Next Article in Journal
Improving Pea Protein Emulsifying Capacity by Glycosylation to Prepare High-Internal-Phase Emulsions
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhanced Gel Properties of Duck Myofibrillar Protein by Plasma-Activated Water: Through Mild Structure Modifications
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Different Brewing Technologies on Polyphenols and Aroma Components of Black Chokeberry Wine
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/foods12040869
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Different Cooking Treatments on the Residual Level of Nitrite and Nitrate in Processed Meat Products and Margin of Safety (MoS) Assessment

by
Marco Iammarino
1,*,
Giovanna Berardi
1,
Igor Tomasevic
2 and
Valeria Nardelli
1
1
Department of Chemistry, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Puglia e della Basilicata, 71121 Foggia, Italy
2
German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL), 49610 Quackenbruck, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(4), 869; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040869
Submission received: 26 January 2023 / Revised: 11 February 2023 / Accepted: 16 February 2023 / Published: 17 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Approaches to Improve Meat Quality and Safety)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nitrite and nitrate are well-known food additives used in cured meats and linked to different food safety concerns. However, no study about the possible effect of cooking treatment on the residual level of these compounds before consumption is available. In this work, 60 samples of meat products were analyzed in order to evaluate the variation in residual nitrite and nitrate level after baking, grilling and boiling. The analyses by ion chromatography demonstrated that meat cooking leads to a decrease in nitrite and an increase in nitrate residual levels in the final products. Meat boiling caused an overall decrease in two additives’ concentration, while baking and particularly grilling caused an increase in nitrate and, in some cases, nitrite as well. Some regulatory aspects were also considered, such as the possibility of revising the legal limit of nitrate from the actual 150 mg kg−1 to a more cautious 100 mg kg−1. Indeed, several meat samples (bacon and swine fresh sausage) resulted in a higher nitrate concentration than the legal limit after cooking by grilling (eleven samples) or baking (five samples). Finally, the Margin of Safety evaluation demonstrated a good level of food safety, all values being higher than the protective threshold of 100.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Nitrite (NO2−) and nitrate (NO3−) are two ions involved in the nitrogen cycle and, being present in the environment also as a consequence of the widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture, they can be found in water and some types of food, especially vegetables. Leafy vegetables mainly contribute to the overall intake of nitrate in the diet, due to the very high accumulation capability of the leaves, up to 2978.1, 5101.0, 5834.9 and 7311.2 mg kg−1 in spinach, lettuce, chard and wild rocket, respectively. In some cases, nitrite can also be detected in high amounts, such as 197.5, 66.5, 131.6 and 219.5 mg kg−1 in spinach, lettuce, chard and rucola, respectively [1,2,3]. Moreover, their sodium and potassium salts, classified in Europe with food additive codes from E249 to E252, are widely used in food processing for the treatment of meats and some types of cheese and seafood [4,5]. Depending on the food type, these additives can exercise different functions, such as preventing bacterial growth (especially the high-concern Clostridium botulinum), improving pink coloration and flavor [5,6,7]. As an example, a limit equal to 150 mg kg−1 (expressed as NaNO2 or NaNO3) was established for “Non-heat–treated meat products”. Other limits, established for some traditionally cured meat products, can vary from 10 to 300 mg kg−1 and from 50 to 180 mg kg−1 for nitrate and nitrite addition, respectively [4]. Lastly, “natural” levels of nitrate can also be found in foodstuffs with no added food additives [2,8].
It is well known that these two compounds, especially nitrite, can exercise some harmful effects on humans, such as the formation of N-Nitrosamines (classified as carcinogenic or possibly carcinogenic) after reaction with secondary and tertiary amines [9,10]; the “Methemoglobinemia” disease, that is, the oxidation of hemoglobin to methemoglobin, which cannot transport oxygen to tissues; and several other adverse reactions in susceptible people [11,12]. The maximum admissible levels of nitrite and nitrate in food, drinking water and animal feed have been regulated worldwide [4,7,9,13,14,15,16,17] and specific Admissible Daily Intakes (ADIs), equal to 0.06, 0.07 and 3.7 mg kg body weight (b.w.)−1 per day of sodium nitrite, potassium nitrite and sodium/potassium nitrate, respectively, have been established.
It is also worthy of mentioning that recent studies seem to demonstrate that high intakes of nitrate can improve cardiometabolic health and exercise performance [18,19]. These positive effects are due to the entero-salivary production of nitric oxide, which is a significant cellular signaling molecule [20,21,22]. Thus, the food safety topic “nitrite-nitrate in food” should be addressed in a more comprehensive view, such as the “Risk-benefit analysis” [23].
In this regard, the “Total Diet Studies” developed worldwide also demonstrated that food processing, including home cooking, can substantially modify the actual intake of many contaminants on consumption [24,25,26]. However, these studies were only focused on food contaminants, due to their higher toxicity, so food additives were substantially overlooked, since few studies are available [27,28].
This work is conducted in this context. It represents the first report focused on the variation in nitrite and nitrate levels in most consumed types of cured meats, after different types of cooking treatment. The analytical determinations were obtained by means of ion chromatography coupled with suppressed conductivity detection.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection and Preparation Procedure for IC Analysis

Regarding sample collection, special attention was devoted to widely-consumed meat products [29] containing nitrite and nitrate (single or in combination) as food preservatives. In this sense, the product label was taken into consideration when choosing the products. The products were collected, following the randomness principle, from local stores during the period 2021–2022. The following products containing both nitrite and nitrate (E250–E252) were purchased: swine wurstel (1 sample), bacon (12 samples) and fresh swine sausage packed under vacuum (15 samples); 32 samples contained only nitrite (E250): chicken wurstel (8 samples), chicken/turkey wurstel (7 samples), swine wurstel (14 samples) and bacon (3 samples). The full list of collected samples, together with the indication of all food additives declared on the products label, is reported in Table 1. Once arrived in the laboratory, the products were stored at −18 °C (±2 °C) until analysis, since this type of storage does not modify the concentrations of nitrite and nitrate, so this is the procedure routinely used for official control activity.
The whole sample of at least 250 g was subdivided into 4 aliquots (the first 100 g and the others 50 g) and stored at −18 °C in the laboratory until analysis. The first aliquot was analyzed 4 times to assure the homogeneity of both additives in the whole sample. The other aliquots were analyzed after 3 different types of cooking treatment (2 repetitions for each test), using the following procedures: grilling (200 °C, 4–6 min), boiling (100 °C, 10 min) and baking (180 °C, 20 min). Each procedure was carried out making reference to the usual domestic procedures, taking care to obtain a proper level of cooking for each sample. Before and after cooking treatments, the samples were completely homogenized using a blade homogenizer. Then, 2 g (±0.01 g) of each sample was transferred to a 250 mL flask, and 100 mL of ultrapure water was added. The samples were then placed in bain-marie at 70 °C ± (3 °C) for 5 min. After vigorous shaking and cooling, an aliquot of at least 3 mL of the supernatant was passed through syringe filters fit for ion chromatography analysis (0.22-µm, Sartorius AG, Goettingen, Germany). In the case of a concentration outside the calibration range (0.6—300 and 0.8—274 mg kg−1 for sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate, respectively), a proper dilution with ultrapure water was conducted (usually 1/5). The analyses were carried out in duplicate and the final results were expressed as the mean of two measurements.

2.2. Chemicals, Standards and Reagents

Nitrate and nitrite reference material (1000 mg L−1), certified for ion chromatography, were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Stenheim, Germany). Na2CO3 (>99.5%) was supplied by VWR International s.r.l. (Milan, Italy). Ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ-cm), produced using the Arium® mini essential UV system (Sartorius AG, Goettingen, Germany), was used for preparing both mobile phase samples and standard solutions. The calibration curves of nitrite and nitrate were obtained by injecting the following concentrations of both compounds: 0.01, 0.1, 1.0, 5.0 and 10.0 mg L−1.

2.3. Apparatus and Ion Chromatography Method

A high-pressure ion chromatography system composed of a column compartment set at 20 °C, an SP Single Pump (ICS-6000), a gradient mixer (Dionex GM-4, 2 mm), an injection valve with a 25-µL loop, a Dionex self-regenerating suppressor (ADRS 600, 4 mm) set at the recommended voltage and a DC detector in conductivity mode (Thermo Scientific™ Dionex™ ICS-6000 HPIC™ System, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) were used for the chromatographic determination of nitrite and nitrate. The analytical column adopted was the IonPac® AS9-HC (250 × 2 mm, particle size: 9 µm) equipped with AG9-HC pre-column (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.). The analytical approach used in this study was a well-known chromatographic separation, already standardized for meat products analysis [30]. A solution consisting of 9 mM Na2CO3, degassed with helium and microfiltered before use, was used as the mobile phase. The isocratic elution of both analytes was accomplished by using a flow rate of 1.0 mL min−1 and a total run time of 25 min. For data acquisition/processing and instrumentation control, the Chromeleon 7.2.8 software (Thermo Scientific) was used.
This analytical method is routinely used for official food control activity at the Chemistry Department of the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Puglia e della Basilicata (Foggia, Italy). In this regard, the analytical procedure was fully validated, following an in-house validation model developed according to the most representative European Regulations and Guidelines [31,32,33,34,35,36,37] and accredited in Italy as of 2004. This analytical method is regularly submitted to Proficiency tests, and it was also successfully applied during an International interlaboratory study, developed for the standardization of a nitrate-rich vegetable food [19]. The limits of quantification (LoQs) of this method correspond to 0.6 and 0.8 mg kg−1, expressed as sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate, respectively, in matrix. The method accuracy, estimated in terms of precision and recovery percentage, is characterized by mean CV% equal to 4.1% for nitrite and 4.2% for nitrate, and mean recovery percentage of 98.7% and 98.3% for nitrite and nitrate, respectively. The measurement uncertainty is equal to 9.9% for nitrite and 12.0% for nitrate, and the method robustness studies assured its applicability for the analysis of food types other than meats (i.e., fish and dairy products and vegetables) [1,2,3].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

When the concentration was lower than the LoQ (only verified for nitrite), an amount corresponding to LoQ/2 was assigned, using these values for data elaboration. This approach, named “middle-bound”, is in accordance with the indications provided by the Italian Institute of Health in the document “Rapporti ISTISAN 04/15” [38].
The statistical analysis was carried out in order to evaluate how different cooking treatments modify the residual level of nitrite and nitrate in meat products. The comparisons were made in terms of variation percentage, with respect to the raw sample, evaluating the one-way ANOVA and the t-test, at confident intervals of 95%, 99% and 99.9% (p < 0.05, 0.01, 0.001).
The results obtained during the study were also used for a contribution to risk assessment. Since nitrite and nitrate are not carcinogenic substances, it was not possible to calculate the Margin of Exposure (MoE). Thus, the assessment was elaborated in terms of Margin of Safety (MoS), using 1 as the minimum requirement (bigger is better) and 100 as a protective threshold [39]. The estimation of MoS was obtained as the ADI/estimated exposure dose ratio, under a high-exposure scenario for toddlers considering 12 kg as reference b.w., as established by EFSA [9,15,40]. This choice was to the aim of carefully evaluating the most concerning scenario. The high-exposure scenario was elaborated taking into account, for each meat product type and cooking treatment, the highest concentration detected during the study. With regard to meat products consumption, the reference data were obtained from the INRAN-SCAI 2005-06 Italian National surveys, taking into consideration the mean data [41,42]. This approach, very useful for the estimation of global intake of nitrite and nitrate, was successfully used in some recently published papers [3,29].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. General Remarks

The results obtained by analyzing 60 samples of meat products for the determination of nitrite and nitrate, both before and after three different types of cooking treatment, are reported in Table 1 and elaborated on in Figure 1. Some chromatogram examples related to both standard solution and meat samples are shown in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. A graphical representation of the mean variations in nitrite and nitrate concentrations is also shown in Figure 5. As a first comment, it is worthy of mentioning that the results obtained by analyzing two repetitions for each test demonstrated good repeatability, with SD values and CV% in the range 0.1–9.7 and 2.5–20.2, respectively.
The first significant result is the different effect of cooking treatments on the residual level of nitrite and nitrate. Indeed, cooking, generally speaking, leads to a decrease in nitrite concentration and an increase in nitrate. As a first comment, this result can be justified considering the natural oxidation of nitrite to nitrate due to high temperatures [27,29,43].
Regarding nitrite, boiling caused a significant decrease in the final amount on consumption (p < 0.05), equal to 25.8% and 43.5% in swine fresh sausage and chicken/turkey wurstel samples, respectively. This result is in accordance with the findings obtained by McMahon et al. [27] who analyzed different types of vegetables. Although not significant, a substantial reduction (37.6%) was also registered in swine wurstel samples. No significant modification in the final amount was verified in bacon samples. This finding can be due to low amounts detected in the raw samples (mean concentration: 3.6 mg kg−1) when compared to the other meat product types (mean concentration: 15.3 mg kg−1). Most other determinations confirmed that both baking and grilling caused a decrease in nitrite level, in the range [8.8–26.1%] and [14.7–47.9%], respectively (Table 2), with few, not significant, exceptions.
Concerning nitrate, cooking by grilling always leads to a significant increase (p < 0.01) in the final concentration, in the range [47.8% (swine wurstel)–94.4% (swine fresh sausage)]. This result is very important, since it represents another concern related to this type of meat cooking, already linked to the formation of well-known carcinogenic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosamines and heterocyclic amines [44,45,46]. Although less significant, cooking by baking also resulted in an increase in nitrate concentration, in the percentage range [36.5% (swine wurstel)–77.4% (bacon)]. Cooking by boiling resulted in a variable effect, probably depending on the possible extraction of nitrate from the matrix due to the high temperature of water. Indeed, this effect is exploited in the usual laboratory extraction step of nitrate from meat matrices [30]. It is worthy of mentioning that the decrease in nitrate level after cooking by boiling is always verified in food where the nitrite level is very low, i.e., vegetables [47], since the increase due to nitrite oxidation is negligible.
Another important result is related to the legal limits and the cooking effect on the final compliance with such reference values. Taking into account both the maximum permitted level set in the European Regulation [4] in the meat products considered in this study (150 mg kg−1 as NaNO3) and the measurement uncertainty of the method (12%), all raw samples were compliant. After cooking, the increase in nitrate concentrations made several samples “not-complaint”, since the level exceeded 150 mg kg−1. In particular and in accordance with the comments above, cooking by grilling resulted in the highest number of samples exceeding the legal limit (11), as subdivided: six bacon (range 185.4–293.8 mg kg−1, mean: 229.5 mg kg−1) and five swine fresh sausage (range: 176.2–233.6 mg kg−1, mean: 210.1 mg kg−1). Cooking by baking also caused this significant result, in particular in three bacon samples (range 190.6–253.4 mg kg−1, mean: 216.4 mg kg−1) and two samples of swine fresh sausage (range: 194.7–206.8 mg kg−1, mean: 200.8 mg kg−1). In Figure 4, an example of chromatograms is shown, where the increase in nitrate concentration registered after grilling a swine fresh sausage sample is appreciable.
These results remark the importance of “Total Diet Studies” when evaluating the actual intake of food additives added in food submitted to cooking practices before consumption. Indeed, the variation caused by cooking can lead to significant variation in the final amount of food additives in the products (both increase and decrease). These variations substantially modify different food safety aspects, such as the risk exposure assessment and the definition of legal limits. In this regard, the following study of risk exposure can be considered a contribution to the evaluation of such factors.

3.2. Margin of Safety (MoS) Assessment

Regarding the contribution to risk exposure (Table 3), no MoS value resulted lower than the protective threshold of 100, confirming an acceptable level of food safety. This is mainly due to the original amount of nitrate and nitrite present in the formulations which resulted, as already commented above, not particularly high.
Regarding nitrite, the lowest mean values of MoS were obtained for raw samples, due to cooking which causes the oxidation of nitrite to nitrate. The higher mean value was registered for grilled meats; however, considering the overall increase in nitrite caused by this cooking treatment (Figure 5), the validity of this comment only assumes a comparison meaning.
Regarding nitrate, the mean values of MoS were in the range 17,014 (baking)–40,954 (boiling). From a food safety point of view, the higher value calculated for the boiling procedure confirms that this type of cooking treatment can be considered the best one when evaluating nitrite and nitrate intake both before and after the cooking of meat products.

3.3. Discussion and Regulatory Aspects

The first important remark of this study is related to the different effects obtained cooking meats by boiling when compared to grilling and baking. Indeed, the first type of cooking leads to an overall decrease in both additives, while baking and particularly grilling cause an increase in nitrate and, in some cases, nitrite as well. Considering that nitrite is the most important precursor of nitrosamine formation in meats, and the possible positive correlation between heat treatments and the increase in levels of these toxic contaminants in meats [48], the impact of cooking on the overall level of safety of meats assumes a fundamental importance.
The second remark has a significant impact on the regulatory aspects. In several cases, cooking caused an increase in nitrate concentration up to levels above the legal limit defined in the reference regulation. Within these samples, the highest increase percentage was equal to 125% (grilled bacon), while the mean value was 70.9%. This mean increase percentage is comparable to those calculated, considering all data related to bacon and fresh swine sausage cooked by both grilling and baking, which was 69.8%. Thus, as a possible reference parameter, it is possible to hypothesize that the residual concentration of nitrate in these types of most concerning meat product samples increases by ~70% after cooking by grilling or baking. In this regard, also considering an adequate value of measurement uncertainty, it is possible to suggest a revision of the legal limit of nitrate in bacon and sausage from the actual 150 mg kg−1 to a more cautious 100 mg kg−1.

4. Conclusions

In this study, 60 samples of widely-consumed meat products were analyzed in order to evaluate the variation in residual nitrite and nitrate concentration after three different types of cooking treatments: baking, grilling and boiling.
The analytical determinations, accomplished by means of quality-assured chromatography methods, revealed that cooking treatment generally leads to a decrease in nitrite and an increase in nitrate residual levels in the final products.
Meat boiling causes a general decrease in both additives’ concentration, while baking and particularly grilling cause an increase in nitrate and, in some cases, also nitrite. This result is significant, also considering the possible increase in nitrosamine levels.
Regarding regulatory aspects, in eleven and five meat samples (bacon and swine fresh sausage) cooked by grilling and baking, respectively, cooking caused an increase in nitrate concentration up to levels above the legal limit defined in Reg. No. 1333/2008/EC. This result, other than confirming the importance of considering food cooking within the “Total Diet Studies”, also suggests a revision of the legal limit of nitrate in bacon and sausage from the actual 150 mg kg−1 to a more cautious 100 mg kg−1.
Finally, the risk exposure assessment, evaluated in terms of MoS, resulted in acceptable levels of food safety, since all the values were higher than the protective threshold (100).

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health, grant numbers: GR-2013-02358862, IZSPB 06/21 RC and IZSPB 04/22 RC.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Valeria Vita (Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Puglia e della Basilicata, Foggia, Italy) is gratefully acknowledged for technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Iammarino, M.; Di Taranto, A.; Cristino, M. Monitoring of nitrites and nitrates levels in leafy vegetables (spinach and lettuce): A contribution to risk assessment. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 773–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Iammarino, M.; Di Taranto, A.; Cristino, M. Endogenous levels of nitrites and nitrates in wide consumption foodstuffs: Results of five years of official controls and monitoring. Food Chem. 2013, 140, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Iammarino, M.; Berardi, G.; Vita, V.; Elia, A.; Conversa, G.; Di Taranto, A. Determination of Nitrate and Nitrite in Swiss Chard (Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris) and Wild Rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia (L.) DC.) and Food Safety Evaluations. Foods 2022, 11, 2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, L354, 16–33. [Google Scholar]
  5. Karwowska, M.; Kononiuk, A. Nitrates/nitrites in food—Risk for nitrosative stress and benefits. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Nummer, B.; Andress, E. Curing and Smoking Meats for Home Food Preservation Literature Review and Critical Preservation Points; The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service: Athens, GA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  7. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Survey of Nitrates and Nitrites in Food and Beverages in Australia; Food Standards Australia New Zealand: Canberra, Australia, 2011. Available online: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/nitrate/Documents/Survey%20of%20nitrates%20and%20nitrites.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  8. Iammarino, M.; Di Taranto, A. Nitrite and nitrate in fresh meats: A contribution to the estimation of admissible maximum limits to introduce in directive 95/2/EC. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 1852–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. European Food Safety Authority. Re-evaluation of potassium nitrite (E 249) and sodium nitrite (E 250) as food additives. EFSA J. 2017, 15, 4786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs Evaluate Consumption of Red Meat and Processed Meat; IARC: Lyon, France, 2015; Available online: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  11. D’Amore, T.; Di Taranto, A.; Vita, V.; Berardi, G.; Iammarino, M. Development and validation of an analytical method for nitrite and nitrate determination in meat products by capillary ion chromatography (CIC). Food Anal. Method 2019, 12, 1813–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. National Research Council (US) Subcommittee on Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water; National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 1995.
  13. National Health and Medical Research Council—HMRC, NRMMC. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines Paper 6 National Water Quality Management Strategy; National Health and Medical Research Council, National Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2011. Available online: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/reports/aust-drinking-water-guidelines.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; World Health Organization. Discussion Paper on the Use of Nitrates (Ins 251, 252) and Nitrites (Ins 249, 250); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; Available online: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-711-49%252FWD%252Ffa49_11e.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  15. EFSA ANS Panel. Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) as food additives. EFSA J. 2017, 15, 4787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. European Commission. Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed. Off. J. Eur. Union 2002, L140, 10–21. [Google Scholar]
  17. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1258/2011 of 2 December 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for nitrates in foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2011, L320, 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  18. Norman, G.; Conley, M.N. Regulation of dietary nitrate and nitrite: Balancing essential physiological roles with potential health risks. In Nitrite and Nitrate in Human Health and Disease; Bryan, N.S., Loscalzo, J., Eds.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 153–162. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pagliano, E.; Meija, J.; Campanella, B.; Onor, M.; Iammarino, M.; D’Amore, T.; Berardi, G.; D’Imperio, M.; Parente, A.; Mihai, O.; et al. Certification of nitrate in spinach powder reference material SPIN-1 by high-precision isotope dilution GC-MS. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2019, 411, 3435–3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Lundberg, J.O.; Weitzberg, E.; Gladwin, M.T. The nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide pathway in physiology and therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2008, 7, 156–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Lundberg, J.O.; Weitzberg, E. NO-synthase independent NO generation in mammals. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2010, 396, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Koch, C.D.; Gladwin, M.T.; Freeman, B.A.; Lundberg, J.O.; Weitzberg, E.; Morris, A. Enterosalivary nitrate metabolism and the microbiome: Intersection of microbial metabolism, nitric oxide and diet in cardiac and pulmonary vascular health. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2017, 105, 48–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. EFSA Scientific Committee. Guidance on human health risk-benefit assessment of food. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Total Diet Study Report; US FDA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2022. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/media/159745/download (accessed on 7 January 2023).
  25. Hong Kong Centre for Food Safety Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study; Hong Kong Centre for Food Safety Food and Environmental Hygiene Department: Hong Kong, China, 2011. Available online: https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_firm/files/1st_HKTDS_Report_e.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2023).
  26. European Food Safety Authority; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; World Health Organization. Towards a harmonised Total Diet Study approach: A guidance document. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. McMahon, N.F.; Brooker, P.G.; Pavey, T.G.; Leveritt, M.D. Nitrate, nitrite and nitrosamines in the global food supply. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2022, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Berardi, G.; Di Taranto, A.; Vita, V.; Marseglia, C.; Iammarino, M. Effect of different cooking treatments on the residual level of sulphites in shrimps. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2022, 11, 10029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Berardi, G.; Albenzio, M.; Marino, R.; D’Amore, T.; Di Taranto, A.; Vita, V.; Iammarino, M. Different use of nitrite and nitrate in meats: A survey on typical and commercial Italian products as a contribution to risk assessment. LWT 2021, 150, 112004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. ISO/CD 7158; Meat and Meat Products—Determination of Nitrite and Nitrate Content-Ion Chromatography Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/82658.html (accessed on 7 January 2023).
  31. Iammarino, M. Simplified Guidelines for Chromatographic Methods Validation; LAP Lambert Academic Publishing: Riga, Latvia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  32. Thompson, M.; Ellison, S.R.L.; Wood, R. Harmonized guidelines for single laboratory validation of methods of analysis. Pure Appl. Chem. 2002, 74, 835–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Miller, E.J.C.; Miller, J.N. Statistics for Analytical Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Ellis Horwood PTR Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  34. Youden, W.J.; Steiner, E.H. Statistical Manual of the AOAC; Association of the Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hund, E.; Massart, D.L.; Smeyers-Verbeke, J. Operational definitions of uncertainty. TrAC Trend. Anal. Chem. 2001, 20, 394–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. European Parliament/Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017. Off. J. Eur. Union 2017, L95, 1–142. [Google Scholar]
  37. European Commission. Commission Decision of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results. Off. J. Eur. Union 2002, L221, 8–36. [Google Scholar]
  38. Menichini, E.; Viviano, G.; The Working Group Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Treatment of Data below the Detection Limit in the Calculation of Analytical Results—Rapporti ISTISAN 04/15; Istituto Superiore di Sanità: Rome, Italy, 2004. Available online: https://www.iss.it/documents/20126/955767/0415.1106219644.pdf/51c15924-7b63-07ca-cce4-9a37d772190d?t=1575578775857 (accessed on 7 January 2023).
  39. ChemSafetyPro. What Are Margin of Exposure (MOE) and Margin of Safety (MOS) and How to Calculate. 2019. Available online: https://www.chemsafetypro.com/Topics/CRA/margin_of_safety_MOS_margin_of_exposure_MOE_difference_chemical_risk_assessment.html (accessed on 7 January 2023).
  40. European Food Safety Authority. Guidance on selected default values to be used by the EFSA Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels and Units in the absence of actual measured data. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. European Food Safety Authority. Guidance of EFSA. Use of the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database in Exposure Assessment. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Leclercq, C.; Arcella, D.; Piccinelli, R.; Sette, S.; Le Donne, C.; Turrini, A. The Italian national food consumption survey INRAN-SCAI 2005-06: Main results in terms of food consumption. Public Health Nutr. 2009, 12, 2504–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Merino, L.; Darnerud, P.O.; Toldrá, T.; Ilbäck, N.-G. Time-dependent depletion of nitrite in pork/beef and chicken meat products and its effect on nitrite intake estimation. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2016, 33, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Lee, J.G.; Kim, S.Y.; Moon, J.S.; Kim, S.H.; Kang, D.H.; Yoon, H.J. Effects of grilling procedures on levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in grilled meats. Food Chem. 2016, 199, 632–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Smith, J.S.; Ameri, F.; Gadgil, P. Effect of marinades on the formation of heterocyclic amines in grilled beef steaks. J. Food Sci. 2008, 73, T100–T105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kocak, D.; Ozel, M.Z.; Gogus, F.; Hamilton, J.F.; Lewis, A.C. Determination of volatile nitrosamines in grilled lamb and vegetables using comprehensive gas chromatography—Nitrogen chemiluminescence detection. Food Chem. 2012, 135, 2215–2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ferysiuk, K.; Wójciak, K.M. Reduction of nitrite in meat products through the application of various plant-based ingredients. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Herrmann, S.S.; Duedahl-Olesen, L.; Granby, K. Occurrence of volatile and non-volatile N-nitrosamines in processed meat products and the role of heat treatment. Food Control 2015, 48, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Foods 12 00869 g001 550
Figure 1. Mean concentrations of nitrite and nitrate quantified analyzing 60 samples of meat products both before and after cooking.
Figure 1. Mean concentrations of nitrite and nitrate quantified analyzing 60 samples of meat products both before and after cooking.
Foods 12 00869 g001
Foods 12 00869 g002 550
Figure 2. Chromatogram of a standard solution at a concentration of 5.0 mg L−1 of nitrite and nitrate.
Figure 2. Chromatogram of a standard solution at a concentration of 5.0 mg L−1 of nitrite and nitrate.
Foods 12 00869 g002
Foods 12 00869 g003 550
Figure 3. Chromatograms of a chicken wurstel sample both before and after cooking. Nitrite concentrations in the range 21.8 mg kg−1 (boiled—C)–46.2 mg kg−1 (grilled—B); Nitrate concentrations in the range 43.0 mg kg−1 (boiled—C)–89.1 mg kg−1 (raw—A). D: baked sample.
Figure 3. Chromatograms of a chicken wurstel sample both before and after cooking. Nitrite concentrations in the range 21.8 mg kg−1 (boiled—C)–46.2 mg kg−1 (grilled—B); Nitrate concentrations in the range 43.0 mg kg−1 (boiled—C)–89.1 mg kg−1 (raw—A). D: baked sample.
Foods 12 00869 g003
Foods 12 00869 g004 550
Figure 4. Chromatograms of a swine fresh sausage sample both before and after cooking (extracts diluted 1/5). Nitrate concentrations: 134.6 mg kg−1 (raw—A); 233.6 mg kg−1 (grilled—B).
Figure 4. Chromatograms of a swine fresh sausage sample both before and after cooking (extracts diluted 1/5). Nitrate concentrations: 134.6 mg kg−1 (raw—A); 233.6 mg kg−1 (grilled—B).
Foods 12 00869 g004
Foods 12 00869 g005 550
Figure 5. Graphical visualization of mean variations % in nitrite (A) and nitrate (B) concentrations in 60 samples of meat products after three different types of cooking treatment.
Figure 5. Graphical visualization of mean variations % in nitrite (A) and nitrate (B) concentrations in 60 samples of meat products after three different types of cooking treatment.
Foods 12 00869 g005
Table
Table 1. NaNO2 and NaNO3 concentrations detected in 60 samples of meat products analyzed before and after cooking.
Table 1. NaNO2 and NaNO3 concentrations detected in 60 samples of meat products analyzed before and after cooking.
Meat ProductFood Additives Declared on the LabelNitrite (mg kg−1)Nitrate (mg kg−1)
RawBakedGrilledBoiledRawBakedGrilledBoiled
Chicken WurstelE407, E412, E450, E301, E25034.536.638.036.640.245.847.643.6
Chicken/Turkey WurstelE301, E25065.721.822.013.220.232.139.531.1
Chicken WurstelE301, E25038.325.125.814.328.045.649.832.9
Chicken/Turkey WurstelE301, E25033.616.817.04.920.730.939.729.3
Chicken WurstelE301, E25025.417.220.011.035.051.148.133.7
Chicken/Turkey WurstelE450, E452, E301, E250N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.32.145.135.033.5
Chicken/Turkey WurstelE450, E451, E316, E25011.012.815.212.828.147.357.347.6
Chicken WurstelE301, E25028.719.629.810.428.7107.381.523.7
Chicken WurstelE301, E25039.531.746.221.889.175.578.543.0
Chicken/Turkey WurstelE450, E452, E301, E25013.78.911.26.033.639.334.628.2
Chicken/Turkey WurstelE301, E25029.123.627.711.731.533.742.223.7
Chicken WurstelE301, E2501.01.231.31.322.655.448.233.6
Chicken WurstelE301, E25025.917.520.511.634.951.048.034.1
Chicken/Turkey WurstelE301, E25016.17.62.22.136.051.925.038.7
Chicken WurstelE301, E25026.317.721.012.235.150.947.934.2
Swine WurstelE316, E25018.113.36.82.417.624.740.133.3
Swine WurstelE301, E2501.31.0N.D.N.D.20.230.641.637.1
Swine WurstelE301, E2509.87.91.93.830.741.741.526.0
Swine/Chicken WurstelE407, E412, E450, E301, E25074.466.3N.D.30.656.593.666.333.7
Swine WurstelE301, E2501.72.1N.D.2.526.639.524.218.9
Swine WurstelE301, E25010.07.51.74.230.641.641.826.5
Swine WurstelE301, E2501.0N.D.1.31.130.481.342.912.1
Swine WurstelE301, E250N.D.0.6N.D.N.D.29.232.347.222.6
Swine WurstelE301, E621, E450, E452, E250N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.38.152.540.833.7
Swine WurstelE301, E2501.8N.D.0.71.127.936.435.727.5
Swine WurstelE331, E262, E301, E2507.06.36.33.836.135.837.329.4
Swine WurstelE301, E2508.61.00.71.025.626.132.221.4
Swine WurstelE301, E2501.62.22.32.044.828.949.019.2
Swine WurstelE301, E2509.78.22.13.430.841.842.225.5
Swine WurstelE301, E250, E2520.90.7N.D.N.D.15.719.145.424.7
BaconE301, E250, E252N.D.0.6N.D.N.D.33.568.362.921.2
BaconE301, E250, E2521.2N.D.3.01.9107.2190.6185.542.1
BaconE301, E25012.46.74.56.646.031.428.79.0
BaconE301, E250, E2521.4N.D.2.01.9145.5205.3204.847.7
BaconE301, E252, E250 N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.128.7132.5244.328.1
BaconE301, E252, E250N.D.N.D.N.D.0.6150.8147.3293.852.4
BaconE301, E250, E2523.32.23.53.180.9114.5140.031.0
BaconE250N.D.N.D.N.D.0.6116.9253.4263.358.5
BaconE301, E252, E250N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.135.8150.2185.451.2
BaconE2509.48.710.012.121.915.722.912.1
BaconE301, E250, E2523.71.83.92.781.6113.7150.060.2
BaconE301, E250, E2523.8N.D.2.10.913.7113.413.414.4
BaconE301, E250, E2523.52.03.72.981.3114.1140.530.6
BaconE301, E250, E25212.9N.D.19.15.924.146.128.916.2
BaconE301, E250, E252N.D.0.6N.D.0.652.016.0151.714.6
Swine SausageE301, E250, E2528.0N.D.15.09.330.719.867.635.8
Swine SausageE301, E250, E2527.612.213.72.145.753.3104.133.7
Swine SausageE301, E250, E2526.89.312.96.544.546.973.334.2
Swine SausageE301, E250, E2521.82.52.52.763.8105.9137.156.8
Swine SausageE301, E250, E252N.D.N.D.0.60.6135.9206.8230.6105.2
Swine SausageE301, E250, E252N.D.N.D.0.6N.D.134.6194.7233.695.2
Swine SausageE300, E301, E250, E25248.6N.D.N.D.N.D.5.811.118.122.2
Swine SausageE300, E301, E250, E25246.749.4N.D.N.D.5.313.213.718.9
Swine SausageE300, E301, E250, E2529.67.63.92.075.2106.6134.573.9
Swine SausageE300, E301, E250, E252N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.108.4150.2157.392.4
Swine SausageE300, E301, E250, E25210.57.24.01.776.0105.5135.573.0
Swine SausageE301, E331, E250, E252N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.121.2162.0195.6138.7
Swine SausageE301, E331, E250, E25210.17.44.11.976.6106.1134.073.4
Swine SausageE301, E331, E250, E252N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.120.5159.0200.1146.1
Swine SausageE301, E331, E250, E252N.D.N.D.N.D.N.D.103.4150.7176.2102.3
N.D. = Not detected (<0.6 mg kg−1).
Table
Table 2. Mean variation percentages of nitrite and nitrate concentrations after different types of cooking treatment.
Table 2. Mean variation percentages of nitrite and nitrate concentrations after different types of cooking treatment.
Sample TypeN° of Samples AnalyzedN° of Brands AnalyzedFood Preservatives Declared on the LabelN° of Samples with [NO2−]
< LoQ a		[NaNO2]
(mg kg−1)
[Range]
(Mean)
(Raw Sample)		[NaNO3]
(mg kg−1)
[Range]
(Mean)
(Raw Sample)		Mean Variation % [NaNO2]
after
Baking		Mean Variation % [NaNO2]
after Grilling		Mean Variation %
[NaNO2]
after Boiling		Mean Variation %
[NaNO3]
after
Baking		Mean Variation %
[NaNO3]
after Grilling		Mean Variation %
[NaNO3]
after Boiling
Chicken/Turkey Wurstel1510E2501[1.0–65.7]
(25.9)		[20.2–89.1]
(34.4)		−24.1−14.7−43.5*+60.2 **+53.3 **+8.9
Swine Wurstel1510E2502[0.9–74.4]
(9.8)		[15.7–56.5]
(30.7)		−20.0−47.9−37.6+36.5+47.8−4.9
Bacon1510E250 + E252 (10)
E250 (5)		6[1.2–12.9]
(3.6)		[13.7–150.8]
(81.3)		−26.1+10.4+6.3+77.4+63.6 **−53.0 ***
Swine Fresh Sausage153E2506[1.8–48.6]
(10.1)		[5.3–135.9]
(76.5)		−8.8+3.4−25.8 *+43.9 *+94.4 **+30.2
a LoQ = 0.06 mg kg−1 of NaNO2; Variation % statistically significant (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001). The concentrations increased after cooking are reported in bold.
Table
Table 3. Margin of Safety (MoS) for meat products both before and after cooking (in brackets: ADI%).
Table 3. Margin of Safety (MoS) for meat products both before and after cooking (in brackets: ADI%).
RawBakedGrilledBoiled
NitriteChicken wurstel545 (0.18)986 (0.10)774 (0.13)986
Swine wurstel503 (0.20)567 (0.18)5538 (0.02)1229
Bacon2927 (0.03)4337 (0.02)1962 (0.05)3117
Swine fresh sausage771 (0.13)760 (0.13)2509 (0.04)4045
Mean MoS1186 (0.14)1662 (0.11)2696 (0.06)2344
NitrateChicken wurstel24,944 (0.004)20,690 (0.005)27,239 (0.004)46,737
Swine wurstel44,400 (0.002)24,804 (0.004)34,961 (0.003)62,535
Bacon15,417 (0.006)11,327 (0.009)7914 (0.013)38,676
Swine fresh sausage17,103 (0.006)11,235 (0.009)9951 (0.010)15,868
Mean MoS25,466 (0.005)17,014 (0.007) 20,016 (0.008)40,954
Mean consumptions of meat products available from: INRAN-SCAI 2005-06. https://www.crea.gov.it/documents/59764/0/appendice_6b5_carne.pdf/6a9412b8-cc45-20c9-7e59-bf6a68dab570?t=1550827578904 accessed on 14 January 2023; % ADI calculated using 12 kg as reference body weight.
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

Iammarino, M.; Berardi, G.; Tomasevic, I.; Nardelli, V. Effect of Different Cooking Treatments on the Residual Level of Nitrite and Nitrate in Processed Meat Products and Margin of Safety (MoS) Assessment. Foods 2023, 12, 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040869

AMA Style

Iammarino M, Berardi G, Tomasevic I, Nardelli V. Effect of Different Cooking Treatments on the Residual Level of Nitrite and Nitrate in Processed Meat Products and Margin of Safety (MoS) Assessment. Foods. 2023; 12(4):869. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040869

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iammarino, Marco, Giovanna Berardi, Igor Tomasevic, and Valeria Nardelli. 2023. "Effect of Different Cooking Treatments on the Residual Level of Nitrite and Nitrate in Processed Meat Products and Margin of Safety (MoS) Assessment" Foods 12, no. 4: 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040869

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