See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/376563200

Impact of Smoking Technology on the Quality of Food Products: Absorption of

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by Food Products during Smoking

Article in Sustainability · December 2023

DOI: 10.3390/su152416890

CITATIONS READS

0 761

3 authors, including:

Kamil Czwartkowski Gniewko Niedbała

Wroclaw University of Economics and Business Poznań University of Life Sciences
8 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS 144 PUBLICATIONS 2,631 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gniewko Niedbała on 18 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 sustainability

Review
Impact of Smoking Technology on the Quality of Food Products:
Absorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by
Food Products during Smoking
Edyta Nizio 1 , Kamil Czwartkowski 1 and Gniewko Niedbała 2, *

1 Department of Agroengineering and Quality Analysis, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business,
Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wrocław, Poland; [email protected] (E.N.);
[email protected] (K.C.)
2 Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Environmental and Mechanical Engineering,
Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 50, 60-627 Poznań, Poland
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The food industry is striving for a sustainable development of thermal food processing.
Smoking is an example of a process that has grown in popularity in recent years. There is a lack
of systematic knowledge in the literature regarding this undervalued process, so the purpose of
this review is to analyze the state of knowledge about the methods and technologies of smoking
food products and their impact on changing the quality of essential food products. Therefore,
a comprehensive review of the literature on smoking processes from the past two decades was
conducted. The most essential components absorbed from smoke during smoking are polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In the present work, 24 PAHs are summarized, and the capability of
12 food products to absorb them is described. Analysis of the principal components of absorbed PAHs
showed that some products from different groups exhibit a similar ability to absorb these compounds,
mainly influenced by their physical properties. The pre-treatment practices of raw materials before
Citation: Nizio, E.; Czwartkowski, K.; smoking, the smoking raw materials used, and their quality parameters were characterized (along
Niedbała, G. Impact of Smoking with the effects of smoking methods on selected product groups: fish, meats, and cheeses). In
Technology on the Quality of Food addition, the gap in research concerning the absorption of other components of smoke, e.g., phenols,
Products: Absorption of Polycyclic alcohols, ketones, and aldehydes, which directly impact food quality, is indicated.
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by
Food Products during Smoking.
Keywords: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; smoking technology; food preservation; smoke
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890.
components absorption; food quality
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su152416890

Academic Editors: Daniel M. Anang,

Haruna Musa Moda and Olajide 1. Introduction
Sobukola
The food industry has a key role in the sustainability of the economy. Of particular
Received: 20 November 2023 importance is the thermal processing of food. These processes should be carried out in
Revised: 4 December 2023 such a way as to generate the minimum possible amount of waste, reduce the consumption
Accepted: 14 December 2023 of energy and non-renewable raw materials, and not introduce substances harmful to
Published: 15 December 2023 human health into food products. Thermal treatment of food imparts properties that make
them safe for consumption and extend their shelf life. It involves reducing the water
content and inhibiting microbial growth [1]. In addition, it increases the assimilability of
nutrients and improves the texture, consistency, and physicochemical properties [2]. In
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
addition, there is a favorable change in organoleptic characteristics, i.e., taste, aroma, and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
appearance. There are several basic techniques of thermal processing of food: boiling,
This article is an open access article
blanching, frying, stewing, baking, grilling, roasting, drying, and smoking [3,4]. To ensure
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
the indicated factors of sustainable development, it is necessary to conduct the mentioned
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
processes correctly.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ This review focuses on the smoking process, which involves displacing water from
4.0/). the raw material while saturating the aroma. As a result, it reduces the activity of water

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416890 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 2 of 18

and enzymes, and the growth of microorganisms is inhibited [5]. In addition, the elevated
temperature causes the chemical compounds present in the smoke (mainly phenolic deriva-
tives, organic acids, and carbonyl compounds) to react with food ingredients, imparting
flavor and aromatic properties and changing the color and texture of the product. However,
smoking also causes contamination of foodstuffs with toxic and carcinogenic substances,
such as PAHs, cyclic amines, and formaldehyde. Due to the harmfulness of these sub-
stances, the aim is to minimize their contribution to the product [6]. In the smoking process,
it is crucial to set temperature conditions for an experimentally determined period and in
suitable smoking equipment with controlled smoke levels [7].
The high content of PAHs in products is an undesirable phenomenon, as they are
carcinogens and cause cardiovascular diseases. In the European Union, there are regu-
lations about the maximum content of certain PAHs in meat and fish by legal acts (e.g.,
Commission Regulation (EU) No 2023/915 of 25 April 2023, Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 1321/2013 of 10 December 2013, Commission Regulation (EU) No
835/2011 of 19 August 2011, and European Parliament Regulation and of the Council (EC)
No 2065/2003 of 10 November 2003), and this mainly applies to Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP).
However, there are no regulations regarding the content of PAHs in smoked cheeses. In the
cited legal acts, the maximum BaP content cannot exceed 5.0 µg/kg, while the total content
of Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), Benz[a]anthracene (BaA), Benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbF), and Chry-
sene (Chr) may not be greater than 30.0 µg/kg [8–11]. For the sustainable development
of smoking technologies, it becomes necessary to select the technological parameters of
the smoking process in such a way that the products subjected to it do not pose a threat
to human health. This can be ensured, e.g., by limiting the content of PAHs in smoked
products [12,13]. To make this possible, it is necessary to check how individual products
subjected to smoking absorb these compounds from smoke. Only then will it be possible to
manipulate technological parameters to reduce their amount.
The literature needs to have a systematization of current knowledge about the smoking
process, smoking technologies, their effects on various food products, and proper conduct
of the process to ensure sustainable development. Recent research has described only the
profile of PAHs, the texture of products, and the impact of wood type on the product’s
organoleptic characteristics. However, there needs to be more research on, e.g., the content
of phenols, organic acids, ketones, and other volatile smoke compounds and their effects
on the product due to their crucial role in sustainable processing. Therefore, this study
aimed to analyze smoking technologies’ state of the art and their impact on commonly
consumed smoked food products. The study’s results made it possible to systematize
the knowledge of food processing by smoking methods and placed it in sustainability
development with an indication of directions for future empirical research. Answering two
formulated research questions will make it likely to achieve the adopted aim of the work.
RQ1: How do smoking methods and raw materials affect the various products smoked for
sustainable development?
RQ2: How does the change in the saturation of a smoked product with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons absorbed from smoke correlate with its safety for consumption?

2. State of the Art

The state of the art was analyzed using over 400 scientific articles and legal acts. As
a result of a thorough content selection, 126 papers describing the results of empirical
research, 9 review papers, and 4 regulations of the European Union Commission were
used for the study. The cited publications were selected using Scopus, Science Direct,
Web of Science, and PubMed. Keywords in the databases were smoking methods, meat
smoking, fish smoking, cheese smoking, absorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
and methods of smoke production.
Based on the literature analysis, smoking technologies and their effects on the smok-
ing product, the selection of smoking raw materials, methods of smoke production,
and the impact of consuming smoking products on human health were characterized.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 3 of 18

Twenty-four polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were identified: Benz[a]anthracene (BaA),

Benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbF), Benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkF), Benzo[j]fluoranthene (BjF),
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene (BgP), Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), Benzo[c]fluorene (BcL), Dibenzo[a,l]
pyrene (DlP), Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene (DiP), Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene (DeP), Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
(DhP), Dibenz[a,h]anthracene (DhA), Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene (IcP), Cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene
(Cpp), 5-Methylchrysene (5MC), Chrysene (Chr), Pyrene (Pyr), Fluorene (Fle), Phenan-
threne (Phe), Anthracene (Ant), Naphthalene (Nap), Fluoranthene (Fla), Acenaphthylene
(Acl), and Acenaphthene (Ace). The results were statistically analyzed using Principal
Components Analysis (PCA) in Statistica 13.3 software (StatSoft, Cracow, Poland).

2.1. Smoking Technologies Characteristics

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

2.1.1. Smoking Methods

The literature most often distinguishes four basic smoking methods (Figure 1). The
classification of smoking methods depends mainly on the temperature exposure of the
product. The proper choice of smoking method makes it possible to reduce the content of
substances penetrating from the smoke into the product, minimize the amount of smoking
raw materials, and reduce energy losses.
Šimko, 2005 states that cold temperature smoking is a long-term process (1–14 days)
performed in the temperature range from 15 to 25 ◦ C and at a relative humidity of about
95% [18]. Cold smoke smoking is supposed to impart flavor to the products, significantly
increase shelf life, and protect them from microorganisms [19]. The long duration of the
process results in significant weight loss. It is also the least energy-intensive and waste-
reducing process. The most common products smoked this way are previously untreated
meats, e.g., raw hams, sausages, and fermented salami [20,21].
Smoking with warm smoke, with a temperature from 25 to 50 ◦ C and a humidity of
about 80%, takes 4 h to 2 days. This smoking method pasteurizes the raw material by
heating and drying the outer layer so that the product inside retains the characteristics
of the natural product. This is also a low-energy process and does not cause the product
to absorb many harmful substances from the smoke. These factors are favorable for the
sustainable development of smoking technologies [22].
Sustainability
Sustainability2023,
2023,15,
15,16890
16890 4 4ofof21
18

Figure
Figure1.1.Types
Typesof
ofsmoking.
smoking.

Smoking
Šimko, 2005with hotthat
states smoke
cold at 50 to 85 ◦ Csmoking
temperature consistsisof drying, proper
a long-term processsmoking,
(1–14 days)and
surface roasting. Drying removes water ◦
performed in the temperature range fromfrom
15 tothe25surface
°C and at at 50 to 55 Chumidity
a relative for several of tens
about of
minutes, with smoke
an entire air supply. Smoke at ◦ C is then introduced and smoked
95% [18]. Cold smoking is supposed to 45 to 60flavor
impart to the products, significantly
for a minimum
increase shelf life,ofand
100protect
min, causing
them fromthe top layer of the product
microorganisms [19]. Thetolongharden and darken.
duration of the
During the third phase, due to temperatures ranging from 60 to 85 ◦ C, the outer layers are
process results in significant weight loss. It is also the least energy-intensive and waste-
cut, insulating
reducing process. theThe
center
mostfromcommon moisture in the
products air [23,24].
smoked Hotare
this way smoking doesuntreated
previously not cause
much loss in the weight of the product and
meats, e.g., raw hams, sausages, and fermented salami [20,21]. shortens the required process time, but it
is anSmoking
energy-intensive process that increases the absorption of harmful
with warm smoke, with a temperature from 25 to 50 °C and a humidity substances from
of
smoke [25].
about 80%, takes 4 h to 2 days. This smoking method pasteurizes the raw material by
heatingSmoking
and dryingwith the
partial
outerroasting
layer soproceeds
that the similarly to smoking
product inside retainswith hot smoke. How-
the characteristics of
ever, in the first phase, smoke is used for 20 to 40 min, with
the ◦natural product. This is also a low-energy process and does not◦ cause the a temperature of no less than
product to
60 C. many
absorb The inner layers
harmful of the product
substances reach
from the temperatures
smoke. over are
These factors 85 favorable
C, resulting forin partial
the sus-
roasting [26]. As a result of achieving such parameters, there is a significant melting of fat
tainable development of smoking technologies [22].
and evaporation of water, which translates into increased weight loss compared to previous
Smoking with hot smoke at 50 to 85 °C consists of drying, proper smoking, and sur-
smoking methods [27]. This method results in the most harmful substances entering the
face roasting. Drying removes water from the surface at 50 to 55 °C for several tens of
product and is the most material- and energy-intensive.
minutes, with an entire air supply. Smoke at 45 to 60 °C is then introduced and smoked
Smoking uses a smoking extract (chemical smoking) formed by pyrolysis of wood
for a minimum of 100 min, causing the top layer of the product to harden and darken.
and further condensation of vapors and fractionation of the resulting condensate (a broad
During the third phase, due to temperatures ranging from 60 to 85°C, the outer layers are
spectrum of phenolic compounds, carbonyl compounds, and organic acids). The resulting
cut, insulating the center from moisture in the air [23,24]. Hot smoking does not cause
condensate is filtrated to remove soot and other solid impurities [28,29]. The purpose of
much loss in the weight of the product and shortens the required process time, but it is an
using a smoke preparation is to impart a smoky flavor to products without using traditional
energy-intensive process that increases the absorption of harmful substances from smoke
techniques for this thermal treatment, which significantly speeds up production and reduces
[25].
its cost [30]. Coating products with liquid smoke (LS) involves spraying, misting, and
Smoking
immersion with partial
in specially roasting
adapted proceeds
chambers similarly
[21,31]. to smoking
Spraying consists with hot smoke.
of spraying How-
the product
ever,
with in
thethe first phase,
product beforesmoke is used for In
heat treatment. 20 misting,
to 40 min, thewith a temperature
product of no less
is in a smoking than
chamber
60 °C. The inner layers of the product reach temperatures over 85
with a sprayer dispensing appropriate LS doses. Immersion involves dipping the product °C, resulting in partial
roasting [26]. solution
in a diluted As a result
of of
theachieving
smokingsuch parameters,
preparation thereProper
[32–35]. is a significant melting
preparation of fat
of smoke
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 5 of 18

extracts is low-cost and eliminates the presence in food of most of the harmful substances
that are naturally contained in smoke.

2.1.2. Pre-Smoking Treatment

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

2.1.3. Smokehouses and Smoking Chambers

Figure 2 shows a diagram of a traditional smokehouse. The design of the smoking
device is selected depending on the smoking method, quantity, and type of products. It al-
lows control and stabilization of the parameters of the smoking process so that it is possible
to achieve the required shelf life of the products and the desired sensory characteristics [45].
An essential feature of any smoking chamber is smoke control, i.e., achieving such a flow
of smoke through the chamber that it displaces air masses from inside [46,47].
The cold temperature smoking chamber design should allow maintaining a constant
temperature inside it in the range of 15–25 ◦ C. A chilling system is required if the ambient
temperature significantly exceeds the desired process temperature [48]. This system consists
of a cold water circuit and a fan. The desired smoke temperature is achieved through an
appropriate combustion method of the smoke-forming raw material while controlling the
placement of the furnace and the combustion intensity [49].
In devices designed for high-temperature smoking, it is crucial to maintain an even
flow of smoke and air mixture. Due to the significant temperature difference between the
smoke and the smoking raw material, the smoke may condense, leading to dead zones
inside the smokehouse, which causes uneven smoking of raw materials. To eliminate
this phenomenon, smokehouses with built-in fans or more than one smoke supply are
constructed [50]. A particular case of high-temperature smoking devices is smoking and
scalding chambers, where smoke and hot steam are delivered inside to steam the product
(quick cutting of surface layers) [51].
Sustainability 2023, 15,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890
16890 66 of
of 18
21

Figure 2. Traditional smokehouse scheme.

Traditional smokehouse scheme.

2.2. Smoke Characteristics

The cold temperature smoking chamber design should allow maintaining a constant
2.2.1. Selection of Smoke-Forming
temperature inside Raw
it in the range of Material
15–25 °C. A chilling system is required if the ambient
temperature
Hardwood significantly
in the formexceeds
of woodthe desired
chips process
or swarf temperature
derived [48]. This
from deciduous system
trees con-
or a liquid
smoking preparation
sists of a cold is theand
water circuit most often
a fan. Theused wood
desired in the
smoke smoking process.
temperature is achievedConiferous
through
wood is not suitable
an appropriate for smoking
combustion methoddue to smoke-forming
of the the presence ofraw resin, whichwhile
material releases highly
controlling
carcinogenic
the placementcompounds.
of the furnace Inand
addition, hardwoodintensity
the combustion has a better
[49]. ratio of hemicelluloses to
otherIncomponents, whichfor
devices designed gives a better smoking
high-temperature effect [52].
smoking, it isThe moisture
crucial content
to maintain anofeven
the
wood
flow ofalso
smokeimpacts
and airthemixture.
smoking Dueeffects,
to thewhich should
significant not exceeddifference
temperature 20% to reducebetweenPAHsthe
emissions,
smoke andas this
the is a necessary
smoking factor in
raw material, sustainable
the smoke may development [53,54]. to
condense, leading The hardness
dead zones
of the wood
inside is also essential.
the smokehouse, whichHardwood,
causes uneven because of its
smoking ofhigh density, burns
raw materials. slower than
To eliminate this
softwood, which means that the volatile compounds formed
phenomenon, smokehouses with built-in fans or more than one smoke supply are are slower to oxidize. Ascon-
the
hardness of wood increases, the efficiency of producing smoke components
structed [50]. A particular case of high-temperature smoking devices is smoking and relevant to the
smoking process also
scalding chambers, increases.
where smokeWoodand hotshould
steam beare
free from fungi,
delivered putrefaction,
inside to steam the orproduct
humus
processes. Table
(quick cutting of1surface
presents the basic
layers) [51].parameters of wood hardness.

Table 1. Basic
2.2. Smoke types of wood hardness main parameters.
Characteristics
2.2.1. Selection of Smoke-Forming Raw Soft
Material
Wood Hard Wood References
Hardwood in the form of wood chips or swarf derived from deciduous trees or a
Cellulose 47.05 ± 10.69 49.98 ± 10.82
parameters

liquid smoking preparation is the most often used wood in the smoking process. Conifer-
Hemicellulose 21.92 ± 12.75 21.16 ± 6.30 [55–60]
Main

ous wood is not suitable for smoking due to the presence of resin, which releases highly
[%]

Lignin 24.90 ± 8.62 21.06 ± 8.04

carcinogenic compounds. In addition, hardwood has a better ratio of hemicelluloses to
other components, which Water ±12.15 effect [52].
gives a better smoking ±12.03
The moisture content of the
wood alsoDensity
impacts the 3smoking effects, which [61–64]PAHs
[kg/m ] ±516 should not ± exceed
660 20% to reduce
emissions,Hardness
as this is[MPa]
a necessary factor in sustainable
±30 development
±71.5 [53,54]. The hardness
of the wood is also essential. Hardwood, because of its high density, burns slower than
softwood, which means that the volatile compounds formed are slower to oxidize. As the
The most
hardness usedincreases,
of wood tree species
theare alder, beech,
efficiency ash, maple,
of producing smoke acacia, oak, andrelevant
components fruit trees
to
such as cherry, apple, or walnut. The research so far shows that the organoleptic
the smoking process also increases. Wood should be free from fungi, putrefaction, or hu- and
physicochemical properties
mus processes. Table of smoking
1 presents products
the basic are influenced
parameters not only by the hardness of
of wood hardness.
the wood but also by the type of tree. It is mainly due to the composition of smoke, which
depends on compounds unique to a given type of tree and the burning temperature of
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 7 of 18

wood. Table 2 presents the influence of smoke from the use of wood of different kinds of
trees on the organoleptic qualities of smoking products.

Table 2. Impact of different types of smoking materials on the organoleptic features.

Type of Smoking Materials Smoking Effect References

Acacia Yellow color, sweet flavor [65]
Dark yellow to brown in color, mild
Alder [66]
flavor and aroma with no bitterness
Golden color, ripe aroma, and preferability
Ash [67]
flavor, burns quickly, and roasts product
Beech Golden color, mild flavor, sweet aroma [49,68,69]
Maple Mild and slightly sweet taste, golden color [66]
Oak Honey flavor with a slight bitterness, brown color [26,69–73]
Walnut Dark yellow color, specific aroma [70,72]
Mild smoke with subtle fruit
Apple tree [55,69–73]
flavor, dark brown color
Subtle fruit flavor with little
Cherry tree [70,72]
bitterness, dark brown color

2.2.2. Smoke Production Methods

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

2.3. Smoking Specificity of Selected Food

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

2.3.2. Smoking Meat

The most common type of food products subjected to smoking is meat, cured in brine
before smoking. The choice of smoking technology is dictated mainly by the kind of meat
and the product’s desired sensory profile and durability [90]. Cold smoke is used for
durable and semi-durable products, e.g., raw sausages, steamed sausages, bacon, or bacon.
When smoking with warm or hot smoke, the surface of the products dries and becomes
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 8 of 18

harder. This smoking method is suitable for perishable products like pork, poultry, and
beef portions [91,92].

Table 3. Smoke production methods.

Method Method Description References

Flame methods
The crushed wood smoke-generating raw material pyrolysis at 400–80
0◦ C. The greater the degree of fragmentation, the lower the pyrolysis
Smoldering [74,75]
temperature. The smoke is not thick; smoky substances dominate it. A
byproduct is the formation of tar.
It takes place in an open fireplace with an entire supply of oxygen. The
smoke produced is thick and dry. A flame is visible during combustion.
The combustion temperature is very high (even >1000 ◦ C). The smoke
Combustion [76,77]
mainly contains CO2 and water steam. The share of smoking substances
is negligible. The distance of the fireplace from the smoking chamber
depends on the desired process temperature.
Flameless methods
The friction force generated by moving a wooden element along a metal
Frictional surface converts kinetic energy into thermal energy. The temperature
[78,79]
heating achieved in this way does not exceed 500 ◦ C. The resulting smoke is not
thick but has many smoky substances.
Exposing wood chips to superheated steam heated to a temperature of
400 ◦ C with a pressure of 0.13 MPa, which, together with the smoke,
Steaming [20,80]
condenses on the product’s surface. Thanks to this, the product absorbs
moisture and heat simultaneously, thus remaining juicier.
Simultaneous occurrence of the thermal decomposition of wood chips
and the oxidation of particles in the fluidized state. Air is introduced into
Fluidized smoke generator the smoking chamber and heated to 300 ◦ C. This method has much [81,82]
greater efficiency in creating dry and thick smoke with a high content of
smokable substances.
Smoke develops due to pyrolysis in the presence of CO2 or N2 and then
Two-step mixed with oxygen, which causes the smoke to burn out, making it [83,84]
denser and richer in smokeable substances.
Pyrolysis of sawdust compressed into blocks. The advantage of this
Smelting method is the constant parameters of the smoke generated and the [85,86]
possibility of using waste from the wood industry.

2.3.3. Smoking Cheese

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

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of Chemical Compounds Found in Smoked Products
Due to the effects of smoke, many chemical substances accumulate in smoked products.
Ledesma et al., 2016 indicate that products obtained in the smoking process contain toxic
mutagenic and carcinogenic compounds, the level of which in the products depends on
the selected smoking method, the smoke-producing raw material and its humidity, as well
as the duration of the process [97]. Most of these compounds come from the group of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which include over 200 substances, several of
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 9 of 18

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

3.2. Absorption of PAHs by Popular Smoked Products

Table 4 presents the PAH profiles in popular smoked products.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 10 of 18

Table 4. PAH profiles in popular smoked products.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons [µg/kg]
Smoked Food
BaA BbF BkF BjF BgP BaP BcL DlP DiP DeP DhP DhA IcP
47.66 4.13 2.13 2.25 5.51 4.85 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.53 4.33
Salmon ± 47.36 ± 3.94 ± 2.08 ± 1.95 ± 5.26 ± 4.55 nd nd ± 0.25 ± 0.35 ± 0.25 ± 0.28 ± 4.08
25.58 4.30 5.45 2.80 13.70 14.70 0.25 1.50 0.85 0.75 1.05 6.80
Herring ± 12.41 ± 4.26 ± 5.25 ± 2.50 ± 13.40 ± 7.05 nd ± 0.25 ± 1.00 ± 0.35 ± 0.25 ± 0.75 ± 6.50
Fish

19.68 19.22 13.74 4.10 6.09 7.81 0.25 0.25 0.55 5.91 6.01
Mackerel ± 19.48 ± 19.03 ± 13.64 ± 3.80 ± 5.89 ± 7.71 nd ± 0.25 ± 0.25 ± 0.25 nd ± 5.71 ± 5.81
6.60 5.11 3.49 2.25 9.63 4.21 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.55 2.71
Rainbow trout ± 6.30 ± 5.08 ± 3.19 ± 1.95 ± 9.56 ± 4.15 nd nd ± 0.25 ± 0.35 ± 0.25 ± 0.25 ± 2.69
10.31
38.28 11.97 9.36 9.36 9.52 18.51 4.50 0.25 0.40 0.85 0.30 1.55
Ham
± 38.23 ± 11.94 ± 9.34 ± 9.34 ± 9.49 ± 18.49 ± 4.40 ± 0.25 ± 0.40 ± 0.85 ± 0.30 ± 1.55 ±
10.28
14.48 5.12 6.26 3.51 4.52 7.97 5.40 0.25 0.41 0.51 0.25 1.37 5.16
Meat

Bacon
± 14.33 ± 5.06 ± 6.01 ± 3.49 ± 4.28 ± 7.90 ± 5.20 ± 0.25 ± 0.40 ± 0.50 ± 0.25 ± 1.31 ± 5.12
4.07 0.34 0.15 0.19 1.43 0.54 2.65 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 1.69 0.89
Sausage
± 3.76 ± 0.28 ± 0.15 ± 0.11 ± 1.26 ± 0.36 ± 2.15 ± 0.01 ± 0.02 ± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 1.56 ± 0.78
1.21 0.15 1.23 0.15 0.45
Poultry ± 0.91 ± 0.15 ± 0.85 nd ± 0.15 ± 0.15 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

20.58 27.82 4.47 1.01 12.91 2.33 0.23

Mozzarella ± 20.36 ± 25.79 ± 3.25 nd ± 0.96 ± 10.32 nd nd nd nd nd ± 2.25 ± 0.20
4.87 2.30 1.18 0.97 2.29 0.41 1.17
Curd
Cheese

± 4.63 ± 2.19 ± 1.02 nd ± 0.93 ± 1.21 nd nd nd nd nd ± 0.39 ± 1.12

1.37 0.24 0.17 0.18 0.52 0.21 0.26
Italian ± 1.32 ± 0.20 ± 0.13 nd ± 0.17 ± 0.48 nd nd nd nd nd ± 0.21 ± 0.23
1.14 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.46 0.01
Hard cheese ± 0.96 ± 0.02 ± 0.01 nd ± 0.02 ± 0.41 nd nd nd nd nd ± 0.01 nd

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [µg/kg] References

Smoked food
Cpp 5MC Chr Pyr Fle Phe Ant Nap Fla Acl Ace
9.65 7.79 1.70 45.17 20.48 5.45 30.20 28.66 10.97 10.97
Salmon ± 9.35 nd ± 7.74 ± 0.50 ± 44.77 ± 18.48 ± 3.55 ± 27.60 ± 26.66 ± 10.87 ± 10.87 [99,110–115]
0.85
34.70 12.46 1.90 2.58 14.15 4.25 5.35 2.94 7.93 0.90
Herring ± 34.40 ± ± 12.25 ± 0.50 ± 2.22 ± 4.35 ± 0.85 ± 0.75 ± 0.84 ± 7.38 ± 0.40 [110,111,113,114,116]
Fish

0.55
29.45 20.30 36.95 18.74 27.23 66.09 47.95 37.93 11.69 15.99
Mackerel ± 29.15 nd ± 20.00 ± 36.85 ± 16.03 ± 26.01 ± 65.00 ± 47.85 ± 35.83 ± 11.59 ± 15.82 [110,111,113,114,117,118]
9.65 7.82 31.14 17.75 1.75 15.62 52.92 8.52 5.31 15.35
Rainbow trout ± 9.35 nd ± 7.78 ± 24.74 ± 17.75 ± 1.75 ± 15.60 ± 52.89 ± 8.51 ± 5.29 ± 15.35 [110,118–122]

0.16
49.31 35.74 3.71 22.48 13.66 114.07 10.33 13.50 19.78 10.16
Ham ± 49.20 ± ± 35.66 ± 3.11 ± 21.78 ± 13.44 ± 113.90 ± 9.60 ± 12.70 ± 19.31 ± 9.65 [17,99,110,123,124]
0.14
17.02 0.16 16.75 1.75 79.11 253.19 59.70 88.19 25.59 170.64 2.40
Bacon
± 16.89 ± ± 16.55 ± 0.75 ± 78.41 ± 249.89 ± 59.30 ± 69.57 ± 24.78 ± 154.36 ± 2.40 [17,110,113,125–127]
Meat

0.15
0.47
0.50 2.41 7.81 51.47 20.23 3.11 134.14 7.17 172.49 59.45
Sausage
± 0.38 ± ± 2.05 ± 5.99 ± 47.79 ± 11.83 ± 2.58 ± 111.97 ± 5.38 ± 149.72 ± 38.33 [17,123,128–130]
0.44
0.15 1.97 1.81 18.81 47.10 2.23 10.25 5.02 6.88 2.35
Poultry ± 0.15 nd ± 1.57 ± 1.53 ± 18.21 ± 45.90 ± 1.83 ± 9.21 ± 4.71 ± 5.38 ± 1.45 [99,110,131]

5.48 0.70 5.35 9.85 1.30 7.85 1.35 1.25

Mozzarella nd nd ± 5.35 ± 0.10 ± 0.35 ± 2.15 ± 0.10 ± 5.15 ± 0.15 nd ± 0.15 [93,132,133]
3.71 33.73 200.38 395.97 95.06 604.66 47.22 600.18 24.14
Curd
Cheese

nd nd ± 3.59 ± 32.27 ± 198.32 ± 390.04 ± 94.25 ± 592.34 ± 45.87 ± 536.25 ± 22.89 [95,134–136]
0.89 0.84 1.66 4.02 1.22 2.47 1.34 0.56 0.33
Italian nd nd ± 0.75 ± 0.58 ± 0.82 ± 1.93 ± 0.89 ± 1.68 ± 0.92 ± 0.43 ± 0.15 [111,137]
0.50 2.00 10.05 14.30 4.75 29.75 3.50 4.90
Hard cheese nd nd ± 0.40 ± 1.40 ± 8.95 ± 10.20 ± 3.65 ± 25.32 ± 2.10 nd ± 3.20 [133,138]

nd—not detected.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 11 of 18

The research results of various groups of scientists presented in Table 4 show that, in
practice, it is complicated to maintain the legally required PAH content. In relation to the
results obtained from the literature to the European Union regulations mentioned in the
Introduction, we noted that only rainbow trout, sausages, and poultry fall within the normal
range. In other fish and meat products, the permissible contents of the aforementioned
PAHs are exceeded twice or thrice [8,10]. A common feature of these products is their high
fat content, which, as mentioned earlier, increases the absorption of PAHs from smoke.
Admittedly, cheeses are not covered by this directive, but in relating the PAH content of
cheeses to these guidelines, we noted that only mozzarella would not meet the maximum
content criteria set. This is probably due to the very loose structure of this cheese, which
facilitates the absorption of PAHs.
Studies by Chen et al., 2021 and Cheng et al., 2023 indicate that the content of PAHs in
products depends on the duration of the smoking process. Products that require prolonged
smoking and, therefore, have a higher surface area to mass ratio absorb considerably more
PAHs. The solution to this problem may be to divide the products into smaller parts,
which will then be smoked (parcellation) [74,102]. The same problem was dealt with by
Djinovic et al., 2008, who showed that the content of PAHs in ham, bacon, and sausages
initially increased evenly during cold smoke smoking, but after three days, the content of
some PAHs, e.g., Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene (DiP) and Cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene (Cpp) increased–
differently, for different products. They attributed this relationship to the ratio of specific
surface area to the mass of individual products [123].
The analysis of Table 4 shows that cottage cheese has by far the most remarkable
ability to absorb PAHs from smoke, in which the PAH content is almost three times higher
(average 2018.24 µg/kg) than in bacon (average 727.15 µg/kg). It is probably due to the
loose structure of the product and its consistency, which allows for the penetration of
more PAHs into the product, as indicated by studies conducted by Guillén et al., 2011 and
Pluta-Kubica et al., 2020 [95,136]. In turn, the least PAHs are absorbed by Italian cheese
(average 16.28 µg/kg), which does not require a long-term smoking process, as described
in the study by Pagliuca et al., 2003 [137].
The content of PAHs in smoked products can be manipulated by modifying the
pre-treatment of products and the technological parameters of the smoking process. At
the stage of product pre-treatment, Chen et al., 2013 showed that adding sugar to the
marinade can even double the content of PAHs in the products [99]. Yurchenko et al., 2005
indicate that fish marinated in oil absorb many PAHs because oil makes these compounds
migrate more easily into the product [114]. Mihalca et al., 2011 claim that the degree of
fragmentation of the smoke-producing raw material plays an essential role in the final
content of PAHs in the product. The use of highly fragmented wood chips significantly
reduces the content of PAHs [121]. Pöhlmann et al., 2012 proved that smoking at elevated
temperatures contributes to increasing the content of PAHs in products and forming more
complex compounds with more aromatic rings and higher molecular weight, which are
much more harmful to human health [125].
Based on the analysis of the main components of the PAH content in popular smoked
products (Figure 3), we found that of the PAHs selected for study, thirteen are present
in all analyzed products. Among them, Fluorene (Fle), Phenanthrene (Phe), Anthracene
(Ant), and Naphthalene (Nap) have the largest share. As Li et al., 2016 pointed out, these
compounds have potent carcinogenic effects, meaning that smoked products should not
be part of a person’s daily diet [139]. The analysis of the principal components showed
that some products from different groups have similar abilities to absorb and accumulate
PAHs from smoke, as indicated by tests conducted by Khalili et al., 2023 and Fasano et al.,
2016 [122,132]. Based on the available data, we found that mozzarella has a similar ability
to adsorb PAHs as fish (salmon, rainbow trout, herring), which is probably due to the soft
structure of this type of cheese. It may be indicated by research conducted by Esposito et al.,
2015 [93]. In turn, Djinovic et al., 2008 claim that the main factor causing the accumulation
of PAHs is the ratio of the product’s specific surface area to its mass [123]. Ledesma et al.,
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 12 of 18

2015 claim that the high porosity of the product favors the accumulation of PAHs in meat,
which is the reason for the much higher content of these compounds in bacon than in
sausages or poultry [105]. However, the examined literature did not explain why the
absorption of PAHs by mackerel is much higher than among the other fish discussed. Other
products from different groups with similar PAH absorption capacities include sausages,
stainability 2023, 15, 16890 poultry, Italian cheese, and hard cheese. Studies conducted by Coroian et al., 2023 and 14 o
Pagulica et al., 2003 on poultry and Italian cheese show that this phenomenon is influenced
by the salinity of the curing mixture [131,137].

Figure
Figure 3. Principal
3. Principal Component Analysis
Component Analysis(PCA)
(PCA)of the
of load graphgraph
the load and theand
scorethe
plotscore
of data from
plot of data fr
groups of popular smoked products for selected PAHs.
groups of popular smoked products for selected PAHs.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
The sustainability-smoking process gives products unique organoleptic properties and
should be able to reduce the absorption
The sustainability-smoking process of harmful substances unique
gives products from smoke. In addition,proper
organoleptic
reducing the energy intensity of the process and the smoking of raw materials is crucial for
and should be able to reduce the absorption of harmful substances from smoke. In ad
the environment. Traditional smoking methods increase many substances that negatively
tion,affect
reducing
humanthe energy
health. Basedintensity
on currently ofavailable
the process andtemperature
data, cold the smoking of raw
smoking material
results
crucial
in afor theaccumulation
lower environment. Traditional
of PAHs compared smoking methodsHowever,
to other methods. increasethis many substances
is also the t
most time-consuming
negatively affect humanprocess. health.To improve
Based on and preserve
currently the organoleptic
available qualities
data, cold of the
temperature sm
raw product
ing results in aand reduce
lower the time-consuming
accumulation of PAHsprocess, the recommended
compared to otherform of smoking
methods. is
However, t
hot smoking. An increase in the combustion temperature of the raw material significantly
is also the most time-consuming process. To improve and preserve the organoleptic qu
increases the presence of substances harmful to human health in the product. Therefore,
ities choosing
of the raw product
a method and reduce
of generating smoke the time-consuming
depends on reducing the process,
combustionthe temperature
recommended fo
of smoking
of the raw is hot smoking.
material as much Anas increase
possibleinbythe combustion
reducing temperature
the pressure of the raw mate
in the combustion
significantly increases the presence of substances harmful to human healthof
chambers, using gases supporting smoking, and/or using pressure-pressed chips inthe
the produ
smoke-generating raw material. An essential element is the correct preliminary processing
Therefore, choosing a method of generating smoke depends on reducing the combust
of products. In particular, select a curing mixture with appropriate salinity and do not use
temperature
marinadesof theinraw
rich fats. material
The articleas much
also shows asthat
possible
the useby reducing helps
of hardwood the pressure
reduce thein the co
bustion chambers,
content of PAHs in using
smoke. gases supporting
The ability to adsorbsmoking, and/or using
smoke components pressure-pressed
is mainly influenced ch
of thebysmoke-generating
the physical properties rawof smoked
material. products (e.g., structure,
An essential element water, andcorrect
is the fat content) and
preliminary p
the product’s specific surface area ratio to its mass and porosity.
cessing of products. In particular, select a curing mixture with appropriate salinity and
Smoke products contain many additional substances (phenols, aldehydes, ketones,
not use marinades
terpenes, rich
alcohols, in that
acids) fats.are
The articleinto
absorbed also shows
them fromthat the use
the smoke. of hardwood
Their synergistic helps
duceeffect
the shapes
content theof PAHsofin
qualities thesmoke. The ability
final product. Only theto adsorb
content smoke
of PAHs components
is well described in is mai
influenced by the
the literature. physical
Therefore, properties
future empiricalof smoked
research products
should include an (e.g., structure,
attempt water, and
to determine
the remaining smoke components in smoked products. Additionally,
content) and the product’s specific surface area ratio to its mass and porosity. research on smoked
Smoke products contain many additional substances (phenols, aldehydes, keton
terpenes, alcohols, acids) that are absorbed into them from the smoke. Their synergi
effect shapes the qualities of the final product. Only the content of PAHs is well describ
in the literature. Therefore, future empirical research should include an attempt to de
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 13 of 18

vegetarian and vegan products is lacking. It is necessary to subject these products to the
smoking process and check how the plant products absorb the smoke components. In
conclusion, sustainable development of smoking technologies should involve reducing
energy intensity and the consumption of raw materials. These conditions are met by the
low-temperature smoking process, which is the recommended method of smoking food.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.N.; methodology, E.N. and G.N.; software, K.C.; valida-
tion, K.C. and G.N.; formal analysis, E.N. and G.N.; investigation, E.N. and G.N.; resources, E.N.;
data curation, E.N. and G.N.; writing—original draft preparation, E.N. and G.N.; writing—review
and editing, K.C. and G.N.; visualization, E.N. and K.C.; supervision, E.N. and G.N.; project adminis-
tration, E.N. and K.C.; funding acquisition, K.C. and G.N. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bax, M.-L.; Aubry, L.; Ferreira, C.; Daudin, J.-D.; Gatellier, P.; Rémond, D.; Santé-Lhoutellier, V. Cooking temperature is a key
determinant of in vitro meat protein digestion rate: Investigation of underlying mechanisms. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60,
2569–2576. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Bhat, Z.F.; Morton, J.D.; Bekhit, A.E.; Kumar, S.; Bhat, H.F. Thermal processing implications on the digestibility of meat, fish and
seafood proteins. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 4511–4548. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Singh, L.; Varshney, J.G.; Agarwal, T. Polycyclic Aromatic hydrocarbons’ formation and occurrence in processed food. Food Chem.
2016, 199, 768–781. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Goñi, S.M.; Salvadori, V.O. Prediction of cooking times and weight losses during meat roasting. J. Food Eng. 2010, 100, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
5. Racovita, R.C.; Secuianu, C.; Ciuca, M.D.; Israel-Roming, F. Effects of smoking temperature, smoking time, and type of wood
sawdust on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon accumulation levels in directly smoked pork sausages. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68,
9530–9536. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Arvanitoyannis, I.S.; Kotsanopoulos, K.V. Smoking of fish and seafood: History, methods and effects on physical, nutritional and
microbiological properties. Food Bioprocess. Technol. 2012, 5, 831–853. [CrossRef]
7. Onopiuk, A.; Kołodziejczak, K.; Szpicer, A.; Wojtasik-Kalinowska, I.; Wierzbicka, A.; Półtorak, A. Analysis of factors that influence
the PAH profile and amount in meat products subjected to thermal processing. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 115, 366–379.
[CrossRef]
8. European Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on Maximum Levels for Certain Contaminants in Food.
Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/915/oj (accessed on 15 November 2023).
9. European Commission Regulation (EU) 1321/2013 of 10 December 2013 on Establishing the Union List of Authorized Smoke
Flavoring Primary Products for Use as such in or on Foods and/or for the Production of Derived Smoke Flavorings. Available
online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2013/1321/oj (accessed on 15 November 2023).
10. European Commission Regulation (EU) 835/2011 of 19 August 2011 Amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as Regards
Maximum Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Foodstuffs. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/8
35/oj (accessed on 15 November 2023).
11. European Parliament Regulation and of the Council (EC) No 2065/2003 of 10 November 2003 on Smoke Flavorings Used or
Intended for Use in or on Foods. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/2065/2021-03-27 (accessed on 15
November 2023).
12. Fardet, A.; Rock, E. Ultra-Processed Foods and Food System Sustainability: What Are the Links? Sustainability 2020, 12, 6280.
[CrossRef]
13. Krarup Hansen, K.; Sara, R.B.M.E.; Smuk, I.A.; Brattland, C. Sámi Traditional Knowledge of Reindeer Meat Smoking. Food Ethics
2022, 7, 13. [CrossRef]
14. Plaza-Bolaños, P.; Frenich, A.G.; Vidal, J.L. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food and beverages. Analytical methods and
trends. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 6303–6326. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 14 of 18

15. Stockfelt, L.; Sallsten, G.; Olin, A.-C.; Almerud, P.; Samuelsson, L.; Johannesson, S.; Molnar, P.; Strandberg, B.; Almstrand, A.-C.;
Bergemalm–Rynell, K.; et al. Effects on airways of short–term exposure to two kinds of wood smoke in a chamber study of
healthy humans. Inhal. Toxicol. 2012, 24, 47–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Da Porto, C.; Moret, S.; Soldera, S. A study on the composition of distillates obtained from smoked marc. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006,
563, 396–400. [CrossRef]
17. Kafouris, D.; Koukkidou, A.; Christou, E.; Hadjigeorgiou, M.; Yiannopoulos, S. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in traditionally smoked meat products and charcoal grilled meat in Cyprus. Meat Sci. 2020, 164, 108088. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Šimko, P. Factors affecting elimination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from smoked meat foods and liquid smoke flavorings.
Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2005, 49, 637–647. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Mastanjević, K.; Kartalović, B.; Puljić, L.; Kovačević, D.; Habschied, K. Influence of Different Smoking Procedures on Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons Formation in Traditional Dry Sausage Hercegovačka kobasica. Processes 2020, 8, 918. [CrossRef]
20. Iko Afé, O.H.; Douny, C.; Kpoclou, Y.E.; Igout, A.; Mahillon, J.; Anihouvi, V.; Hounhouigan, J.; Scippo, M.-L. Insight about methods
used for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons reduction in smoked or grilled fishery and meat products for future re–engineering: A
systematic review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 141, 111372. [CrossRef]
21. Gómez-Estaca, J.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Montero, P.; Sopelana, P.; Guillén, M.D. Oxidative stability, volatile components and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons of cold–smoked sardine (Sardina pilchardus) and dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus). LWT Food
Sci. Technol. 2011, 44, 1517–1524. [CrossRef]
22. Yang, K.-M.; Chiang, P.-Y. Effects of smoking process on the aroma characteristics and sensory qualities of dried longan. Food
Chem. 2019, 287, 133–138. [CrossRef]
23. Bienkiewicz, G.; Tokarczyk, G.; Czerniejewska–Surma, B.; Suryn, J. Changes in the EPA and DHA content and lipids quality
parameters of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum) and carp (Cyprinus carpio, L.) at individual stages of hot smoking.
Heliyon 2019, 5, 02964. [CrossRef]
24. Sokamté Tégang, A.; Mbougueng, P.D.; Mouafo Téné, H.; Douanla Nodem, N.F.; Sachindra, N.M.; Tatsadjieu Ngoune, L.
Application of the spice Afrostyrax lepidophyllus Mildbr as a biopreservative and seasoning agent for hot smoked fillets of Pangasius
hypophthalmus. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 10, 100449. [CrossRef]
25. Raffray, G.; Sebastian, P.; Collignan, A. Simulation model for the optimization of a radiant plate hot–smoking process. J. Food Eng.
2015, 147, 56–67. [CrossRef]
26. Baten, M.A.; Won, N.E.; Mohibbullah, M.; Yoon, S.-J.; Sohn, J.H.; Kim, J.-S.; Choi, J.-S. Effect of hot smoking treatment in improving
sensory and physicochemical properties of processed Japanese Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus niphonius. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8,
3957–3968. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Stołyhwo, A.; Sikorski, Z.E. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked fish—A critical review. Food Chem. 2005, 91, 303–311.
[CrossRef]
28. Theobald, A.; Arcella, D.; Carere, A.; Croera, C.; Engel, K.-H.; Gott, D.; Gürtler, R.; Meier, D.; Pratt, I.; Rietjens, I.M.; et al. Safety
assessment of smoke flavouring primary products by the European Food Safety Authority. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 27, 97–108.
[CrossRef]
29. Shao, W.; Campbell, Y.L.; Phillips, T.W.; Freeman, C.; Zhang, X.; Hendrix, J.D.; To, K.V.; Dinh, T.; Rogers, W.D.; Schilling, M.W.
Using liquid smoke to control infestations of the ham mite, Tyrophagus putrescentiae, on dry-cured hams during aging. Meat Sci.
2023, 200, 109139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Racioppo, A.; Speranza, B.; Pilone, V.; Stasi, A.; Mocerino, E.; Scognamiglio, G.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R. Optimizing liquid
smoke conditions for the production and preservation innovative fish products. Food Biosci. 2023, 53, 102712. [CrossRef]
31. Montazeri, N.; Himelbloom, B.H.; Oliveira, A.C.; Leigh, M.B.; Crapo, C.A. Refined liquid smoke: A potential antilisterial additive
to cold–smoked sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 812–819. [CrossRef]
32. Xin, X.; Bissett, A.; Wang, J.; Gan, A.; Dell, K.; Baroutian, S. Production of liquid smoke using fluidised–bed fast pyrolysis and its
application to green lipped mussel meat. Food Control 2021, 124, 107874. [CrossRef]
33. Xin, X.; Dell, K.; Udugama, I.A.; Young, B.R.; Baroutian, S. Transforming biomass pyrolysis technologies to produce liquid smoke
food flavouring. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 125368. [CrossRef]
34. Martin, E.M.; O’Bryan, C.A.; Lary, R.Y.; Griffis, C.L.; Vaughn, K.L.; Marcy, J.A.; Ricke, S.C.; Crandall, P.G. Spray application
of liquid smoke to reduce or eliminate Listeria monocytogenes surface inoculated on frankfurters. Meat Sci. 2010, 85, 640–644.
[CrossRef]
35. Tuesta-Chavez, T.; Monteza, J.; Silva Jaimes, M.I.; Ruiz-Pacco, G.A.; Changanaqui, K.; Espinoza-Suarez, J.B.; Alarcon, H.; Osorio-
Anaya, A.M.; Valderrama-Negrón, A.C.; Sotomayor, M.D. Characterization and evaluation of antioxidant and antimicrobial
capacity of prepared liquid smoke–loaded chitosan nanoparticles. J. Food Eng. 2022, 319, 110912. [CrossRef]
36. Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Pan, D.; Geng, F.; Zhou, C.; Cao, J. Insight into the relationship between microorganism communities and flavour
quality of Chinese dry–cured boneless ham with different quality grades. Food Biosci. 2022, 50, 102174. [CrossRef]
37. Huang, Y.; Li, H.; Huang, T.; Li, F.; Sun, J. Lipolysis and lipid oxidation during processing of Chinese traditional smoke–cured
bacon. Food Chem. 2014, 149, 31–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Kjällstrand, J.; Petersson, G. Phenolic antioxidants in alder smoke during industrial meat curing. Food Chem. 2001, 74, 85–89.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 15 of 18

39. Tian, X.; Li, Z.; Li, K.; Wu, Z.; Ren, R.; Wang, H.; Zeng, C. Flavor release from traditional dry–cured pork during oral processing.
Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2023, 12, 102–110. [CrossRef]
40. Chen, F.; Shen, L.; Shi, X.; Deng, Y.; Qiao, Y.; Wu, W.; Xiong, G.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Ding, A.; et al. Characterization of flavor
perception and characteristic aroma of traditional dry–cured fish by flavor omics combined with multivariate statistics. LWT
2023, 173, 114240. [CrossRef]
41. Bjørnevik, M.; Cardinal, M.; Vallet, J.-L.; Nicolaisen, O.; Arnarson, G.Ö. Effect of salting and cold–smoking procedures on Atlantic
salmon originating from pre- or post rigor filleted raw material. Based on the measurement of physicochemical characteristics.
LWT 2018, 91, 431–438. [CrossRef]
42. Kang, J.; Tang, S.; Liu, R.H.; Wiedmann, M.; Boor, K.J.; Bergholz, T.M.; Wang, S. Effect of curing method and freeze–thawing on
subsequent growth of Listeria monocytogenes on cold–smoked salmon. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 1619–1626. [CrossRef]
43. Astruc, T.; Vénien, A.; Clerjon, S.; Favier, R.; Loison, O.; Mirade, P.-S.; Portanguen, S.; Rouel, J.; Lethiec, M.; Germond, A. Effect of
dry salt versus brine injection plus dry salt on the physicochemical characteristics of smoked salmon after filleting. Heliyon 2022,
8, 11245. [CrossRef]
44. Cardinal, M.; Cornet, J.; Sérot, T.; Baron, R. Effects of the smoking process on odour characteristics of smoked herring (Clupea
harengus) and relationships with phenolic compound content. Food Chem. 2006, 96, 137–146. [CrossRef]
45. Kalasee, W. Improvement soot particles separation equipments for rubber smoking chamber. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2009, 9,
333–341. [CrossRef]
46. Sikorski, Z.; Sinkiewicz, I. Smoking: Traditional. In Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, 2nd ed.; Dikeman, M., Devine, C., Eds.; Academic
Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 321–327. [CrossRef]
47. Tahir, M.; Salengke, S.; Mursalim; Metusalach; Caesarendra, W. Performance of smokehouse designed for smoking fish with the
indirect method. Processes 2020, 8, 204. [CrossRef]
48. Birkeland, S.; Røra, A.M.; Skåra, T.; Bjerkeng, B. Effects of cold smoking procedures and raw material characteristics on product
yield and quality parameters of cold smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fillets. Food Res. Int. 2004, 37, 273–286. [CrossRef]
49. Cardinal, M.; Knockaert, C.; Torrissen, O.; Sigurgisladottir, S.; Mørkøre, T.; Thomassen, M.; Vallet, J.L. Relation of smoking
parameters to the yield, colour and sensory quality of smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Food Res. Int. 2001, 34, 537–550.
[CrossRef]
50. Sérot, T.; Baron, R.; Knockaert, C.; Vallet, J.L. Effect of smoking processes on the contents of 10 major phenolic compounds in
smoked fillets of herring (Cuplea harengus). Food Chem. 2004, 85, 111–120. [CrossRef]
51. Sebastian, P.; Bruneau, D.; Collignan, A.; Rivier, M. Drying and smoking of meat: Heat and mass transfer modeling and
experimental analysis. J. Food Eng. 2005, 70, 227–243. [CrossRef]
52. Stumpe-Vı̄ksna, I.; Bartkevičs, V.; Kukāre, A.; Morozovs, A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in meat smoked with different
types of wood. Food Chem. 2008, 110, 794–797. [CrossRef]
53. Hitzel, A.; Pöhlmann, M.; Schwägele, F.; Speer, K.; Jira, W. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and phenolic substances in
meat products smoked with different types of wood and smoking spices. Food Chem. 2013, 139, 955–962. [CrossRef]
54. García–Falcón, M.S.; Simal-Gándara, J. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoke from different woods and their transfer during
traditional smoking into chorizo sausages with collagen and tripe casings. Food Addit. Contam. 2005, 22, 1–8. [CrossRef]
55. Zhang, L.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Q.; Xia, X.; Wang, Y.; Kong, B. Effect of different types of smoking materials on the flavor, heterocyclic
aromatic amines, and sensory property smoked chicken drumsticks. Food Chem. 2022, 367, 130680. [CrossRef]
56. Karunanithy, C.; Muthukumarappan, K.; Gibbons, W.R. Extrusion pretreatment of pine wood chips. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
2012, 167, 81–89. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Esteves, B.; Videira, R.; Pereira, H. Chemistry and ecotoxicity of heat–treated pine wood extractives. Wood Sci. Technol. 2010, 45,
661–676. [CrossRef]
58. Kapu, N.S.; Trajano, H.L. Review of hemicellulose hydrolysis in softwoods and bamboo. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2014, 8,
857–870. [CrossRef]
59. Ding, Y.; Ezekoye, O.A.; Lu, S.; Wang, C.; Zhou, R. Comparative pyrolysis behaviors and reaction mechanisms of hardwood and
softwood. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 132, 102–109. [CrossRef]
60. Silvy, N.; Shamim Reza, M.; Nazim Uddin, M.; Akther, M. Comparison between different components of some available hardwood
and softwood in Bangladesh. J. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2018, 4, 1–5.
61. Konnerth, J.; Kluge, M.; Schweizer, G.; Miljković, M.; Gindl-Altmutter, W. Survey of selected adhesive bonding properties of nine
European softwood and hardwood species. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2016, 74, 809–819. [CrossRef]
62. Borůvka, V.; Novák, D.; Šedivka, P. Comparison and analysis of radial and tangential bending of softwood and hardwood at
static and dynamic loading. Forests 2020, 11, 896. [CrossRef]
63. Lykidis, C.; Nikolakakos, M.; Sakellariou, E.; Birbilis, D. Assessment of a modification to the Brinell method for determining solid
wood hardness. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 961–967. [CrossRef]
64. de Assis, A.; Alexandre, R.; Ballarin, A. Dynamic hardness of wood—Measurements with an automated portable hardness tester.
Holzforschung 2017, 5, 383–389. [CrossRef]
65. Saldaña, E.; Saldarriaga, L.; Cabrera, J.; Behrens, J.H.; Selani, M.M.; Rios-Mera, J.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J. Descriptive and hedonic
sensory perception of Brazilian consumers for smoked bacon. Meat Sci. 2019, 147, 60–69. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 16 of 18

66. Del Toro-Gipson, R.S.; Rizzo, P.V.; Hanson, D.J.; Drake, M.A. Consumer perception of smoked Cheddar cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2021,
104, 1560–1575. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Kostyra, E.; Baryłko-Pikielna, N. Volatiles composition and flavour profile identity of smoke flavourings. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006,
17, 85–89. [CrossRef]
68. Guo, J.; Wang, Q.; Chen, C.; Yu, H.; Xu, B. Effects of different smoking methods on sensory properties, free amino acids and
volatile compounds in bacon. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 2984–2993. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Du, H.; Liu, Q.; Chen, Q.; Xia, X.; Xu, M.; Kong, B. Effect of woodchip types on heterocyclic aromatic amine formation and quality
characteristics of smoked bacon. Food Biosci. 2022, 47, 101709. [CrossRef]
70. Cho, W.-H.; Choi, J.-S. Sensory quality evaluation of superheated steam-treated chicken leg and breast meats with a combination
of marination and hot smoking. Foods 2021, 10, 1924. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Swaney-Stueve, M.; Talavera, M.; Jepsen, T.; Severns, B.; Wise, R.; Deubler, G. Sensory and consumer evaluation of smoked pulled
pork prepared using different smokers and different types of wood. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 640–649. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Baten, A.M.; Won, N.E.; Sohn, J.H.; Kim, J.-S.; Mohibbullah, M.; Choi, J.-S. Improvement of sensorial, physicochemical, microbio-
logical, nutritional and fatty acid attributes and shelf life extension of hot smoked half–dried Pacific saury (Cololabis saira). Foods
2020, 9, 1009. [CrossRef]
73. Sharma, C.; Swaney-Stueve, M.; Severns, B.; Talavera, M. Using correspondence analysis to evaluate consumer terminology and
understand the effects of smoking method and type of wood on the sensory perception of smoked meat. J. Sens. Stud. 2019, 34,
12535. [CrossRef]
74. Cheng, Y.; Leible, M.; Weiss, J.; Gibis, M. The impact of temperature-controlled smoldering smoking on polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines contents in Frankfurter–type sausages. Food Chem. 2023, 423, 136258. [CrossRef]
75. Varlet, V.; Prost, C.; Sérot, T. Volatile aldehydes in smoked fish: Analysis methods, occurrence and mechanisms of formation. Food
Chem. 2007, 105, 1536–1556. [CrossRef]
76. Ekonomou, S.I.; Parlapani, F.F.; Kyritsi, M.; Hadjichristodoulou, C.; Boziaris, I.S. Preservation status and microbial communities
of vacuum–packed hot smoked rainbow trout fillets. Food Microbiol. 2022, 103, 103959. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Rigling, M.; Höckmeier, L.; Leible, M.; Herrmann, K.; Gibis, M.; Weiss, J.; Zhang, Y. Characterization of the aroma profile of food
smoke at controllable pyrolysis temperatures. Separations 2023, 10, 176. [CrossRef]
78. Seraj, M.; Chen, Q.; Jones, J.R. Food smoke generation by frictional heating. Wood Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 241–257. [CrossRef]
79. Luo, G.; Chandler, D.S.; Anjos, L.C.; Eng, R.J.; Jia, P.; Resende, F.L. Pyrolysis of whole wood chips and rods in a novel ablative
reactor. Fuel 2017, 194, 229–238. [CrossRef]
80. Li, Q.; Kang, J.; Wang, Y.; Feng, Y. Superheated steam similarity simulation on longitudinal distribution of maximum smoke
temperature rise in tunnel fires. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2023, 37, 101550. [CrossRef]
81. Heo, H.S.; Park, H.J.; Dong, J.-I.; Park, S.H.; Kim, S.; Suh, D.J.; Suh, Y.-W.; Kim, S.-S.; Park, Y.-K. Fast pyrolysis of rice husk under
different reaction conditions. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2010, 16, 27–31. [CrossRef]
82. Chua, K.J.; Chou, S.K. Low–cost drying methods for developing countries. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 14, 519–528. [CrossRef]
83. Wang, W.; Dong, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, H.; Wang, S. Reduction of the Heterocyclic Amines in Grilled Beef Patties through the
Combination of Thermal Food Processing Techniques without Destroying the Grilling Quality Characteristics. Foods 2021, 10,
1490. [CrossRef]
84. Ledesma, E.; Rendueles, M.; Díaz, M. Contamination of meat products during smoking by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons:
Processes and prevention. Food Control 2016, 60, 64–87. [CrossRef]
85. Essumang, D.K.; Dodoo, D.K.; Adjei, J.K. Effect of smoke generation sources and smoke curing duration on the levels of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in different suites of fish. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 58, 86–94. [CrossRef]
86. Shokin, G.; Shokina, Y. Modern Methods and Devices for Obtaining Technological Smoke: Review. KnE Life Sci. 2020, 5, 836–844.
[CrossRef]
87. Assogba, M.F.; Iko Afé, O.H.; Ahouansou, R.H.; Anihouvi, D.G.; Kpoclou, Y.E.; Djago, D.; Douny, C.; Igout, A.; Mahillon, J.; Houn-
houigan, D.J.; et al. Performances of the barrel kiln used in cottage industry for fish processing and effects on physicochemical
characteristics and safety of smoked fish products. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 851–861. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88. Goulas, A.E.; Kontominas, M.G. Effect of salting and smoking–method on the keeping quality of chub mackerel (Scomber
japonicus): Biochemical and sensory attributes. Food Chem. 2005, 93, 511–520. [CrossRef]
89. Waldenstrøm, L.; Gaarder, M.Ø.; Lerfall, J. Sensory methodology in product optimization of cold smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar L.) processed with atomized purified condensed smoke. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 4650–4667. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90. Gedela, S.; Gamble, R.K.; Macwana, S.; Escoubas, J.R.; Muriana, P.M. Effect of inhibitory extracts derived from liquid smoke
combined with postprocess pasteurization for control of Listeria monocytogenes on ready–to–eat meats. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70,
2749–2756. [CrossRef]
91. Kim, H.-W.; Choi, J.-H.; Choi, Y.-S.; Kim, H.-Y.; Lee, M.-A.; Hwang, K.-E.; Song, D.-H.; Lee, J.-W.; Kim, C.-J. Effects of kimchi and
smoking on quality characteristics and shelf life of cooked sausages prepared with irradiated pork. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 548–553.
[CrossRef]
92. Rozentāle, I.; Stumpe-Vı̄ksna, I.; Začs, D.; Siksna, I.; Melngaile, A.; Bartkevičs, V. Assessment of dietary exposure to polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons form smoked meat products produced in Lativa. Food Control 2015, 54, 16–22. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 17 of 18

93. Esposito, M.; Citro, A.; Marigliano, L.; Urbani, V.; Seccia, G.; Marotta, M.P.; De Nicola, C. Influence of different smoking techniques
on contamination by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in traditional smoked Mozzarella di Bufala Campana. Int. J. Dairy Technol.
2015, 68, 94–104. [CrossRef]
94. Naccari, C.; Galceran, M.T.; Moyano, E.; Cristani, M.; Siracusa, L.; Trombetta, D. Presence of heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAs)
in smoked “Provola” cheese from Calabria (Italy). Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 321–327. [CrossRef]
95. Guillén, M.D.; Palencia, G.; Ibargoitia, M.L.; Fresno, M.; Sopelana, P. Contamination of cheese by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in traditional smoking. Influence of the position in the smokehouse on the contamination level of smoked cheese. J. Dairy Sci.
2011, 94, 1679–1690. [CrossRef]
96. Shakeel-Ur-Rehman; Farkye, N.Y.; Drake, M.A. The effect of application of cold natural smoke on the ripening of cheddar cheese.
J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 1910–1917. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97. Ledesma, E.; Laca, A.; Rendueles, M.; Díaz, M. Texture, colour and optical characteristics of a meat product depending on
smoking time and casing type. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 65, 164–172. [CrossRef]
98. Flores, M.; Mora, L.; Reig, M.; Toldrá, F. Risk assessment of chemical substances of safety concern generated in processed meats.
Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 244–251. [CrossRef]
99. Chen, S.; Kao, T.H.; Chen, C.J.; Huang, C.H.; Chen, B.H. Reduction of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in meat by
sugar–smoking and dietary exposure assessment in Taiwan. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 7645–7653. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
100. Zhu, Y.; Peng, Z.; Wang, M.; Wang, R.; Rui, L. Optimization of extraction procedure for formaldehyde assay in smoked meat
products. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2012, 28, 1–7. [CrossRef]
101. Petričević, S.; Marušić Radovčić, N.; Lukić, K.; Listeš, E.; Medić, H. Differentiation of dry–cured hams from different processing
methods by mean volatile compounds, physico–chemical and sensory analysis. Meat Sci. 2018, 137, 217–227. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
102. Yin, X.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Kong, B. Influences of smoking in traditional and industrial conditions on flavour profile of
Harbin red sausages by comprehensive two–dimensional gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Foods 2021, 10, 1180. [CrossRef]
103. Shishov, A.; Gagarionova, S.; Bulatov, A. Deep eutectic mixture membrane–based microextraction: HPLC–FLD determination of
phenols in smoked food samples. Food Chem. 2020, 314, 126097. [CrossRef]
104. Albishi, T.; Banoub, J.H.; de Camargo, A.C.; Shahidi, F. Date palm wood as a new source of phenolic antioxidants in preparation
of smoked salmon. J. Food Biochem. 2018, 43, 12760. [CrossRef]
105. Ledesma, E.; Rendueles, M.; Díaz, M. Characterization of natural and synthetic casings and mechanism of BaP penetration in
smoked meat products. Food Control 2015, 51, 195–205. [CrossRef]
106. Erbay, Z.; Koca, N. Kinetics of total phenolic content and total color difference during liquid smoking of Kashar cheese. Int. J.
Food Prop. 2013, 16, 852–866. [CrossRef]
107. Ahmad, S.; Anzar, A.; Srivastava, A.K.; Srivastava, P.K. Effect of curing, antioxidant treatment, and smoking of Buffalo meat
on pH, total plate count, sensory characteristics, and shelf life during refrigerated storage. Int. J. Food Prop. 2005, 8, 139–150.
[CrossRef]
108. Duma-Kocan, P.; Rudy, M.; Gil, M.; Stanisławczyk, R. The influence of temperature differences in smoking chamber and furnace
and smoking time on the quality of medium–ground sausages. Molecules 2020, 25, 5515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. Somoza, V. Five years of research on health risks and benefits of Maillard reaction products: An update. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2005,
49, 663–672. [CrossRef]
110. Wretling, S.; Eriksson, A.; Eskhult, G.A.; Larsson, B. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Swedish smoked meat and fish.
J. Food Compos. Anal. 2010, 23, 264–272. [CrossRef]
111. Racovita, R.C.; Secuianu, C.; Israel-Roming, F. Quantification and risk assessment of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons in retail smoked fish and smoked cheeses. Food Control 2021, 121, 107586. [CrossRef]
112. Visciano, P.; Perugini, M.; Amorena, M.; Ianieri, A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fresh and cold–smoked Atlantic salmon
fillets. J. Food Prot. 2006, 69, 1134–1138. [CrossRef]
113. Sonego, E.; Bhattarai, B.; Duedahl-Olesen, L. Detection of nitrated, oxygenated and hydrogenated polycyclic aromatic compounds
in smoked fish and meat products. Foods 2022, 11, 2446. [CrossRef]
114. Yurchenko, S.; Mölder, U. The determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked fish by gas chromatography mass
spectrometry with positive–ion chemical ionization. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2005, 18, 857–869. [CrossRef]
115. Cunha, S.C.; Siminel, D.; Guárdia, M.D.; de Alda, M.L.; López-Garcia, E.; Muñoz, I.; Ferreira, R.; Eljarrat, E.; Fernandes, J.O. Effect
of processing smoked salmon on contaminant contents. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2021, 153, 112276. [CrossRef]
116. Abou-Arab, N.M.; Abd-EL-Samea, M.S.; Malhat, F.M.; El-Taher, S.M. Detection of some potential carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in smoked fish. Glob. J. Agric. Food Saf. Sci. 2014, 1, 346–356.
117. Iwegbue, C.M.; Bassey, F.I.; Agbozu, I.; Aganbi, E.; Obi, G. Concentrations and risks of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
smoke-cured fish products in Nigeria. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2016, 73, 827–843. [CrossRef]
118. Asamoah, E.K.; Nunoo, F.K.; Addo, S.; Nyarko, J.O.; Hyldig, G. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in fish smoked using
traditional and improved kilns: Levels and human health risk implications through dietary exposure in Ghana. Food Control 2021,
121, 107576. [CrossRef]
119. Aksun Tümerkan, E.T. Investigations of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and elemental profile of smoked fish. Molecules
2022, 27, 7015. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16890 18 of 18

120. Visciano, P.; Perguini, M.; Conte, F.; Amorena, M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) processed by traditional flue gas smoking and by liquid smoke flavourings. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 1409–1413.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
121. Mihalca, G.L.; Tiţa, O.; Tiţa, M.; Mihalca, A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in smoked fish from three smoke-houses in
Braşov county. J. Agroaliment. Process. Technol. 2011, 17, 392–397.
122. Khalili, F.; Shariatifar, N.; Dehghani, M.H.; Yaghmaeian, K.; Nodehi, R.N.; Yaseri, M.; Moazzen, M. Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) in meat, poultry, fish and related product samples of Iran: A risk assessment study. J. Environ. Health Sci.
Eng. 2023, 21, 215–224. [CrossRef]
123. Djinovic, J.; Popovic, A.; Jira, W. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in different types of smoked meat products from
Serbia. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 449–456. [CrossRef]
124. Mastanjević, K.; Puljić, L.; Kartalović, B.; Grbavac, J.; Grbavac, M.J.; Nadaždi, H.; Habschied, K. Analysis of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in Heregovački pršut—traditionally smoked prosciutto. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5097. [CrossRef]
125. Pöhlmann, M.; Hitzel, A.; Schwägele, F.; Speer, K.; Jira, W. Content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and phenolic
substances in Frankfurter–type sausages depending on smoking conditions using glow smoke. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 176–184.
[CrossRef]
126. Kartalovic, B.; Okanovic, D.; Babic, J.; Djordevic, V.; Jankovic, S.; Cirkovic, M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked ham.
Procedia Food Sci. 2015, 5, 144–147. [CrossRef]
127. Chen, L.; Liu, R.; Wu, M.; Yu, H.; Ge, Q.; Zhang, W. Nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked–cured bacon
(Larou) of artisanal and industrial origin. Foods 2021, 10, 2830. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
128. Farqueza, M.J.; Laranjo, M.; Alves, S.; Fernandes, M.H.; Agulheiro-Santos, A.; Fernandes, M.J.; Potes, M.H.; Elias, M. Dry-cured
meat products according to the smoking regime: Process optimization to control polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Foods 2020, 9,
91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
129. Gomes, A.; Santos, C.; Almeida, J.; Elias, M.; Roseiro, L.C. Effect of fat content, casing type and smoking procedures on PAHs
contents of Portuguese traditional dry fermented sausages. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 58, 369–374. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
130. Alsadat Mirbod, M.; Hadidi, M.; Huseyn, E.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in smoked meat sausages:
Effects of smoke generation source, smoking duration, and meat content. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42, 60921. [CrossRef]
131. Coroian, C.O.; Coroian, A.; Becze, A.; Longodor, A.; Mastan, O.; Radu-Rusu, R.-M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
occurrence in traditionally smoked chicken, turkey and duck meat. Agriculture 2023, 13, 57. [CrossRef]
132. Fasano, E.; Yerba-Pimentel, I.; Martínez-Carballo, E.; Simal-Gándara, J. Profiling, distribution and levels of carcinogenic polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in traditional smoked plant and animal foods. Food Control 2016, 59, 581–590. [CrossRef]
133. Suchanová, M.; Hajšlová, J.; Tomaniová, M.; Kocourek, V.; Babička, L. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked cheese. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 2008, 88, 1307–1317. [CrossRef]
134. Guillén, M.D.; Sopelana, P. Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 556–564.
[CrossRef]
135. W˛egrzyn, E.; Grześkiewicz, S.; Popławska, W.; Głód, B.K. Modified analytical method of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, using
SEC for sample preparation and RP-HPLC with fluorescence detection. Application to different food samples. Acta Chromatogr.
2006, 17, 233–264.
136. Pluta-Kubica, A.; Filipczak-Fiutak, M.; Domagała, J.; Duda, I.; Migdał, W. Contamination of traditionally smoked cheeses with
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and biogenic amines. Food Control 2020, 112, 107115. [CrossRef]
137. Pagulica, G.; Gazzotti, T.; Zironi, E.; Serrazanetti, G.P.; Mollica, D.; Rosmini, R. Determination of high molecular mass polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in a typical Italian smoked cheese by HPLC-FL. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 5111–5115. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
138. Polak-Śliwińska, M.; Paszczyk, B.; Śliwiński, M. Evaluation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in smoked cheeses made in
Poland by HPLC method. Molecules 2022, 27, 6909. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
139. Li, J.; Dong, H.; Li, X.; Han, B.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, D. Quantitatively assessing the health risk of exposure to PAHs from intake of
smoked meats. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 124, 91–95. [CrossRef]

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.

View publication stats