PAHs from food contact materials (e.g., plastic, rubber and paper) can also lead to food contamination [60]. A recent investigation into four different types of food contact materials available in the Chinese market, including laminated film bags, nylon tableware, food containers, and disposable tableware, revealed the presence of PAHs in all of these materials [61]. These PAHs were mainly related to Nap, Phen, Fluo, and Pyr, with Phen exhibiting the highest rate that exceeded the standard rate at 77.1%, possibly due to the use of inferior raw materials during production [61]. In a study of 20 commercially paper-based food contact materials, including fast food packaging cartons, instant noodle bags, food packaging bags, and paper cups, high levels of Nap, Flu, Phen, and Ant were found in a yellow packaging paper bag, with Ant contents reaching up to 201,400 μg/kg [62]. When food contact materials are contaminated with PAHs, these substances can migrate into the food and be ingested by humans, resulting in PAH exposure-related health hazards [63,64].

4. Occurrence of PAHs in Food

The widespread contamination of food by PAHs has been occurring for years due to human activities, leading to their frequent detection in food products. A recent study by Einolghozati et al. investigated the pollution of processed cereals with PAHs across Europe, Africa, America, and Asia from 1972 to 2021. Results revealed that PAHs were found in bread, spaghetti, flour, and bran in all of these regions. The dominant PAHs were Ant, Chr, Flu, and Nap, with concentrations ranging from 0.39 to 2.95 μg/kg [65]. Although the measured levels are generally low, the high consumption of processed cereals renders them a considerable source of PAH exposure in humans. In another study, significant concentrations of 13 PAHs were found in 40 samples of different vegetable oils from Iran’s market, including frying, blended, sunflower, corn, and canola oils. The mean values for BaP, PAH4, PAH8 (PAH4 +BkF + BghiP + DbahA + IP), and PAH13 were 1.91, 12.50, 19.60 and 35.54 μg/kg, respectively. Altogether 30 and 35% of the evaluated samples exceeded the current EU maximum permitted levels [66]. Tea, the most globally consumed beverage processed from tea plant leaves, is susceptible to accumulating high levels PAHs due to its high surface area. Moreover, the manufacturing process of tea leaves, such as the drying step that involves the utilization of combustion gases from burning wood, oil, or coal, can also lead to the generation of PAHs. Previous studies have reported high levels of PAHs in tea leaves [67,68]. According to Gao et al. [69], PAHs were detected in tea with a detection rate close to 100% globally over the past two decades and the contents ranged from 100 to 10,000 μg/kg, with black tea displaying higher levels compared to dark tea and green tea. Although tea leaves are commonly used for preparing infusions rather than direct consumption, it should be noted that the release of PAHs from tea increases with infusion time [68,70], and therefore, it is advisable to minimize this time for teas that contain high levels of PAHs.
Studies have shown the levels of PAHs in various food samples from different countries, as summarized in Table 3. It is evident from the table that food is contaminated with PAHs to varying degrees, which has become a global issue, and the contamination of PAHs is mainly concerned with the 16 EPA PAHs. The content of PAHs also differs among food types, with smoked foods being the most heavily contaminated. However, despite the high levels found, smoked foods do not contribute significantly to the overall human intake of PAHs, as they typically constitute a small portion of the diet. Furthermore, the PAH amounts in food vary by country; in China, Nigeria, Argentina, and Turkey, Argentinean tea was found to have the highest levels of PAHs ranging from 509.7 to 2746.5 μg/kg, while Nigerian tea had the lowest, ranging from 0.76 to 44.57 μg/kg. This suggests a serious pollution level of PAHs in Argentina. These discrepancies might stem from differences in industrial and economic development levels among countries. Given these findings and the potential health risks associated with PAHs, their presence in food should be given more attention as persistent pollutants.

5. PAH Detection in Food

5.1. Sample Preparation

Sample preparation is critical for achieving accurate results in PAH analysis since PAH contents are extremely low and can be strongly influenced by the components of the food matrix. The protocol generally involves two main steps: (i) extracting PAHs from food matrices employing an appropriate method and (ii) purifying the extracts to remove undesired compounds. The choice of suitable extraction and cleanup procedures is paramount to ensure efficient isolation and purification of the targets, while concurrently reducing matrix effects and interferents. Ideally, a sample preparation method is supposed to be a simple process that offers high efficiency while minimizing time and cost. Different extraction and cleanup methods for PAH analysis are represented in Figure 3.
During sample preparation, all the utensils applied in the analysis should be meticulously cleaned with high-purity acetone or hexane prior to use, thereby ensuring that any detected PAHs are not sourced from the equipment itself. To mitigate cross-contamination, it is advisable to utilize only inert materials, such as stainless steel, glass, or aluminum, when preparing the samples under examination. Plastic materials, especially low-density polyethylene, should be strictly avoided due to the potential for PAH adsorption. The exposure to high temperature, light, and smoke should be avoided as well since this can induce volatilization and chemical conversion. Furthermore, the duration of sample storage should be minimized to avert undesirable reactions, such as oxidation and decomposition, which may occur between the PAHs and the food matrix, potentially yielding hazardous compounds [16,104].

5.1.1. Extraction Methods

A wide range of techniques, for instance, Soxhlet extraction (SOX) have been exploited for PAH analysis in diverse food items [57,87,105,106]. The SOX method is designed according to repeated solvent reflux and solvent siphoning that allows continuous interaction between the solvent and the sample and thus results in high extraction yield. However, Soxhlet extractors are usually intricate pieces of glassware, making them both fragile and relatively expensive. Moreover, this technique is often very time-consuming, typically requiring 6 to 20 h [57,87,106,107], which greatly hinders the efficiency of sample extraction. In response to these drawbacks, alternative and more efficient methodologies, such as Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction (UAE), Pressurized Liquid Extraction (PLE), or QuEChERS (Q-quick, E-easy, C-cheap, E-effective, R-rugged, S-safe) method, have gained popularity. These technologies provide improved extraction efficiency and reduced extraction duration compared to SOX, making them appealing options for researchers and analysts in PAH analysis.
UAE has emerged as a promising approach for extracting PAHs from various food samples [71,72,76,77,78,82]. This does not require the use of high temperatures, which minimizes the risk of thermal degradation of PAHs. This helps preserve the integrity of the extracted PAHs and in turn ensures accurate analysis and reliable results. During UAE, the sample and the solvent mixture are introduced into an ultrasonic device. The powerful vibration, fragmentation, and cavitation effects generated by ultrasonic waves facilitate the dissolution and diffusion of analytes in the sample resulting in effective extraction [108]. The primary advantage of UAE is the reduction in extraction time due to increased mass transfer, i.e., from 20 h with SOX to approximately 30 min with UAE [109]. The reduced extraction time was also noted by Zhu et al. who used UAE to extract 16 EPA PAHs from fried squid using n-hexane as the solvent. Good extraction yields with recoveries above 96% were obtained after 40 min of extraction at 30 °C with a sample–solvent ratio of 1:9 [110]. Selection of the solvent is one of the key factors in a successful UAE, and it depends primarily on the nature of the food matrix and PAHs to be extracted. Commonly used extraction solvents mostly include acetonitrile, acetone, n-hexane, dichloromethane, or their mixtures. Nevertheless, these solvents are both expensive and environmentally unfriendly due to their high toxicity. With the rising focus on green chemistry, efforts are being made to replace these solvents with more environmentally benign alternatives, and the most recent developments in this method are focusing on reducing the volume of solvents used. As an example, a recent study by Yang et al. [111] proposed an optimized UAE method that utilizes a supramolecular solvent composed of 1-octanol and tetrabutylammonium bromide, with the aim of analyzing BaP from fried and baked foods. In this study, 200 mg of dried samples was mixed with 600 μL supramolecular solvent to extract BaP. Notably, no evaporation or further cleanup steps were required for the extracts. The overall sample treatment time was approximately 30 min with recovery rates ranging from 89.86 to 100.01% and a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.11 μg/kg. The supramolecular solvent used in this strategy exhibited low toxicity and only small amount usage that aligns with the principles of green chemistry [112], demonstrating promising prospects for the wide range of applications in the future.
PLE, also known as Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE), employs a solvent at elevated temperature (Textr) and pressure (Pextr) to keep the solvent in the liquid state for the extraction of PAHs primarily from solid food samples. This extraction involves placing the sample in a pressurized vessel along with a solvent such as n-hexane and heating it to extract the analytes from the matrix. Textr and Pextr are two key parameters to be optimized when performing PLE [113]. Textr enhances the efficiency of extraction due to improvement in the diffusion rate and solubility of analytes in solvents. However, it may also increase analyte degradation, especially when combined with prolonged extraction times. In addition to that, the solubility of matrix components also increases with temperature, producing more interferences that may affect the accuracy of subsequent determination. Textr typically varies between 50 and 200 °C and is dependent on the target analyte. On the other hand, Pextr is used to keep the solvent below its boiling point, facilitating its penetration into the matrix pores. In PLE, Pextr usually varies from 5.0 to 20 Mpa [114]. These Textr and Pextr conditions result in high extraction yields of the analytes while reducing both time and solvent usage. More recently, Suranová et al. [115] proposed a PLE-based method to extract PAH4 from smoked meat products. In this study, the sample was mixed with silica gel as a dispersing agent and then extracted with n-hexane at 100 °C and 10 Mpa for three static cycles of 10 min each, which provided almost 100% recovery. Pissinatti et al. [116] established a technique combining PLE with liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) to extract 10 PAHs from roasted coffee. The PLE method was operated using a hexane/dichloromethane (85/15, v/v) extraction solution at 100 °C and 10.34 Mpa with two cycles of 5 min each, which yielded satisfied results with recoveries ranging between 87 and 111%. PLE can also be easily automated, and commercial PLE systems can extract up to 24 samples simultaneously without the need for human intervention. This reduces reliance on manual labor and minimizes the potential for human error. However, PLE requires specialized equipment that can withstand high temperatures and pressures, making it expensive and inaccessible for many laboratories, which is a disadvantage of PLE [117]. A schematic diagram of a PLE system is shown in Figure 4.
The methods for extracting PAHs, such as SOX and UAE, are generally both cumbersome and expensive. As a result, the QuEChERS method has been extensively used in PAH analysis in recent years [118,119,120,121]. Figure 5 presents a simplified diagram of the QuEChERS extraction originally established for vegetable and fruit samples with high moisture content [122]. This technique combines extraction, isolation, and purification in a single run and offers flexibility by selecting different solvents, salts, and buffers for salting-out partitioning, as well as employing varied sorbents for the dispersive SPE (d-SPE) process. It demonstrates the merits of simplicity, convenience, time and cost savings, and low solvent consumption but high recovery rates for the PAHs [123]. Since the food matrices are diverse and complex, the extraction conditions are also different and must be carefully assessed when employing this methodology. In most cases, various extraction solvents have been investigated to optimize the process to match the matrix. To determine 16 EU priority PAHs from six categories of foodstuffs, Chiang et al. [124] developed a QuEChERS method and compared the extraction efficiency of acetonitrile, acetonitrile with 1% acetic acid (v/v), acetone, and acetone with 1% acetic acid (v/v). It was found that different solvents should be applied to different food matrices to extract these PAHs. Acetone had a higher extraction efficiency for protein-based matrix categories (e.g., poultry and meat, fish and seafood, and soybeans and products), whereas acetonitrile with 1% acetic acid (v/v) had a higher extraction efficiency for carbohydrate-based matrix categories (e.g., grains, root vegetables, and coffee). Using this method, the rapid extraction of targets from diverse food matrices was achieved within 30 min with recovery rates being 65–111% at optimized conditions. In a separate study, a comparable technique was utilized to extract 16 EU PAHs from charcoal-grilled chicken drumsticks with acetone identified as the best extractant. In the subsequent analysis of samples using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) diode array detector (DAD) and fluorescence detector (FLD), the recovery values were found between 67 and 114%, and limits of detection (LODs) and quantification (LOQs) were 0.004–0.25 and 0.01–0.75 μg/kg, respectively [125]. In addition, researchers have made innovations in the selection of sorbents such as the application of emerging sorbents to suit more complex samples with superior cleanup efficiency. Edible oils are known to be a troublesome matrix as they mainly comprise various fats, and PAHs generally have a similar polarity to the oil matrix, which poses a challenge in PAH analysis in oily matrices. Zacs et al. [126] developed a QuEChERS technique combined with gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) for the quantification of PAH4 in edible oils. They utilized multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) as sorbents to effectively eliminate interferents in the samples, which provide acceptable purity of the final extracts and good accuracy of PAHs. The LODs and LOQs were found over the range of 0.06–0.21 and 0.1–0.71 μg/kg, respectively, while the recovery was 96–107%. Despite the satisfactory results achieved with the QuEChERS technique, there have been instances where it has been proven to be insufficient for purifying analytes in the case of very complex food matrix. Accordingly, a combination of other treatment techniques is needed for efficient sample cleanup [127]. In this regard, Agus et al. [128] combined with dispersive liquid–liquid micro-extraction (DLLME) to extract PAH4 from roasted cocoa beans after the QuEChERS methodology was performed using acetonitrile as the extractant, MgSO4 and NaCl as salting-out agents, and primary secondary amine (PSA) and octadecylsilane (C18) as cleaning sorbents. Low LODs and LOQs (0.02–0.08 and 0.08–0.30 μg/kg, respectively) and recoveries between 52.1 and 91.6% were achieved, which complied with the limit (50–120%) set by the EU.
Apart from the aforementioned methods, several other techniques such as saponification and LLE are also employed for the extraction of PAHs from food samples as alternatives in laboratories. Owing to the lipophilic character, the isolation of PAHs from lipids in oil- and fat-rich foods must be performed to ensure complete extraction. Saponification of lipids is a common approach for separating PAHs from such food samples [129,130,131]. This process involves the use of methanolic or ethanolic KOH or NaOH solution to hydrolyze oils and fats into fatty acid salts, which can then be removed. To determine PAH4 in vegetable oil samples, Zachara et al. [132] developed a saponification method using a methanolic KOH solution coupled with an LLE procedure with cyclohexane as an extractant and a subsequent chromatography column packed with alumina prior to HPLC-FLD analysis. The LODs and LOQs were 0.18 and 0.25 μg/kg, respectively, and the recoveries were 83.42–108.65%. In a different study, they adopted a similar method successfully to analyze PAHs in smoked meat and fish products, and good results were obtained [133]. For the extraction of PAH4 from fish and shellfish matrix, a saponification reaction of the samples with an ethanolic KOH solution was also proposed as a preliminary step to LLE. The method yielded recoveries from 77 to 108% with LOQs in the range of 0.06–0.26 μg/kg [134]. However, it should be noted that the use of strong alkali may result in the degradation of certain PAHs, such as Acen, due to its alkali-sensitive nature [135]. In addition, Martinez et al. [136] have reported instances of BaP losses due to partial partitioning into the alcoholic phase during saponification. LLE performs the separation of compounds primarily based on their relative solubilities in immiscible liquids. In the case of liquid food matrices such as oil and tea infusion [132,137,138], LLE is a well-recognized extraction technique due to its reliability, versatility, and compatibility with a wide range of instruments. A study by Girelli et al. [139] applied an LLE method with cyclohexane following saponification to analyze 15 PAHs in tea infusions via HPLC-FLD. The recoveries of most PAHs were found to be satisfactory (70–130%) with the exception of Ace and Fluo, which present low recoveries (<50%) when the spiked level was below 2 ng. They also compared LLE and UAE methods and found that LLE outperformed UAE in terms of extracting PAHs from tea infusions, as it required smaller sample volumes and achieved higher recovery rates. Despite that, the major drawbacks of LLE include difficulty to automate, being a time-consuming, laborious, and solvent-intensive process that is not environmentally friendly, and lack of specificity towards target analytes, which cause high matrix effects.

5.1.2. Cleanup Procedures

The crude extracts of food samples usually contain co-extracted components, such as oils, lipids, waxes, and pigments, which can adversely affect identification and quantification of PAHs. As a result, for obtaining better-quality extracts, a cleanup step is vital to remove these unwanted compounds after extraction and prior to detection. The protocols described for the cleanup of PAHs in foods mostly include column chromatography, Solid-phase Extraction (SPE), Gel permeation Chromatography (GPC), and Solid-phase Micro-extraction (SPME).
In column chromatography, purification was achieved by placing the sample solution containing PAHs onto a glass chromatographic column packed with specific solid sorbents that have been preconditioned and activated, followed by elution with proper organic solvents. The suitable sorbents are the guarantee for obtaining high cleanup performance and recovery rate. Silica gel, alumina, Florisil, and C18 are commonly utilized sorbents, wherein silica gel is the most prevalent due to good adsorption capacity, low cost, and easy availability [76,87,90,140,141]. For example, Hossain et al. [140] proposed a methodology for the analysis of eight PAHs in edible oils (e.g., soybean oil, mustard oil, and coconut oil). Cleanup of the crude extracts was performed using silica gel column chromatography followed by elution with an acetonitrile/acetone solution (60/40, v/v) before GC-MS analysis. Similarly, a technique was developed by Guatemala-Morales et al. [141] to purify 16 PAHs from roasted coffee. The cleanup was performed by pairing the alkaline saponification step together with a silica gel column chromatography. In some cases, to obtain better performance, two or more sorbents were used together in the cleanup process. Li et al. [142], for instance, utilized GPC and column chromatography packed with silica gel and neutral alumina, followed by elution with dichloromethane/n-hexane (1/1, v/v) and GC-MS/MS to evaluate 16 EPA PAHs in coral reef fish. In another study, Fang et al. [143] adopted C18 and Florisil chromatographic bi-column for cleanup using acetonitrile as the elution solution and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to analyze eight PAHs in aquatic products. All PAHs’ recoveries were over 86% with relative standard deviations (RSDs) < 4.0%. Though column chromatography methods yield satisfactory results; however, they do require large volumes of organic solvents during column precondition, rinsing, and elution, and result in significant quantity of waste. Due to this, they are not considered environmentally friendly.
SPE is based on the utilization of the sorbent material to selectively bind and release PAHs under specific conditions [144,145,146]. As a result, the choice of the sorbent is very important. When performing an SPE, the sorbent is preconditioned and activated using an organic solvent. Sample solution is then passed through it, where analytes are retained, while unwanted matrix components are washed out. By eluting with other organic solvents, pure analytes can be obtained. SPE sorbents are usually packed into cartridges or micro-columns and are typically of powder shape [147]. A typical SPE is carried out to cleanup or isolate PAHs from food samples using silica gel, Florisil, and alumina [89,92,93]. Xu et al. [148] compared these three sorbents for extraction and isolation of 16 EPA PAHs. Florisil was observed to induce significant degradation of certain PAHs (mainly BaP) and result in low recovery rates (<27.1%). Alumina exhibited strong adsorption to PAHs, rendering it unsuitable for sample cleanup. In contrast, silica gel showed satisfactory efficacy in both clean extracts and PAH recovery, making it the preferred choice for PAH analysis. However, some drawbacks such as high expense and non-reusability restrict their long-term application. This led to an extensive research activity for exploring new SPE-based technologies or/and novel sorbents with exceptional extraction performance. As an example, Nazir et al. [149] introduced a novel micro-SPE (μ-SPE) method utilizing spent tea leaves (STLs) as a sorbent and applied it successfully to water, rice, apple, and orange juice samples for the extraction of five PAHs, namely, Flu, Fluo, Pyr, Chr, and BaP. STLs, a byproduct of the tea brewing process, are rich in lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, polyphenols, and aliphatic carbon, which enable the adsorption of PAHs and can extract PAHs from selected matrices through π-π interaction with a good percentage recovery. Samples spiked with PAHs recovered above 88.0% with RSDs less than 9.8%. The appealing features of this biomaterial such as low cost and the absence of any modification requirements are expected to create new avenues for the vast utilization of agricultural waste. In another study, Asfaram et al. [150] proposed a magnetic dispersive micro-solid phase extraction (MD-μ-SPE) method using a magnetic Cu:CuO–graphene oxide nanocomposite as the sorbent, which has good extraction performance for four PAHs, namely, Nap, Phe, Ant, and Pyr, with enrichment factors ranging from 116.51 to 133.05. Combined with HPLC-UV, they achieved the accurate monitoring of these PAHs in real samples, including vegetables, fruits, and environmental water samples. The method exhibited LODs and LOQs ranging from 0.01to 0.061 and from 0.485 to 2.034 ng/mL, respectively, with recoveries between 95.1 and 106.8% and RSDs < 5.62%. Zaw et al. [151] prepared a gelatin aerogel tablet and used it as a vortex-assisted SPE (VA-SPE) sorbent for the extraction of PAHs (BaA, BbF, and BaP) from tea infusions before detection via HPLC-DAD (as illustrated in Figure 6). This tablet is easy to synthesize with good reproducibility (RSDs < 0.24%, n = 6) and excellent reusability (n = 40, RSDs < 0.17%), making it more flexible and low-cost (USD 0.0004 per tablet). By adopting the VA-SPE method and eluting with 2.5 mL of hexane, the analytes were efficiently extracted within 1.5 min, and lower LODs at 1.65–2.06 ng/L and recoveries between 70.1 and 119.3% were achieved. In comparison with other methods, this technique is simpler and more convenient and requires shorter extraction time and smaller sample volume. In another study by Wang et al. [152], they synthesized a β-cyclodextrin functionalized graphene oxide-grafted silica (β-CD/GO/SiO2) sorbent, which exhibited high extraction efficiency for PAHs with 4- to 5-ring structures, such as BaP, BbF, and BaA. They obtained satisfactory recovery rates (91.2–109.1%) and LODs (0.1–0.3 μg/L) using β-CD/GO/SiO2 SPE cartridge and eluting with 1.95 mL of acetone to extract PAHs (BaP, BbF, and BaA) from fried chicken. Comparatively, this method offers lower or comparable LODs and wider or comparable linear ranges, possibly due to the strong π–π stacking, hydrophobic interaction, and size complementarity between β-CD/GO/SiO2 and the analytes. Molecular imprinting polymers (MIPs) are also applied in SPE. They present high adsorption capacity, good reusability, and remarkable selectivity because of their template-based synthesis against the analyte [153]. Using MIP-based SPE methods, PAHs in kebabs, oil–tea camellia seed oil, and tea have been thoroughly researched [145,146,154,155]. Although SPE techniques are effective at purifying or separating PAHs from diverse food matrices, they do have some drawbacks. For instance, the clogging of cartridges by sample suspended matter can lead to reduced recovery rates due to interactions between the sorbents and analytes. Furthermore, commercial SPE columns are not reusable, which may increase experimental costs.
SPME evolved from SPE, an appealing approach that necessitates minimal or no solvent and only small volumes/amounts of sample. So far, the SPME applied in the detection of PAHs in food samples were mainly operated in direct immersion (DI-SPME) or headspace (HS-SPME) modes [156]. Figure 7A presents a general scheme for the extraction and desorption steps in SPME [157]. This extraction relies on the partitioning of analytes between the coating of SPME fiber and the sample matrix, followed by the desorption of the analytes into an appropriate instrument by the provision of heat or application of a desorption solvent. As a result, the choice of suitable fiber coating is of prime importance in SPME applications [158]. Commercially available fiber coatings like polyacrylate (PA), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), carboxen/PDMS (CAR/PDMS), and divinylbenzene/CAR/PDMS (DVB/CAR/PDMS) are preferred for the extraction of PAHs from food products because they provide adequate sensitivity and good recoveries. Very recently, Aresta et al. [159] applied DI-SPME using a 85 μm PA fiber to effectively extract nine PAHs from coffee samples, such as ground coffee, infusion, and coffee grounds. The PAH contents were later determined using GC-MS. The procedure is eco-friendly and eliminates the need for further pretreatment of the sample, except simple water dilution. The LODs of the method ranged between 0.3 and 16.6 ng/g with recoveries between 59 and 99%. Fathollahy et al. [160] utilized a PDMS-coated SPME fiber (60 μm) to successfully extract eight PAHs from edible oils. After extraction, the analytes were desorbed and analyzed by GC-flame ionization detector (FID). Despite the increasing applications of these fiber coatings, they have limitations such as poor mechanical strength, fragility, and short lifetime; therefore, the development of novel and improved coating materials has emerged as a prominent research focus in the field of SPME technology. Erdem et al. [161] recently prepared an SPME fiber by coating clay–chitosan and dicationic ionic liquid onto a stainless steel wire. This novel fiber demonstrated extraction recoveries from 87.5 to 112% with LODs at 0.1–10 ng/L in both HS and DI-SPME methods for the analysis of 16 EPA PAHs in coffee and tea samples. As compared to commercial SPME fibers like CAR/PDMS and DVB/CAR/PDMS, this innovative fiber offers benefits such as easy preparation, low cost, and improved extraction efficiency. Moreover, it can be reused over 125 times while maintaining stability. Zhao et al. [162] developed a novel covalent organic framework/MXene (COF/MXene) composite and applied it as a HS-SPME coating combined with GC-FID to analyze five PAHs (Acen, Phen, Flu, Ant, and Pyr) in honey samples. The results demonstrated low LODs (0.2–0.6 ng/g), satisfied recoveries (73.2–112%), and great precision (≤9.40%). The COF/MXene fiber also provides high enhancement factors (483–598) and a long lifetime (300 cycles of use), highlighting its impressive chemical stability and potential to reduce experimental costs. Furthermore, Xu et al. [163] introduced a novel MIL-88-NH2/COF composite coated on stainless steel wires as an HS-SPME fiber in the detection of five PAHs (Nap, Acen, Aceny, Phen, and Flu) in tea samples by GC-FID. The LODs of the selected PAHs were obtained in the range of 0.019–0.023 ng/mL. The MIL-88-NH2/COF-coated fiber exhibited good durability (100 cycles of use), excellent extraction efficiency (51.70–103.64%), and high adsorption capacity with enhancement factor up to 9858. These new SPME coatings are very advantageous for the extraction of PAHs from different food matrices; however, the majority of such coating materials remain in the experimental and research phase, which limit their commercial availability and widespread utilization.
GPC, also referred to as size-exclusion chromatography, is a highly effective post-extraction cleanup technique for removing interferences with big molecules (e.g., lipids, proteins, and pigments). It provides separation based on differences in molecular size, with larger molecules eluting first, then smaller ones (Figure 7B) [164]. The separation process occurs in a glass column that is packed with stationary phase materials such as styrene–divinylbenzene copolymer (i.e., Bio Beads SX-3) [85,165]. In a study conducted by Wang et al. [166], GPC was applied after UAE extraction to purify oil extracts with the aim of analyzing 14 PAHs in edible oils by HPLC-DAD-FLD. By utilizing Bio Beads SX-3, the GPC procedure effectively eliminated triglycerides from the samples, achieving method recoveries ranging from 73 to 110% and RSDs < 10%. Traditional GPC systems suffer from low sample loading capacity (about 0.15 g) and limited cleanup ability, especially when treating samples high in fat content. To further improve the detection of PAH4 in olive oil samples, Cotugno et al. [167] developed a novel double-column GPC system. The system uses two glass chromatographic columns and a switching valve, allowing for the removal of interfering analytes in olive oil without resorting to any preliminary extraction process. The system enables a sample loading capacity up to 1 g, as well as improved LODs and LOQs in the range of 0.21–0.32 and 0.70–1.06 ng/g, respectively. Moreover, the possibility to process up to 15 samples in a single GPC sequence and the automatization of the chromatographic separation make this technique more appealing. Rozentale et al. [85] used a Bio Beads SX-3 gel permeation column and a Silica SPE column to successfully remove co-extractives in the cleanup of PAH4 in cereal products with high protein and fat content. LODs of 0.002–0.006 μg/kg and recovery rates between 92 and 117% were obtained. The drawbacks of GPC include the requirement for big columns, extended operation times, and high cost due to the significant amount of solvents needed for eluting.

5.2. Detection Strategies

Due to the multiple types and varied structures of PAHs, as well as the diversity of food matrices, the detection of PAHs should take into account several factors like the specific application, the nature of PAHs, and the type of samples being analyzed. In recent years, the most commonly used strategies for detection and quantification of PAHs in foodstuffs are GC and LC, primarily because of their exceptional sensitivity, separation capabilities, and identification prowess. Each of these techniques offers unique advantages and constraints, with factors including sensitivity, selectivity, and sample preparation influencing the choice of method. Table 4 summarizes GC- and LC-based techniques recently developed for PAH determination in various food samples.

5.2.1. Gas Chromatography

GC is a popular chromatographic technique for PAHs’ detection in food matrices since PAHs are thermally stable and the majority are volatile and readily vaporized. PAH analyses using GC are accompanied by detectors such as MS [159,161,168,169,170,171,172,173], MS/MS [154,174,175,176], FID [121,160,162,163], or high-resolution MS (HRMS) [57,85,177] Nevertheless, more recent studies tend to utilize MS combined with GC to detect PAHs in food as it offers better method sensitivity, selectivity, and identification abilities compared to FID, and is more convenient and cost-effective than MS/MS and HRMS. In some nations, GC-MS is a component of national standard methods for the determination of PAHs in different food categories (e.g., cereals/cereal products, meats/meat products, and aquatic foods/aquatic food products) [178].
When conducting GC-MS analysis, the choice of an appropriate injection mode is crucial to avoid discrimination, especially with less volatile compounds, such as PAHs. The most utilized injection modes in PAH analysis are splitless [161,168,169,170] and programmed-temperature vaporization (PTV) [179,180] injection. Splitless injection typically allows for a small sample injection capacity of up to 2 μL and retains non-volatile co-injected chemicals in the liner, which limits sensitivity for complex food matrices. On the other hand, PTV injection enables larger sample sizes up to 5 μL and releases high-boiling co-extracted chemicals through a split vent or traps them on a liner to reduce matrix effects; as a result, it is extensively employed to minimize injection discrimination and enhance sensitivity in food samples [181]. Electron ionization (EI) is a “hard” ionization technique that results in the reproducible fragmentation of PAHs into well-characterized mass spectral fingerprints valuable for qualitative identification. However, due to the high stability of PAHs, the use of EI produces mainly the molecular ion ([M–H]+ or [M–2H]+) with few fragments, and thus, the single quadrupole analyzer is often employed [168,169,172,182,183]. To accomplish the valuable identification and quantification of the PAHs being analyzed, it is essential to select at least 2–3 ions for each analyte. The selected ion monitoring (SIM) is used where the analyte mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) is concentrated to achieve a lower LOD and LOQ with reduced interference. Nevertheless, in the case of several groups of isomeric PAHs, such as Ant and Phen, BaA and Chr, and BbF and BkF, their chromatographic peaks usually overlap, and the MS fragment ions and relative abundances are alike, which makes GC-MS unable to accurately identify and quantify such compounds [184]. Improving GC isolation is one solution. In fact, to a large extent, the presence of unresolved isomers is attributed to the stationary phase used; thus, the utilization of a suitable column can help solve such an issue. It is recommended to use nonpolar stationary phase consisting of 5% phenyl and 95% dimethylpolysiloxane, which is recognized as the universal choice for PAH analysis column [109,141,146,168,183]. Furthermore, MS/MS or HRMS detection’s superior selectivity and sensitivity allowed it to identify and quantify these PAHs that were poorly differentiated by GC through the use of multiple reaction monitoring and accurate masses of fragment ions. It is worth noting that these methods are expensive and highly specialized and have high operating and maintenance costs, which makes them unavailable in most laboratories.
In general, the GC-MS system more often used consists of a split/splitless injector or a PTV injector, a capillary column such as HP-5MS or DB-5MS, an EI source, and a quadrupole (Q) analyzer that operates in the SIM mode. Recent advances in injection systems primarily involve the use of thermal desorption (TD). TD units function by heating the extracts or sorbents that retain the analytes in a flow of inert carrier gas, thereby releasing the retained analytes into the analytical system [185]. With the coupling of on-line dynamic headspace extraction, this system has been applied to determine six PAHs (Nap, Acen, Aceny, Flu, Phen, and Ant) in fish products. The LOQs were 0.01–0.6 ng/g and absolute recoveries were 13–62%. The method achieved the detection of these PAHs in a wide range of seafoods with concentrations from 0.3 to 26.2 ng/g [186]. Furthermore, TD has also shown excellent performance in the determination of PAHs and nitro-PAHs in PM10 and PM2.5 [187]. Developments in separation have been observed from the use of novel columns or/and comprehensive two-dimensional GC (GCxGC) coupled with MS or TOF-MS. GCxGC offers advantages such as higher peak capacity and better resolution and separation of various groups of PAHs and their derivatives compared to one-dimensional GC. As an example, using a GCxGC-TOF-MS system, a total of 97 PAHs, including parent, alkyl-, nitro-, oxy-, thio-, chloro-, bromo-, and high-molecular-weight PAHs, were separated and detected in a 176-min run [188]. In another study, GCxGC-MS was employed to the analysis of 15 PAHs in seafood including fish and mussel [189]. Recently, some research endeavors have advanced the development of an HPLC/GC-MS system for the analysis of PAHs [190]. In this setup, the HPLC apparatus is employed to separate PAHs from the main components of food matrices using backflush fractionation. This integrated chromatographic system facilitates automated sample cleanup with HPLC and large volume injections on the GC, thereby enhancing detection capabilities compared to conventional GC/MS analysis. Advances in mass analyzers have also been reported. Q-Orbitrap-MS, IT-MS, and Q-time of flight MS (Q-TOF-MS) have provided accurate quantification coupled with GC. A state-of-the-art technology in the field is a proposed isotope-dilution GC coupled with HRMS (ID-GC-HRMS) for the determination of four PAHs (BaA, Chr, BbF, and BaP) in olive oil. Satisfactory recoveries ranged from 97.5 to 102%, RSDs were <1%, and measurement uncertainty was <5%, confirming that the method is suitable for the certification of PAHs in olive oil certified reference materials [191]. Prata et al. [118] explored a GC-Q-Orbitrap-MS method with QuEChERS-based extraction to evaluate 14 PAHs and 4 pesticides in baby food samples commercialized in Brazil. For PAHs, recoveries between 71 and 120% were obtained, and high sensitivity was achieved with LODs at 0.05 μg/kg for the different compounds. To investigate honey contamination, a cheap and multiresidue method was developed for the analysis of 16 PAHs, 90 pesticides, and 22 polychlorinated biphenyls [192]. In this methodology, GC-IT-MS/MS was used to detect PAHs in honey matrices after QuEChERS and SPME extraction. The LODs were between 0.07 and 12 ng/g, and the LOQs were between 0.23 and 40 ng/g. Nine PAHs were found in the majority of the honey samples from Lebanon, with concentrations varying from 5.36 to 33.3 ng/g. The validation of GC–IT/MS with ultrasound–vortex-assisted DLLME demonstrated enhanced sensitivity for detecting nine PAHs in honey matrices with LODs of 0.030–0.199 ng/g, leading to a 316–1200-fold higher sensitivity compared to common GC-FID [179]. Additionally, GC-Q-TOF-MS combined with appropriate sample preparation techniques such as QuEChERS has been utilized for the detection of PAH4 in fish and malt with LOQs in the range of 0.12–0.24 μg/kg [193].
GC-FID has poor selectivity and low sensitivity, in comparison to MS-related techniques, but it is inexpensive and easy to use, and a wealth of literature is still available on the application of this method for analyzing PAHs in various types of food samples by combining with efficient sample preparation methods. Recent examples of GC–FID used to determine PAHs in food matrices include edible oils, honey, tea, etc. [121,160,162,163].

5.2.2. Liquid Chromatography

The LC-based method has long been utilized for the quantification of PAHs in food and also in some official methods proposed by nations such as China [178,194] and the US [195]. LC detection does not have to take into account PAHs’ volatility or molecular weight since it operates at lower temperatures. Thermal breakdown of heavy PAHs is another advantage offered by LC. When analyzing PAHs, LC can be utilized with FLD [132,142,196,197,198], DAD [116,151,152], or UV [73,150,199] detector, wherein FLD is more precise and sensitive than UV or DAD. Chiang et al. [125] developed a methodology for determining 16 EU priority PAHs in charcoal-grilled chicken drumsticks. They compared three major PAHs analytical methods, with HPLC-FLD being the most appropriate method because of its superior sensitivity and shorter analysis time than GC-MS and HPLC-DAD. Nevertheless, the use of DAD or UV is still a necessity for the detection of non-fluorescent PAHs like cyclopenta[c, d]pyrene. In LC, another important factor is the choice of column. In general, silica-based columns containing C18 with varying lengths and diameters are the most employed for the separation of PAHs, and to decrease the runtime, the gradient mode has been used with acetonitrile or methanol gradient in water [132,152,198,200]. In some cases, determinations are conducted in the isocratic mode, and detector combinations, such as UV and/or DAD coupled with FLD [73,145,201], are also employed. For instance, Singh et al. [200] established a HPLC-FLD method to analyze 16 PAHs in cooked chicken and roasted coffee. The separation was achieved using a C18-ODS2 column and acetonitrile/water (90/10, v/v) in the isocratic mode, providing high sensitivity with LODs of 0.03–0.06 ng/mL. To investigate the concentration, source, and risk of 22 PAHs from Chinese tea products, Guo et al. [72] proposed an analytical methodology employing HPLC-DAD-FLD and gradient elution with water and acetonitrile. LODs of the method were 0.10–0.75 μg/kg, and the total concentration of Σ22 PAHs in 28 varieties of 119 tea samples varied from 136.99 to 51 μg/kg. Further, Hamidi et al. [201] presented a technique for evaluating the bioaccessibility of 15 PAHs in charcoal-grilled beef and chicken across different segments of human gastrointestinal tract. This was achieved through HPLC-UV-FLD analysis using gradient elution with acetonitrile in water. The method LODs were between 0.025 and 5 ng/g. The total PAHs were found in beef (30.73 ng/g) and chicken (70.93 ng/g) before its digestion. In addition to HPLC, ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) methods have also been proposed [166,202,203] coupled with FLD or/and DAD for PAH analysis in food examples (e.g., honey, edible oil, and coffee). Compared to HPLC, UHPLC allows for improved chromatographic resolution, increased throughput (total analysis time reduced by about 3/4-fold), and significantly reduced solvent consumption (by more than 70%), making it more environmentally friendly and cost-effective.
Despite the use of LC coupled with UV, FLD, and DAD systems, it remains challenging to offer structural information for the identification of PAHs in foods of different categories. The incorporation of an MS detection system in LC has emerged as a viable solution, and relevant determinations have been described in recent studies. More recently, Dueñas-Mas et al. [204] have reported a method for the estimation of four oxygenated PAHs (naphtacene-5,12-dione, 6H-benzo(cd)pyren-6-one, 11H-benzo(b)fluoren-11-one, and 9H-fluoren-9-one) in processed seafood, fish, and meat samples. This approach utilizes a rapid resolution LC-HRMS system equipped with a Q-TOF analyzer and an atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) source operating in the positive mode. LOQs of the method were in the range 0.08–4 ng/g. The total PAHs were detected at levels ranging from 3.5 to 12.6 ng/g, mainly in fish and seafood. In contrast to APCI, atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI) demonstrates superior efficacy in ionizing nonpolar PAHs and their derivatives, while also exhibiting reduced ion suppression. Typically, to further increase the ionization a dopant (e.g., acetone or toluene) is employed. Lung et al. [205] have reported a multi-residue method for the analysis of 20 PAHs and 9 nitrated PAHs using UHPLC coupled with APPI-MS/MS using 0.5% 2,4-difluoroanisole in chlorobenzene as the dopant. The method offers the benefits of reduced separation time and superior resolution and sensitivity. The selected PAHs are separated in 15 min in the positive mode and 11 min in the negative mode, one half of GC-MS analysis time. LODs of the target PAHs, except acenaphthylene, and those of nitro-PAHs, except 2-nitrofluoranthene, are below 10 and 3 pg, respectively. To date, the application of LC-MS-based techniques to detect PAHs in food products is still limited, and this can primarily be attributed to the low ionization efficiency of PAHs, which is a result of their nonpolar characteristics.

5.2.3. Other Technologies

Alongside the aforementioned methods, several other technologies such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) have also been developed to analyze PAHs in food samples. ELISA determines PAHs based on the principle of antigen–antibody interaction coupled with enzyme-catalyzed colorimetric changes, offering high sensitivity and selectivity. For PAHs, a type of small molecules, indirect competitive ELISA (ic-ELISA) is predominantly employed for their detection, with the pivotal aspect being the generation of antibodies capable of recognizing these compounds. Up to now, researchers have developed a range of anti-PAH antibodies using immunochemical techniques and established ELISA detection methods [206,207,208]. A study conducted by Wu et al. [209], they have prepared a highly sensitivity monoclonal antibody (mAb) and established an ic-ELISA method to detect Pyr and BaP in living aquatic products (e.g., fish, shrimp, and crab) with simple sample pretreatment. The method showed recoveries of 81.5–101.9% with LODs of 0.43–0.98 μg/kg and the coefficient of variation (CV) < 17%. Confirmation and relevance with HPLC-FLD has confirmed the ic-ELISA method as a feasible tool that lays a foundation for the development and application of PAH residue detection kit in aquatic products. In a separate study, Ma et al. [210] applied a streptavidin–horseradish peroxidase-based ELISA method utilizing synthesized polyclonal antibody (pAb) for the sensitive monitoring of BaP in environmental and food samples (e.g., vegetables, cereals, and barbecue food). This method achieved a low LOD of 0.0094 ng/mL and recoveries over the range of 91.12 to 109.23% with CV < 8.8%. With the 96-well microtiter plate, the analysis of nearly 100 samples can be completed within 6 h, indicating the rapidity and high throughput of this method. Moreover, Qiao et al. [17] synthesized an immunogen by conjugating 5-acenaphthylenecarboxylic acid to bovine serum albumin and produced a mAb with high affinities for Acen and Pyr. Based on this mAb, an ic-ELISA technique was developed for the sensitive detection of Acen and Pyr with a half-inhibitory concentration (IC50) of 12.17 ng/mL. However, this method has not yet been applied in food analysis. ELISA methods, on the other hand, require cumbersome incubation steps and repeated sample loading operations when handling multiple targets, affecting both convenience and detection efficiency.
SERS is emerging as a non-destructive, highly sensitive, and rapid detection technique that utilizes nanoscale precious metals such as gold (Au) or silver (Ag) as substrates. When the incident laser is resonantly coupled with the metal substrate at a certain excitation wavelength, a strong local electromagnetic field is formed, which is confined to a small range on the metal surface. This phenomenon known as local surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) leads to a significant enhancement of the Raman signals of the detected PAHs, thereby enabling highly sensitive identification and detection [211]. As an example, Su et al. [212] developed a liquid-interfacial SERS technology without pretreatment steps to achieve a rapid and direct detection of ultra-trace PAHs in edible oil. The sample and chloroform are miscible to form an organic phase. When gold nanoparticles (GNPs) are added and shaken vigorously, the GNPs reach the aqueous–organic interface and form a three-dimensional (3D) nano assembly. The characteristic peaks of edible oil and related molecules can be readily determined on a portable Raman spectrometer, with the entire detection process for one sample requiring only 3 min. The LOD of the method was as low as 0.1 μg/L. Wang et al. [18] utilized a SERS sensor composed of Au nanoparticles (AuNPs) and reoxidized graphene oxide (rGO) to simultaneously determine 16 EPA PAHs in Chinese traditional fried food (youtiao). The method involves depositing a higher density of AuNPs on the surface of rGO, resulting in a significantly reduced interparticle distance and the creation of more “hot spots.” LSPR from hot spots brings about greater enhancement of the PAH signal. The entire detection process is expedited, taking only 15 min, and the method LODs were estimated as low as 0.2–2 ng/mL. This method could prospectively be applied as a screening monitoring method to detect PAHs on-site for the quality control of fried food. However, this prepared sensor is performed under laboratory conditions during practical validation e.g., sample preparation and the complexity of sample types and matrices that is difficult to match in real-life situations, which presents a major obstacle for its practical application.
Table 4. A summary of GC- and LC-based methods for determining PAHs in food.
Table 4. A summary of GC- and LC-based methods for determining PAHs in food.
SampleAnalytesSample PretreatmentInstrumental
Techniques
Instrumental DetailsPerformance
Characteristics
Ref.
Youtiao16 PAHsUAE with acetonitrile/acetone (3/2, v/v), purification by a C18 SPE cartridge and a Florisil SPE cartridgeGC-MSDB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; inlet, transfer line, and ion source temperature at 300 °C, 280 °C, and 230 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 72.2–108.1%
LODs: 0.005–0.36 μg/kg
[71]
Tea22 PAHsUAE with n-hexane, purification by an SPE cartridge using carboxylated MWCNTs and diatomite as sorbentsHPLC-UV-FLDC18 column (25 cm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) at 30 °C with a gradient mobile phase of acetonitrile and waterRecoveries: 82.1–97.4%
RSDs: 2.3–5.9%
LODs: 0.10–0.75 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.33–2.50 μg/kg
[72]
Tea16 PAHsUAE with n-hexane, purification by dispersive SPE using PSA and C18 as sorbentsHPLC-UV-FLDWaters PAH C18 column (25 cm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) at 27 °C with a gradient mobile phase of acetonitrile and water and UV detection wavelength of 230 nmRecoveries: 71.5–118%
RSDs ˂ 10%
LOQs: 0.4–3.0 μg/kg
[73]
Dried fish16 PAHsSOX with methylene chloride, purification by GPC with SX-3 Bio Beads as a sorbent and a chromatography column with Al2O3 and silica gel as sorbents GC-MS/MSTG-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; inlet and ion source temperature at 270 °C and 280 °C, respectivelyRecovery: 50–126%[104]
Aquatic products
(grass carp, Macrobrachium rosenbergii, Eriocheir sinensis)
16 PAHsSOX with cyclohexane/methylene chloride (1/1, v/v), followed by GPC cleanupGC-MSDB-35MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; both inlet and ion source temperature at 260 °C; transfer line and quadrupole temperature at 280 °C and 150 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 70.3–126.4%
RSDs: 0.14–8.91%
LODs: 0.017–0.171 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.051–0.489 μg/kg
[105]
Aquatic products (marine fish, Shrimp, Sea crab)16 PAHsUAE with methylene chloride, purification by an SPE cartridge using C18 and PSA as sorbents GC-MSHP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; inlet, transfer line, and ion source temperature at 250 °C, 280 °C, and 230 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 77.5–107.4%
RSDs: 1.8–8.4%
LODs: 0.12–0.25 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.4–0.82 μg/kg
[109]
Herbal tea10 PAHsQuEChERS (acetonitrile, anhydrous MgSO4 and NaCl, PSA and strong anion exchange sorbents) and LLE with hexaneGC-FIDPAH capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.36 mm); programmed temperature; split mode at split ratio of 10:1; inlet temperature at 270 °CRecoveries: 77–85%
LODs: 0.08–0.17 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.24–0.51 μg/kg
[121]
Charcoal-grilled chicken drumsticks16 PAHsQuEChERS (acetone, anhydrous MgSO4 and NaCl, PSA and endcapped octadecylsilane silica gel particle sorbents)HPLC-FLDPinnacle II PAH column (15 cm × 3 mm i.d., 4 μm) at 35 °C with a gradient mobile phase of water and acetonitrile containing 4% tetrahydrofuran and UV detection wavelength of 254 nmRecoveries: 67–114%
RSDs: 1–21%
LODs: 0.004–0.25 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.01–0.75 μg/kg
[124]
Kebabs16 PAHsUAE with acetonitrile and acetonitrile–saturated hexane, cleanup by a PAH-MIP columnHPLC-FLD-DADSB C18 column (25 cm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) at 30 °C with a gradient mobile phase of acetonitrile and waterRecoveries: 81–104%
RSDs: 0.95–5.84%
LODs: 0.33–3.30 μg/kg
LOQs: 1.0–10.0 μg/kg
[145]
Oil-tea camellia seed oil16 PAHsVortex extraction with hexane, cleanup by a PAH-MIP columnGC-MS/MSHP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; both inlet and transfer line temperature at 280 °C; ion source and quadrupole temperature at 230 °C and 150 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 71.5–116.3%
RSDs: 1.5–13.8%
LODs: 0.01–0.20 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.04–0.65 μg/kg
[146]
Tea infusionBaA, BbF, and BaPSample solution mixed with gelatin aerogel tablet were vortexed and then desorbed by hexaneHPLC-DADUPS C18 column (15 cm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) at 25 °C with an isocratic mobile phase of acetonitrile/water (95/5, v/v) and DAD detection wavelength of 256 nmRecoveries: 70.1–119.3%
RSDs ≤ 6.3%
LODs:0.0017–0.0021 μg/L
[151]
Fried foodBaP, BbF, and BaASaponification and SPE using β-cyclodextrin functionalized graphene oxide-grafted silica as sorbentHPLC-DADC18 column (15 cm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) at 30 °C with an isocratic mobile phase of methanol/water (80/20, v/v) and DAD detection wavelength of 254 nmRecoveries: 91.2–109.1%
RSDs: 1.6–11.8%
LODs: 0.1–0.3 μg/L
[152]
Coffee (ground coffee, infusion, and coffee grounds)Nap, Ant, Aceny, BghiP, BaP, Chr, Fluo, Flu, and PyrDI-SPME using a polyacrylate-coated fused silica fiber (85 μm) GC-MSSPB-5 fused silica capillary column (30 m × 0.25 μm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; both inlet and ion source temperature at 250 °C; transfer line temperature at 300 °CRecoveries: 59–99%
RSDs: 3–11%
LODs: 0.3–16.6 μg/kg
LOQs: 1.0–55.3 μg/kg
[159]
Coffee and tea16 EPA PAHsHS and DI-SPME using a fiber by coating clay–chitosan and dicationic ionic liquid onto a stainless steel wireGC-MSTG-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; inlet, ion source, and transfer line temperature at 250 °C, 280 °C, and 250 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 87.5–112%
RSDs: 2.5–6.5%
LODs: 0.1–10 ng/L
[161]
HoneyAcen, Phen, Flu, Ant, and PyrHS-SPME using covalent organic framework/Ti3C2Tx composites as coatingsGC-FIDHP-5 capillary fused silica column (30 m × 0.32 mm i.d., 0.25 μm) and programmed temperatureRecoveries: 73.2–112%
RSDs ≤ 9.4%
LODs: 0.2–0.6 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.6–2.0 μg/kg
[162]
Grilled meat16 PAHs and 36 PCBsQuEChERS (ethyl acetate/acetone/isooctane (2/2/1, v/v/v), NaCl and ammonium formate, MgSO4, and CH3COONa, PSA and Z-Sep+ made up of C18 and silica coated with zirconium dioxide at a ratio of 2:5 as sorbents)GC-MSHP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; ion source and transfer line temperature at 230 °C and 280 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 72.5–119.5%
RSDs: 1.3–16.8%
LOQs: 0.5–2 μg/kg
[168]
Coffee, tea and water 15 PAHsμ-QuEChERS (acetonitrile, anhydrous MgSO4 and NaCl, PSA, and C18 sorbents) followed by enrichment using air-assisted DLLME with diethyl carbonate as the extraction solventGC-MSDB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; ion source temperature at 230 °CRecoveries: 90–103%
RSDs: 0.2–5.9%
LODs: 0.01–2.10 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.03–6.36 μg/kg
[169]
Bread10 PAHsQuEChERS (acetonitrile, anhydrous MgSO4 and NaCl, PSA sorbent) GC-MSDB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; inlet, quadrupole mass analyzer, transfer line, and ion source temperature at 300 °C, 100 °C, 280 °C, and 230 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 92–106%
RSDs: 3–7%
LODs: 0.14–0.78 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.46–2.60 μg/kg
[170]
Pork meat16 PAHsQuEChERS with acetonitrile and Agilent 5982–6650 Extract Pouches, purification by dispersive SPE using PSA as sorbentGC-MSSLB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.32 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; both inlet and transfer line temperature at 300 °C; ion source temperature at 220 °CRecoveries: 71–120%
RSDs: 1.7–7.6%
LODs: 0.27–5.60 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.81–16.8 μg/kg
[171]
Bread and potato Tahdig16 PAHsSample mixed with methanol, refluxed with potassium hydroxide and distilled water, then n-hexane is added, and purified by a Sep-Pak cartridge with methanol/n-hexane (1/1, v/v) as the elution solventGC-MSDB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; pulsed splitless mode; inlet, transfer line, ion source, and quadrupole temperature at 290, 300, 230, and 150 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 86.2–100.5%[172]
Tea16 PAHsUAE with hexane, purification by dispersive SPE using PSA and C18 as sorbentsGC-MSDB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm); programmed temperature; 20% split injection mode; ion source and transfer line temperature at 230 °C and 280 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 83.2–108.7%
RSDs: 0.19–6.9%
LODs: 0.10–0.28 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.35–1.01 μg/kg
[173]
Honey33 PAHsSample dissolved in 10% methanol/deionized water and extracted using an SPE cartridge and eluting with ethyl acetateGC-MS/MSZebron™ column (20 m × 0.18 mm i.d., 0.18 μm); programmed temperature; pulsed splitless mode; injector port and interface temperature at 290 °C and 250 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 41–115%
RSDs: 17–40%
LOQs: 0.5 μg/kg
[175]
Seafood24 PAHs and 18 halogenated PAHsUAE with acetonitrile/acetone (3/2, v/v), purification by an EMR lipid tubeGC-MS/MSDB-EUPAH column (20 m × 0.18 mm i.d., 0.14 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; inlet, transfer line, ion source, and quadrupole at 280 °C, 300 °C, 230 °C, and 150 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 70.5–116.9%
RSDs ≤ 13.1%
LODs: 0.01–0.2 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.03–0.67 μg/kg
[176]
Barbecued meat and meat substitutes6 PAHs and 8 oxygenated PAHsPLE with acetonitrile/ethyl acetate (1/3, v/v), purification by an SPE cartridge using Florisil, zirconia/silica, and C18 as sorbentsGC-HRMSPAH C18 capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.10 μm); programmed temperature; splitless injection; inlet, transfer line, and ion source temperature at 280 °C, 270 °C, and 260 °C, respectivelyRecoveries: 72–109%
LODs: 0.03–0.17 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.10–0.55 μg/kg
[177]
Roasted pork
meat
BaA, Chr, BaP, BbF, BkF, DiBahA, and BghiPHomogenization and alkaline hydrolysis of samples with 1 mol/L KOH solution, purification by an SPE cartridge using propyl sulfonic as sorbentHPLC-FLDHypersil Green PAH column (25 cm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) at 40 °C with an isocratic mobile phase of acetonitrile/water (84/16, v/v)Recoveries: 61–96%
RSDs: 7.8–15.9%
LODs: 0.003–0.006 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.01–0.02 μg/kg
[196]
Tea infusionBaP, BaA, BbF, and ChrQuEChERS (acetonitrile containing 1% acetic acid, anhydrous MgSO4 and NaCl, PSA, endcapped octadecyl siloxane, and carbon sorbents)HPLC-FLDPinnacle II PAH column (15 cm × 3.0 mm i.d., 4 μm) with a gradient mobile phase of water and acetonitrile containing 4% tetrahydrofuranLODs: 0.02–0.11 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.08–0.38 μg/kg
[197]
Tea and tea infusionBaA, Chr, BbF, and BaPVortex extraction with ethyl acetate, purification by dispersive SPE using silica gel and PSA as sorbentsHPLC-FLDVydac 201 TP54 C18 column (25 cm × 4.6mm i.d., 5 μm) at 30 °C with a gradient mobile phase of acetonitrile and waterRecoveries: 54–99%
RSDs: 1–21%
LODs: 0.03–0.3 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.1–0.5 μg/kg
[198]
MilkBaP, BaA, and BbFSaponification and DLLME using chloroform as the extracting solvent and acetonitrile as the disperser solventHPLC-UVPerfectSil ODS-3 HD column (12.5 cm × 4 mm i.d., 5 μm) at 25 °C with an isocratic mobile phase of acetonitrile/water (90/10, v/v) and UV detection wavelength at 254 nmRecoveries: 88.4–95.2%
RSDs: 3.7–9.7%
LODs: 0.06–0.18 ng/mL
LOQs: 0.18–0.56 ng/mL
[199]
Cooked chicken and roasted coffee16 PAHsQuEChERS (acetonitrile containing 1% acetic acid, MgSO4, CH3COONa, and PSA sorbent)HPLC-FLDSpherisorb ODS2 column (25 cm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) at 30 °C with an isocratic mobile phase of acetonitrile and water (90: 10, v/v)Recoveries: 52.6–103.9%
RSDs < 22%
LODs: 0.03–0.6 ng/mL
LOQs: 0.09–1.8 ng/mL
[200]
Grilled meat15 PAHsExtraction with diatomaceous earth columns and propylsulfonic acid columns using dichloromethane as the elution solvent, and cleanup by a column chromatography containing silica gel and elution with n-hexane/dichloromethane (60/40, v/v)HPLC-UV-FLDPAH column (25 cm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) with a gradient mobile phase of water and acetonitrile and UV detection wavelength at 254 nmRecoveries: 13.7–132.6%
LODs: 0.025–5 μg/kg
LOQs: 0.075–15 μg/kg
[201]

6. Conclusions

We have reviewed here the research related to PAHs’ impact on crops and their occurrence, sources, and methods of detection in food. The existing studies indicated that PAHs present a dual impact on crop growth. They can negatively affect crop development; however, they enhance the quality and yield of agricultural produce at specific concentrations. The PAHs that occur in foods are primarily derived from the uptake and accumulation in crop leaves, as well as from food processing methods such as frying, barbecuing, smoking, etc. The prevalence of PAHs in food has become a widespread concern, due to their frequent identification in food products from numerous countries. This is particularly true for smoked foods, which require heightened attention due to the elevated levels of PAHs often found in them. The toxicity of PAHs to humans and agricultural crops has made PAHs monitoring a hot topic. We evaluated here the sample preparation techniques, which is a pivotal step in the extraction and cleanup of food matrices. Each technique offers specific application scenarios, scopes, and technical merits. Traditional methods (e.g., SOE and LLE) have shown inefficiency and high solvent consumption, which contravenes the tenets of green chemistry. Consequently, they are increasingly being supplanted by innovative technologies such as SPME and QuEChERS, which promise superior efficiency and environmental compatibility. The adoption of these new technologies is on the rise. Regarding detection, GC-MS and HPLC represent the prevailing analytical techniques; however, GC-MS may encounter difficulties in separating specific PAH isomers, while HPLC may have suboptimal qualitative capabilities. The use of ELISA and SERS techniques has augmented the sensitivity, speed, and convenience of PAH detection. Nonetheless, these techniques are yet to be universally standardized, and they currently only facilitate the detection of individual PAHs or a limited number thereof. Moreover, samples are necessitated to undergo a laborious preprocessing phase prior to detection. In addition, the employment of these two methods in food is still lacking.
In light of the current research, it is recommended that further studies be undertaken to explore the impact of PAH stress on a broader range of crops to establish tolerance thresholds and to elucidate the underlying mechanisms by which PAHs affect various crop plants. This will provide valuable insights into the cultivation and regulation of crops. Furthermore, there should be a focus on continually monitoring PAH levels in food and establishing a fundamental database. Further, removal techniques for PAHs should be developed to minimize contamination in food. Additionally, emphasis must be placed on developing green, efficient, and intelligent technologies to simplify or eliminate the sample preparation for analyzing multiple PAHs simultaneously. Concurrently, efforts must be intensified to develop portable and rapid detection devices for on-site and real-time monitoring of PAHs in various foods. It is hoped that this review can provide reference for future research endeavors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.L. and L.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, T.L. and L.Z.; writing—review and editing, L.Z. and D.Y.; funding acquisition, L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by “Qinglan” Project of Jiangsu Province, Jiangsu Agricultural Science and Technology Independent Innovation Fund, grant number CX(22)3005, the Key Technology Research and Development Program of Suzhou, grant number SNG2021015, and the Foundation of Jiangsu Taihu Area Institute of Agricultural Sciences, grant number 21013.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Qi, A.A.; Wang, P.C.; Lv, J.H.; Zhao, T.; Huang, Q.; Wang, Y.M.; Zhang, X.F.; Wang, M.; Xiao, Y.; Yang, L.X.; et al. Distributions of PAHs, NPAHs, OPAHs, BrPAHs, and ClPAHs in air, bulk deposition, soil, and water in the Shandong Peninsula, China: Urban-rural gradient, interface exchange, and long-range transport. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 265, 115494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rizzi, C.; Villa, S.; Waichman, A.V.; de Souza Nunes, G.S.; de Oliveira, R.; Vighi, M.; Rico, A. Occurrence, sources, and ecological risks of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the Amazon river. Chemosphere 2023, 336, 139285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Paradelo, R.; Celeiro, M.; Herbon, C.; Barral, M.T.; García-Jares, C. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons concentration and spatial distribution in the soils of Santiago de Compostela (northwestern Spain). Geoderma Reg. 2023, 34, e00703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alani, R.; Zhao, S.Z.; Liu, X.; Akinrinade, O.; Agunbiade, F.; Ayejuyo, O.; Zhang, G. Concentrations, profiles and exposure risks of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in passive air samples from Lagos, Nigeria. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2021, 12, 101162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Soursou, V.; Campo, J.; Picó, Y. Revisiting the analytical determination of PAHs in environmental samples: An update on recent advances. Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 2023, 37, e00195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Some Non-Heterocyclic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Some Related Exposures. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK321712/ (accessed on 13 January 2024).
  7. 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] [PubMed]
  8. Ji, J.M.; Zhang, Y.X.; Sun, S.D.; Liu, X.J. Concentrations of the 16 US EPA PAHs in 86 vegetable oil samples. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2022, 42, 7336–7353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shoaei, F.; Talebi-Ghane, E.; Amirsadeghi, S.; Mehri, F. The investigation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in milk and its products: A global systematic review, meta-analysis and health risk assessment. Int. Dairy J. 2023, 142, 105645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, L.; Agarwal, T. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in cooked (tandoori) chicken and associated health risk. Risk Anal. 2023, 43, 2380–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Dai, Y.F.; Xu, X.J.; Huo, X.; Faas, M.M. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on pregnancy, placenta, and placental trophoblasts. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 262, 115314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tartaglione, A.M.; Racca, A.; Ricceri, L. Developmental exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): Focus on benzo[a]pyrene neurotoxicity. Reprod. Toxicol. 2023, 119, 108394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yu, Y.-Y.; Jin, H.; Lu, Q. Effect of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on immunity. J. Transl. Autoimmun. 2022, 5, 100177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mallah, M.A.; Li, C.X.; Mallah, M.A.; Noreen, S.; Liu, Y.; Saeed, M.; Xi, H.; Ahmed, B.; Feng, F.F.; Mirjat, A.A.; et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and its effects on human health: An overeview. Chemosphere 2022, 296, 133948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Cai, K.; Xu, B. A review of hazards in meat products: Multiple pathways, hazards and mitigation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Food Chem. 2024, 445, 138718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Agus, B.A.P.; Rajentran, K.; Selamat, J.; Lestari, S.D.; Umar, N.B.; Hussain, N. Determination of 16 EPA PAHs in food using gas and liquid chromatography. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2023, 116, 105038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Qiao, B.; Li, Y.S.; Meng, X.Y.; Sun, Y.; Hu, P.; Lu, S.Y.; Ren, H.L.; Liu, Z.S.; Zhou, Y. Development of an indirect competitive ELISA for the detection of acenaphthene and pyrene. Food Agric. Immunol. 2017, 28, 789–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, S.; Cheng, J.; Han, C.Q.; Xie, J.C. A versatile SERS sensor for multiple determinations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and its application potential in analysis of fried foods. Int. J. Anal. Chem. 2020, 2020, 4248029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Meng, X.R.; Hu, L.Q.; Ju, Y.; Zhang, Y.H.; Yin, C.L. Recent advances in pretreatment methods for the detection of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible oil. Food Sci. 2022, 43, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bansal, V.; Kumar, P.; Kwon, E.E.; Kim, K.H. Review of the quantification techniques for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in food products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 3297–3312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1327/2014 of 12 December 2014 Amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as Regards Maximum Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Traditionally Smoked Meat and Meat Products and Traditionally Smoked Fish and Fishery Products. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R1357 (accessed on 13 January 2024).
  22. GB 2762-2022; National Health Commission of the PRC, State Administration for Market Regulation. National Food Safety Standard—Maximum Levels of Contaminants in Food. China Standard Press: Beijing, China, 2022.
  23. Seko, T.; Ishihara, K.; Suzuki, T.; Takagi, S.; Taga, K.; Iida, Y.; Shigematsu, Y.; Itabashi, Y.; Nakamichi, Y.; Fujiwara, Y.; et al. Effects of moisture content of firewood used in the manufacture of Japanese traditional smoked-dried bonito, katsuobushi, on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) generation. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 111, 104630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Government of Canada. Health Canada’s Maximum Levels for Chemical Contaminants in Foods. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/chemical-contaminants/maximum-levels-chemical-contaminants-foods.html (accessed on 13 January 2024).
  25. Zhu, Z.; Xu, Y.; Huang, T.; Yu, Y.; Bassey, A.P.; Huang, M. The contamination, formation, determination and control of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in meat products. Food Control 2022, 141, 109194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, H.M.; Long, M.H.; Qiao, S.Y.; Zhao, T.Y.; Long, B.; Liang, Y.S. Accumulations and physiological performance effects on cucumber after application of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to leaf. Acta Bot. Boreal.-Occident. Sin. 2019, 39, 1064–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tang, X.; Long, M.H.; Qiao, S.Y.; Li, P.X.; Zhang, H.M.; Liang, Y.S. Physiological responses of different kinds of vegetable seedings to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons stress. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 2019, 47, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liang, Y.S.; Huang, X.; Long, M.H.; Wu, G.F.; Zhang, H.M.; Qiao, S.Y. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons stress on growth and physiological characteristics of Brassica parachinensis. J. South. Chin. Agric. Univ. 2018, 39, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, Y.; Xie, S.; Chen, Z.L.; Xu, S.Y.; Zhang, L.H. Impacts of zinc, benzo[a]pyrene, and their combination on the growth and antioxidant enzymes activities of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings. Chin. J. Ecol. 2013, 32, 358–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, H.C.; Hu, L.L.; Li, M.; Chen, W.F.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, J.J. Growth effects and accumulations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in rape. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 2013, 37, 1123–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cai, S.X.; He, Y.; Qiu, X.X.; Lan, M.Z. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pyrene on growth, uptake of pyrene and other elements, nutritious qualities of Chinese cabbage. Chin. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 41, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Qiao, S.Y.; Wu, G.F.; Long, M.H.; Liang, Y.S.; Shen, H.Y.; Tang, X.; Li, P.X.; Zhang, H.M.; Zhao, T.Y. Pathway of PAHs entering Brassica parachinensis and its effects on yield and quality of B. parachinensis. J. South. Agric. 2018, 49, 1202–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Long, M.H.; Wu, G.F.; Liang, Y.S.; Shen, H.Y.; Long, B.; Tang, X.; Li, P.X.; Zhang, H.N. Influence of PAHs stress on Brassica parachinensis Bailey quality and its detoxification system. J. South. Agric. 2017, 48, 1036–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, S.J.; Zhu, X.L.; Feng, X.Z.; Huang, L.Q.; Mei, Y.Q. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on plants. Bull. Biol. 2010, 45, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bansal, V.; Kim, K.H. Review of PAH contamination in food products and their health hazards. Environ. Int. 2015, 84, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Edna Hee, P.T.; Liang, Z.; Zhang, P.; Fang, Z. Formation mechanisms, detection methods and mitigation strategies of acrylamide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines in food products. Food Control 2024, 158, 110236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gao, Y.Z.; Collins, C.D. Uptake pathways of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in white clover. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6190–6195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zhang, Y.H.; Hou, D.Y.; Xiong, G.N.; Duan, Y.H.; Cai, C.Y.; Wang, X.; Li, J.Y.; Tao, S.; Liu, W.X. Structural equation modeling of PAHs in ambient air, dust fall, soil, and cabbage in vegetable bases of Northern China. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 239, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Li, H.D.; Zhu, D.W.; Lu, X.; Du, H.X.; Guan, S.; Chen, Z.L. Determination and risk assessment of sixteen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in vegetables. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2018, 53, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Desalme, D.; Binet, P.; Chiapusio, G. Challenges in tracing the fate and effects of atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon deposition in vascular plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 3967–3981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Terzaghi, E.; Zacchello, G.; Scacchi, M.; Raspa, G.; Jones, K.C.; Cerabolini, B.; Di Guardo, A. Towards more ecologically realistic scenarios of plant uptake modelling for chemicals: PAHs in a small forest. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 505, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, J.F.; Li, J.; Cai, J.; Wu, F.Y. Effects of leaf trichome and stomata on PAHs uptake in the leaf of winter wheat. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2023, 31, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tao, S.; Cui, Y.H.; Xu, F.L.; Li, B.G.; Cao, J.; Liu, W.X.; Schmitt, G.; Wang, X.J.; Shen, W.R.; Qing, B.P.; et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in agricultural soil and vegetables from Tianjin. Sci. Total Environ. 2004, 320, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, L.P.; Xia, Z.H.; Wu, M.M.; Zhang, Q.Q.; Yang, H. Pollution and health hazards of PAHs in vegetables sold in Xuzhou city, China. Asian J. Ecotoxicol. 2017, 12, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Han, M.W.; Liu, F.; Kang, Y.R.; Zhang, R.J.; Yu, K.F.; Wang, Y.H.; Wang, R.X. Occurrence, distribution, sources, and bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in multi environmental media in estuaries and the coast of the Beibu Gulf, China: A health risk assessment through seafood consumption. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 52493–52506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Qin, N.; He, W.; Liu, W.X.; Kong, X.Z.; Xu, F.L.; Giesy, J.P. Tissue distribution, bioaccumulation, and carcinogenic risk of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic organisms from Lake Chaohu, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 749, 141577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Büyükkurt, O.K.; Dincer, E.A.; Cam, I.B.; Candal, C.; Erbas, M. The influence of cooking methods and some marinades on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon formation in beef meat. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2020, 40, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.K.; Chen, Y.; Xiao, Y.H.; Fu, X.; Feng, T.T. Studied on detection methods and changes of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in instant roasted fish with different processes. Sci. Technol. Food Ind. 2022, 43, 336–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. 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]
  50. Nie, J.; Shi, J.; Duan, X.; Wang, B.; Huang, N.; Zhao, X. Health risk assessment of dietary exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Taiyuan, China. J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 26, 432–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Zhang, L.; Du, H.Z.; Tian, X.L.; Liu, J.; Kong, B.H. Formation and control of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fried foods: A review. Food Sci. 2020, 41, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hu, G.F.; Cai, K.Z.; Li, Y.Z.; Xie, T.T.; Li, P.J.; Chen, C.G.; Xu, B.C. Influencing factors and control of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons formation in food processing. Food Res. Dev. 2020, 41, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hao, X.; Li, J.; Yao, Z. Changes in PAHs levels in edible oils during deep-frying process. Food Control 2016, 66, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sharifiarab, G.; Ahmadi, M.; Shariatifar, N.; Ariaii, P. Investigating the effect of type of fish and different cooking methods on the residual amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in some Iranian fish: A health risk assessment. Food Chem. X 2023, 19, 100789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Karslıoğlu, B.; Kolsarıcı, N. The effects of fat content and cooking procedures on the PAH content of beef Doner Kebabs. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2022, 43, 3291–3304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chung, S.Y.; Yettella, R.R.; Kim, J.S.; Kwon, K.; Kim, M.C.; Min, D.B. Effects of grilling and roasting on the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in beef and pork. Food Chem. 2011, 129, 1420–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Masuda, M.; Wang, Q.; Tokumura, M.; Miyake, Y.; Amagai, T. Simultaneous determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their chlorinated derivatives in grilled foods. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 178, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kamal, N.H.A.; Selamat, J.; Sanny, M. Simultaneous formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic aromatic amines (HCAs) in gas-grilled beef satay at different temperatures. Food Addit. Contam. 2018, 35, 848–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Wongmaneepratip, W.; Vangnai, K. Effects of oil types and pH on carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in grilled chicken. Food Control 2017, 79, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, S.Q.; Ni, H.G.; Zeng, H. PAHs in polystyrene food contact materials: An unintended consequence. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 1126–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Li, S.X.; Qin, J.L.; Zegn, Y.; Chen, J.Q.; Luo, E.L.; Peng, M.J. Determination of the migration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in four kinds of food contact materials. Sci. Technol. Food Ind. 2018, 39, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, C.Y.; Mai, J.C.; Liao, Q.P.; Ruan, Y.H.; Shen, Y.L.; Xie, T.T. Simultaneous determination of eighteen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in paper packaging materials intended to come into contact with foodstuffs using ultra high performance liquid chromatography combined with microwave assisted extraction. J. Anal. Sci. 2014, 30, 549–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Wang, X.; Li, C.; Peng, T.; Miao, Q.; Du, X.; Lu, X. A facile molecularly imprinted column coupled to GC-MS/MS for sensitive and selective determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and study on their migration in takeaway meal boxes. Talanta 2022, 243, 123385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Chen, S.; Yu, J.L.; Zhu, Z.W.; Zhang, W.Z. Study on migration law of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food contact material plastic. Food Ferment. Ind. 2020, 46, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Einolghozati, M.; Talebi-Ghane, E.; Amirsadeghi, S.; Mehri, F. Evaluation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in processed cereals: A meta-analysis study, systematic review, and health risk assessment. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yousefi, M.; Shemshadi, G.; Khorshidian, N.; Ghasemzadeh-Mohammadi, V.; Fakhri, Y.; Hosseini, H.; Khaneghah, A.M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) content of edible vegetable oils in Iran: A risk assessment study. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 118, 480–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Roszko, M.; Kaminska, M.; Szymczyk, K.; Jedrzejczak, R. Dietary risk evaluation for 28 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in tea preparations made of teas available on the Polish retail market. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2018, 53, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Thi, L.A.P.; Ngoc, N.T.; Quynh, N.T.; Thanh, N.V.; Kim, T.T.; Anh, D.H.; Viet, P.H. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in dry tea leaves and tea infusions in Vietnam: Contamination levels and dietary risk assessment. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 2853–2863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gao, G.W.; Chen, H.P.; Liu, P.X.; Ma, G.C.; Hao, Z.X.; Wang, C.; Cai, Y.F.; Lu, C.Y. Contaminated levels and source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in tea. Chin. J. Trop. Crops 2016, 37, 2032–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gao, G.W.; Chen, H.P.; Liu, P.X.; Hao, Z.X.; Ma, G.C.; Chai, Y.F.; Wang, C.; Lu, C.Y. Residue pattern of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons during green tea manufacturing and their transfer rates during tea brewing. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2017, 34, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, G.; Wu, S.M.; Wang, L.; Akoh, C.C. Concentration, dietary exposure and health risk estimation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in youtiao, a Chinese traditional fried food. Food Control 2016, 59, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Guo, X.Y.; Chen, F.; Zhang, W.B. Pollution, source and risk assessment of PAHs in Chinese tea. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 167, 113851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ma, J.J.; Zhu, Z.; Du, S.J.; Zhang, D.; Li, X.Y.; Zheng, Q.Z.; Shen, J.C.; Xiao, L.H.; Wu, X.L.; Chen, Y.N.; et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in commercial tea from China and implications for human exposure. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2023, 116, 105075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, H.L.; Chen, Y.J.; Li, D.W.; Yang, C.H.; Zhou, Y.D.; Wang, X.Y.; Zhang, Z.C. PAH residue and consumption risk assessment in four commonly consumed wild marine fishes from Zhoushan Archipelago, East China Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 170, 112670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Li, J.F.; Dong, H.; Li, X.G.; Han, B.; Zhu, C.J.; Zhang, D.H. Quantitatively assessing the health risk of exposure to PAHs from intake of smoked meats. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 124, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Iwegbue, C.M.A.; Tesi, G.O.; Ogbuta, A.A.; Lari, B.; Igbuku, U.A.; Obi, G.; Martincigh, B.S. Concentrations and risk of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in oil and tomato-based sauces from selected brands of canned fish consumed in Nigeria. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2022, 42, 4621–4634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Benson, N.U.; Fred-Ahmadu, O.H.; Olugbuyiro, J.A.O.; Anake, W.U.; Adedapo, A.E.; Olajire, A.A. Concentrations, sources and risk characterisation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in green, herbal and black tea products in Nigeria. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2018, 66, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tongo, I.; Ogbeide, O.; Ezemonye, L. Human health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in smoked fish species from markets in Southern Nigeria. Toxicol. Rep. 2017, 4, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Adetunde, O.T.; Mills, G.A.; Oluseyi, T.O.; Oyeyiola, A.O.; Olayinka, K.O.; Alo, B.I. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in vegetables grown on contaminated soils in a Sub-Saharan tropical environment-Lagos, Nigeria. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2020, 40, 979–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Marcolin, L.C.; Arias, J.L.D.; Kupski, L.; Barbosa, S.C.; Primel, E.G. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in honey from stingless bees (Meliponinae) in southern Brazil. Food Chem. 2023, 405, 134944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Guizellini, G.M.; Sampaio, G.R.; da Silva, S.A.; Soares-Freitas, R.A.M.; de Almeida, A.P.; Da Silva Torres, E.A.F. Concentration and potential health risk of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for consumers of chocolate in Brazil. Food Chem. 2023, 405, 134853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Soltani, N.; Moore, F.; Keshavarzi, B.; Sorooshian, A.; Javid, R. Potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in fish and prawn in the Persian Gulf, Iran. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 173, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Taghizadeh, S.F.; Rezaee, R.; Azizi, M.; Giesy, J.P.; Karimi, G. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, mycotoxins, and pesticides residues in coffee: A probabilistic assessment of risk to health. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2022, 104, 1307–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sei, K.; Wang, Q.; Tokumura, M.; Suzuki, S.; Miyake, Y.; Amagai, T. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their halogenated derivatives in a traditional smoke-dried fish product in Japan: Occurrence and countermeasures. ACS Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 1, 960–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rozentale, I.; Zacs, D.; Perkons, I.; Bartkevics, V. A comparison of gas chromatography coupled to tandem quadrupole mass spectrometry and high-resolution sector mass spectrometry for sensitive determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in cereal products. Food Chem. 2017, 221, 1291–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mahugija, J.A.M.; Njale, E. Levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in smoked and sun-dried fish samples from areas in Lake Victoria in Mwanza, Tanzania. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2018, 73, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Essumang, D.K.; Dodoo, D.K.; Adjei, J.K. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination in smoke-cured fish products. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2012, 27, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ferrante, M.; Zanghì, G.; Cristaldi, A.; Copat, C.; Grasso, A.; Fiore, M.; Signorelli, S.S.; Zuccarello, P.; Conti, G.O. PAHs in seafood from the Mediterranean Sea: An exposure risk assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 115, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hasan, G.M.M.A.; Shaikh, M.A.A.; Satter, M.A.; Hossain, M.S. Detection of indicator polychlorinated biphenyls (I-PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in cow milk from selected areas of Dhaka, Bangladesh and potential human health risks assessment. Toxicol. Rep. 2022, 9, 1514–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Waqas, M.; Khan, S.; Chao, C.; Shamshad, I.; Qamar, Z.; Khan, K. Quantification of PAHs and health risk via ingestion of vegetable in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 497, 448–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Al-Farhan, B.S.; Said, T.O.; El-Ghamdi, S.A.; Al-Alamie, A.Y. Distribution and health risk assessment on dietary exposure of PAHs in vegetables and fruits of Asir, Saudi Arabia. Waste Manag. Bull. 2023, 1, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Londoño, V.A.G.; Reynoso, C.M.; Resnik, S.L. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) survey on tea (Camellia sinensis) commercialized in Argentina. Food Control 2015, 50, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Celik-Saglam, I.; Balcik, C.; Cetin, B. Concentrations, sources, and risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in black, green and fruit flavored tea in Turkey. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 109, 104504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sari, M.F.; Esen, F. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) residues in the honeybee, honey, and pollen and estimation of atmospheric concentrations in Bursa, Turkey. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2024, 44, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Singh, L.; Agarwal, T. PAHs in Indian diet: Assessing the cancer risk. Chemosphere 2018, 202, 366–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Darwish, W.S.; Chiba, H.; El-Ghareeb, W.R.; Elhelaly, A.E.; Hui, S.P. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content in heat-treated meat retailed in Egypt: Health risk assessment, benzo[a]pyrene induced mutagenicity and oxidative stress in human colon (CaCo-2) cells and protection using rosmarinic and ascorbic acids. Food Chem. 2019, 290, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. 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]
  98. Ciemniak, A.; Kuźmicz, K.; Rajkowska-Myśliwiec, M.; Cadena, M.F. Assessing the contamination levels of dried teas and their infusions by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). J. Consum. Prot. Food Saf. 2019, 14, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Thompson, K.L.; Picard, C.R.; Chan, H.M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in traditionally harvested bivalves in northern British Columbia, Canada. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 121, 390–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Lee, J.; Jeong, J.H.; Park, S.; Lee, K.G. Monitoring and risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in processed foods and their raw materials. Food Control 2018, 92, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ouro-Sama, K.; Tanouayi, G.; Solitoke, H.D.; Barsan, N.; Mosnegutu, E.; Badassan, T.-E.; Agbere, S.; Adje, K.; Nedeff, V.; Gnandi, K. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contamination in Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus Lacépède, 1803 from Lake Togo-Lagoon of Aného, Togo: Possible human health risk suitable to their consumption. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Bandowe, B.A.M.; Bigalke, M.; Boamah, L.; Nyarko, E.; Saalia, F.K.; Wilcke, W. Polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAHs and oxygenated PAHs) and trace metals in fish species from Ghana (West Africa): Bioaccumulation and health risk assessment. Environ. Int. 2014, 65, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mohammed, S.; Obiri, S.; Ansa-Asare, O.D.; Dartey, G.; Kuddy, R.; Appiah, S. Assessment of concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in vegetables from farms in Accra, Ghana. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, Y.J.; Chen, X.Q.; Zhang, Y. Analytical chemistry, formation, mitigation, and risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: From food processing to in vivo metabolic transformation. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 1422–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Xu, Z.H.; Zhu, X.H.; Ge, Y.Q.; Geng, X.B.; Liu, C.W.; Shen, M.F. Determination of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons residues in aquaculture environment and aquatic products by automated Soxhlet extraction-gel permeation chromatography-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry mothod. Jiangsu J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 35, 1459–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Badolato, E.; Martins, M.; Aued-Pimentel, S.; Alaburda, J.; Kumagai, E.; Baptista, G.; Rosenthal, A. Sistematic study of benzo[a]pyrene in coffee samples. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2006, 17, 989–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wandan, E.N.; Elleingand, E.F.; Ndouba, A.M. A screening for benzo[a]pyrène in cocoa beans subjected to different drying methods during on farm processing. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2011, 3, 3621–3630. [Google Scholar]
  108. Pérez, R.A.; Albero, B. Ultrasound-assisted extraction methods for the determination of organic contaminants in solid and liquid samples. TrAC-Trend. Anal. Chem. 2023, 166, 117204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y.D.; Lin, W.Q. Determination of the sixteen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic products by ultrasonic solvent extraction and GC-MS. Chin. J. Anal. Lab. 2019, 38, 805–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zhu, Y.H.; Yang, B.; Huang, J.; Zhang, S.; Yu, X.W.; Zhu, S.C.; Tang, Y.P. Determination of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) in fried squid by ultrasonic extraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Sci. Technol. Food Ind. 2021, 42, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Yang, S.D.; Tang, T.; Tan, Y.M.; Wang, F.Y.; Zhang, W.B.; Li, T.; Xia, M.Z. Determination of benzo(a)pyrene in fried and baked foods by HPLC combined with vesicular coacervative supramolecular solvent extraction. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Sajid, M.; Płotka-Wasylka, J. Green analytical chemistry metrics: A review. Talanta 2022, 238, 123046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Perez-Vazquez, A.; Carpena, M.; Barciela, P.; Cassani, L.; Simal-Gandara, J.; Prieto, M.A. Pressurized liquid extraction for the recovery of bioactive compounds from seaweeds for food industry application: A review. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Barp, L.; Visnjevec, A.M.; Moret, S. Pressurized liquid extraction: A powerful tool to implement extraction and purification of food contaminants. Foods 2023, 12, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Suranová, M.; Semanová, J.; Sklársová, B.; Simko, P. Application of accelerated solvent extraction for simultaneous isolation and pre-cleaning up procedure during determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked meat products. Food Anal. Methods 2015, 8, 1014–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Pissinatti, R.; Nunes, C.M.; de Souza, A.G.; Junqueira, R.G.; de Souza, S.V.C. Simultaneous analysis of 10 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in roasted coffee by isotope dilution gas chromatography-mass spectrometry: Optimization, in-house method validation and application to an exploratory study. Food Control 2015, 51, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Andreu, V.; Picó, Y. Pressurized liquid extraction of organic contaminants in environmental and food samples. Trac-Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 118, 709–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Prata, R.; López-Ruiz, R.; Nascimento, L.E.S.; Petrarca, M.H.; Godoy, H.T.; Frenich, A.G.; Arrebola, F.J. Method validation for GC-measurable pesticides and PAHs in baby foods using QuEChERS-based extraction procedure. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2024, 129, 106062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Oduntan, A.O.; Tavengwa, N.T.; Cukrowska, E.; Mhlanga, S.D.; Chimuka, L. QuEChERS method development for bio-monitoring of low molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in South African carp fish using HPLC-fluorescence: An initial assessment. S. Afr. J. Chem. 2016, 69, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Dione, C.T.; Delhomme, O.; Diagne, I.; Diebakate, C.; Ndiaye, B.; Cisse, D.; Hane, M.; Dione, M.M.; Diouf, S.; Diop, A.; et al. Application of the QuEChERS method for the determination of pesticides, PAHs and PCBs in fish in Senegal. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2022, 57, 869–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Aziz, A.; Abd Karim, K.; Ahmad, M.A.; Ridhwan, M.J.M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) levels and toxicity in herbal teas marketed in Malaysia using QuEChERS and GC-FID. Sains Malays. 2022, 51, 3981–3993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Zhang, C.Y.; Deng, Y.C.; Zheng, J.F.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, L.H.; Liao, C.J.; Su, L.; Zhou, Y.Y.; Gong, D.X.; Chen, L.; et al. The application of the QuEChERS methodology in the determination of antibiotics in food: A review. TrAC-Trend. Anal. Chem. 2019, 118, 517–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Kim, L.; Lee, D.; Cho, H.K.; Choi, S.D. Review of the QuEChERS method for the analysis of organic pollutants: Persistent organic pollutants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and pharmaceuticals. Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 2019, 22, e00063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Chiang, C.F.; Hsu, K.C.; Tsai, T.Y.; Cho, C.Y.; Hsu, C.H.; Yang, D.J. Evaluation of optimal QuEChERS conditions of various food matrices for rapid determination of EU priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in various foods. Food Chem. 2021, 334, 127471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Chiang, C.F.; Hsu, K.C.; Cho, C.Y.; Tsai, T.Y.; Hsu, C.H.; Yang, D.J. Comparison and establishment of appropriate methods to determine EU priority PAHs in charcoal-grilled chicken drumsticks with different treatments and their dietary risk assessments. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 142, 111400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Zacs, D.; Rozentale, I.; Reinholds, I.; Bartkevics, V. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes as effective sorbents for rapid analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible oils using dispersive solid-phase extraction (d-SPE) and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). Food Anal. Methods 2018, 11, 2508–2517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Slámová, T.; Sadowska-Rociek, A.; Franková, A.; Surma, M.; Banout, J. Application of QuEChERS-EMR-Lipid-DLLME method for the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked food of animal origin. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2020, 87, 103420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Agus, B.A.P.; Hussain, N.; Selamat, J. Quantification of PAH4 in roasted cocoa beans using QuEChERS and dispersive liquid-liquid micro-extraction (DLLME) coupled with HPLC-FLD. Food Chem. 2020, 303, 125398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Onopiuk, A.; Kołodziejczak, K.; Marcinkowska-Lesiak, M.; Poltorak, A. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using different extraction methods and HPLC-FLD detection in smoked and grilled meat products. Food Chem. 2022, 373, 131506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Wang, W.; Guo, R.; Zhao, Y.; Tian, L.; Liu, C.W.; Liang, X.C. Determination of 24 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in infant formula by gas chromatography-triple quadruple mass spectrometry. Phys. Test. Chem. Anal. Part B 2022, 58, 1287–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Liu, Q.Y.; Guo, Y.M.; Sun, X.M.; Hao, Q.; Cheng, X.; Zhang, L. Determination of 15 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic products by solid-phase extraction and GC-MS. J. Sep. Sci. 2018, 41, 2188–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zachara, A.; Galkowska, D.; Juszczak, L. Method validation and determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in vegetable oils by HPLC-FLD. Food Anal. Methods 2017, 10, 1078–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zachara, A.; Gałkowska, D.; Juszczak, L. Contamination of smoked meat and fish products from Polish market with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Food Control 2017, 80, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Bogdanović, T.; Pleadin, J.; Petričević, S.; Listeš, E.; Sokolić, D.; Marković, K.; Ozogul, F.; Šimat, V. The occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fish and meat products of Croatia and dietary exposure. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2019, 75, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mottier, P.; Parisod, V.; Turesky, R.J. Quantitative determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in barbecued meat sausages by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 1160–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Martinez, E.; Gros, M.; Lacorte, S.; Barceló, D. Simplified procedures for the analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water, sediments and mussels. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1047, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Shi, L.K.; Zhang, D.D.; Liu, Y.L. Incidence and survey of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible vegetable oils in China. Food Control 2016, 62, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Rascón, A.J.; Azzouz, A.; Ballesteros, E. Multiresidue determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible oils by liquid-liquid extraction–solid-phase extraction–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Food Control 2018, 94, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Girelli, A.M.; Apriceno, A.; Tarola, A.M.; Tortora, F. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in tea infusions samples by high performance liquid chromatography with fluorimetric detection. J. Food Qual. 2017, 2017, 1076876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Hossain, M.A.; Salehuddin, S.M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in edible oils by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy. Arab. J. Chem. 2012, 5, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Guatemala-Morales, G.M.; Beltrán-Medina, E.A.; Murillo-Tovar, M.A.; Ruiz-Palomino, P.; Corona-González, R.I.; Arriola-Guevara, E. Validation of analytical conditions for determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in roasted coffee by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2016, 197, 747–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Li, Y.L.; Wang, C.L.; Zou, X.Q.; Feng, Z.Y.; Yao, Y.L.; Wang, T.; Zhang, C.C. Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in coral reef fish from the South China Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 139, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Fang, C.L.; Wang, G.M.; Xiang, L.; Xiao, L.; Ran, X.Z. Determination of 8 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic products by LC-MS-MS coupled with optimized QuEChERS. Food Ferment. Ind. 2021, 57, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Du, R.; Wan, L.B.; Gao, H.L.; Gao, H.D. Determination of 15 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in vegetable oils by solid phase extraction coupled with high performance liquid chromatography. Cere Oil. 2022, 35, 158–162. [Google Scholar]
  145. Zhang, Y.S.; Han, J.H.; Tian, Z.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, X.X. Determination of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in kebabs by high performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detector-secondary array tube detector. Food Ferment. Ind. 2022, 48, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Zhong, D.L.; Yu, N.H.; Wang, M.J.; Mo, R.H.; Duan, J.M.; Tang, F.B. Determination of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in oil-tea camellia seed oil using molecularly imprinted solid-phase extraction coupled with GC-MS/MS. China Oil Fats 2022, 47, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Badawy, M.E.I.; El-Nouby, M.A.M.; Kimani, P.K.; Lim, L.W.; Rabea, E.I. A review of the modern principles and applications of solid-phase extraction techniques in chromatographic analysis. Anal. Sci. 2022, 38, 1457–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Xu, P.J.; Zhang, J.; Ren, Y.; Qi, L.; Yang, W.L.; Huang, Y.R. Quality control on the determination of 16 PAHs in soil using ASE-SPE/GC-MS. J. Instrum. Anal. 2012, 31, 1126–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Nazir, N.A.M.; Raoov, M.; Mohamad, S. Spent tea leaves as an adsorbent for micro-solid-phase extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from water and food samples prior to GC-FID analysis. Microchem. J. 2020, 159, 105581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Asfaram, A.; Dil, E.A.; Arabkhani, P.; Sadeghfar, F.; Ghaedi, M. Magnetic Cu: CuO-GO nanocomposite for efficient dispersive micro-solid phase extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from vegetable, fruit, and environmental water samples by liquid chromatographic determination. Talanta 2020, 218, 121131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Zaw, M.M.; Poorahong, S.; Kanatharana, P.; Thavarungkul, P.; Thammakhet-Buranachai, C. A simple gelatin aerogel tablet sorbent for the effective vortex assisted solid phase extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from tea samples. Food Chem. 2022, 383, 132388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Wang, N.; Lu, Y.M.; Cui, B. Preparation and application of β-Cyclodextrin functionalised graphene oxide-grafted silica sorbents for solid-phase extraction (SPE) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from fried food using a box-behnken design. Food Anal. Methods 2021, 14, 1577–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Villa, C.C.; Sánchez, L.T.; Valencia, G.A.; Ahmed, S.; Gutiérrez, T.J. Molecularly imprinted polymers for food applications: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 111, 642–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Garballo-Rubio, A.; Soto-Chinchilla, J.; Martín-Pozo, L.; Zafra-Gómez, A. Use of Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged & Safe (QuEChERS) and molecular imprinted polymer followed by gas chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry for the quantitative analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH4) in complex health supplements. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2020, 93, 103588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Wang, Z.; Xu, Q.; Zhan, C.Q.; Liu, W.Q.; He, M.H.; Qiu, X.Y. Simultaneous determination of 16 kinds of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in tea by gas chromatography-triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry. J. Food Saf. Qual. 2021, 12, 7585–7591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Jalili, V.; Barkhordari, A.; Ghiasvand, A. Solid-phase microextraction technique for sampling and preconcentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: A review. Microchem. J. 2020, 157, 104967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Sajid, M.; Nazal, M.K.; Rutkowska, M.; Szczepanska, N.; Namiesnik, J.; Plotka-Wasylka, J. Solid phase microextraction: Apparatus, sorbent materials, and application. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2019, 49, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Drabinska, N.; Marcinkowska, M.A.; Wieczorek, M.N.; Jelen, H.H. Application of sorbent-based extraction techniques in food analysis. Molecules 2023, 28, 7985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Aresta, A.M.; Zambonin, C. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in coffee samples by DI-SPME-GC/MS. Food Anal. Methods 2023, 16, 1009–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Fathollahy, I.; Baglari, B.; Pirsa, S. Application of solid-phase microextraction/gas chromatography method for extraction, identification, and comparison of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from industrial and traditional edible oils. Main Group Chem. 2023, 22, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Erdem, P.; Tagaç, A.A.; Bozkurt, S.S.; Merdivan, M. Chitosan and dicationic ionic liquid intercalated clay-coated solid-phase microextraction fiber for determination of sixteen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in coffee and tea samples. Talanta 2021, 235, 122764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Zhao, Y.Q.; Hu, K.; Liu, X.B.; Li, L.X.; Li, Z.H.; Wang, P.; Zhang, Z.Q.; Zhang, S.S. Covalent organic framework@Ti3C2Tx composite as solid phase microextraction coating for the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in honey samples. Anal. Chim. Acta 2023, 1237, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Xu, L.; Hu, W.; Luo, X.G.; Zhang, J. Covalent organic framework in situ grown on the metal-organic framework as fiber coating for solid-phase microextraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in tea. Microchim. Acta 2023, 190, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ma, J.M.; Sun, G.Q.; Sun, D.Q.; Yu, F.; Hu, M.J.; Lu, T. Application of gel permeation chromatography technology in asphalt materials: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 278, 122386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Shen, X.X.; Zhan, J.L.; Tang, X.Y. Determination of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in roast duck skin by gel permeation chromatography clean-up combined with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Meat Res. 2020, 34, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Wang, J.; Jia, L.; Wei, W.; Lang, S.; Shao, P.; Fan, X. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible oil by gel permeation chromatography and ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with diode array detector and fluorescence detector. Acta Chromatogr. 2016, 28, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Cotugno, P.; Massari, F.; Aresta, A.; Zambonin, C.; Ragni, R.; Monks, K.; Avagyan, L.; Böttcher, J. Advanced gel permeation chromatography system with increased loading capacity: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons detection in olive oil as a case of study. J. Chromatogr. A 2021, 1639, 461920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Ostadgholami, M.; Zeeb, M.; Amirahmadi, M.; Daraei, B. Multivariate optimization and validation of a modified QuEChERS method for determination of PAHs and PCBs in grilled meat by GC-MS. Foods 2024, 13, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Kamal El-Deen, A.; Shimizu, K. Modified μ-QuEChERS coupled to diethyl carbonate-based liquid microextraction for PAHs determination in coffee, tea, and water prior to GC–MS analysis: An insight to reducing the impact of caffeine on the GC–MS measurement. J. Chromatogr. B 2021, 1171, 122555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Peiravian, F.; Shakoori, A.; Moradi, V.; Salamzadeh, J.; Mahboubi, A. Simultaneous analysis of 10 priority PAHs in Iranian Sangak bread samples by developing a GC-MS method. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2021, 20, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Givechev, I.; Tanev, D.; Danalev, D. Development and validation of GC/MS method for simultaneous determination of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in pork meat matrix. Acta Chromatogr. 2021, 33, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Akbari-Adergani, B.; Mahmood-babooi, K.; Salehi, A.; Khaniki, G.J.; Shariatifar, N.; Sadighara, P.; Zeinali, T. GC-MS determination of the content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in bread and potato Tahdig prepared with the common edible oil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Liao, Z.Y.; Gao, Z.B.; Cao, D.L.; Yang, Q.W. Occurrence and exposure evaluation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in tea samples consumed in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei regions of China. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2023, 123, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Souza Futigami, L.; Barcellos Hoff, R.; Turnes Pasini Deolindo, C.; Kleemann, C.R.; Alves de Oliveira, L.V.; de Francisco de Casas, A.; Burin, V.M. Search for new green natural solid phases for sample preparation for PAHs determination in seafood samples followed by LC and GC–MS/MS analysis. Food Res. Int. 2024, 183, 114240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Hungerford, N.L.; Fletcher, M.T.; Tsai, H.H.; Hnatko, D.; Swann, L.J.; Kelly, C.L.; Anuj, S.R.; Tinggi, U.; Webber, D.C.; Were, S.T.; et al. Occurrence of environmental contaminants (pesticides, herbicides, PAHs) in Australian/Queensland Apis mellifera honey. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2021, 14, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Li, W.; Wu, S. Halogenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their parent compounds in ready-to-eat seafood rich in salt: Method validation, profiles, correlation, and exposure risks. Food Control 2022, 136, 108864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Zastrow, L.; Speer, K.; Schwind, K.H.; Jira, W. A sensitive GC-HRMS method for the simultaneous determination of parent and oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in barbecued meat and meat substitutes. Food Chem. 2021, 365, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. GB 5009.265-2021; National Health Commission of the PRC, State Administration for Market Regulation. National Food Safety Standard—Detection of PAHs in Food. China Standard Press: Beijing, China, 2022.
  179. Russo, M.V.; Avino, P.; Notardonato, I. PAH residues in honey by ultrasound-vortex-assisted liquid-liquid micro-extraction followed by GC-FID/IT-MS. Food Anal. Methods 2017, 10, 2132–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Gómez-Ruiz, J.A.; Cordeiro, F.; López, P.; Wenzl, T. Optimisation and validation of programmed temperature vaporization (PTV) injection in solvent vent mode for the analysis of the 15+1 EU-priority PAHs by GC-MS. Talanta 2009, 80, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Mandal, S.; Poi, R.; Hazra, D.K.; Ansary, I.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Karmakar, R. Review of extraction and detection techniques for the analysis of pesticide residues in fruits to evaluate food safety and make legislative decisions: Challenges and anticipations. J. Chromatogr. B 2023, 1215, 123587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Peng, Y.; He, S.Y.; Wang, F.H.; Zheng, H.B.; Meng, Z. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible oil by magnetic solid phase extraction based on a mesoporous molybdenum disulfide/graphite prior to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Microchem. J. 2022, 183, 108146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Colón, L.P.; Rascon, A.J.; Ballesteros, E. Trace-level determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in dairy products available in Spanish supermarkets by semi-automated solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry detection. Foods 2022, 11, 713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Purcaro, G.; Moret, S.; Conte, L.S. Overview on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Occurrence, legislation and innovative determination in foods. Talanta 2013, 105, 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Analytical Methods Committee AMCTB. Thermal desorption part 1: Introduction and instrumentation. Anal. Methods 2020, 12, 3425–3428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Guiffard, I.; Geny, T.; Veyrand, B.; Marchand, P.; Pellouin-Grouhel, A.; Bizec, B.L.; Bichon, E. Quantification of light polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in seafood samples using on-line dynamic headspace extraction, thermodesorption, gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, based on an isotope dilution approach. J. Chromatogr. A 2020, 1619, 460906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Drventić, I.; Šala, M.; Vidović, K.; Kroflič, A. Direct quantification of PAHs and nitro-PAHs in atmospheric PM by thermal desorption gas chromatography with electron ionization mass spectroscopic detection. Talanta 2023, 251, 123761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Manzano, C.; Hoh, E.; Simonich, S.L.M. Improved separation of complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures using novel column combinations in GCxGC/TOF-MS. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7677–7684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Taylor, C.M.; Raines, J.M.; Rodriguez, J.M. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in seafood. Food Anal. Methods 2013, 6, 1330–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Ekner, H.; Dreij, K.; Sadiktsis, I. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in commercial olive oils by HPLC/GC/MS-Occurrence, composition and sources. Food Control 2022, 132, 108528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Ju, H.; Kim, B.; Kim, J.; Baek, S.Y. Development of candidate reference method for accurate determination of four polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in olive oil via gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry using 13C-labeled internal standards. Food Chem. 2020, 309, 125639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Al-Alam, J.; Fajloun, Z.; Chbani, A.; Millet, M. A multiresidue method for the analysis of 90 pesticides, 16 PAHs, and 22 PCBs in honey using QuEChERS-SPME. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2017, 409, 5157–5169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Duedahl-Olesen, L.; Iversen, N.M.; Kelmo, C.; Jensen, L.K. Validation of QuEChERS for screening of 4 marker polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fish and malt. Food Control 2020, 108, 106434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. GB 5009.27-2016; National Health and Family Planning Commission of the PRC, State Food and Drug Administration. National Food Safety Standard—Detection of Benzo[a]pyrene in Food. China Standard Press: Beijing, China, 2017.
  195. Uinted States Environmental Protection Agency. Method 610-Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/method_610_1984.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  196. Bulanda, S.; Janoszka, B. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in roasted pork meat and the effect of dried fruits on PAH content. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Harrison, D.M.; Chang, W.C.; Lin, H.T. Dietary exposure and health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in black tea consumed in Taiwan. Toxics 2024, 12, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Tfouni, S.A.V.; Reis, R.M.; Kamikata, K.; Gomes, F.M.L.; Morgano, M.A.; Furlani, R.P.Z. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in teas using QuEChERS and HPLC-FLD. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2018, 11, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Mahmoudpour, M.; Mohtadinia, J.; Ansarin, M.; Nemati, M. Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction for HPLC-UV determination of PAHs in milk. J. AOAC Int. 2016, 99, 527–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Singh, L.; Agarwal, T. Comparative analysis of conventional and greener extraction methods and method validation for analyzing PAHs in cooked chicken and roasted coffee. Food Chem. 2021, 364, 130440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Hamidi, E.N.; Hajeb, P.; Selamat, J.; Lee, S.Y.; Razis, A.F.A. Bioaccessibility of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in grilled meat: The effects of meat doneness and fat content. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Koltsakidou, A.; Zacharis, C.K.; Fytianos, K. A validated liquid chromatographic method for the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in honey after homogeneous liquid–liquid extraction using hydrophilic acetonitrile and sodium chloride as mass separating agent. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1377, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Huang, Y.F.; Liao, P.L.; Lin, Y.J.; Huang, S.H.; Wu, Y.H.S.; Teng, C.F.; Yang, D.J. Assessment of various conditions for the simultaneous determination of US EPA and EU priority PAHs in coffee samples and their PAHs consumption risk. Food Res. Int. 2023, 169, 112947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Jesús Dueñas-Mas, M.; Ballesteros-Gómez, A.; Rubio, S. Characterization of a new sustainable supramolecular solvent and application to the determination of oxy-PAHs in meat, seafood and fish tissues. Food Chem. 2023, 405, 134731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Lung, S.C.C.; Liu, C.H. Fast analysis of 29 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and nitro-PAHs with ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-atmospheric pressure photoionization-tandem mass spectrometry. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 12992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Xu, L.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, X.C.; Chen, Y.J.; Wang, J. Development and identification of monoclonal antibodies against polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Immunol. J. 2015, 31, 712–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Sheryna, J.N.; Azmi, A.A.A.R.; Ahmad, A. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based-sensor for determination of benzo[a]pyrene in river water using screen-printed gold electrode. Malays. J. Anal. Sci. 2017, 21, 518–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Sun, Y.; Li, Y.S.; Meng, X.Y.; Qiao, B.; Hu, P.; Meng, X.M.; Lu, S.Y.; Ren, H.L.; Liu, Z.S.; Zhou, Y. Fluorescence-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of phenanthrene and its homolog. Anal. Biochem. 2018, 547, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Wu, S.M.; Li, H.M.; Yin, X.Y.; Si, Y.; Qin, L.N.; Yang, H.F.; Xiao, J.X.; Peng, D.P. Preparation of monoclonal antibody against pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene and development of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for fish, shrimp and crab samples. Foods 2022, 11, 3220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Ma, Z.; Zhuang, H.S. A chemical synthesis of benzo[a]pyrene hapten and its application in a streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase-based enzyme-linked immunological analysis. J. Chem. 2018, 2018, 8673476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Nilghaz, A.; Mousavi, S.M.; Amiri, A.; Tian, J.F.; Cao, R.; Wang, X.A. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy substrates for food safety and quality analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 5463–5476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Su, M.K.; Jiang, Q.; Guo, J.H.; Zhu, Y.X.; Cheng, S.; Yu, T.; Du, S.S.; Jiang, Y.F.; Liu, H.L. Quality alert from direct discrimination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in edible oil by liquid-interfacial surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 143, 111143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Structures of the 16 EPA PAHs.
Figure 1. Structures of the 16 EPA PAHs.
Foods 13 01977 g001
Figure 2. Main sources of PAHs in food products.
Figure 2. Main sources of PAHs in food products.
Foods 13 01977 g002
Figure 3. Different extraction and cleanup methods used for PAH analysis in food.
Figure 3. Different extraction and cleanup methods used for PAH analysis in food.
Foods 13 01977 g003
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of a PLE system.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of a PLE system.
Foods 13 01977 g004
Figure 5. Schematic of the main steps of the original QuEChERS analysis technique [122].
Figure 5. Schematic of the main steps of the original QuEChERS analysis technique [122].
Foods 13 01977 g005
Figure 6. Illustration of the main steps of the VA-SPE procedure [151].
Figure 6. Illustration of the main steps of the VA-SPE procedure [151].
Foods 13 01977 g006
Figure 7. (A) General scheme for the extraction and desorption steps in SPME analysis [157]. (B) Schematic diagram of the separation principle of GPC test [164].
Figure 7. (A) General scheme for the extraction and desorption steps in SPME analysis [157]. (B) Schematic diagram of the separation principle of GPC test [164].
Foods 13 01977 g007
Table 1. Physical–chemical properties of the 16 EPA PAHs.
Table 1. Physical–chemical properties of the 16 EPA PAHs.
PAHsAbbreviationFormulaAromatic
Ring
Water Solubility
(mg/L)
Melting
Point
(°C)
Boiling
Point
(°C)
Vapor Pressure (mm Hg)
NaphthaleneNapC10H823180.262180.087
AcenaptheneAcenC12H1033.895964.47 × 10−3
AcenaphthyleneAcenyC14H10316.192–93265–2750.029
AnthraceneAntC14H1030.045218340–3421.75 × 10−6
PhenanthrenePhenC14H1031.11003406.8 × 10−4
FluoreneFluC13H1031.9116–1172953.2 × 10−4
FluorantheneFluoC16H1040.26110.83755.0 × 10−6
Benzo[a]anthraceneBaAC20H1240.0111584382.5 × 10−6
ChryseneChrC18H1241.5 × 10−32544486.4 × 10−9
PyrenePyrC16H1040.132156393–4042.5 × 10−6
Benzo[a]pyreneBaPC20H1253.8 × 10−3179–179.34955.6 × 10−9
Benzo[b]fluorantheneBbFC20H1258.0 × 10−4215.74809.59 × 10−11
Benzo[k]fluorantheneBkFC20H1251.5 × 10−3168.3NS5.0 × 10−6
Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneDiBahAC22H1465.0 × 10−4262NS1.0 × 10−10
Benzo[g,h,i]peryleneBghiPC22H1262.6 × 10−42735501.03 × 10−10
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyreneIPC22H1260.062163.653010−16–10−10
NS, not specified.
Table 3. The levels of PAHs in food and products of some countries.
Table 3. The levels of PAHs in food and products of some countries.
NationType of FoodPAHs Concentration Range (μg/kg)Ref.
ChinaYoutiao16 EPA PAHs 9.90–89.97[71]
Tea22 PAHs136.99–462.51[72]
Tea16 EPA PAHs11.4–1251[73]
Wild marine fishes16 EPA PAHs34.7–108[74]
Smoked meat16 EPA PAHs14.4–56.3[75]
NigeriaOils and tomato sauces from canned fish16 EPA PAHs101–698[76]
Tea16 EPA PAHs0.76–44.57[77]
Smoked fishes16 EPA PAHs694–3585[78]
Vegetables (e.g., white spinach and lettuce)16 EPA PAHs100–5000[79]
BrazilHoney16 EPA PAHs1.4–23.3[80]
ChocolatePAH48.38–41.58[81]
IranEdible vegetable oils13 PAHs12.63–182.80[66]
Fish and prawn16 EPA PAHs2.3–13.81[82]
Coffee16 EPA PAHs13.00–20.78[83]
JapanGrilled foods12 PAHs0.062–1102[57]
Smoke-dried bonito29 PAHs419–1070[84]
LatviaCereal productsPAH40.22–1.62[85]
TanzaniaSmoked and sun-dried fishes13 PAHs80–33,900[86]
GhanaSmoke-cured fish16 EPA PAHs510.59–1461.79[87]
ItalySeafood16 EPA PAHs20.26–282.2[88]
BangladeshMilk16 EPA PAHs0.5497–1.077[89]
PakistanVegetables16 EPA PAHs51.6–402[90]
Saudi ArabiaVegetables and fruits16 EPA PAHs10.11–798.21[91]
ArgentinaTea16 EPA PAHs509.7–2746.5[92]
TurkeyTea15 PAHs212.2–953.9[93]
Honey14 PAHs 464.32–650.24 [94]
IndiaBread, biscuits, tea, coffee, oils, chocolates, grapes, pepper, and fishes16 EPA PAHs0.18–61,967[95]
EgyptGrilled, pan-fried, and boiled meat15 PAHs12.21–72.16[96]
RomaniaSmoked fish and smoked cheese16 EPA PAHs8.54–56.3[97]
PolandTea 16 EPA PAHs41.5–2910.2[98]
Tea infusion52.9–2226.0 ng/L
CanadaMussel, clam, and cockle17 PAHs510–17,550[99]
KoreaProcessed foods and their raw materials (e.g., cereals, nuts, fruit, meat, fish, beverages, and seasonings)8 PAHs0.08–11.97[100]
TogoFish12 PAHs5.24–149.0[101]
GhanaFish28 PAHs71–481[102]
Vegetables (e.g., Chinese cabbage, lettuce, and garden egg leaves)16 EPA PAHs3.16–9.29[103]
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

Liu, T.; Zhang, L.; Pan, L.; Yang, D. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons’ Impact on Crops and Occurrence, Sources, and Detection Methods in Food: A Review. Foods 2024, 13, 1977. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13131977

AMA Style

Liu T, Zhang L, Pan L, Yang D. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons’ Impact on Crops and Occurrence, Sources, and Detection Methods in Food: A Review. Foods. 2024; 13(13):1977. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13131977

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Tengfei, Li Zhang, Leiqing Pan, and Daifeng Yang. 2024. "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons’ Impact on Crops and Occurrence, Sources, and Detection Methods in Food: A Review" Foods 13, no. 13: 1977. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13131977

APA Style

Liu, T., Zhang, L., Pan, L., & Yang, D. (2024). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons’ Impact on Crops and Occurrence, Sources, and Detection Methods in Food: A Review. Foods, 13(13), 1977. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13131977

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