Next Article in Journal
Ultrasound Treatment Enhanced Semidry-Milled Rice Flour Properties and Gluten-Free Rice Bread Quality
Previous Article in Journal
Degradative Effect of Nattokinase on Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dissipation Residue Behaviors and Dietary Risk Assessment of Boscalid and Pyraclostrobin in Watermelon by HPLC-MS/MS
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Chemical Contamination in Bread from Food Processing and Its Environmental Origin

Department of Environmental Biotechnology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Lodz University of Technology, Wolczanska 171/173, 90-530 Lodz, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2022, 27(17), 5406; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27175406
Submission received: 12 July 2022 / Revised: 14 August 2022 / Accepted: 21 August 2022 / Published: 24 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chemical Contaminations in Food)

Abstract

:
Acrylamide (AA), furan and furan derivatives, polycyclic aromatic amines (PAHs), monochloropropanediols (MCPDs), glycidol, and their esters are carcinogens that are being formed in starchy and high-protein foodstuffs, including bread, through baking, roasting, steaming, and frying due to the Maillard reaction. The Maillard reaction mechanism has also been described as the source of food processing contaminants. The above-mentioned carcinogens, especially AA and furan compounds, are crucial substances responsible for the aroma of bread. The other groups of bread contaminants are mycotoxins (MTs), toxic metals (TMs), and pesticides. All these contaminants can be differentiated depending on many factors such as source, the concentration of toxicant in the different wheat types, formation mechanism, metabolism in the human body, and hazardous exposure effects to humans. The following paper characterizes the most often occurring contaminants in the bread from each group. The human exposure to bread contaminants and their safe ranges, along with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification (if available), also have been analyzed.

1. Introduction

It is known how important access to water and food is; without them, humankind is not able to live or survive. Thanks to food, all the nutritious ingredients for the human organism to be strong and healthy are delivered. Human bodies use all the compounds present in food as energetic, regulatory, and building fuel. Wheat has been a base of the human diet for centuries, as reviewed previously [1]. Worldwide wheat production was estimated at approximately 768 million tons in 2021 [2], while among the biggest wheat distributors forecasted in 2021 were Asia at 278.9 million tons, followed by Europe at 268 million tons [2]. The bread’s main ingredients are flour, water, yeast, and leavening agents, distinguished in different recipes with characteristic properties [3]. Gluten and its proteins are the key factors directly influencing wheat quality during baking [4].
Unfortunately, foodstuffs consumed by people are also more and more often a source of food contaminants. According to Codex Alimentarius, a contaminant is defined as “any substance not intentionally added to food or feed for food-producing animals, which is present in such food or feed as a result of the production (including operations carried out in crop husbandry, animal husbandry, and veterinary medicine), manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food or feed, or as a result of environmental contamination. The term does not include insect fragments, rodent hairs, and other extraneous matter” [5]. It is reasonable to categorize food toxicants according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (Figure 1) [6]. These food chain contaminants can occur in food due to food production, distribution, packaging, and consumption, but also can be present naturally in the environment. Another aspect is food additives, which are being added to modern food to improve organoleptic qualities but also to prevent spoilage by prolonging foodstuffs’ shelf life (e.g., preservatives, decorative food additives, fortifying agents), as mentioned in the case study of Bimpizas-Pini et al. [7]. According to Codex Alimentarius, a food additive is defined as “any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself and not normally used as a typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food results, or maybe reasonably expected to result, (directly or indirectly) in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such foods” [8]. Additionally, there are also other harmful groups of contaminants present in food products. Food contaminants can also originate from the environment (environmental contaminants) or natural habitat (natural contaminants), or can be the result of human influence (anthropogenic source, xenobiotics).
The present review raises various groups of food contaminants occurring mainly in grain-derived products (bakery goods mostly focusing on bread) originating from (1) industry during food processing—baking and cooking; (2) environmental natural (non-anthropogenic) sources such as MTs, and (3) environmental pollution as the cause of anthropogenic activity: TMs and pesticides. Moreover, human exposure to contaminants, together with the margin of exposures (MOEs), benchmark dose lower confidence limits (BMDLs), tolerable daily intakes (TDIs), tolerable weekly intakes (TWIs), and Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) (according to available data) were also discussed. The review has been conducted mainly with a focus on publications and research from the last 5 years. So far, no review article captured such an extensive and differentiative range of contaminants in bread, counting sources and safe ranges proposed by international organizations along with IARC classification.

2. Methodology

The review was prepared with the application of databases such as: PubMed, Elsevier, Wiley Online Library, Taylor Francis, Springer Link, Google Scholar, and the websites of various national and international public health organizations such as: EFSA, European Commission (EC), European Union (EU), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), IARC, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), up to 28 March 2022. The searched keywords were: bread, food additives, food contaminants, bread toxins, bread carcinogens, bread processing contaminants, acrylamide/furan/5-hydroksymetylo-2-furfural (HMF)/PAHs/MCPDs/monochloropropanediols esters (MCPDEs)/glycidol/glycidyl esters (GEs)/mycotoxins/metals/toxic metals/pesticides: in bread; in grains; in wheat; distribution; risk exposure. Only English-language articles were included. The full texts were accessed via the Lodz University of Technology Library.

3. Maillard Reaction as a Source of Bread Processing Contaminants

More than 500 compounds have been detected in the aroma fraction of bread, including acids, alcohols, aldehydes, esters, furans, hydrocarbons, ketones, lactones, pyrazines, and pyrroles originating from the Maillard reaction and lipid oxidation, with a third pathway resulting from yeast fermentation [9]. Louis-Camille Maillard described the glycation process of carbohydrates for the first time in 1912 (Figure 2) [10]. Since then, studies have provided significant knowledge about the primary stages of the Maillard pathway, but the mechanism of intermediary compound formation still needs a better understanding. With the advancement of reactions, a great number of carbonic compounds and polycarbons are being created. Aldehydes and ketones are formed due to the reaction between α-dicarbonyl and amino acids, known as Schiff’s base (Strecker degradation). At this stage, all reaction products are colorless. At the definitive step of the Maillard reaction, the dehydration of sugars takes place, and furan derivate is gained. This derivative reacts with other components to polymerize and leads to the generation of dark-brown, insoluble, and nitrogenous colloids called melanoidins, as reviewed by Favreau-Farhadi et al. [11]. The Maillard reaction rate depends on the structure and number of amino acids, reducing sugars, temperature, water activity, moisture content, pH, and the presence or absence of a catalyzer and inhibitor. Moreover, it has already been reviewed that the Maillard reaction rate rises when moisture and temperature are leveled up [12,13]. Previously, bread was a key product for Maillard reactions due to its medium moisture content and applied high baking temperatures. In the review of Pozo-Bayón et al. [14], it was assumed that only a small part of Maillard reaction compounds plays a significant role in the final bread aroma. Thermal processing induces a significant reaction in flavor and taste, and several unfavorable Maillard-reaction-derived chemical hazards—such as AA and heterocyclic aromatic compounds—are simultaneously formed [15]. One of the better-known compounds of these compounds is AA, a neurotoxin and potential carcinogen in humans. Moreover, volatile furan and furanic compounds have received considerable attention due to their hepatotoxic activity [16].

3.1. Acrylamide

AA is a substance formed during the cooking process at temperatures above 120 °C [18] in foodstuffs with simultaneously high levels of asparagine (Asn) and reduced sugars, and it has not been detected in boiled food [18,19]. Nonetheless, a great gain in its production occurs in food cooked at a temperature above 170 °C [20,21]. Its mechanism of formation mainly involves the Maillard reaction. The zenithal levels of AA are common in various baked foods, together with potato-based food, savory snacks, starchy products, and roasted coffee beans, but also in cigarette smoke and cosmetics [22,23,24,25]. AA formation in baked bread can be determined by many factors, such as moisture level, pH, temperature, and time. High temperature and low moisture content during the Maillard reaction promote chemical reactions between food components which change the properties of the final product [26]. A lot of desired compounds develop organoleptic characteristics, e.g., the flavor and color of the baked product. However, due to the high temperature required for this process, the formation of AA in these products is an inevitable negative effect and real-time human health concern (Figure 3) [27,28]. It has been proven that AA influences neurotoxicity by the deletion of the Nrf2 gene [29]. AA neurotoxicity was also observed by diminished ATPase activity, enhanced activity of acetylcholinesterase, and dopamine depletion [30]. AA has stimulated elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-1β (IL-1β) [31]. AA may act as a colon co-carcinogen in association with an azoxymethane carcinogen [32]. The glycidamide (GA) compound is the main AA metabolite. It has been found that GA is more reactive than AA and, at low doses, is more potent to form tumors than AA [33]. AA has been reported to be a human neurotoxin, a rodent carcinogen (group 2A), and a probable carcinogen to humans [34].
The EFSA Panel on Contaminants [35] concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to follow any hypothesis which would be related to AA exposure directly resulting in an increased risk for any major cancer type. However, after the risk evaluation of AA present in thermally heated food, the Contaminant Panel, influenced by the recent scientific data and performed studies, provided a dietary exposure assessment on AA, based on the MOE approach on neurotoxic and carcinogenic effects. The estimation of MOEs was made upon the benchmark dose lower confidence limit for a 10% increase in the number of tumor-bearing animals in comparison to control animals (BMDL10), and was calculated by dividing the BMDL10 values by the mean and high-level estimates of dietary exposure to AA. The EFSA set up the lowest value among BMDL10 as the accepted value. This risk evaluation showed that AA is present on a large scale in heat-processed foods, and this exposure to AA through diet is responsible for an increased risk of developing cancer in consumers of all age groups [35]. During the meeting, four possible critical limits for AA toxicity were identified: (I) neurotoxicity, (II) effects on male reproduction, (III) developmental toxicity, and (IV) carcinogenicity. The recent data from animal studies could be used to measure the reference AA dosage. The following BMDL10 reference points were proposed as follows: 430 μg/kg body weight (BW)/day for peripheral neuropathy in rats, and 170 μg/kg BW/day for neoplastic effects [35]. Based on these reference points, the EC adopted Regulation 2017/2158, dedicated to mitigation measures and benchmark levels for a reduction in the AA presence of certain foodstuffs [36]. According to this regulation, the levels of AA in wheat-based soft bread and crispbread should not exceed 50 and 350 µg/kg, respectively. The maximum limit for biscuits and ice cream wafers is 300 µg/kg, whereas the threshold for other products (e.g., sweets) is 350 µg/kg [36]. A comprehensive review of up-to-date obtained experience has been recently summarized by FoodDrinkEurope in the Acrylamide “Toolbox” [37]. Consumer exposure to AA depends on the levels of AA formed in foods and the presence of specific food products in the consumer’s diet [35]. The recent studies on food processing contaminants that contribute to various bread-related products are summarized in Table 1. Additionally, in Table 2 are data concerning dietary exposure to food processing contaminants in bread products in various countries.
According to Table 1, in one of six studies, the detected AA level was 87 μg/kg, and that concentration of AA in wheat-based bread is above the limit allowed by EFSA [22]. Comparing BMDL10 reference points for AA and exposure to AA gathered in Table 2, it is discovered that AA concentrations were in the safe ranges for the peripheral neuropathy and neoplastic effects. AA levels, measured in bread-related products and the sweets/biscuits group, were in the range of 31–454 and 204–400 µg/kg, respectively. The control wheat bread crust sample contained 65 µg/kg of AA [55]. Interesting but inconsistent results were obtained by Surdyk et al. [56] and Wang et al. [57]. Namely, Surdyk et al. [56] measured the AA level in yeast-leavened wheat bread baked at 270 °C for 15 min, and the concentrations of AA in the crust and crumbs were 80 and 24 µg/kg, respectively, while Wang et al. [57] obtained significantly elevated levels of AA in wheat bread baked at 220 °C for 25 min, 570 and 270 µg/kg, for the crust and crumb, correspondingly. Nevertheless, Surdyk et al. [56] suggested that AA, which is detected in crumbs, originated from the parts of the crust as a result of an incomplete separation of the crust. More importantly, due to the low thermal conductivity of the dough, the inner temperature of the crumb does not reach 100 °C.

3.2. Furan and Furan Derivatives

In addition to AA, during the thermal processing of foodstuffs, a furan compound is formed from sugars under acidic conditions [58]. An alternative route of HMF formation in dry conditions, from fructose and sucrose, was observed using a highly reactive fructofuranosyl cation that can be transformed directly into HMF [59]. Nevertheless, the HMF carbonyl group and Asn presence can play an important role in AA formation during the Maillard reaction, while there are low moisture conditions and elevated temperatures [60]. According to the available literature, ascorbic acid, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), carotenoids, sugars, and amino acids are the precursors for furan and its derivatives’ formation. Precisely, furan and 2-methylfuran (2MF) are produced from carbohydrate precursors in two distinct pathways. Furan forms directly from carbohydrate degradation, while 2MF mostly forms from the condensation of carbohydrate moieties generated during the Maillard reaction [61,62]. The furfural is a compound with a characteristic almond odor and has been primarily established by the 1,2-enolisation pathway via 3-deoxyosone, but may also be formed during the fermentation process [63]. Moreover, the crucial role in the development of furan and furan derivatives in foodstuffs such as coffee, canned meat, baked bread, and hazelnuts is the thermal-oxidative degradation of PUFAs and ascorbic acid [64]. In animal studies, HMF is potent to undergo biotransformation into the genotoxic and mutagenic metabolite, sulphoxymethylfurfural [65,66], while furfural may lead to hepatotoxicity [67]. It was already found before that furan is highly potent with regard to exerting carcinogenic and mutagenic effects in rats and mice, probably due to cis-butene-1,4-dial reactive metabolites, which originate from furan oxidation by cytochrome P450 and bind to proteins and nucleosides [68,69,70]. In 1995 the IARC classified furan, together with furfural in the Group 2B, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” [71]. Additionally, 2MF has been announced to produce highly reactive intermediates, likewise to furan, leading to similar toxicity in the liver of rats [72]. Recently, there have been a great number of studies conducted that focused on hydroxymethylfurfural (5-HMF), which consists of a furan ring with an aldehyde and an alcohol group and is formed as an intermediate product during non-enzymatic browning reactions [73,74,75]. There are available studies that observed that 5-HMF is potent to cause eye, respiratory tract, and skin irritation, and can be carcinogenic, hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic, or lead to neoplastic transformation [66,75,76].
The EFSA Panel on Contaminants [77] has chosen the BMDL10 of 64 μg/kg BW/day and 1310 μg/kg BW/day as reference points for the risk characterization of non-neoplastic and neoplastic effects induced by furan. Because of the lack of a direct genotoxic mechanism in the carcinogenic mode of action of furan, the Contamination Panel decided that it was not suitable to announce a TDI, and the MOE approach has been introduced instead. The MOE value for the neoplastic effects was set above 10,000. The calculated MOEs showed that no group is at risk of developing non-neoplastic effects, and the exposure levels for all the population groups were above 100. As a consequence of not having enough information, the health risks associated with the dietary intake of 2MF and 3-methylfuran (3MF) could not be characterized [77].
There are no data concerning permissible limits of furan and furan derivatives in wheat-based products. However, comparing data collected in Table 2 with the regulations of EFSA, it has been shown that levels of HMF and 5-HMF were 87,000 and 12,000 μg/kg BW/day, respectively, being much above the accepted concentrations for BMDL10s for neoplastic effects [22,54]. In the Mildner-Szkudlarz et al. [55] study, furan derivatives such as furanmethanol, 2-acetylfuran, and 5-methylfurfural have been found in the wheat loaf system. The decomposition of glycosylamine at the beginning of the chemical reaction results in Maillard-type furanic compounds forming. Additionally, 5-methylfurfural was found in the blank crust at a concentration of 38 µg/kg, while furfural was present in the blank bread crust at a level of 565 µg/kg [9].

3.3. Polycyclic Aromatic Amines

Other compounds of food processing contaminants are PAHs. The PAHs have been differentiated into two groups: (1) from one to four benzene rings are known as light polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (L-PAHs), and (2) those containing more than four benzene rings are known as heavy polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (H-PAHs). H-PAHs are more stable and toxic than L-PAHs [78]. The presence of PAHs in food can be from natural (as in environmental) and synthetic sources (food processing). Even though PAHs are known to be typical heat-induced food toxicants mainly formed in high-protein foodstuffs, e.g., meat or fish, their presence has also finally been reported in some baked bread systems, and they were extensively reviewed [79]. The cooking method is crucial in the formation of PAHs in foods. As well, thermally induced processes can lead to PAHs contamination even higher than traffic [80]. The PAHs content may be affected by the unsuitable drying method of cereals, seeds, and edible oils [81]. Depending on grilling conditions, grilling direction, grilling distance, and the use of different fuels can lead to different compounds of PAHs [82]. The highest benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) level in barbecued food is present when charcoal with wood chips is used as fuel [83]. Commonly, the highest concentration of PAHs was detected in charcoal-grilled, flame-gas-grilled, and oven-grilled dishes [84]. According to the EFSA [85], the highest contributor to dietary exposure to BaP was cereals and cereal-derived products—24%. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that PAHs influence reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, leading to inflammation and apoptosis [86,87], and induce genotoxic, mutagenic effects [88,89]. Not without reason, a long list of specific PAHs were classified in: the Group 1 as “carcinogenic to humans” (BaP); the Group 2A as “probably carcinogenic to humans“ (cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene, dibenzo[a,l]pyrene); and the Group 2B as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (5-methylchrysene; benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[c]phenanthrene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[j]fluoranthene, chrysene; dibenzo[a,i]pyrene, dibenzo[a,h]pyrene, indeno [1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, naphthalene) [90,91,92]. According to Commission Recommendation 2005/108/EC [93], it has begun to be necessary to measure the presence of BaP and other listed genotoxic PAHs compounds in food products. The BMDL10 of 0.07 mg/kg BW/day was chosen for BaP, and the BMDL10 of 0.34 mg/kg BW/day for chrysene, benz[a]anthracene, and benzo[b]fluoranthene. The MOE values for high consumers ranged from 9600 to 10,800 [85].
Nevertheless, the number of consumed bread is relatively increasing, and the maximum levels of PAHs have not been established. In addition, studies concerning the problem of bread toxicants are mainly focused on AA and furanic compounds. In the study of Chawda et al. [94], it has been observed that a total of 16 PAHs were present in tandoori and Tawa bread, which ranged between 113–211 µg/kg and 60–77 µg/kg, respectively. Al-Rashdan et al. [78] detected BaP in 8 of the 18 samples in the range of 3–17 μg/kg in white wheat bread, while the total PAHs levels varied from 1 to 44 μg/kg and from 3 to 279 μg/kg for H-PAH and L-PAH, respectively. Orecchio et al. [95] have estimated the daily intake of total PAHs, which was based only on a daily consumption of 300 g of bread per person, where PAHs consumption ranged from 2 to 69 µg/day for the bread baked with wood as fuel. Even though the PAHs levels have been significantly high in the mentioned results, there are too few studies concerning its presence in bread systems.

3.4. Monochloropropanediols, Monochloropropanediols Esters, and Glycidyl Esters

Fatty acid esters of MCPDs and glycidols are emerging process contaminants that are mostly present in oil-containing products, but also were observed in starchy food matrixes [96]. Depending on chlorine localization, MCPDEs can be differentiated into two groups: 3-monochloro-1,2-propanediol esters (3-MCPDEs) and 2-monochloro-1,3-propanediols esters (2-MCPDEs). The 3-MCPDEs were first noted in foodstuffs by Svejkovská et al. [97], and two years later, have gained great attention after their detection in refined seed olive oil at the skyrocketing level of o 2462 µg/kg [98]. Both MCPDEs are formed in the reaction between lipids (mono-, diacyl-, and triacylglycerol, and glycerophospholipids) and chlorine donors such as sodium chloride that may be naturally present or intentionally added at high temperatures, mainly during the deodorization process [99]. The GEs are formed from mono- and diacylglycerol after the elimination of water or fatty acids at temperatures higher than 200 °C. Another possible path for GE formation is from MCPD monoesters after the elimination of hydrochloric acid [100,101]. The 2-MCPDEs, 3-MCPDEs, and GEs undergo hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract into their corresponding free forms (2-MCPD, 3-MCPD, and glycidol, respectively). Due to their potential toxicological effect on humans, the IARC has classified glycidol as a probable carcinogen (Group 2A) with a genotoxic and carcinogenic effect, and 3-MCPD as possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B) with non-genotoxic effects and reduction abilities on male fertility based on animal studies [102,103]. Since then, a great number of studies have been focused on the 3-MCPDE formation mechanism.
The EFSA Panel on Contaminants [104] established a TDI of 0.8 μg/kg BW/day for 3-MCPD and 3-MCPDE. No TDI could be established for 2-MCPD, 2-MCPDE, and glycidol due to the lack of toxicological information [104]. However, the MOE method was chosen to evaluate the risk to glycidol. It was presumed that hydrolysis of the esters into free glycidol occurs upon ingestion. Instead of BMDL, a 25% increase in the incidence of a specific tumor above background incidence in the lifespan of the species procedure was used. The reference point used for glycidol was 10,200 μg/kg BW/day. Nevertheless, the panel considered that an MOE of 25,000 or higher was enough to conclude that there was no health concern [104].
In accordance with Table 1, the 3-MCPD level in bread was equal to 120 μg/kg [44]. The concentration of 120 μg/kg divided by a 70 kg person gives a final concentration of 1.7 μg per person. The obtained value is above the TDI proposed by EFSA, while glycidol content in bread was in the safe range [44]. Higher concentrations of 3-MCPDEs were observed in the crust and toasted white bread at levels of 547 and 160 μg/kg, respectively. Mentioned values were significantly higher (82 and 24 times) than the ones evaluated in nontreatment white bread (7 μg/kg). These findings have led to the conclusion that thermal treatment of bread is associated with a greater amount of 3-MCPDE formation in bread systems [105].

4. Environment as a Source of Bread Chemical Contaminants

4.1. Mycotoxins

MTs are also a crucial group of food contaminants that are present in the grains and can influence the toxicity profile of bread. MTs as secondary metabolites are produced by various filamentous fungi of the genera Alternaria, Aspergillus, Claviceps, Fusarium, or Penicillium, which are harmfully potent to animals and humans. MTs can be formed under different climatic conditions in the agroecosystem. They can be created directly on the growing crops or on remaining plant residues in the field and accumulated during harvesting and storing of the grain, as was reviewed previously [106]. In the book Nanomycotoxicology, the definition of MT was described, and it originated from the Greek terms “mykes” and “toxicum”, meaning fungus or mold and poison, respectively [107]. The term MT was introduced for the first time in 1962 in England, due to turkey chicks’ feed contamination with deoxynivalenol (DON) [108]. Studies show that approximately 25% of all grain products are contaminated with secondary metabolites of filamentous fungi [109]. Streit et al. [110] have found that MT contamination in feed can be high as 72%, while Kovalsky et al. [111] and Eskola et al. [112] shared the opinion that MT concentration can be estimated at 79% or more than that. Moreover, MTs can also be found in other types of food such as coffee, fruits, nuts, and spices [113]. MTs consist of a variety of chemical structures with different biological properties. The classification of MTs can be made upon their chemical structure or their origin (fungal genera), but it is vital to remember that one MT can be synthesized by several fungal species, as was reviewed by Degen [114]. More than 300 MTs have been described in the literature [115]. The most important MTs present in food products and animal feed are as follows: aflatoxins (AFs) including aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), aflatoxin B2 (AFB2), aflatoxin G1 (AFG1), aflatoxin G2 (AFG2), produced by Aspergillus species; citrinin (CIT); fumonisins (FUMs), including fumonisin B1 (FB1), fumonisin B2 (FB2), fumonisin B3 (FB3); ochratoxin A (OTA), produced by both Aspergillus and Penicillium species; trichothecenes (TCs), including DON, T-2 toxin (T-2), HT-2 toxin (HT-2), nivalenol (NIV); and zearalenone (ZEA). Most affected by the mentioned MTs are cereals such as corn, wheat, barley, oats, as well as rice [115]. There are also other groups of MTs found in grains and grain-derived products such as beauvericin (BEA), enniatins (ENs), fusaproliferin (FUS), and moniliformin (MON) that are mainly produced by Fusarium species [113]. The performed research on the MT presence in grains and grain-derivative products has shown that various MTs are present at different levels. The emerging group of MTs is called “masked MTs”. Masked MTs are MTs that interact with other compounds such as amino acids, carbohydrates, and sulfate groups in grains. Meta-analysis of Sarmast et al. [116] has shown that their identification in cereals is extremely challenging. The scope of up-to-date research on the MT presence in different wheat-based products is summarized in Table 3. Additionally, Table 4 shows data concerning risk assessments of MT distribution in grain products depending on the country.
One of the most critical fungal diseases that can negatively impact crop production worldwide is Fusarium head blight (FHB). This fungal disease is spread usually in a specific area, where the climate during the flowering stage of cereal crops is warm and wet. In the reviews of Dahl and Wilson [125] and Wilson et al. [126], it was assumed that the high production of MT levels in bread is associated with lowering the quantity and quality of bread (grain yield reductions). FHB may produce DON, which adversely influences human and domesticated animals’ health. TCs, as the most crucial MTs produced by Fusarium spp., have been associated with feed refusal, vomiting, and suppressed immune functions in humans and animals [4]. The most important fungal pathogens that are related to FHB are as follows: the Fusarium graminearum complex (FGC), and related species such as Fusarium avenaceum, Fusarium culmorum, and Fusarium poae [127]. This pathogen can produce a wide range of MTs, mainly DON and its acetylated derivatives (3-acetyldeoxynivalenol-3-ADON and 15-acetyldeoxynivalenol-15-ADON).
MTs are unsafely and harmfully potent to both human and animal health and well-being, even after thermally processing cereals products (Figure 4). Most of the MTs are stable at high temperatures during food processing such as during baking, canning, cooking, frying, roasting, alkaline cooking, and extrusion [128]. However, MTs’ mechanism of action has not been discovered yet. Scientists proposed some hypotheses about a particular correlation between the production of secondary metabolites of filamentous fungi and responses to oxidative stress. While infection initiates, the ROS can influence fungoes pathways that are responsible for MT formation [129]. It has been proved that MTs cause acute toxicity (for example, an estrogenic effect) and long-term effects, namely carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, teratogenesis, or immunotoxicity in mammals. Humans are mainly subjected to secondary metabolites of filamentous fungi by the consumption of cereals and cereal-derived products [113]. The following AFs (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2) were already reported to be hepatotoxic and genotoxic, and they are classified as human carcinogens by the IARC [130]. AFs are also known as immunotoxic agents, as fetuses exposed to them in utero can cause negative effects on the growth and development of children [131]. According to the Commission Regulation 1881/2006, the maximum level for AFs in cereals was set to 2 µg/kg for AFB1 and 4 µg/kg for the sum of AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, and AFG2 [132]. FB1 has been classified as a probable human carcinogen [90], and its exposure is associated with enhancing the permeability of intestinal epithelial cells in vitro [133], the prevalence of esophageal cancer [134], and hepatotoxicity [135,136]. DON, a major MT that potently inhibits the synthesis of proteins and nutrient intake [137], affects neuronal activity [138] and impairs male fertility [139]. The PMTDI has been set to 1 μg/kg BW for DON (and 3-ADON and 15-ADON). The potential health risks related to acute exposure to DON were evaluated by comparing the exposure percentiles with the acute reference dose (ARfD) of 8 μg/kg (3-ADON and 15-ADON) [140]. The provisional maximum tolerable daily intake (PMTDI) was set to 2 μg/kg BW for FUMs (FB1, FB2, FB3—alone or in combination) [141]. OTA, as a possible human carcinogen [130], induces genotoxic effects in HepG2 cells [142], impacts human renal cells [143], and causes acute kidney injuries [144]. A BMDL10 of 4.73 µg/kg BW/day for non-neoplastic effects and 14.5 µg/kg BW/day for neoplastic effects was set for OTA [145]. It was observed that ZEA potently causes an estrogenic syndrome in pigs and was identified as an endocrine disruptor in humans [146]. The current TDI for ZEA of 0.25 μg/kg BW/day established by the EFSA Panel for Contaminants in the Food Chain in 2011 is based on estrogenicity in pigs [147]. Commission Regulation 1881/2006 establishes maximum levels for MT contamination in foods [132]. Indicative maximum levels of 100 ng/kg BW for the sum of T-2 and HT-2 toxins have been recently issued [148] while BEA, ENs, FUS, MON, and NIV belong to the group of emerging MTs and are not present in any specific legislation yet. Relevant in vivo toxicity data are needed to perform a human risk assessment [149]. Monitoring studies for MT presence in foods have to be performed repeatedly to extract solid information about human exposure to contaminants.
According to Table 3, the sum of AFs AFB1, AFB2, and ABG1 was above the maximum level in bread products proposed by WHO and JECFA [113]. For white bread, the sum of AFs was 10.1 μg/kg, 7.7 μg/kg for multigrain bread, and 8.3 μg/kg for wholewheat bread. Risk exposure data have proven that DON is within the safe limits introduced by WHO and JECFA (Table 4). However, FUM contamination in Nigeria is 16,800 times higher than the maximum PMTDIs that have been accepted by WHO and JECFA. One of the measured OTA level exposures through sorghum in Nigeria was also above the limit for non-neoplastic effects (OTA = 13.22 μg/kg BW/day); however, the value was very close to the concentration that is potent for inducing neoplastic effects (Table 4).

4.2. Toxic Metals

TM pollution has been observed worldwide, is present in the environment, and can be dangerous to human life. The proposed definition occurring in the reviewed literature on toxic “heavy metals” is as follows: “naturally occurring metals having an atomic number greater than 20 and an elemental density greater than 5 g/cm3” [150,151,152,153]. Aluminum (Al), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb) are some of the predominant TMs and metalloids spread in the environment. Cu, iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), Mn, and zinc (Zn) have been detected in all types of grain [154]. There has been prepared a specific classification that distinguishes essential TMs from non-essential ones. For instance, Cu, chromium (Cr) (III), Fe, and Zn are TMs that have been described as crucial for the proper functioning of a living organism, while As, Cd, Hg, and Pb have been classified as non-essential for any metabolic functions, as was reviewed previously [155].
Regarding the TM sources, the natural sources of TMs include the weathering of metal-containing rocks and volcanic eruptions, while anthropogenic sources capture industrial emissions, mining, smelting, the exploitation of machines used in production and packaging steps, and agricultural activities such as the application of pesticides and phosphate fertilizers (Figure 5) [156]. Vehicle pollution is responsible for the release of TMs, e.g., Cd. The presence of TMs in the environment also ensures their presence in the food chain and exposes humans to TMs. Chronic exposure to TMs in the environment is highly not recommended to any living organisms [157]. Since TMs are part of the environment, soil acts as a source of TMs [158]. Moreover, TMs are absorbed by crop roots (TMs in the soil) and slowly accumulate in other parts of the plant (roots, leaves, and grains) causing negative effects on plant growth and, later, people’s health. However, TMs are also distributed in the air and water. Their presence and levels are mainly determined by environmental conditions (type of weather during cultivation, presence of rain, levels of soil contaminants). The scope of current TM inputs among various types of bread products is summarized in Table 5. Additionally, Table 6 presents data concerning the dietary intake of TMs in wheat and wheat-based products in various countries.
People are exposed to TMs through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. TMs, due to their tendency to bioaccumulate, are found to be very hard to metabolize in an organism. Various studies reported that TMs can negatively influence a great spectrum of human organs such as the lungs [164], bladder [165], heart [166,167], kidney, and liver [168], and can be responsible for exhibiting anti-androgenic activity [169] and induce haematological and histopathological changes [170]. Therefore, TMs have been classified in the top 20 list of dangerous substances by ATSDR [171]. The IARC classified TMs and metalloids in the following groups depending on their carcinogenicity to humans: Cd and Cd compounds along with As and inorganic As compounds into Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans); inorganic Pb into Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans); Pb, methylmercury, Ni, Co, and Co compounds into Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans); Cr, Hg and inorganic Hg compounds, and organic Pb into Group 3 (not classified as carcinogenic; lack of human carcinogenicity exposure data) [172]. However, the WHO has announced that Cd, Pb, and Hg are in the top 10 chemicals that are the primary concern to public health [173]. Since then, TMs have been considered a public health concern worldwide. Some international organizations have advised performing dietary exposure studies and risk assessment calculations due to the lack of data on TMs in foodstuffs, which are crucial in public nutrition [174,175,176]. The EFSA revised the up-to-date health-based guidance value of each trace element. The BMDL10 value for Pb was set up to 0.63 µg/kg BW/day. The TWI of Cd was estimated to be 2.5 µg/kg BW/day, while for Hg, TWI was calculated to be 4.0 µg/kg BW/day [177,178,179].
Based on Table 6, the dietary intake of Pb, Cd, and Hg does not induce any harmful health effects on humans. The average dietary exposures are below the safe values set up by the EFSA. Since Cd and its compounds are classified as one of the most harmful TMs to humans, they have also not shown any vital biological function in any living organism or tissue [180,181]. Cereal-based food is the primary source of Cd, as more than 80% of vegetables and cereal are contaminated with Cd. Cd directly influences the oxidative stress of plants, leading to ROS production, inhibiting root growth, and inducing lipid peroxidation in roots [182].

4.3. Pesticides

The last, but no less important, source of bread contaminants that will be discussed in this review are pesticides. Nowadays, pesticides are applied to most crops in agriculture. It has been estimated that the usage of pesticides reaches about 4 million tons each year [183,184]. Pesticides include over 1000 different chemicals, which can be further classified depending on their targets, e.g., fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. Organochlorine (e.g., dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane and benzene hexachloride) pesticides have been applied in agriculture since a long time ago, and now, their application has been eliminated in many countries due to their durability in nature. This elimination led to a more frequent usage of organophosphate pesticides (OPPs) and carbamates pesticides with a lower durability [185,186]. The most often applied OPPs cover dichlorvos, dimethoate, disulfoton, dursban (chlorpyrifos), fenthion, glyphosate, guthion (azinphos-methyl), malathion, methyl parathion, mocap (ethoprophos), parathion, phorate, pirimiphosmethyl, temephos, and tokuthion (prothiofosfenitrothion), while carbamates include bendiocarb, carbaryl (sevin), carbofuran +, methiocarb, and propoxur [186]. There is also another class of pesticides called pyrethroids including bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, and permethrin, as reviewed by Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al. [186]. Pesticides oppose pests, weeds, or diseases, increase food production efficiency, and improve crop quality. On the other hand, pesticides also protect humans from food-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and schistosomiasis (Figure 6) [187].
However, OPPs and carbamates are still hazardous chemicals, and permanent human exposure to pesticides leads to adverse health effects [183,188]. Pesticide traces are present in various foodstuffs that are included in a daily diet and animal feed [188,189]. Human exposure to pesticides occurs via dermal absorption, inhalation, and oral ingestion [186,187]. Scientists’ hypotheses revealed that carbamates are potent carcinogens and mutagens. OPPs and carbamates inhibit acetylcholinesterase, resulting in the accumulation of acetylcholine at the endings of nerves. The mentioned accumulation is responsible for neurobehavioral dysfunction in the target pests [186,190]. It has been reported that pesticide elimination techniques such as washing and peeling will not reduce pesticide levels in foods [191]. However, the pesticide concentrations mostly do not reach the legislatively set-up MRLs [192]. MRLs are the highest concentrations of pesticides allowed to be present in foodstuffs [193]. Nonetheless, simultaneous human exposure to more than one pesticide in food is potent to induce synergistic effects, even though the specific pesticide concentrations alone are safe, as reviewed in Kortenkamp [194]. Epidemiological reports revealed that there have been specific associations between pesticides and some toxic effects. It has been reported that pesticides induce hepatotoxicity [195] and neurotoxicity [196], disrupt the endocrine system [197], induce alterations to erythrocytes and lymphocytes [198], enhance breast cancer [199], and disturb the homocysteine metabolism in pregnant women [200]. Palaniswamy et al.’s [201] study indicated that non-occupational overall pesticide exposure, length of exposure, and specific pesticides were associated with multiple biological markers of health in Finnish young adults. Those results need to be replicated to find the mechanism of pesticides’ course of action. It could be used in preclinical alterations or for adverse metabolic health effects triggered by pesticides. The metabolism of OPPs in human organisms starts with their conversion to dialkylphosphates (DAP) metabolites e.g., dimethylphosphate (DMP), dimethylthiophosphate (DMTP), dimethyldithiophosphate (DMDTP), diethylphosphate (DEP), diethylthiophosphate (DETP), and diethyldithiophosphate (DEDTP), and then they are excreted in the urine within a few days [202]. According to IARC [203], the herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). The insecticides tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). Generally, epidemiological exposure studies are very limited. However, dietary exposure to OPPs can be partially linked to their levels in urine. MRLs have been established to avoid a health risk for consumers from pesticide residues in food. The MRLs (mg/kg) of pesticides applied in cereals were set up in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 covered by Council Directive 86/362/EEC, and are as follows: carbaryl (sevin) (0.5); carbofuran + (0.02); dichlorvos (0.01); dimethoate (0.3); disulfoton (0.1); dursban (chlorpyrifos) (0.05); glyphosate (10); guthion (azinphos-methyl) (0.05); malathion (8); methyl parathion (0.02); parathion (0.05); and propoxur (0.05) [204,205]. The scope of the newest pesticides’ ubiquity in wheat-based products is summarized in Table 7. Additionally, Table 8 presents data concerning human exposure to pesticides in grains depending on the country. Generally, regarding the collected data in Table 7, all the pesticide concentrations in wheat-based products were in the safe range. However, one pesticide was found closer to the MRL than other pesticides. That pesticide is guthion, and its concentration has remained still 10 times lower than allowed MRLs.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The toxicity studies of food processing contaminants in bread focus mainly on AA and furan derivatives, which are attractive substances in bread aroma but also highly toxic. According to collected data, most wheat-based bread is in the safe range of 50 µg of AA/kg. However, there is a specific correlation between wheat and non-wheat bread. Namely, according to several studies, non-wheat bread (wholemeal and rye, etc.) has elevated levels of AA in comparison to wheat ones [23,39,156]. Başaran et al. [156] research has shown that HMF (furan derivative) levels in tested food matrices have had skyrocketed values, much higher than the BMDLs for neoplastic effects induced by furan, while Ramírez-Jiménez et al. [212] assessed HMF levels in bakery products ranging from 9.5 to 151.2 mg/kg, exceeding even higher values than those observed by Başaran et al. [156] (87 mg/kg). However, in the study by Gülcan et al. [213], the HMF concentration in the bread sample was equal to 17 mg/kg. A short but significant list of research has been performed about PAHs which occur in baked bread. Ciecierska and Obiedziński [214] assessed the level of some PAHs in white bread, and values of 0.42 µg/kg and 0.09 µg/kg were measured for pyrene and 5-methylchrysene, respectively, while others [215] detected different PAHs, B[a]A and B[a]P, in cereals at the similar concentrations of 0–3.2 µg/kg and 0–0.11 µg/kg, respectively. The amounts of 3-MCPDs and their esters were in the safe range below the TDI (0.8 µg/kg BW/day) established by EFSA. In accordance with the results, it might be assumed that a 70 kg person can consume 56 µg of 3-MCPDs and 3-MCPDEs per day without any adverse health effects. In the study by Chung et al. [216], the 3-MCPD esters were measured at a level of 10.5 µg/kg in white bread. The amount of 2-MCPDs and their esters in wheat-based foodstuffs has not been established by any international organization yet. However, glycidol concentrations were in the safe range introduced by the EFSA Panel on Contaminants [104]. Chung et al. [216] have not detected glycidyl esters in white bread, while EFSA [104] has identified them in bread and bread rolls in values ranging from 0 to 510 µg/kg. However, it was not possible to find a single article about the contribution of pyrroles and pyridines to bakery goods. It seems that those groups of compounds are present in different heat-processed foodstuffs at a significantly higher level than in bread, and that is probably the reason why researchers are not interested in measuring their levels in bread-related products.
Soil is the central source of food crops and thereby can be subjected to MTs, TMs, and pesticides. From the overview of research data, it can be concluded that the environmental contamination of grains and bread products depends on several factors, including: (1) type of contaminant; (2) degree of food processing (raw samples, meaning wheat/cereal/grain, vs. already processed foods such as bakery goods); and (3) type of grains (white vs wholemeal), and (4) a country’s agriculture advancement.
MTs are a huge group of food contaminants. The information and performed research regarding MT contamination in grain-derived products are very extensive. In the case of AFs, white bread is more potent for contamination by higher concentrations of AFs than other types of bread [113,117]. However, in the case of bread contaminated with ENs and ZEA, the opposite phenomenon is found, as higher MT content has occurred in non-white bread [113,117]. Another aspect that directly influences MT concentration is food processing. Wheat (raw material before processing) has lower levels of MTs than processed ready-to-eat bakery products, but only in AF-contaminated products, while DON, T-2, HT-2, and NIV contamination is significantly higher in wheat than in processed bakery goods [3,113,117,119]. Corresponding to the gathered data, AFs levels in cereal products were above the level set up by Commission Recommendation 1881/2006. FUMs and OTA concentrations were above the accepted limits in Nigeria, while in developed countries, these levels were in the safe range [121]. A similar phenomenon was observed for DON concentration in rice. The DON level was also out of range in Iran [120]. These findings can indicate a real health threat to humans. In the study by Vaclavikova et al. [217], the ENs and DON levels were measured in two different flours, and the results revealed that ENs and DON contamination in flours ranged from 8 to 86 µg/kg and 13–96 µg/kg, respectively, while in a separate experiment, the mean DON level in wheat flour was 52 µg/kg, reaching a maximum of 622 µg/kg [218]. Zhao et al.’s [219] research showed the co-occurrence of multiple MTs in wheat grains, especially DON, together with 3-ADON and 15-ADON, and FUMs with other MTs produced by Fusarium spp. As a result, it has been recommended that grain food products should have been considered for regulation due to high concentrations. However, there is a lack of data concerning MTs’ fate in soils or an explanation of environmental exposure to MTs in general.
Elevated values for TM contamination were observed for wheat-based bread (Cd, Co, Cr, Mn, Pb), while for other types of bread, especially rye bread, the levels of Al and Hg were higher. In general, higher concentrations of TMs were found in non-wheat bread [156]. The TM (Cd, Hg, and Pb) concentrations in foods for which guidance levels were set up were below BMDL10 and TWI. In Başaran’s [156] study, the level of Cd was similar to Zioła-Frankowska et al. [157] at 3.3–49.5 µg/kg and 12.7–53.8, respectively. However, surprisingly low Cd concentrations were found by Ashot et al. [161]. The Cd level was 5.8 µg/kg. Those findings do not indicate any threat to human health. However, there is a lack of data regarding multi-metal toxicity in crops. The multi-metal transfer from soil to plants needs a specific approach that will determine the actual and/or total TM toxicity. Moreover, the epidemiological data remain for continued study. There are scanty data about the hazardous effects of TMs, and the level of TMs in the soil is permanently increasing. Pesticide usage in agriculture has many positive effects such as the elimination of food-borne diseases, but also negative ones. However, all the concentrations of pesticides reviewed in this paper are in the safe MRLs and did not pose any threat to human well-being. Despite that, pesticides were still present in wheat products.
To sum up, there is a long list of wheat and wheat-based product contaminants. Most of them are in safe ranges, but there are several contaminants that are above permissible levels and pose a real danger to human health (e.g., HMF and MTs-AFs, FUMs, OTA, DON). The question is what if upon consumption, humans are exposed to more than only one contaminant? What are the health risks then? Exposure to the large number of food contaminants such as MTs, TMs, pesticides, or Maillard reaction products consumed in one meal has not been assessed yet. To the authors’ best knowledge, cross-contaminant studies are still lacking. There is a huge gap in that research area. It might seem that humans are exposed to many food contaminants for every instance of consumption. The authors propose that the next step in toxicology research will be an assessment of the overall figure of contaminants in bread matrixes from different sources. Then, studies concerning mitigation strategies would be necessary. Nowadays, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are used as a as probiotic microorganism to detoxify toxic substances. One of their applications is their addition to bread dough during bread making. It has been observed that the levels of toxic substances were significantly reduced after LAB treatment [220,221,222,223,224]. It would also be worth estimating if LAB can influence cross-contaminated food matrices, as would an evaluation of their ability to detoxify not only thermally induced toxicants but also contaminants from the environmental origin at the same time. The mitigation research is vital because the human body needs to metabolize those toxicants at the same time. Food contaminants will be metabolized and excreted from the body, but some of them can easily accumulate and cause adverse health effects. Cancer diseases are present in modern times and depend on DNA codes, but more importantly, they can be modulated by environmental factors including diet. There have been a great number of studies conducted concerning the relationship between human nutrition and cancer risk.

Author Contributions

A.M.: conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review, and editing; A.N.: supervision and review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by BIOSTAR RPO OF THE LODZKIE VOIVODSHIP 2020, grant number RPLD.01.02.02-10-0072/19-00 “Development of technology and starter culture for the production of wheat bread in the conditions of the low-temperature dough rising”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This paper has been completed while the first author was the Doctoral Candidate in the Interdisciplinary Doctoral School at the Lodz University of Technology, Poland.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Semla, M.; Goc, Z.; Martiniaková, M.; Omelka, R.; Formicki, G. Acrylamide: A common food toxin related to physiological functions and health. Physiol. Res. 2017, 66, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Crop Prospects and Food Situation-Quarterly Global Report No. 4, December 2021; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cb7877en/cb7877en.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  3. Khaneghah, A.M.; Fakhri, Y.; Nematollahi, A.; Pirhadi, M. Potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in cereal-based foods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 96, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arata, G.J.; Martínez, M.; Elguezábal, C.; Rojas, D.; Cristos, D.; Dinolfo, M.I.; Arata, A.F. Effects of sowing date, nitrogen fertilization, and Fusarium graminearum in an Argentinean bread wheat: Integrated analysis of disease parameters, mycotoxin contamination, grain quality, and seed deterioration. J. Food Compost. Anal. 2022, 107, 104364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. CXS 193-1995; Codex Alimentarius, International Food Standards, General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy; World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B193-1995%252FCXS_193e.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  6. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific Technical Assistance to RASFF on Chemical Contaminants: Risk Evaluation of Chemical Contaminants in Food in the Context of RASFF Notifications. EFSA Supporting Publ. 2019, 16, EN-1625. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1625 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  7. Bimpizas-Pinis, M.; Santagata, R.; Kaiser, S.; Liu, Y.; Lyu, Y. Additives in the food supply chain: Environmental assessment and circular economy implications. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2022, 14, 100172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. CODEX STAN 192-1995; Codex Alimentarius, International Food Standards, General Standard for Food Additives Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy. World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B192-1995%252FCXS_192e.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  9. Izzreen, M.N.Q.; Hansen, S.S.; Petersen, M.A. Volatile compounds in whole meal bread crust: The effects of yeast level and fermentation temperature. Food Chem. 2016, 210, 566–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Maillard, L.C. Action of amino acids on sugars. Formation of melanoidins in a methodical way. C. R. Acad. Sci. 1912, 154, 66–68. [Google Scholar]
  11. Favreau-Farhadi, N.; Pecukonis, L.; Barrett, A. The Inhibition of Maillard Browning by Different Concentrations of Rosmarinic Acid and Epigallocatechin-3-Gallate in Model, Bakery, and Fruit Systems. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80, C2140–C2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jaeger, H.; Janositz, A.; Knorr, D. The Maillard reaction and its control during food processing. The potential of emerging technologies. Pathol. Biol. 2010, 58, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Purlis, E.; Salvadori, V.O. Bread browning kinetics during baking. J. Food Eng. 2007, 80, 1107–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pozo-Bayón, M.A.; Guichard, E.; Cayot, N. Flavor Control in Baked Cereal Products. Food Rev. Int. 2006, 22, 335–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mildner-Szkudlarz, S.; Siger, A.; Szwengiel, A.; Przygoński, K.; Wojtowicz, E.; Zawirska-Wojtasiak, R. Phenolic compounds reduce formation of N ε -(carboxymethyl)lysine and pyrazines formed by Maillard reactions in a model bread system. Food Chem. 2017, 231, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zheng, L.W.; Chung, H.; Kim, Y.S. Effects of dicarbonyl trapping agents, antioxidants, and reducing agents on the formation of furan and other volatile components in canned-coffee model systems. Food Res. Int. 2015, 75, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Singla, R.K.; Dubey, A.K.; Ameen, S.M.; Montalto, S.; Parisi, S. Analytical methods for the determination of Maillard reaction products in foods. An introduction. In Analytical Methods for the Assessment of Maillard Reactions in Foods, 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tareke, E.; Rydberg, P.; Karlsson, P.; Eriksson, S.; Törnqvist, M. Analysis of acrylamide, a carcinogen formed in heated foodstuffs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 4998–5006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kumar, J.; Das, S.; Teoh, S.L. Dietary Acrylamide and the Risks of Developing Cancer: Facts to Ponder. Front. Nutr. 2018, 5, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Mencin, M.; Abramovič, H.; Vidrih, R.; Schreiner, M. Acrylamide levels in food products on the Slovenian market. Food Control 2020, 114, 107267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yang, Y.; Achaerandio, I.; Pujolà, M. Influence of the frying process and potato cultivar on acrylamide formation in French fries. Food Control 2016, 62, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Başaran, B.; Anlar, P.; Oral, Z.F.Y.; Polat, Z.; Kaban, G. Risk assessment of acrylamide and 5-hydroxymethyl-2-furfural (5-HMF) exposure from bread consumption: Turkey. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 107, 104409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Esposito, F.; Velotto, S.; Rea, T.; Stasi, T.; Cirillo, T. Occurrence of Acrylamide in Italian Baked Products and Dietary Exposure Assessment. Molecules 2020, 25, 4156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mesìas, M.; Morales, F.J. Acrylamide in commercial potato crisps from Spanish market: Trends from 2004 to 2014 and assessment of the dietary exposure. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2015, 81, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wenzl, T.; Lachenmeier, D.W.; Gökmen, V. Analysis of heat-induced contaminants (acrylamide, chloropropanols and furan) in carbohydrate-rich food. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 389, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Andačić, I.M.; Tot, A.; Ivešić, M.; Krivohlavek, A.; Thirumdas, R.; Barba, F.J.; Sabolović, M.B.; Kljusurić, J.G.; Brnčić, S.R. Exposure of the Croatian adult population to acrylamide through bread and bakery products. Food Chem. 2020, 322, 126771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Komoike, Y.; Nomura-Komoike, K.; Matsuoka, M. Intake of acrylamide at the dietary relevant concentration causes splenic toxicity in adult zebrafish. Environ. Res. 2020, 189, 109977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mottram, D.S.; Wedzicha, B.L.; Dodson, A.T. Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction. Nature 2002, 419, 448–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ekuban, F.A.; Zong, C.; Takikawa, M.; Morikawa, K.; Sakurai, T.; Ichihara, S.; Itoh, K.; Ohsako, S.; Ichihara, G. Genetic ablation of Nrf2 exacerbates neurotoxic effects of acrylamide in mice. Toxicology 2021, 456, 152785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Prasad, S.N.; Muralidhara. Evidence of acrylamide induced oxidative stress and neurotoxicity in Drosophila melanogaster–Its amelioration with spice active enrichment: Relevance to neuropathy. Neurotoxicology 2012, 33, 1254–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Santhanasabapathy, R.; Vasudevan, S.; Anupriya, K.; Pabitha, R.; Sudhandiran, G. Farnesol quells oxidative stress, reactive gliosis and inflammation during acrylamide-induced neurotoxicity: Behavioral and biochemical evidence. Neuroscience 2015, 308, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Roberts, J.; Mehta, R.; Curran, I.; Raju, J. Dietary acrylamide exposure in F344 rats and colon tumor-bearing nude nu/nu mice: Dataset of gene expression of cancer pathway targets and methylation status of tumor suppressor genes in colon mucosae and tumors. Data Brief 2019, 27, 104763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dourson, M.; Hertzberg, R.; Allen, B.; Haber, L.; Parker, A.; Kroner, O.; Maier, A.; Kohrman, M. Evidence-based dose-response assessment for thyroid tumorigenesis from acrylamide. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 2008, 52, 264–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks of chemicals to humans. In Some Industrial Chemicals; IARC: Lyon, France, 1994; Volume 60. [Google Scholar]
  35. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Scientific Opinion on acrylamide in food. EFSA J. 2015, 13, 4104. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4104 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  36. The European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2158 of 20 November 2017 Establishing Mitigation Measures and Benchmark Levels for the Reduction of the Presence of Acrylamide in Food (Text with EEA Relevance.). Off. J. Eur. Union 2017, 60, 24–44. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R2158) (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  37. Food Drink Europe. Acrylamide toolbox. 2019. Available online: https://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FoodDrinkEurope_Acrylamide_Toolbox_2019.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  38. Belkova, B.; Chytilova, L.; Kocourek, V.; Slukova, M.; Mastovska, K.; Kyselka, J.; Hajslova, J. Influence of dough composition on the formation of processing contaminants in yeast-leavened wheat toasted bread. Food Chem. 2021, 338, 127715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Roszko, M.Ł.; Szczepańska, M.; Szymczyk, K.; Rzepkowska, M. Dietary risk evaluation of acrylamide intake with bread in Poland, determined by two comparable cleanup procedures. Food Addit. Contam. B 2020, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wu, S.; Peng, Y.; Xi, J.; Zhao, Q.; Xu, D.; Jin, Z.; Xu, X. Effect of sourdough fermented with corn oil and lactic acid bacteria on bread flavor. LWT 2022, 155, 112935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, Y.H.; Yang, Y.Y.; Li, H.Q.; Zhang, Q.D.; Xu, F.; Li, Z.J. Characterization of aroma-active compounds in steamed breads fermented with Chinese traditional sourdough. LWT 2021, 152, 112347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Soceanu, A.; Dobrinas, S.; Popescu, V. Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Toasted Bread. Polycycl. Aromat. Comp. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. González-Mulero, L.; Delgado-Andrade, C.; Morales, F.J.; Olombrada, E.; Mesias, M. Study of furanic compound content in common Spanish culinary preparations. Influence of the food preparation setting. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 110, 104532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zelinkova, Z.; Giri, A.; Wenzl, T. Assessment of critical steps of a GC/MS based indirect analytical method for the determination of fatty acid esters of monochloropropanediols (MCPDEs) and of glycidol (GEs). Food Control 2017, 77, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Arisseto, A.P.; Silva, W.C.; Tivanello, R.G.; Sampaio, K.A.; Vicente, E. Recent advances in toxicity and analytical methods of monochloropropanediols and glycidyl fatty acid esters in foods. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2018, 24, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Barrios-Rodríguez, Y.F.; Pedreschi, F.; Rosowski, J.; Gómez, J.P.; Figari, N.; Castillo, O.; Mariotti Celis, M.S. Is the dietary acrylamide exposure in Chile a public health problem? Food Addit. Contam. A 2021, 38, 1126–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pogurschi, E.N.; Zugravu, C.A.; Ranga, I.N.; Trifunschi, S.; Munteanu, M.F.; Popa, D.C.; Tudorache, M.; Custura, I. Determination of Acrylamide in Selected Foods from the Romanian Market. Foods 2021, 10, 2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Branciari, R.; Roila, R.; Ranucci, D.; Altissimi, M.; Mercuri, M.; Haouet, N. Estimation of acrylamide exposure in Italian schoolchildren consuming a canteen menu: Health concern in three age groups. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 71, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Jesus, S.; Delgado, I.; Rego, A.; Brandão, C.; Galhano, R.; Castanheira, I. Determination of acrylamide in Portuguese bread by UPLC- MS/MS: Metrological and Chemometric tools. Acta Imeko 2018, 7, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pugajeva, I.; Zumbure, L.; Melngaile, A.; Bartkevics, V. Determination of acrylamide levels in selected foods in Latvia and assessment of the population intake. In Proceedings of the FoodBalt 2014: 9th Baltic Conference on Food Science and Technology “Food for Consumer Well-Being”, Jelgava, Latvia, 8–9 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhuang, H.; Zhang, T.; Liu, J.; Yuan, Y. Detection of Acrylamide Content in Traditional Chinese Food by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry Method. Cyta-J. Food 2012, 10, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Hirvonen, T.; Jestoi, M.; Tapanainen, H.; Valsta, L.; Virtanen, S.M.; Sinkko, H.; Kronberg-Kippilä, C.; Kontto, J.; Virtamo, J.; Simell, O.; et al. Dietary acrylamide exposure among Finnish adults and children: The potential effect of reduction measures. Food Addit. Contam. A 2011, 28, 1483–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kim, C.T.; Hwang, E.-S.; Lee, H.J. An improved LC-MS/MS method for the quantitation of acrylamide in processed foods. Food Chem. 2007, 101, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Saleh-Ghadimi, S.; Alizadeh, M.; Esfanjani, A.T.; Hezaveh, S.J.G.; Vayghan, H.J. Assessment of dietary exposure to 5-hydroxymethylfurfural from Traditional Iranian flat breads. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2014, 26, 169–175. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mildner-Szkudlarz, S.; Różańska, M.; Piechowska, P.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Zawirska-Wojtasiak, R. Effects of polyphenols on volatile profile and acrylamide formation in a model wheat bread system. Food Chem. 2019, 297, 125008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Surdyk, N.; Rosén, J.; Andersson, R.; Åman, P. Effects of asparagine, fructose, and baking conditions on acrylamide content in yeast-leavened wheat bread. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 2047–2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, S.; Yu, J.; Xin, Q.; Wang, S.; Copeland, L. Effects of starch damage and yeast fermentation on acrylamide formation in bread. Food Control B 2017, 73, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ames, J.M. The Maillard reaction. In Biochemistry of Food Proteins; Hudson, B.J.F., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 99–153. [Google Scholar]
  59. Perez Locas, C.; Yaylayan, V.A. Isotope labeling studies on the formation of 5- (hydroxymethyl)-2-furaldehyde (HMF) from sucrose by pyrolysis-GC/MS. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 6717–6723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gökmen, V.; Kocadağlı, T.; Göncüoğlu, N.; Mogol, B.A. Model studies on the role of 5-hydroxymethyl-2-furfural in acrylamide formation from asparagine. Food Chem. 2012, 132, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Limacher, A.; Kerler, J.; Davidek, T.; Schmalzried, F.; Blank, I. Formation of furan and methylfuran by Maillard-type reactions in model systems and food. J. Agri. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 3639–3647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Van Lancker, F.; Adams, A.; Owczarek-Fendor, A.; De Meulenaer, B.; De Kimpe, N. Mechanistic Insights into Furan Formation in Maillard Model Systems. J. Agri. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Poinot, P.; Arvisenet, G.; Grua-Priol, J.; Colas, D.; Fillonneau, C.; Le Bail, A.; Prost, C. Influence of formulation and process on the aromatic profile and physical characteristics of bread. J. Cereal Sci. 2008, 48, 686–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Owczarek-Fendor, A.; De Meulenaer, B.; Scholl, G.; Adams, A.; Van Lancker, F.; Yogendrarajah, P.; Uytterhoeven, V.; Eppe, G.; De Pauw, E.; Scippo, M.-L.; et al. Importance of fat oxidation in starch-based emulsions in the generation of the process contaminant furan. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9579–9586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Høie, A.H.; Svendsen, C.; Brunborg, G.; Glatt, H.; Alexander, J.; Meinl, W.; Husøy, T. Genotoxicity of three food processing contaminants in transgenic mice expressing human sulfotransferases 1A1 and 1A2 as assessed by the in vivo alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis assay. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2015, 56, 709–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pastoriza de la Cueva, S.; Álvarez, J.; Végvári, Á.; Montilla-Gómez, J.; Cruz-López, O.; Delgado-Andrade, C.; Rufián-Henares, J.A. Relationship between HMF intake and SMF formation in vivo: An animal and human study. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2017, 61, 1600773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact With Food (AFC) Related to Flavouring Group Evaluation 13: Furfuryl and Furan Derivatives With and Without Additional Side-chain Substituents and Heteroatoms From Chemical Group 14. (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 of 18 July 2000). EFSA J. 2005, 215, 1–73. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/215 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  68. Alizadeh, M.; Barati, M.; Saleh-Ghadimi, S.; Roshanravan, N.; Zeinalian, R.; Jabbari, M. Industrial furan and its biological effects on the body systems. J. Food Biochem. 2018, 42, e12597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Moro, S.; Chipman, J.K.; Wegener, J.W.; Hamberger, C.; Dekant, W.; Mally, A. Furan in heat-treated foods: Formation, exposure, toxicity, and aspects of risk assessment. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2012, 56, 1197–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Peterson, L.A. Reactive metabolites in the biotransformation of molecules containing a furan ring. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2013, 26, 6–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks of chemicals to humans. In Dry Cleaning, Some Chlorinated Solvents and Other Industrial Chemicals; IARC: Lyon, France, 1995; Volume 63. [Google Scholar]
  72. Gill, S.S.; Kavanagh, M.; Cherry, W.; Barker, M.; Weld, M.; Cooke, G.M. A 28-day gavage toxicity study in male Fischer 344 rats with 2-methylfuran. Toxicol. Pathol. 2014, 42, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Helou, C.; Gadonna-Widehem, P.; Robert, N.; Branlard, G.; Thebault, J.; Librere, S.; Jacquot, S.; Mardon, J.; Piquet-Pissaloux, A.; Chapron, S.; et al. The impact of raw materials and baking conditions on Maillard reaction products, thiamine, folate, phytic acid and minerals in white bread. Food Funct. 2016, 7, 2498–2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Leiva, G.E.; Naranjo, G.B.; Malec, L.S. A study of different indicators of Maillard reaction with whey proteins and different carbohydrates under adverse storage conditions. Food Chem. 2017, 215, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thakur, J.S. HMF as a Quality Indicator in Garcinia indica Fruit Juice Concentrate. Curr. Res. Nutr. Food Sci. J. 2018, 6, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhao, Q.; Ou, J.; Huang, C.; Qiu, R.; Wang, Y.; Liu, F.; Zheng, J.; Ou, S. Absorption of 1-dicysteinethioacetal-5-hydroxymehthylfurfural (DCH) in rats, and its effect on oxidative stress and gut microbiota. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 11451–11458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Risks for public health related to the presence of furan and methylfurans in food. EFSA J. 2017, 15, e05005. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5005 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  78. Al-Rashdan, A.; Helaleh, M.I.H.; Nisar, A.; Ibtisam, A.; Al-Ballam, Z. Determination of the Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Toasted Bread Using Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry. Int. J. Anal. Chem. 2010, 2010, 821216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Koszucka, A.; Nowak, A. Thermal processing food-related toxicants: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 59, 3579–3596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, Y.; Wu, Y.; Xu, J.; Wu, A.; Zhao, Z.; Tong, M.; Luan, S. Chemical characterization of particulate organic matter from commercial restaurants: Alkyl PAHs as new tracers for cooking. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 145308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Dost, K.; Deli, C. Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Edible Oils and Barbecued Food by HPLC/UV-Vis Detection. Food Chem. 2012, 133, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rose, M.; Holland, J.; Dowding, A.; Petch, S.R.G.; White, S.; Fernandes, A.; Mortimer, D. Investigation into the Formation of PAHs in Foods Prepared in the Home to Determine the Effects of Frying, Grilling, Barbecuing, Toasting and Roasting. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2015, 78, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kazerouni, N.; Sinha, R.; Hsu, C.; Greenberg, A.; Rothman, N. Analysis of 200 Food Items for Benzo[a]pyrene and Estimation of Its Intake in an Epidemiologic Study. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2001, 39, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Farhadian, A.; Jinap, S.; Abas, F.; Sakar, Z.I. Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Grilled Meat. Food Control 2010, 21, 606–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Food. EFSA J. 2008, 724, 1–114. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.724 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  86. Knecht, A.L.; Goodale, B.C.; Truong, L.; Simonich, M.T.; Swanson, A.J.; Matzke, M.M.; Anderson, K.A.; Water, K.M.; Tanguay, R.L. Comparative developmental toxicity of environmentally relevant oxygenated PAHs. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 2013, 271, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Timme-Laragy, A.R.; Van Tiem, L.A.; Linney, E.A.; Di Giulio, R.T. Antioxidant Responses and NRF2 in Synergistic Developmental Toxicity of PAHs in Zebrafish. Toxicol. Sci. 2009, 109, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dasgupta, S.; Cao, A.; Mauer, B.; Yan, B.; Uno, S.; McElroy, A. Genotoxicity of oxy-PAHs to Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) embryos assessed using the comet assay. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 13867–13876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wang, W.; Jariyasopit, N.; Schrlau, J.; Jia, Y.; Tao, S.; Yu, T.W.; Dashwood, R.H.; Zhang, W.; Wang, X.; Simonich, S.L.M. Concentration and photochemistry of PAHs, NPAHs, and OPAHs and toxicity of PM2. 5 during the Beijing Olympic Games. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6887–6895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Some Traditional Herbal Medicines, Some Mycotoxins, Naphthalene and Styrene; IARC: Lyon, France, 2002; Volume 82. [Google Scholar]
  91. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks of chemicals to humans. In Some Non-Heterocyclic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Some Related Exposures; IARC: Lyon, France, 2010; (Suppl. 7). [Google Scholar]
  92. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks of chemicals to humans. In Chemical Agents and Related Occupations; IARC: Lyon, France, 2012; Volume 100F. [Google Scholar]
  93. The Commission of the European Communities. Commission Recommendation of 4 February 2005 on the Further Investigation into the Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Certain Foods (Notified under Document Number C(2005) 256) (Text with EEA relevance) (2005/108/EC). Off. J. Eur. Union 2005, 48, 69–71. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2005/108/oj (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  94. Chawda, S.; Tarafdar, A.; Sinha, A.; Mishra, B.K. Profiling and Health Risk Assessment of PAHs Content in Tandoori and Tawa Bread from India. Polycycl. Aromat. Comp. 2017, 40, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Orecchio, S.; Papuzza, V. Levels, Fingerprint and Daily Intake of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Bread Baked Using Wood as Fuel. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 164, 876–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Oey, S.B.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Fogliano, V.; van Leeuwen, S.P.J. Mitigation Strategies for the Reduction of 2- and 3-MCPD Esters and Glycidyl Esters in the Vegetable Oil Processing Industry. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Svejkovská, B.; Novotný, O.; Divinová, V.; Réblová, Z.; Doležal, M.; Velíšek, J. Esters of 3-Chloropropane-1,2-Diol in Foodstuffs. Czech J. Food Sci. 2004, 22, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zelinková, Z.; Svejkovská, B.; Velíšek, J.; Doležal, M. Fatty acid esters of 3-chloropropane-1,2-diol in edible oils. Food Addit. Contam. 2007, 23, 1290–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cao, R.; Wang, S.; Li, C.; Liu, W.; Zhou, H.; Yao, Y. Molecular Reaction Mechanism for the Formation of 3-Chloropropanediol Esters in Oils and Fats. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 2700–2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Craft, B.D.; Nagy, K.; Seefelder, W.; Dubois, M.; Destaillats, F. Glycidyl esters in refined palm (Elaeis guineensis) oil and related fractions. Part II: Practical recommendations for effective mitigation. Food Chem. 2012, 132, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Destaillats, F.; Craft, B.D.; Dubois, M.; Nagy, K. Glycidyl esters in refined palm (Elaeis guineensis) oil and related fractions, Part I: Formation mechanism. Food Chem. 2012, 131, 1391–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Some Industrial Chemicals; IARC: Lyon, France, 2000; Volume 77. [Google Scholar]
  103. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on 3-Monochloro-1,2-Propanediol; IARC: Lyon, France, 2013; Volume 101. [Google Scholar]
  104. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Risks for human health related to the presence of 3- and 2-monochloropropanediol (MCPD), and their fatty acid esters, and glycidyl fatty acid esters in food. EFSA J. 2006, 14, e04426. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4426 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  105. Hamlet, C.G.; Sadd, P.A. Chloropropanols and their esters in cereal products. Czech J. Food Sci. 2004, 22, 259–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Juraschek, L.M.; Kappenberg, A.; Amelung, W. Mycotoxins in soil and environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 814, 152425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Ingle, A.P.; Gupta, I.; Jogee, P.; Rai, M. Role of nanotechnology in the detection of mycotoxins: A smart approach. In Nanomycotoxicology, 1st ed.; Rai, M., Abd-Elsalam, K.A., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 11–33. [Google Scholar]
  108. Bennett, J.W. Mycotoxins, mycotoxicoses, mycotoxicology andmycopathologia. Mycopathologia 1987, 100, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Grain, Fungal Diseases and Mycotoxin Reference. Available online: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/FungalDiseaseandMycotoxinReference2017.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  110. Streit, E.; Naehrer, K.; Rodrigues, I.; Schatzmayr, G. Mycotoxin occurrence in feed and feed raw materials worldwide: Long-term analysis with special focus on Europe and Asia. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 2892–2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kovalsky, P.; Kos, G.; Nährer, K.; Schwab, C.; Jenkins, T.; Schatzmayr, G.; Sulyok, M.; Krska, R. Co-occurrence of regulated, masked and emerging mycotoxins and secondary metabolites in finished feed and maize—an extensive survey. Toxins 2016, 8, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Eskola, M.; Kos, G.; Elliott, C.T.; Hajšlová, J.; Mayar, S.; Krska, R. Worldwide contamination of food-crops with mycotoxins: Validity of the widely cited ‘FAO estimate’ of 25%. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 2773–2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Saladino, F.; Quiles, J.M.; Mañes, J.; Fernández-Franzón, M.; Luciano, F.B.; Meca, G. Dietary exposure to mycotoxins through the consumption of commercial bread loaf in Valencia, Spain. LWT 2017, 75, 697–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Degen, G.H. Mycotoxins in food: Occurrence, importance and health risk. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh. Gesundh. 2017, 60, 745–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. De Boevre, M.; Mavungu, J.D.; Landshchoot, S.; Audenaert, K.; Eeckhout, M.; Maene, P. Natural occurrence of mycotoxins and their masked forms in food and feed products. World Mycotoxin J. 2012, 5, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Sarmast, E.; Fallah, A.A.; Jafari, T.; Khaneghah, A.M. Occurrence and fate of mycotoxins in cereals and cereal-based products: A narrative review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses studies. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 39, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gruber-Dorninger, C.; Jenkins, T.; Schatzmayr, G. Global Mycotoxin Occurrence in Feed: A Ten-Year Survey. Toxins 2019, 11, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Zadeike, D.; Vaitkeviciene, R.; Bartkevics, V.; Bogdanova, E.; Bartkiene, E.; Lele, V.; Juodeikiene, G.; Cernauskas, D.; Valatkeviciene, Z. The expedient application of microbial fermentation after whole-wheat milling and fractionation to mitigate mycotoxins in wheat-based products. LWT 2021, 137, 110440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Stanciu, O.; Juan, C.; Berrada, H.; Miere, D.; Loghin, F.; Mañes, J. Study on Trichothecene and Zearalenone Presence in Romanian Wheat Relative to Weather Conditions. Toxins 2019, 11, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Eslamizad, S.; Yazdanpanah, H.; Hadian, Z.; Tsitsimpikou, C.; Goumenou, M.; AliAbadi, M.H.S.; Kamalabadi, M.; Tsatsakis, A. Exposure to multiple mycotoxins in domestic and imported rice commercially traded in Tehran and possible risk to public health. Toxicol. Rep. 2021, 8, 1856–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Onyedum, S.C.; Adefolalu, F.S.; Muhammad, H.L.; Apeh, D.O.; Agada, M.S.; Imienwanrin, M.R.; Makun, H.A. Occurrence of major mycotoxins and their dietary exposure in North-Central Nigeria staples. Sci. Afr. 2020, 7, e00188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Andrade, P.D.; Dias, J.V.; Souza, D.M.; Brito, A.P.; van Donkersgoed, G.; Pizzutti, I.R.; Caldas, E.D. Mycotoxins in cereals and cereal-based products: Incidence and probabilistic dietary risk assessment for the Brazilian population. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 143, 111572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Martins, C.; Torres, D.; Lopes, C.; Correia, D.; Goios, A.; Assunção, R.; Alvito, P.; Vidal, A.; De Boevre, M.; De Saeger, S.; et al. Deoxynivalenol exposure assessment through a modeling approach of food intake and biomonitoring data–A contribution to the risk assessment of an enteropathogenic mycotoxin. Food Res. Int. 2021, 140, 109863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zhang, Y.; Pei, F.; Fang, Y.; Li, P.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, F.; Zou, Y.; Hu, Q. Comparison of concentration and health risks of 9 Fusarium mycotoxins in commercial whole wheat flour and refined wheat flour by multi-IAC-HPLC. Food Chem. 2019, 275, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Dahl, B.; Wilson, W.W. Risk premiums due to Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) in wheat and barley. Agric. Syst. 2018, 162, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Wilson, W.; Dahl, B.; Nganje, W. Economic costs of Fusarium head blight, scab and deoxynivalenol. World Mycotoxin J. 2018, 11, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Leslie, J.F.; Summerell, B.A. The Fusarium Laboratory Manual; Blackwell Publishing: Ames, IA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  128. Bullerman, L.B.; Bianchini, A. Stability of mycotoxins during food processing. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 119, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Ponts, N.; Pinson-Gadais, L.; Verdal-Bonnin, M.N.; Barreau, C.; Richard-Forget, F. Accumulation of deoxynivalenol and its 15-acetylated form is significantly modulated by oxidative stress in liquid cultures of Fusarium graminearum. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006, 258, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. In Some Naturally Occurring Substances: Food Items and Constituents, Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines and Mycotoxins; IARC: Lyon, France, 1993; Volume 56. [Google Scholar]
  131. World Health Organization (WHO); Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Evaluation of Certain Contaminants in Food: Eighty-Third Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; WHO Technical Report Series 1002; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254893 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  132. The Commission of the European Communities. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 Setting Maximum Levels for Certain Contaminants in Foodstuffs (Text with EEA Relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 2006, 49, 558–577. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R1881from=EN (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  133. Chen, Z.; Chen, H.; Li, X.; Yuan, Q.; Su, J.; Yang, L.; Ning, L.; Lei, H. Fumonisin B 1 damages the barrier functions of porcine intestinal epithelial cells in vitro. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol. 2019, 787, 147405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Yu, S.; Jia, B.; Liu, N.; Yu, D.; Zhang, S.; Wu, A. Fumonisin B1 triggers carcinogenesis via HDAC/PI3K/Akt signalling pathway in human esophageal epithelial cells. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Cao, C.; Xian, R.; Lin, F.; Li, X.; Li, X.; Qiang, F.; Li, X. Fumonisin B1 induces hepatotoxicity in mice through the activation of oxidative stress, apoptosis and fibrosis. Chemosphere 2022, 296, 133910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Krupashree, K.; Rachitha, P.; Khanum, F. Apocynin ameliorates fumonisin b1 induced hepatotoxicity via NADPH oxidase inhibition and quantification of sphingosine and sphinganine. Pharmacol. Res. Mod. Chin. Med. 2022, 2, 100036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Awad, W.A.; Zentek, J. The feed contaminant deoxynivalenol affects the intestinal barrier permeability through inhibition of protein synthesis. Arch. Toxicol. 2014, 89, 961–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Faeste, C.K.; Pierre, F.; Ivanova, L.; Sayyari, A.; Massotte, D. Behavioural and metabolomic changes from chronic dietary exposure to low-level deoxynivalenol reveal impact on mouse well-being. Arch. Toxicol. 2019, 93, 2087–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Salahipour, M.H.; Hasanzadeh, S.; Malekinejad, H.; Razi, M.; Farrokhi-Ardebili, F. Deoxynivalenol reduces quality parameters and increases DNA damage in mice spermatozoa. Andrologia 2019, 51, e13238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. World Health Organization (WHO); Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Evaluation of Certain Contaminants in Food: Seventy-Second Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; WHO Technical Report Series 959; WHO: Rome, Italy, 2011; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44514/WHO_TRS_959_eng.pdf?sequence=1isAllowed=y (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  141. World Health Organization (WHO); Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Evaluation of Certain Mycotoxins in Food: Fifty-Sixth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; WHO Technical Report Series 906; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42448/WHO_TRS_906.pdf?sequence=1isAllowed=y (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  142. Ruíz-Arias, M.A.; Bernal-Hernández, Y.Y.; Medina-Díaz, I.M.; González-Arias, C.A.; Barrón-Vivanco, B.S.; Herrera-Moreno, M.; Sordo, J.F.; Rojas-García, A.E. Genotoxic effects of the ochratoxin A (OTA), its main metabolite (OTα) per se and in combination with fumonisin B1 in HepG2 cells and human lymphocytes. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2022, 878, 503482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Schwerdt, G.; Kopf, M.; Gekle, M. The Impact of the Nephrotoxin Ochratoxin A on Human Renal Cells Studied by a Novel Co-Culture Model Is Influenced by the Presence of Fibroblasts. Toxins 2021, 13, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Ferguson, M.A.; Vaidya, V.S.; Bonventre, J.V. Biomarkers of nephrotoxic acute kidney injury. Toxicology 2008, 245, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Scientific Opinion on the risk assessment of ochratoxin A in food. EFSA J. 2020, 18, 6113. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6113 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  146. Kowalska, K.; Habrowska-Górczyńska, D.; Urbanek, K.; Domińska, K.; Piastowska-Ciesielska, A. Estrogen Receptor α Is Crucial in Zearalenone-Induced Invasion and Migration of Prostate Cancer Cells. Toxins 2018, 10, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Scientific Opinion on the risks for public health related to the presence of zearalenone in food. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2197. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2197 (accessed on 27 April 2022). [CrossRef]
  148. The European Commission. Commission Recommendation of 27 March 2013 on the presence of T-2 and HT-2 toxin in cereals and cereal products (Text with EEA relevance) (2013/165/EU). Off. J. Eur. Union 2013, 56, 12–15. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013H0165from=EN (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  149. Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS); Italian National Agency for New Technologies; Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA); French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES). In vivo toxicity and genotoxicity of beauvericin and enniatins. Combined approach to study in vivo toxicity and genotoxicity of mycotoxins beauvericin (BEA) and enniatin B (ENNB). EFSA Supporting Publ. 2018, 15, 1406E. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1406 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  150. Ali, H.; Khan, E. What are heavy metals? Long-standing controversy over the scientific use of the term “heavy metals”-proposal of a comprehensive definition. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2018, 100, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Barakat, M.A. New Trends in Removing Heavy Metals from Industrial Wastewater. Arab. J. Chem. 2011, 4, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Fu, J.; Zhou, Q.; Liu, J.; Liu, W.; Wang, T.; Zhang, Q.; Jiang, G. High Levels of Heavy Metals in Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) from a Typical E-Waste Recycling Area in Southeast China and Its Potential Risk to Human Health. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 1269–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Walker, C.H.; Sibly, R.M.; Hopkin, S.P.; Peakall, D.B. Principles of Ecotoxicology, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  154. Naghipour, D.; Amouei, A.; Nazmara, S.A. A Comparative Evaluation of Heavy Metals in the Different Breads in Iran: A Case Study of Rasht City. Health Scope 2014, 3, e18175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Rai, P.K.; Lee, S.S.; Zhang, M.; Tsang, Y.F.; Kim, K.-H. Heavy metals in food crops: Health risks, fate, mechanisms, and management. Environ. Int. 2019, 125, 365–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Basaran, B. Comparison of heavy metal levels and health risk assessment of different bread types marketed in Turkey. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 108, 104443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Wieczorek-Dąbrowska, M.; Tomza-Marciniak, A.; Pilarczyk, B.; Balicka-Ramisz, A. Roe and red deer as bioindicators of heavy metals contamination in north-western Poland. Chem. Ecol. 2013, 29, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Guo, G.; Lei, M.; Chen, T.; Yang, J. Evaluation of different amendments and foliar fertilizer for immobilization of heavy metals in contaminated soils. J. Soil. Sediment. 2018, 18, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Zioła-Frankowska, A.; Karaś, K.; Mikołajczak, K.; Kurzyca, I.; Kowalski, A.; Frankowski, M. Identification of metal(loid)s compounds in fresh and pre-baked bread with evaluation of risk health assessment. J. Cereal Sci. 2021, 97, 103164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Woldetsadik, D.; Llorent-Martínez, E.J.; Ortega-Barrales, P.; Haile, A.; Hailu, H.; Madani, N.; Warner, N.S.; Fleming, D.E.B. Contents of Metal(loid)s in a Traditional Ethiopian Flat Bread (Injera), Dietary Intake, and Health Risk Assessment in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2020, 198, 732–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Ashot, D.P.; Sergey, A.H.; Radik, M.B.; Arthur, S.S.; Mantovani, A. Risk assessment of dietary exposure to potentially toxic trace elements in emerging countries: A pilot study on intake via flour-based products in Yerevan, Armenia. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 146, 111768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Nawaz, H.; Anwar-ul-Haq, M.; Akhtar, J.; Arfan, M. Cadmium, chromium, nickel, and nitrate accumulation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) using wastewater irrigation and health risks assessment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Wang, L.; Yin, X.; Gao, S.; Jiang, T.; Ma, C. In vitro oral bioaccessibility investigation and human health risk assessment of heavy metals in wheat grains grown near the mines in North China. Chemosphere 2020, 252, 126522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Busari, M.B.; Hamzah, R.U.; Muhammad, H.L.; Yusuf, R.S.; Adeniyi, J.O.; Ibrahim, Y.O.; Adakole, J.O. Phenolics-rich extracts of Nauclea latifolia fruit ameliorates lead acetate-induced haematology and lung tissues toxicity in male Wistar rats. Sci. Afr. 2021, 11, e00686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Melak, D.; Ferreccio, C.; Kalman, D.; Parra, R.; Acevedo, J.; Pérez, L.; Cortes, S.; Smith, H.A.; Yuan, Y.; Liaw, J.; et al. Arsenic methylation and lung and bladder cancer in a case-control study in northern Chile. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2014, 274, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Ferreira, G.; Santander, A.; Chavarría, L.; Cardozo, R.; Savio, F.; Sobrevia, L.; Nicolson, G.L. Functional consequences of lead and mercury exposomes in the heart. Mol. Asp. Med. 2021, 101048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Tan, Q.; Ma, J.; Zhou, M.; Wang, D.; Wang, B.; Nie, X.; Mu, G.; Zhang, X.; Chen, W. Heavy metals exposure, lipid peroxidation and heart rate variability alteration: Association and mediation analyses in urban adults. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 205, 111149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Melila, M.; Rajaram, R.; Ganeshkumar, A.; Kpemissi, M.; Pakoussi, T.; Agbere, S.; Lazar, I.M.; Lazar, G.; Amouzou, K.; Paray, B.A.; et al. Assessment of renal and hepatic dysfunction by co-exposure to toxic metals (Cd, Pb) and fluoride in people living nearby an industrial zone. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2022, 69, 126890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Liu, J.; Ren, L.; Wei, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, Y.; Li, X.; Jing, L.; Duan, J.; Zhou, X.; Sun, Z. Fine particle matter disrupts the blood-testis barrier by activating TGF-beta3/p38 MAPK pathway and decreasing testosterone secretion in rat. Environ. Toxicol. 2018, 33, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Usman, A.; Kawu, M.U.; Shittu, M.; Saleh, A.; Jolayemi, K.O.; Ibrahim, N.B.; Oyetunde, J.S.; Okoronkwo, M.O. Comparative effects of methanol leaf extract of Moringa oleifera and ascorbic acid on haematological and histopathological changes induced by subchronic lead toxicity in male wistar rats. Pharmacol. Res. Mod. Chin. Med. 2022, 2, 100031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ATSDR’s Substance Priority List. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/spl/index.html#2019spl (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  172. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans. List of Classifications. Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs; Volume 1–129. Available online: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  173. World Health Organization (WHO). 10 Chemicals of Public Health Concern; World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/photo-story/photo-story-detail/10-chemicals-of-public-health-concern (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  174. The European Commission. Commission Recommendation of 4 April 2014 on the Reduction of the Presence of Cadmium in Foodstuffs (Text with EEA Relevance) (2014/193/EU). Off. J. Eur. Union 2014, 57, 80–81. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014H0193from=EN (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  175. The European Commission. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2015/1381 of 10 August 2015 on the Monitoring of Arsenic in Food. Off. J. Eur. Union 2015, 58, 9–10. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015H1381from=EN (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  176. World Health Organization (WHO). Exposure of Children to Chemical Hazards in Food; Fact Sheet 4.4. December 2009. Code: RPG4_Food_Ex1; World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2009; Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/97042/4.4.-Exposure-of-children-to-chemical-hazards-in-food-EDITED_layouted.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  177. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Scientific opinion on lead in food. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1570. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1570 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  178. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Cadmium dietary exposure in the European population. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2551. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2551 (accessed on 27 April 2022). [CrossRef]
  179. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Scientific Opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methyl mercury in food. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2985. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2985 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  180. Farooq, M.; Ullah, A.; Usman, M.; Siddique, K.H.M. Application of zinc and biochar help to mitigate cadmium stress in bread wheat raised from seeds with high intrinsic zinc. Chemosphere 2020, 260, 127652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Rebekić, A.; Lončarić, Z. Genotypic difference in cadmium effect on agronomic traits and grain zinc and iron concentration in winter wheat. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2016, 28, 772–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Groppa, M.D.; Rosales, E.P.; Iannone, M.F.; Benavides, M.P. Nitric oxide, polyamines and Cd-induced phytotoxicity in wheat roots. Phytochemistry 2008, 69, 2609–2615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Khazaal, S.; El Darra, N.; Kobeissi, A.; Jammoul, R.; Jammoul, A. Risk assessment of pesticide residues from foods of plant origin in Lebanon. Food Chem. 2022, 374, 131676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Weber, J.B. Properties and Behavior of Pesticides in Soil. In Mechanisms of Pesticide Movement into Ground Water, 1st ed.; Honeycutt, R.C., Schabacker, D.J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 15–42. [Google Scholar]
  185. Dar, M.A.; Kaushik, G.; Chiu, J.F.V. Pollution status and biodegradation of organophosphate pesticides in the environment. In Abatement of Environmental Pollutants, 1st ed.; Singh, P., Kumar, A., Borthakur, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 2, pp. 25–66. [Google Scholar]
  186. Fatunsin, O.T.; Oyeyiola, A.O.; Moshood, M.O.; Akanbi, L.M.; Fadahunsi, D.E. Dietary Risk Assessment of Organophosphate and Carbamate Pesticide Residues in Commonly Eaten Food Crops. Sci. Afr. 2020, 8, e00442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P.; Maipas, S.; Kotampasi, C.; Stamatis, P.; Hens, L. Chemical Pesticides and Human Health: The Urgent Need for a New Concept in Agriculture. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Choudhury, B.H.; Das, B.K.; Baruah, A.A.L.H. Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Market Basket Vegetables of Jorhat District of Assam, India. Int. J. Adv. Res. Technol. 2013, 2, 250–261. [Google Scholar]
  189. Witczak, A.; Abdel-Gawad, H. Assessment of health risk from organochlorine pesticides residues in high-fat spreadable foods produced in Poland. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2014, 49, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Poirier, L.; Brun, L.; Jacquet, P.; Lepolard, C.; Armstrong, N.; Torre, C.; Daudé, D.; Ghigo, E.; Chabrière, E. Enzymatic degradation of organophosphorus insecticides decreases toxicity in planarians and enhances survival. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Reiler, E.; Jørs, E.; Bælum, J.; Huici, O.; Alvarez Caero, M.M.; Cedergreen, N. The influence of tomato processing on residues of organochlorine and organophosphate insecticides and their associated dietary risk. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 527–528, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Blaznik, U.; Yngve, A.; Eržen, I.; Ribič, C.H. Consumption of fruits and vegetables and probabilistic assessment of the cumulative acute exposure to organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides of schoolchildren in Slovenia. Public Health Nutr. 2016, 19, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Okediran, O.; Dauda, M.S.; Kolawole, S.A. Assessment of Pesticide Residues in Fresh Vegetables from Three Major Markets in Lagos Using QuEChERS Method and GC-MS. Int. Res. J. Pure Appl. Chem. 2019, 19, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Kortenkamp, A. Ten years of mixing cocktails: A review of combination effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115 (Suppl. 1), 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Coremen, M.; Turkyilmaz, I.B.; Us, H.; Us, A.S.; Celik, S.; Ozel, A.; Bulan, O.K.; Yanardag, R. Lupeol inhibits pesticides induced hepatotoxicity via reducing oxidative stress and inflammatory markers in the rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2022, 164, 113068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Schmidt, J.T.; Rushin, A.; Boyda, J.; Souders, C.L.; Martyniuk, C.J. Dieldrin-induced neurotoxicity involves impaired mitochondrial bioenergetics and an endoplasmic reticulum stress response in rat dopaminergic cells. Neurotoxicology 2017, 63, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Wee, S.Y.; Aris, A.Z.; Yusoff, F.M.; Praveena, S.M. Occurrence and risk assessment of multiclass endocrine disrupting compounds in an urban tropical river and a proposed risk management and monitoring framework. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Ahmad, A.; Ahmad, M. Deciphering the toxic effects of organochlorine pesticide, dicofol on human RBCs and lymphocytes. Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 2017, 143, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Parada, H.; Sun, X.; Tse, C.K.; Engel, L.S.; Olshan, A.F.; Troester, M.A. Plasma levels of dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (DDE) and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and survival following breast cancer in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. Environ. Int. 2019, 125, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Yin, S.; Wei, J.; Wei, Y.; Jin, L.; Wang, L.; Zhang, X.; Jia, X.; Ren, A. Organochlorine pesticides exposure may disturb homocysteine metabolism in pregnant women. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 708, 135146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Palaniswamy, S.; Abass, K.; Rysä, J.; Odland, J.Ø.; Grimalt, J.O.; Rautio, A.; Järvelin, M.-R. Non-occupational exposure to pesticides and health markers in general population in Northern Finland: Differences between sexes. Environ. Int. 2021, 156, 106766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Tsuchiyama, T.; Ito, Y.; Oya, N.; Nomasa, K.; Sato, H.; Minato, K.; Kitamori, K.; Oshima, S.; Minematsu, A.; Niwa, K.; et al. Quantitative analysis of organophosphate pesticides and dialkylphosphates in duplicate diet samples to identify potential sources of measured urinary dialkylphosphates in Japanese women. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 298, 118799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. In Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides; IARC: Lyon, France, 2015; Volume 112. [Google Scholar]
  204. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (Text with EEA relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 2005, 48, 1–16. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005R0396from=PL (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  205. The Council of the European Communities. Council Directive of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals (86/362/EEC). Off. J. Eur. Union 1986, 29, 37–42. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31986L0362from=EN (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  206. Tao, Y.; Jia, C.; Jing, J.; Zhang, J.; Yu, P.; He, M.; Wu, J.; Chen, L.; Zhao, E. Occurrence and dietary risk assessment of 37 pesticides in wheat fields in the suburbs of Beijing, China. Food Chem. 2021, 350, 129245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Galani, Y.J.H.; Houbraken, M.; Wumbei, A.; Djeugap, J.F.; Fotio, D.; Gong, Y.Y.; Spanoghe, P. Monitoring and dietary risk assessment of 81 pesticide residues in 11 local agricultural products from the 3 largest cities of Cameroon. Food Control 2020, 118, 107416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Ingenbleek, L.; Hu, R.; Pereira, L.L.; Paineau, A.; Colet, I.; Koné, A.Z.; Adegboye, A.; Hossou, S.E.; Dembélé, Y.; Oyedele, A.D.; et al. Sub-Saharan Africa total diet study in Benin, Cameroon, Mali and Nigeria: Pesticides occurrence in foods. Food Chem. X 2019, 2, 100034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Chun, O.K.; Kang, H.G. Estimation of risks of pesticide exposure, by food intake, to Koreans. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2003, 41, 1063–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Crépet, A.; Luong, T.M.; Baines, J.; Boon, P.E.; Ennis, J.; Kennedy, M.; Massarelli, I.; Miller, D.; Nako, S.; Reuss, R.; et al. An international probabilistic risk assessment of acute dietary exposure to pesticide residues in relation to codex maximum residue limits for pesticides in food. Food Control 2021, 121, 107563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Torović, L.; Vuković, G.; Dimitrov, N. Pesticide residues in fruit juice in Serbia: Occurrence and health risk estimates. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 99, 103889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Ramírez-Jiménez, A.; García-Villanova, B.; Guerra-Hernández, E. Hydroxymethylfurfural and methylfurfural content of selected bakery products. Food Res. Int. 2000, 33, 833–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Gülcan, Ü.; Uslu, C.C.; Mutlu, C.; Arslan-Tontul, S.; Erbaş, M. Impact of inert and inhibitor baking atmosphere on HMF and acrylamide formation in bread. Food Chem. 2020, 332, 127434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Ciecierska, M.; Obiedziński, M.W. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the bakery chain. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Lawrence, J.F.; Das, B.S. Determination of Nanogram/Kilogram Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Foods by HPLC with Fluorescence Detection. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 1986, 24, 113–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Chung, S.W.C.; Kwong, K.P.; Yau, J.C.W.; Wong, A.M.C.; Xiao, Y. Chloropropanols levels in foodstuffs marketed in Hong Kong. J. Food Compost. Anal. 2008, 21, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Vaclavikova, M.; Malachova, A.; Veprikova, Z.; Dzuman, Z.; Zachariasova, M.; Hajslova, J. “Emerging” mycotoxins in cereals processing chains: Changes of enniatins during beer and bread making. Food Chem. 2013, 136, 750–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Ji, X.; Xiao, Y.; Lyu, W.; Li, M.; Wang, W.; Tang, B.; Wang, X.; Yang, H. Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Combined Exposure to Deoxynivalenol and Emerging Alternaria Toxins in Cereal-Based Food Products for Infants and Young Children in China. Toxins 2022, 14, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Zhao, J.; Cheng, T.; Xu, W.; Han, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, C.; Fanning, S.; Lia, F. Natural co-occurrence of multi-mycotoxins in unprocessed wheat grains from China. Food Control 2021, 130, 108321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Nachi, I.; Fhoula, I.; Smida, I.; Taher, I.B.; Chouaibi, M.; Jaunbergs, J.; Bartkevics, V.; Hassouna, M. Assessment of lactic acid bacteria application for the reduction of acrylamide formation in bread. LWT 2018, 92, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Albedwawi, A.S.; Al Sakkaf, R.; Osaili, T.M.; Yusuf, A.; Olaimat, A.; Liu, S.-Q.; Palmisano, G.; Shah, N.P.; Ayyash, M.M. Investigating acrylamide mitigation by potential probiotics Bifidobacterium breve and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum: Optimization, in vitro gastrointestinal conditions, and mechanism. LWT 2022, 163, 113553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Taheur, F.B.; Mansour, C.; Kouidhi, B.; Chaieb, K. Use of lactic acid bacteria for the inhibition of Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus carbonarius growth and mycotoxin production. Toxicon 2019, 166, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  223. Li, X.; Ming, Q.; Cai, R.; Yue, T.; Yuan, Y.; Gao, Z.; Wang, Z. Biosorption of Cd2+ and Pb2+ from apple juice by the magnetic nanoparticles functionalized lactic acid bacteria cells. Food Control 2020, 109, 106916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Yuan, S.; Li, C.; Yu, H.; Xie, Y.; Guo, Y.; Yao, W. Screening of lactic acid bacteria for degrading organophosphorus pesticides and their potential protective effects against pesticide toxicity. LWT 2021, 147, 111672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Classification of contaminants in the food chain on the basis of the European Food Safety Authority [6].
Figure 1. Classification of contaminants in the food chain on the basis of the European Food Safety Authority [6].
Molecules 27 05406 g001
Figure 2. Maillard reaction mechanism modified on the basis of Singla et al. [17].
Figure 2. Maillard reaction mechanism modified on the basis of Singla et al. [17].
Molecules 27 05406 g002
Figure 3. Humans’ exposure to food processing contaminants induces cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, mutagenicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and hepatoxicity.
Figure 3. Humans’ exposure to food processing contaminants induces cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, mutagenicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and hepatoxicity.
Molecules 27 05406 g003
Figure 4. Humans’ exposure to mycotoxins through cereal-derived products can lead to cancer, DNA damage, and a lack of immune response.
Figure 4. Humans’ exposure to mycotoxins through cereal-derived products can lead to cancer, DNA damage, and a lack of immune response.
Molecules 27 05406 g004
Figure 5. Natural and anthropogenic sources of heavy metal contamination in food crops and mechanisms of their uptake by plants, with the resulting adverse impacts on humans.
Figure 5. Natural and anthropogenic sources of heavy metal contamination in food crops and mechanisms of their uptake by plants, with the resulting adverse impacts on humans.
Molecules 27 05406 g005
Figure 6. Positive and negative sides of pesticide use in agriculture.
Figure 6. Positive and negative sides of pesticide use in agriculture.
Molecules 27 05406 g006
Table 1. Food processing contaminants contribute to various bread-related products.
Table 1. Food processing contaminants contribute to various bread-related products.
Food Processing ContaminantSampleContent [μg/kg]Reference
MeanMin-Max
AAMultigrain bread7979[22]
White bread8787
Whole wheat bread7777
Wholemeal bread8484
Rye bread8383
Toasted wheat bread2210–34[38]
Wheat bread21<20–30[26]
Rye bread31<20–42
Cornbread27<20–34
Mixed bread25<20–39
Bread5731–90[23]
Bread rolls5242–67
Friselle358306–454
Wholemeal bread6144–88
Wholemeal friselle384328–450
Toast bread13445–246[20]
Non-wheat bread434–163[39]
Wheat bread276–65
5-HMFMultigrain bread16,00016,000[22]
Wholemeal bread23,00023,000
Whole wheat bread10,00010,000
Rye bread17,00017,000
White bread37,00037,000
2-PentylfuranBread crust270258–282[40]
Chinese sourdough steamed bread902180–1625[41]
FurfuralBread crust216183–249[40]
NaphthaleneChinese sourdough steamed bread6521–109[41]
PAHsToasted bread1.50–3[42]
3-MCPDWhite bread55[43]
Bread120120[44]
3-MCPDEWhite bread10–2[43]
Bread and bread rolls2923–26[45]
2-MCPDWhite bread<10<10[43]
Bread3030[44]
2-MCPDEWhite bread11–2[43]
Bread and bread rolls1410–20[45]
GlycidolBread650650[44]
GEWhite bread33[43]
Bread and bread rolls88[45]
Table 2. Dietary exposure to food processing contaminants in bread products in various countries.
Table 2. Dietary exposure to food processing contaminants in bread products in various countries.
Food Processing ContaminantCountrySampleAverage Dietary ExposureReference
AATurkeyMultigrain bread0.22 μg/kg BW/day[22]
SpainWhite bread0.31 μg/day[43]
ChileBread0.22 μg/kg BW/day[46]
Romania14 μg/kg[47]
CroatiaWheat bread0.16 μg/kg BW/day[26]
ItalyBread100 μg/kg[48]
SloveniaToast bread0.21 μg/kg BW/day[20]
PolandWheat bread0.31 μg/kg BW/day[39]
PortugalBread787 μg/kg[49]
LatviaWheat bread0.89 μg/person/day[50]
ChinaBread35 μg/kg[51]
FinlandRye bread51 μg/kg[52]
KoreaBread33 μg/kg[53]
HMFTurkeyMultigrain bread87,000 μg/kg BW/day[22]
5-HMFIranFlat bread12,000 μg/kg BW/day[54]
PAHsRomaniaToasted bread0.005 μg/kg BW/day[42]
3-MCPDSpainWhite bread0.30 μg/day[43]
2-MCPD0.31 μg/day
3-MCPDEs0.04 μg/day
2-MCPDEs0.06 μg/day
GE0.19 μg/day
Table 3. Up-to-date research on mycotoxins’ presence in different wheat-based products.
Table 3. Up-to-date research on mycotoxins’ presence in different wheat-based products.
MycotoxinSampleContent [μg/kg]Reference
MeanMin-Max
AFB1Wheat11[117]
White bread5.64.2–7.1[113]
Whole wheat bread6.16.1
Multigrain, oatmeal, corn, kamut, rye, lactose and gluten-free5.25.2
AFB2White bread3.63.1–4.2
Whole wheat bread2.20.5–3.2
Crustless white bread4.11.0–5.3
Crustless whole wheat bread1.80.8–3.5
AFG1White bread2.92.9
Multigrain, oatmeal, corn, kamut, rye, lactose and gluten-free2.52.5
Enniatin A (ENA)Wheat wholemeal grains15.73.0–28.4[118]
Enniatin A1 (ENA1)Whole wheat bread2.42.2–2.6[113]
Multigrain, oatmeal, corn, kamut, rye, lactose and gluten-free2.62.6
Enniatin B (ENB)Wheat wholemeal grains408.730.1–787.3[118]
White bread9.82.0–18.7[113]
Whole wheat bread16.51.3–41.1
Multigrain, oatmeal, corn, kamut, rye, lactose and gluten-free16.90.4–54.0
Crustless white bread14.81.4–8.7
Crustless whole wheat bread10.61.0–31.0
Enniatin B1 (ENB1)Wheat wholemeal grains130.34.8–255.8[118]
White bread2.90.2–6.0[113]
Whole wheat bread6.51.5–14.8
Multigrain, oatmeal, corn, kamut, rye, lactose and gluten-free6.30.2–14.0
Crustless white bread4.60.4–13.0
Crustless whole wheat bread5.12.4–13.0
DONBread41.039.4–42.6[3]
Wheat369369[117]
44.31.1–955[119]
15-ADONWheat wholemeal grains33.610.9–55.8[118]
Bread5.63.8–7.3[3]
Wheat18.68.9–30[119]
3-ADONBread8.46.9–9.9[3]
Wheat7.52.7–12[119]
FUMs117117[117]
OTABread2.72.5–2.9[3]
Wheat33[117]
T-2Bread4.63.3–5.4[3]
Wheat2525[117]
HT-2Bread19.311.5–27.1[3]
Wheat51.724.7–98.5[119]
NIVBread50.817.5–84.0[3]
Wheat55.940.0–64.3[119]
ZEABread11.29.6–12.9[3]
Wheat3434[117]
90.711.7–300[119]
White bread56.836–80.0[113]
Whole wheat bread48.829.0–100.0
Multigrain, oatmeal, corn, kamut, rye, lactose and gluten-free178.627.0–905.0
Crustless white bread96.840.0–214.0
Crustless whole wheat bread67.030.0–135.0
Table 4. Risk assessments of mycotoxin distribution in grain products depending on the country.
Table 4. Risk assessments of mycotoxin distribution in grain products depending on the country.
MycotoxinCountrySampleAverage Dietary ExposureReference
AFB1IranRice10 ng/kg BW/day[120]
AFT16 ng/kg BW/day
AFsNigeriaSorghum0.08 mg/kg BW/day[121]
AFB1SpainWhite bread1.06 ng/kg BW/day[113]
AFB2
AFG1
DONIranRice242.71 ng/kg BW/day[120]
BrazilWheat flour0.05 μg/kg BW/day[122]
Portugal 0.24 µg/kg BW/day[123]
ChinaWhole wheat0.65 μg/kg BW/day[124]
3-ADON0.02 μg/kg BW/day
15-ADON0.008 μg/kg BW/day
ENA1SpainWhite bread1.06 ng/kg BW/day[113]
ENB
ENB1
FB1IranRice118 ng/kg BW/day[120]
FUMsNigeriaSorghum33.58 mg/kg BW/day[121]
FB1BrazilWheat flour0.07 μg/kg BW/day[122]
FB2
FB3
OTAIranRice0.7 ng/kg BW/day[120]
NigeriaSorghum13.22 μg/kg BW/day[121]
BrazilWheat flour0.01 μg/kg BW/day[122]
ChinaWhole wheat flour0.003 μg/kg BW/day[124]
SpainWhite bread2.60 ng/kg BW/day[113]
Table 5. Current toxic metal inputs among various types of bread products.
Table 5. Current toxic metal inputs among various types of bread products.
Toxic MetalSampleContent [μg/kg]Reference
MeanMin-Max
AlMultigrain bread96707110–12,500[156]
Wholemeal bread10,9007660–16,800
Whole wheat bread77306140–12,10
Rye bread18,1007210–123,000
White bread77205600–13,500
Various types of bread samples36202060–6560[159]
Homemade bread296,500249,000–344,000[158]
AsMultigrain bread9.74.8–31.6[156]
Wholemeal bread15.311.4–25.7
Whole wheat bread17.37.9–48.6
Rye bread21.613–28.3
White bread16.47.8–56.8
Various types of bread samples5.12.9–16.2[159]
Homemade bread67.554–81[160]
Boron (B)Various types of bread samples276090–6850[159]
Calcium (C)a440,000310,000–1,920,000
CdMultigrain bread15.913.4–49.5[156]
Wholemeal bread17.011.4–20.6
Whole wheat bread12.63.3–19.3
Rye bread11.84–16.7
White bread11.73. 9–17.8
Various types of bread samples35.912.7–53.8[159]
White bread5.85.8[161]
CoMultigrain bread20.9<0.06–69.1[156]
Wholemeal bread21.67.7–30
Whole wheat bread2.8<0.06–47.6
Rye bread6.5<0.06–25
White bread1.6<0.06–22.3
CrMultigrain bread72.438.5–535
Wholemeal bread65.245.1–126
Whole wheat bread47.337.2–70.0
Rye bread89.175.2–280
White bread5021.5–174
Various types of bread samples62.936.8–266.1[159]
Homemade bread425370–510[160]
CuMultigrain bread40402220–6640[156]
Wholemeal bread39003300–4210
Whole wheat bread35302910–4920
Rye bread30602710–3890
White bread28902640–4590
Various types of bread samples1660930–3850[159]
White bread0.0020.002[161]
FeVarious types of bread samples15,1307420–39,200[159]
HgMultigrain bread0.29<0.26–0.61[156]
Wholemeal bread0.280.16–0.94
Whole wheat bread<0.26<0.26–0.38
Rye bread0.08<0.26–0.69
White bread<0.26<0.26–0.71
Various types of bread samples2.630.93–8.63[159]
White bread8.68.6[161]
Potassium (K)Various types of bread samples3,310,0001,840,000–4,750,000[159]
Mg50,000,000240,000–1,420,000
MnMultigrain bread28,9008850–42,000[156]
Wholemeal bread25,90020,700–32,800
Whole wheat bread23,90016,700–43,700
Rye bread17,70016,400–24,300
White bread15,50011,600–43,100
Various types of bread samples72802800–15,830[159]
Molybdeum (Mo)White bread0.030.03[161]
Sodium (Na)Various types of bread samples6,780,0005,940,000–8,770,000[159]
NiMultigrain bread59789.8–2720[156]
Wholemeal bread281249–427
Whole wheat bread269203–498
Rye bread339198–699
White bread228141–642
Various types of bread samples12010–410[159]
White bread0.020.02[161]
Homemade bread14151330–1500[160]
PbMultigrain bread22.64.6–83.0[156]
Wholemeal bread11.21. 5–68.4
Whole wheat bread11.2<0.1–149
Rye bread46.220–121
White bread27.9<0.14–97.6
Various types of bread samples38.529.5–98.6[159]
White bread0.10.1[161]
Homemade bread160140–180[160]
Selenium (Se)Various types of bread samples15.14.8–53.1[159]
Zn88905940–15,120
Table 6. Dietary intake of toxic metals in wheat and wheat-based products in various countries.
Table 6. Dietary intake of toxic metals in wheat and wheat-based products in various countries.
Toxic MetalCountrySampleAverage Dietary ExposureReference
AlTurkeyMultigrain bread25.8 μg/kg BW/day[156]
PolandVarious types of bread samples9.84 μg/kg BW/day[159]
AsTurkeyMultigrain bread0.06 μg/kg BW/day[156]
PolandVarious types of bread samples0.148 μg/kg BW/day[159]
CdTurkeyMultigrain bread0.03 μg/kg BW/day[156]
PakistanWastewater irrigated wheat1.04 μg/kg/day[162]
PolandVarious types of bread samples0.081 μg/kg BW/day[159]
ChinaWheat grain0.45 μg/kg BW/day[163]
CoTurkeyMultigrain bread0.3 μg/kg BW/day[156]
CrTurkey0.19 μg/kg BW/day
PakistanWastewater irrigated wheat1.17 μg/kg/day[162]
PolandVarious types of bread samples0.399 μg/kg BW/day[159]
CuTurkeyMultigrain bread8.39 μg/kg BW/day[156]
ChinaWheat grain11.52 μg/kg BW/day[163]
HgTurkeyMultigrain bread<0.01 μg/kg BW/day[156]
PolandVarious types of bread samples0.013 μg/kg BW/day[159]
MnTurkeyMultigrain bread53.4 μg/kg BW/day[156]
NiTurkey0.74 μg/kg BW/day
PakistanWastewater irrigated wheat0.96 μg/kg/day[162]
PolandVarious types of bread samples0.615 μg/kg BW/day[159]
PbTurkeyMultigrain bread0.09 μg/kg BW/day[156]
PolandVarious types of bread samples0.024 μg/kg BW/day[159]
ChinaWheat grain0.13 μg/kg BW/day[163]
Zn60.45 μg/kg BW/day
Table 7. Newest pesticides’ ubiquity in wheat-based products.
Table 7. Newest pesticides’ ubiquity in wheat-based products.
PesticideSampleContentReference
MeanMin-Max
3-hydroxylcarbofuranWheat<0.30 ng/g<0.30 ng/g[186]
BifenthrinWhole wheat flour7.9 μg/kg<1.0–76.1 μg/kg[206]
Carbaryl (sevin)Wheat<0.30 ng/g<0.30 ng/g[186]
Agricultural products0.0189 mg/kg0.0064–0.0471 mg/kg[207]
CarbendazimWhole wheat flour212.8 μg/kg<1.0–4279.7 μg/kg[206]
CarbofuranWheat<0.25 ng/g<0.25 ng/g[186]
Agricultural products0.0966 mg/kg0.0017–0.3562 mg/kg[207]
CyhalothrinWhole wheat flour5.8 μg/kg<3.0–48.3 μg/kg[206]
Dichlorvos<0.1 μg/kg<0.1–3.1 μg/kg
Wheat<0.26 ng/g<0.26 ng/g[186]
Bread1.2 µg/kg1.1–1.3 µg/kg[208]
DisulfotonWheat<0.20 µg/kg<0.20 µg/kg
Dursban (chlorpyrifos)Agricultural products0.0016 mg/kg0.0016 mg/kg[207]
Wheat<0.50 µg/kg<0.50 µg/kg[208]
Guthion (azinphos-methyl)4.0 µg/kg4.0 µg/kg
Lambda cyhalothrinBread0.15 µg/kg0.0–0.3 µg/kg
MalathionAgricultural products0.0285 mg/kg0.0027–0.0739 mg/kg[207]
MethiocarbWheat<0.30 ng/g<0.30 ng/g[188]
Agricultural products0.0068 mg/kg0.0064–0.007 mg/kg[207]
Methyl parathionWheat<0.20 ng/g<0.20 ng/g[186]
Mocap (ethoprophos)<0.16 ng/g<0.16 ng/g
Agricultural products0.0051 mg/kg0.0009–0.0127 mg/kg[207]
NicosulfuronWhole wheat flour1.9 μg/kg<1.0–19.0 μg/kg[206]
Parathion<5.0 μg/kg<5.0 μg/kg
Propiconazole1.1 μg/kg<1.0–16.8 μg/kg
PropoxurWheat<0.24 ng/g<0.24 ng/g[186]
Agricultural products0.022 mg/kg0.0056–0.0523 mg/kg[207]
TebuconazoleWhole wheat flour4.4 μg/kg<1.0–45.4 μg/kg[206]
Agricultural products0.0314 mg/kg0.0032–0.0979 mg/kg[207]
Tokuthion (prothiofos)Wheat<0.15 ng/g<0.15 ng/g[186]
Table 8. Human exposure to pesticides in grains depending on the country.
Table 8. Human exposure to pesticides in grains depending on the country.
PesticideCountry
/Continent
SampleAverage
Dietary Exposure
Reference
Carbaryl (sevin)NigeriaCereal2.05 ng/kg/day[186]
KoreaAgricultural products1114.81 µg/person/day[209]
CarbofuranBrazilFruits, vegetables, grains and cereals0.10 µg/kg[210]
Canada0.08 µg/kg
Czech Republic0.08 µg/kg
Italy0.01 µg/kg
USA0.08 µg/kg
SerbiaFruit juice76.7 mg/kg BW[211]
NigeriaCereal3.41 ng/kg/day[186]
KoreaAgricultural products185.9 µg/person/day[209]
DichlorvosAustraliaFruits, vegetables, grains and cereals0.01 µg/kg[210]
Brazil0.2 µg/kg
Canada0.2 µg/kg
Czech Republic0.08 µg/kg
Italy0.05 µg/kg
USA0.5 µg/kg
NigeriaCereal4.75 ng/kg/day[186]
KoreaAgricultural products91.37 µg/person/day[209]
DisulfotonNigeriaCereal1.37 ng/kg/day[186]
KoreaAgricultural products223.53 µg/person/day[209]
Dursban (chlorpyrifos)NigeriaCereal5.97 ng/kg/day[186]
KoreaAgricultural products263.77 µg/person/day[209]
Malathion338.1 µg/person/day
MethiocarbNigeriaCereal2.05 ng/kg/day[186]
KoreaAgricultural products56.63 µg/person/day[209]
Methyl parathionNigeriaCereal1.37 ng/kg/day[190]
Mocap (ethoprophos)1.09 ng/kg/day
Tokuthion (prothiofos)4.18 ng/kg/day
Guthion (azinphos-methyl)14.34 ng/kg/day
PhorateAustraliaFruits, vegetables, grains and cereals0.15 µg/kg[210]
Brazil0.33 µg/kg
Czech Republic0.14 µg/kg
Italy0.07 µg/kg
USA0.21 µg/kg
PropoxurNigeriaCereal1.64 ng/kg/day[186]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maher, A.; Nowak, A. Chemical Contamination in Bread from Food Processing and Its Environmental Origin. Molecules 2022, 27, 5406. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27175406

AMA Style

Maher A, Nowak A. Chemical Contamination in Bread from Food Processing and Its Environmental Origin. Molecules. 2022; 27(17):5406. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27175406

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maher, Agnieszka, and Adriana Nowak. 2022. "Chemical Contamination in Bread from Food Processing and Its Environmental Origin" Molecules 27, no. 17: 5406. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27175406

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop