Next Article in Journal
Interactions between Street Food and Food Safety Topics in the Scientific Literature—A Bibliometric Analysis with Science Mapping
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Buritirana (Mauritiella armata) Fruits from the Brazilian Cerrado: Biometric and Physicochemical Attributes, Chemical Composition and Antioxidant and Antibacterial Potential
Previous Article in Special Issue
Colorimetric Analysis and Determination of Histamine in Samples of Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) Marketed in Sardinia (Italy) by a Combination of Rapid Screening Methods and LC-MS/MS
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/foods11060788
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Biogenic Amines in Meat and Meat Products: A Review of the Science and Future Perspectives

by
Maria Schirone
,
Luigi Esposito
,
Federica D’Onofrio
,
Pierina Visciano
*,
Maria Martuscelli
*,
Dino Mastrocola
and
Antonello Paparella
Faculty of Bioscience and Technology for Food, Agriculture and Environment, University of Teramo, Via R. Balzarini, 1, 64100 Teramo, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(6), 788; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11060788
Submission received: 15 February 2022 / Revised: 4 March 2022 / Accepted: 6 March 2022 / Published: 9 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biogenic Amines in Raw and Processed Foods: Detection and Control)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Biogenic amines (BAs) can be found in a wide range of meat and meat products, where they are important as an index for product stability and quality, but also for their impact on public health. This review analyzes the scientific evidence gathered so far on the presence and role of biogenic amines in meat and meat products, also considering the effect of technological conditions on BAs accumulation or decrease. The data provided can be useful for developing solutions to control BAs formation during the shelf-life, for example by novel starters for dry cured products, as well as by packaging technologies and materials for fresh meats. Further research, whose trends are reviewed in this paper, will fill the knowledge gaps, and allow us to protect such perishable products along the distribution chain and in the home environment.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Biogenic amines (BAs) are low molecular weight compounds with biological activity, produced by the decarboxylation of amino acids or amination and transamination of aldehydes and ketones during the metabolic processes in living cells [1]. They can be normally present in plants, animals, and humans, where they exhibit essential physiological functions, such as neurotransmission, regulation of growth and blood pressure, and other important roles in the intestinal immune system [2]. However, when great amounts are introduced through the consumption of contaminated foods and/or beverages, they can cause adverse effects on nervous, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems and/or allergic reactions, especially in individuals with mono- and diamino-oxidase deficiency, or assuming drugs that inhibit such enzymes [3]. The main symptoms of histamine intoxication, occurring within few hours, are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, urticaria, tachycardia, and even death, while tyramine poisoning is characterized by headache, palpitations, nausea and vomiting, and a rise in blood pressure [4,5,6].
BAs are also considered an index of food spoilage, as high concentrations can be found when the hygiene quality of the product decreases [7]. The most common BAs occurring during the deterioration of foods are cadaverine (CAD), putrescine (PUT), spermidine (SPD), spermine (SPM), β-phenylethylamine (PHE), tyramine (TYR), and histamine (HIS) [8]. However, SPD and SPM are also naturally occurring BAs in fresh meat [4].
Several factors associated with raw materials, such as pH and chemical composition, as well as some handling and manufacturing operations (e.g., fermentation, ripening or post contamination) but also temperature and time of storage, may influence their presence in foods [9]. The corresponding precursor amino acids and the main characteristics contributing to BAs formation are shown in Figure 1. The decarboxylase-positive microorganisms can be present in raw materials and/or introduced by contamination before, during or after processing [10]. Many genera (i.e., Escherichia, Klebsiella, Citrobacter, Proteus, Shigella, and Salmonella) belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae family, as well as some Micrococcaceae (Staphylococcus and Micrococcus genera) can be involved in BA production Moreover, some strains of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) of genera Enterococcus, Lactobacillus, Carnobacterium, Pediococcus, Lactococcus, and Leuconostoc can decarboxylate amino acids [11].
Meat and meat products are particularly subjected to BAs production due to their high protein and amino acid content, and the proteolytic activity can arise as a consequence of a prolonged storage or in association with the production process. The first BAs naturally occurring in fresh meat are SPM and SPD, which can be found at levels between 20 and 60 mg/kg and about 10 mg/kg, respectively [12]. During storage, the amounts of other BAs (i.e., HIS, CAD, PUT, and TYR) can also increase by the proteolysis of proteins to large peptides, which are then degraded to oligopeptides and free amino acids [4]. A significant CAD and PUT increase (>15 mg/kg) observed in raw pork meat during storage has been considered index of spoilage [13]. In Table 1, some studies from literature about concentrations of major BAs in different meat and meat products were reported.
Proteolysis is favored by intrinsic factors, such as acidity increase, dehydration, and the action of sodium chloride in some meat derived products, but also by microbial activity during fermentation and/or other food production processes [14]. Although meat fermentation promotes preservation against various pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms, BAs accumulation in fermented meat products has also been reported [15]. Due to the importance of their adverse health effects and specific concerns in food hygiene, BAs individually or in combined forms can be used as important indicators of freshness, quality, and spoilage in meat and meat products [12]. Firstly, a Biogenic Amine Index (BAI) calculated from the sum (mg/kg) of PUT, CAD, TYR, and HIS, was proposed for cooked meat products allowing a four-scale classification. If BAI value is less than 5 mg/kg, the meat is fresh and of good quality, between 5 and 20 mg/kg it is still acceptable with some signs of deterioration, between 20 and 50 mg/kg and above 50 mg/kg the meat is of low quality and scarce hygiene quality (spoiled), respectively [16]. Moreover, the ratio between SPD and SPM was used as an index for the evaluation of chicken meat quality [17], as well as the levels of CAD and TYR were proposed to control beef and poultry spoilage during storage [18]. However, the effectiveness of BA indicators can change based on many factors, such as handling, salting, canning, modified atmosphere and so forth, and therefore, they can be more suitable in fresh than fermented or heat-treated meat products [19].
It is well known that fermented meat products generally show the highest BAs concentrations, and TYR is the most represented amine in cured meat products. However, according to the European Legislation (Commission Regulation EC No 2073/2005 and further amendments), maximum limits have been established only for HIS in fish and fish products, specifically in fish with high free histidine content in the muscle tissue, while no standards or guidelines are reported for meat products. With regards to the export of these products to Third Countries, specific agreements are set between the competent authorities of European Union (EU) Member States and the nations where they are destined. Meat and meat products can only enter in EU if they have been produced from raw materials obtained in establishments compliant with the requirements referred to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, or with requirements recognized to be at least equivalent thereto.
This review will deal with BAs occurrence in raw meat and meat products produced by several manufacturing processes, whose role in BAs formation is discussed, taking into account both food quality and safety aspects, as well as the trend in scientific research.
Table
Table 1. Biogenic amines levels in different meat and meat products reported in some studies from the literature.
Table 1. Biogenic amines levels in different meat and meat products reported in some studies from the literature.
Category Biogenic Amines (mg/kg)Reference
PUTCADHISSPDSPMTYRPHETRYP
Raw meatBeef6.6–90.9<0.5–295.6<0.5 11.1–65.5 Rosinská and Lehotay, 2014 [20]
Pork12.7–131.513.6–440.2<0.5 34.4–55.2
Poultry<0.5–382.7<0.5–764.2<0.5–180.5 <0.5–171.2
Beeftr-1.9nd-1.90.3–1.80.2–4.10.2–3.90.1–0.5 Jasim and Sdkhan, 2015 [21]
Beef liver1.5–26.1nd-42.1tr-136.75.0–10.4 4.6–12.5 Eldaly et al., 2016 [22]
Different kinds of meat *nq-124.0nq-124.0nq-55.0nq-229.0nq-261.0nq-199.0 Molognoni et al., 2018 [23]
Pork leg0.6–14.6nd-16.2nd2.6–3.925.2–27.60.7–16.6nd-1.7nd-6.6Triki et al., 2018 [12]
Lamb leg1.2–10.1nd-5.1nd8.1–12.031.4–40.90.1–10.70.8–9.1nd
Turkey leg1.2–68.7nd-13.3nd7.3–18.332.6–49.2nd-6.90.2–15.1nd
Chicken breast1.2–52.0nd-14.30.5–2.16.2–9.841.9–53.6nd-35.2nd-16.90.4–15.8
Beef leg1.3–7.4ndnd-0.52.3–5.425.1–33.00.3–1.60.5–2.6nd
Camel and offals0.4–0.80.2–0.7nd-0.3 0.1–0.50.2–0.6 Tang et al., 2019 [24]
Chicken breast muscle1.0–1.8<LOQ-10.51.4–4.3 <LOQ-4.2 Wojnowski et al., 2019 [25]
Imported meat **1.2–3.0nd-4.30.6–1.41.6–6.32.6–11.10.3–2.0nd-0.1trAlgahtani et al., 2020 [26]
Broiler chicken (breast and thigh)trtr0.1–0.4tr-0.6tr Saewan et al., 2021 [27]
Minced beef4.0–60.126.0–116.227.2–90.1 nd-60.4 Mahmoud et al., 2021 [28]
Pork belly0.6–63.30–98.30–1.53.0–3.5 5.2–76.7 Cho et al., 2021 [29]
Pork belly, marinated0.4–21.10–58.30–1.13.1–3.5 5.2–68.1
Processed meat productsFermented sausages0–505.00–690.00–515.0 0–510.0 Papavergou et al., 2012 [30]
Dry fermented meatnd-225.1nd-16.8nd-151.8 nd-228.1nd-42.7 Buňka et al., 2012 [31]
Greek sausages0–491.70–1014.10–375.81.5–19.513.4–60.13.7–381.40–56.40–60.5Papavergou, 2011 [32]
North European sausages0.4–229.0nd-246.8nd-131.01.0–6.6nd-12.01.3–302.9nd-54.4nd-109.7De Mey et al., 2014 [14]
South European sausages0.3–316.4nd-641.4nd-131.0nd-13.3nd-21.1nd-410.8nd-57.1nd-109.7
Fermented sausagesnd-564.59.9–654.7nd-177.4 100.6–328.619.2–502.8nd-4.3nd-32.8Xie et al., 2015 [33]
Fermented beef sausages1.0–15.80.5–9.00.3–19.6nd-103.396.4–364.164.1–275.1nd-16.1nd-32.8Çiçek, 2016 [34]
Chinese Sichuan-style sausages 19.1–376.5114.0–327.4 88.8–285.9 Sun et al., 2016 [35]
Portuguese sausages11.6–265.4nd-364.8nd-28.9nd-11.5nd-41.0nd-150.3nd-38.6nd-67.1Laranjo et al., 2017 [36]
Belgian sausages0.3–316.00–641.00–131.0 0–411.0 Lorenzo et al., 2017 [37]
Turkish style sausages1.0–24.672.2–320.05.2–99.934.4–68.72.7–20.069.4–162.42.3–7.620.0–40.9Ekici and Omer, 2018 [38]
Dry-fermented sausagesnd-212.0nd-30.8nd-9.7 nd-147.0nd-36.0ndIkonic et al., 2019 [39]
Chinese sausagesnd-277.1nd-670.9nd-209.62.4–23.57.5–36.5nd-209.6nd-8.2nd-22.5Li et al., 2019 [40]
Brazilian commercial salamis91.5–818.537.9–166.4nd-500.251.2–55.896.7–151.991.3–346.9nd-375.9nd-123.9Roselino et al., 2020 [41]
Italian commercial salamisnd-381.2nd-215.9nd-240.9nd-99.7102.8–141.2nd-270.0nd-316.4nd-297.1
Mortadella di Campotostond-186.8nd-15.0nd-17.040.4–79.4 51.3–235.9 Serio et al., 2020 [42]
Legend: PUT = Putrescine; CAD = Cadaverine; HIS = Histamine; SPD = Spermidine; SPM = Spermine; TYR = Tyramine; PHE = Phenylethylamine; TRYP = Tryptamine; nd = not detected; tr = traces; nq = not quantified; * = cooked sausages, mortadella, cooked ham, bacon, corned beef, beef jerky, canned/pouch roast/shredded beef, salami and raw sausages; ** = luncheon, hot dog, corned beef and minced meat.

2. Trends in Scientific Literature on Biogenic Amines in Meat and Meat Products

The finding of BAs in meat dates back to 1887, when Nencki discovered amylamine in putrefying meat [43]. Early studies postulated that BAs, in particular HIS, were formed by autolysis [44], but later it was demonstrated that BAs are mostly produced by microbial activities [45]. In the seventies of the last century, scientific research on BAs in foods was mainly focused on the detection of HIS in fish muscles [46], while in the eighties the first reports of BAs in meat products aimed at detecting different BAs and BAs-producing microorganisms during manufacturing of dry fermented salamis [47]. In the following decade, the scientific literature on BAs in meat mainly focused on fermented products, expanding, and reaching a global dimension. Some researchers evaluated the presence of BAs in different typical products [48,49], while other studies investigated the relationship between BAs and the microbial ecology of fermented meat products [50]. At the same time, the presence of BAs in fresh meat was correlated with packaging conditions [51].
At the turn of the millennium, the attention shifted onto the role of starters in the balance of BAs in fermented meats. These studies can be considered a turning point because particular attention was paid to the selection of starters capable of reducing the content of BAs of health interest, for example by exploiting amino oxidase activity of specific microorganisms, as well as by combining starters with proteolytic strains to increase the free amino acid availability and the non-protein nitrogen [52]. In the new millennium, research was focused on the effect of processing conditions, packaging, and novel technologies on BAs content in meat and meat products, as it has been recently reviewed by Paparella and Tofalo [53]. The goals achieved by these studies will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
Based on the scientific targets documented so far in the scientific literature, it is possible to predict future trends in the research on BAs in meats. Almost certainly, the great shift in the formulation of packaging materials, imposed in Europe by the so-called Green Deal approach, will impact research on new materials capable of detecting or reducing the BAs content in foods. In this respect, some papers have already been published. For example, Sirocchi et al. [54] developed a novel active packaging containing 4% Rosmarinus officinalis essential oil, which sharply decreased PUT, CAD and HIS, and the corresponding microbial producers in fresh meat at 4 °C. Miller et al. [55] have recently reviewed the possible applications of BA detection systems in the packaging industry.
Among the possible technologies that might be used to decrease the BAs content in meats, ozone was studied by Mercogliano et al. [56]. These authors combined prewashing of poultry carcasses with ozonized water and gaseous ozone delivery during chilled storage for 60 min every 4 h, and obtained a sharp decrease of PUT and CAD, and a shelf-life extension of 6 days.
Other possible developments of research will be in the area of microbial cultures for meat and meat products. Considering the increasing interest for the manufacturing of nitrite-free meat products, the results obtained recently by Li et al. [57] can be considered promising. These authors selected four candidates, which did not possess the BAs formation encoding genes, to use as starter cultures to degrade total BAs and nitrite.
Finally, a strategic area of research will probably be the development of sensors for BAs assessment in meat, to evaluate meat freshness and shelf-life. In this respect, Biesuz and Magnaghi [58] recently analyzed the state of the art, discussed the challenge of the BAs volatility, and developed a set of five sensors that were able to describe the entire spoilage process of chicken samples.

3. Biogenic Amines as Markers of Freshness and Safety in Raw Meats

Meat ensures a complete set of amino acids, energy, lipids, and micronutrients at more competitive prices than other sources [59]. Overall, the estimated increase of human population to ~10 billion in 2050 [60] confirms the urgency of a more sustainable meat market. In this scenario, as for any food chain, it is crucial to ensure food safety from both the human and animal health side, in line with the so called One Health approach [61].
Red meats were classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, and processed meats as “carcinogenic”, but they are also in charge of non-transmissible diseases as overweight and obesity [62]; at any rate, many of the compounds responsible for some of the described conditions, are coming from cooking and/or transformation processes [63]. Of course, a non-balanced intake of dense energy foods plays a distinct role in inflammation processes [64]. In a recent study, Flores et al. [65] described how for different transformed meat products, specific chemical and biological hazards can arise. For example, polycyclic aromatic amines can derive from smoking, and Maillard reaction products from cooking [63]. Among the possible hazards in meat and meat products, BAs are considered relatively frequent [66,67]. Red and white meats are considered good potential sources of BAs for several reasons. In fact, the great amounts of proteins available is an important start point for BAs development, considering that BAs mainly derive from amino acids decarboxylation. Dabadé et al. [9] compared amino acids concentration at the purchasing day vs. the production of BAs in different food categories at the end of their shelf-life. They found higher values for specific BAs such as PHE and HIS with their precursor amino acids. They also noticed a higher incidence of TYR production in foods derived from animals than in the ones derived from vegetables.
In raw meat, the presence of Bas depends on different factors, in particular meat origin, storage conditions, the specific microbiota, and meat shelf-life. Despite Bas ubiquity, their production is influenced by microbial activity and food history. In general, wrong hygiene and storage conditions can increase the incidence of Bas [68]. Among the environmental factors, temperature management is responsible both for creating the best conditions for mesophilic bacterial growth and boosting chemical/biochemical pathways for proteins catabolism. Moreover, pH is of crucial importance on Bas production. In fact, as revised by Jairath et al. [69], the pH balance can on one hand limit microbial activity for the improved acidity, and on the other hand, increase decarboxylase enzyme production from microorganisms that use it as a defense against the acidic environment. Thus, these factors are all inputs giving Bas as main output [19].
Alessandroni et al. [70] highlighted that poultry, and in particular chicken, is more susceptible to Bas accumulation, due to the specific protein composition and a softer texture in comparison with pork and beef. Triki et al. [12] evaluated different cuts of meat over time. Beef, lamb, and pork meat demonstrated a slower qualitative decay caused by Bas compared to chicken meat, characterized by the highest level of free amino acids. Despite the prominent role of the intrinsic factors, packaging solutions may control Bas increase in raw meat and meat preparations. In fact, Chmiel et al. [71] found that high O2 MAP better preserved chicken breast fillets from the accumulation of Bas (mainly PUT and CAD), in comparison with air and vacuum-packed breast fillets. The same study pointed out the importance of storage conditions since product stability was higher in cold rooms and dry conditions, than in display cases exposed to light. The prevalence of specific microbial groups has also been found to enhance Bas production. Li et al. [72] studied Bas evolution in air packed beef and found a decrease of polyamines as SPM over time and a slight increase of CAD and PUT. Similarly, in frozen beef cuts stored at −18 °C for a long time, an increase of PUT and CAD, more significant for the latter, indicated qualitative decay and putrefaction [73]. Li et al. [74] found it useful to use CAD and PUT to evaluate qualitative decay in pork packed under vacuum and MAP, while using TYR was more relevant for the same meat kept in pallet packaging. In general, meat quality also depends on its handling, and BAs can reveal details on incorrect management. As a matter of facts, the major cause for meat rejection from emergent economies of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, is bruising which is a superficial discoloration due to hemorrhage under the skin. BAs profiles of bruised meats were investigated along ageing, and results showed significant differences among packaging systems and between bruised and non-bruised meat, with higher BAs concentrations in bruised meats [75].
Regarding the functions of BAs in raw meat, it has to be noted that raw meats mostly contain polyamines PUT, SPD, and SPM, in particular the last two. These are also known as constitutive amines because they are involved in many bodily functions having a fundamental role in cellular communication and proliferation [76]. Due to their direct role in the latter, polyamines have also been associated to tumors development [77]. However, the same amines are recognized as potent antioxidants [78], capable of limiting DNA damages [79].
Considering the great availability of polyamines in raw meat, many researchers proposed the use of a ratio between SPM and SPD for raw meat quality evaluation [80]. The main reason for the use of this index is because it is independent from microbiological activity and relatively stable over time. In this respect, many studies agreed on using the sum CAD + PUT to evaluate raw meat decay independently from the animal species. HIS and TYR start to increase after some days of storage unless the initial microbial load is high. Sørensen et al. [81] explained the importance and the novelty in using BAs levels for screening the quality of meat products in the circular economy. Others as Beckith et al. [82] gave a wide description of BAs, total volatile nitrogen and trimethylamine value as quality indexes in muscle foods. More recently, Shashank et al. [83] underlined the need for faster methods for the assessment of meat products’ safety by means of BAs levels.
All these studies clearly show how BAs evolution in raw meat is a suitable and helpful tool for monitoring meat safety and predict meat quality. In this regard, Wojnowski et al. [25] developed a novel liquid-liquid microextraction gas chromatography–mass spectrometry method and analyzed environmental aspects but also feasibility and rapidity of the method. Based on this study, the analytical method and in particular the quantification of TRYP, CAD, PHE and PUT is considered useful for early determination of meat spoilage in poultry, pork and beef samples. Additionally, considering the strict link between BAs production and the microbiota, BAs can somehow be employed as an indirect index of microbial spoilage. Moreover, when it comes to formulated or ready to eat meat products, BAs occurrence can help in identifying both meat freshness, contaminated ingredients, and wrong hygiene practices. In this regard, the use of BAs indexes to monitor the freshness of minced meat [28], imported meat and meat products [37], ready to eat street-food [84] is documented in the scientific literature. Anyway, as reviewed by Biesuz and Magnaghi [58], there are still misleading concepts in developing newer BAs determination methods. As highlighted by Wakas et al. [85], several limitations on quantification are posed from matrix effects and sample pretreatment procedures. One of the issues limiting BAs indexes success in raw meats lies in the complexity of the matrix, where lipids, proteins and other compounds can make pretreatment procedures harder.

4. Biogenic Amines in Processed Meats

BAs can be found in a wide range of meat products, as documented by scientific literature [69]. Generally, fermentation and BAs production is a bond that gives results in meat or animal-based products but also in foods of vegetable origin [86]. For years, research on BAs in foods focused mostly on fermented and cured products, in particular meat products [87,88,89], considered as possible reservoirs of nitrosamines, showing carcinogenicity from processed meats intake [90,91].
More than cured or formulated products, fermented meat products represent a primary source of BAs. Due to their manufacturing process, they possess all the characteristics that favor BAs production, mainly due to the bacterial and fungal activities. In fact, microorganisms take advantage of the available nutrients, the favorable water activity (at the beginning of the process), and the anaerobic conditions ensured by the environment. The total or partial O2 absence can promote the specific production of amines as HIS while reducing the amounts of PUT and CAD, directly acting on specific bacteria as Enterobacter cloacae and Klebsiella pneumoniae [92]. In this rich and selective medium, bacterial growth is also promoted by the physical state of fermented products, commonly made of ground meat added of variable percentages of minced fat (according to the recipe) that ensures protection to bacterial cells. During manufacturing, pH plays a leading role, promoting decarboxylase activity. In these products, where mainly LAB cultures are employed to carry on fermentation, acidification can limit or stress BAs production [93]. Another factor that diminishes BAs formation by microorganisms is the presence of salt. Some authors [4] reported that values of 2.5–3.0 g/kg are enough to reduce HIS production. However, other authors formulated the hypothesis of a possible enhancing effect of NaCl on the metabolic activities of decarboxylating microorganisms; in particular, they supposed the essential role of Na+ ion in the sodium/proton antiport system, through which H+ ions are removed from the cell [52,94]. Furthermore, it was observed that low containing sugars environments increase decarboxylase pathways boosting BAs production [95].
In fermented meat products, different microbial groups, intentionally added (starter cultures) or part of the natural microbiome [96], can produce BAs. The meat environment is commonly characterized by Enterobacteriaceae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), Brochothrix thermosphacta, pseudomonads and some clostridia. Obviously, storage conditions and the gaseous composition of the environment have a direct influence on the final ecology, enhancing specific groups [71]. Main bacterial groups responsible for BAs formation in meat fermented products are Enterobacteriaceae and pseudomonads, some strains belonging to the genera Staphylococcus and Bacillus, and LAB [57]. Fermented products as salamis and sausages can pose health hazards for the accumulation of TYR, HIS, PUT and CAD mainly. TYR was the most frequent and abundant bioactive amine found in dry fermented sausages of the Spanish retail [97]; similar results had been obtained in a study on salamis from Southern Italy [98]. TYR and HIS are linked with direct side effect on human body, but the presence of other amines can even boost their activity [99,100]. Many studies have confirmed the natural occurrence of these amines in samples coming from all over the world [38,101,102] and produced at industrial level [38]. Alves et al. [103], analyzing dry fermented sausages and salamis from Portugal and Serbia, found low amounts of TYR, CAD and PHE, while HIS was present only in two samples. Low levels of BAs usually indicate good hygiene and handling procedures, high quality of the raw materials and suitable drying/fermenting conditions.
A growing part of scientific literature analyzes how specific bacterial consortia can limit or degrade BAs formation [104]. Alvarez and Arribas [105] classified many BAs-degrading bacteria and concluded that amino oxidase activity of some strains of LAB is a criterion to select BAs-degrading bacterial cultures, although same strains can also show decarboxylase activity and therefore form BAs. Thus, bacteria can have a two-side effect on BAs final content that depends mainly on strains characteristics. As for the other features that potentially affect BAs formation, bacteriocins as nisin were tested on fish meat without any direct effect on BAs reduction [106]. Serio et al. [42] investigated the effect of casings on dry fermented salami, observing significant effects on BAs accumulation among different casings. The major expression of TYR and PUT degrading activity at the end of ripening can be caused by some strains of Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Micrococcus, as well as Staphylococcus carnosus. Apart for the direct toxicologic effects that BAs can provoke, in the last years concerns about their involvement into N-nitroso compounds production are coming up. These toxic compounds are formed from nitrogenous compounds deriving from bacterial fermentation and proteolysis. Among them, nitrosamines are recognized as carcinogenic and highly responsible for gastrointestinal tumors [107]. Considering the widespread use of preservatives as sodium nitrites (E-250, E-251) in meat products, BAs are the main substrate for N-nitroso compounds formation. In this respect, Drabik-Markiewicz et al. [108] found that higher levels of SPD and PUT increased the quantity of N-nitrosodimethylamine, while SPD and CAD amplified the final level of N-nitrosopiperidine in heated cured pork meat. The same study evidenced the effect of rising temperatures and percentage of sodium nitrites, which were positively correlated with the final content of N-nitroso compounds. Long Yan Fong et al. [109] gave an interesting view of the development of tumors like nasopharyngeal carcinoma (also known as a Canton tumor), in correlation with the dietary styles of the lower income population from that area. The linkage regards the common habit of these consumers heating higher quantities of fermented products since childhood. Sausages and typical Chinese hams contain high levels of both proteins and BAs, in charge of the accumulation of N-nitroso compounds. In a previous study, Martuscelli et al. [66] found that different smoking processes reduce the quantity of free amino acids in dry cured hams, impacting on the final level of BAs. In this study, non-smoked hams had higher levels of BAs than smoked products. Therefore, the diffusive phenomena of salt and water being correlated to the amin acid decarboxylase and/or amino oxidase activities [9], the control of the evolution of dehydration processes could be a useful tool to contrast the accumulation of BAs in ripened meat products [110,111].
Heat treatments do not affect the BAs concentration in meat products, although they contrast microbial spoilage. Thus, the occurrence of BAs in cooked meats indicates an incorrect handling before and after product preparation. Recently, the effects of various cooking methods (boiling, grilling, microwave, and sous-vide cooking) on BAs content were investigated in different foods; Muñoz-Esparza et al. [112] demonstrated that chicken meat samples did not show any polyamine loss after the different heat treatments, while only a modest reduction of BAs was observed in beef and pork meat after cooking.
Another aspect of great importance is the assessment of the risk for infants of BAs intake with the consumption of ready-to-eat meat baby products. For the first time, Polish researchers presented a study on the amine-related risk assessment for baby foods, including meat-based formulations [113]. No significant difference (p < 0.05) was found in the BAs profile among the different meat species (beef, chicken, lamb, veal, rabbit, turkey, and pork). In relation to baby food products containing beef, it was recommended to reduce their consumption by infants under 12 months of age, due to the occurrence of HIS at a high level (400 ng/g).

5. Conclusions

BAs are present at various concentrations in meat and meat products. Despite their significance for both public health and meat shelf-life, there is a lack of knowledge on levels that could be used as guidelines in the different products that are available on the market. To date, the only BA that is regulated, at least in the European Union, is HIS, but only for fish and fish products. Since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans, also due to the risk of nitrosamine formation, the research on BAs in meat and meat products has become increasingly important.
In the last twenty years, the scientific literature has provided evidence of different solutions that could be applied to reduce BAs formation in meat and meat products. Packaging, starters, and decontamination by means of different technologies have already proved to be useful, but much more needs to be done to protect the products along the distribution chain, and possibly in households. This goal might be achieved by investing in research on sensors and packaging, to offer cheap and easy-to-use devices for rapid BAs assessment in meat and meat products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S., P.V. and M.M.; data curation, L.E. and F.D.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S., L.E., P.V., M.M. and A.P.; writing—review and editing, M.S., P.V., M.M. and A.P.; visualization, M.S., L.E., F.D., P.V., M.M., D.M. and A.P.; supervision, M.S., P.V., M.M., D.M. and A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jaguey-Hernández, Y.; Aguilar-Arteaga, K.; Ojeda-Ramirez, D.; Añorve-Morga, J.; González-Olivares, L.G.; Castañeda-Ovando, A. Biogenic amines levels in food processing: Efforts for their control.in foodstuffs. Food Res. Int. 2021, 144, 110341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Erdag, D.; Merhan, O.; Yildiz, B. Biochemical and pharmacological properties of biogenic amines. In Biogenic Amines; Proestos, C., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  3. Visciano, P.; Schirone, M.; Paparella, A. An overview of histamine and other biogenic amines in fish and fish products. Foods 2020, 9, 1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Durak-Dados, A.; Michalski, M.; Osek, J. Histamine and other biogenic amines in food. J. Vet. Res. 2020, 64, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lázaro de la Torre, C.A.; Conte-Junior, C.A. Detection of biogenic amines: Quality and toxicity indicators in food of animal origin. In Food Control and Biosecurity; Holban, A.M., Grumezescu, A.M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 16, pp. 225–257. [Google Scholar]
  6. Feddem, V.; Mazzuco, H.; Fonseca, F.N.; de Lima, G.J.M.M. A review on biogenic amines in food and feed: Toxicological aspects, impact on health and control measures. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2019, 59, 608–618. [Google Scholar]
  7. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ). Scientific Opinion on Scientific Opinion on risk based control of biogenic amine formation in fermented foods. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Vasconcelos, H.; de Almeida, J.M.M.M.; Matias, A.; Saraiva, C.; Jorge, P.A.S.; Coelho, L.C.C. Detection of biogenic amines in several foods with different sample treatments: An overview. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 113, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dabadé, D.S.; Jacxsens, L.; Miclotte, L.; Abatih, E.; Devlieghere, F.; De Meulenaer, B. Survey of multiple biogenic amines and correlation to microbiological quality and free amino acids in foods. Food Control 2021, 120, 107497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Papageorgiou, M.; Lambropoulou, D.; Morrison, C.; Kłodzińska, E.; Namieśnik, J.; Płotka-Wasylka, J. Literature update of analytical methods for biogenic amines determination in food and beverages. Trends Anal. Chem. 2018, 98, 128–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ekici, K.; Omer, A.K. Biogenic amines formation and their importance in fermented foods. BIO Web Conf. 2020, 17, 00232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Triki, M.; Herrero, A.M.; Jiménez-Colmenero, F.; Ruiz-Capillas, C. Quality assessment of fresh meat from several species based on free amino acid and biogenic amine contents during chilled storage. Foods 2018, 7, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Siripongpreda, T.; Siralertmukul, K.; Rodthongkum, N. Colorimetric sensor and LDI-MS detection of biogenic amines in food spoilage based on porous PLA and graphene oxide. Food Chem. 2020, 329, 127165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. De Mey, E.; De Klerck, K.; De Maere, H.; Dewulf, L.; Derdelinckx, G.; Peeters, M.C.; Fraeye, I.; Heyden, Y.V.; Paelinck, H. The occurrence of N-nitrosamines, residual nitrite and biogenic amines in commercial dry fermented sausages and evaluation of their occasional relation. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 821–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ashaolu, T.J.; Khalifa, I.; Mesak, M.A.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Farag, M.A. A comprehensive review of the role of microorganisms on texture change, flavor and biogenic amines formation in fermented meat with their action mechanisms and safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 20, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hernández-Jover, T.; Izquierdo-Pulido, M.; Veciana-Noguées, M.T.; Vidal-Carou, M.C. Biogenic amine and polyamine contents in meat and meat products. J. Agric Food. Chem. 1997, 45, 2098–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Silva, C.M.G.; Glória, M.B.A. Bioactive amines in chicken breast and thigh after slaughter and during storage at 4 ± 1 °C and in chicken-based meat products. Food Chem. 2002, 78, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vinci, G.; Antonelli, M.L. Biogenic amines: Quality index of freshness in red and white meat. Food Control 2002, 13, 519–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ruiz-Capillas, C.; Herrero, A.M. Impact of biogenic amines on food quality and safety. Foods 2019, 8, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Rosinská, D.; Lehotay, J. Influence of temperature on production of biogenic amines in pork, beef, and poultry and their HPLC determination after postcolumn derivatization. J. Liq. Chromatogr. Relat. Technol. 2014, 37, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jasim, A.H.; Sdkhan, A.M. Effect of sodium chloride on some biogenic amines in beef meat. Basrah J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 28, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eldaly, E.A.; Hussein, M.A.; El-Ghareeb, W.R. Assessment of biogenic amines content in fresh cattle livers during chilling storage and pan-roasting. JPN J. Vet. Res. 2016, 64 (Suppl. S2), S217–S223. [Google Scholar]
  23. Molognoni, L.; Daguer, H.; de Sá Ploêncio, L.A.; De Dea Lindner, J. A multi-purpose tool for food inspection: Simultaneous determination of various classes of preservatives and biogenic amines in meat and fish products by LC-MS. Talanta 2018, 178, 1053–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tang, H.; Darwish, W.S.; El-Ghareeb, W.; Al-Humam, N.A.; Chen, L.; Zhong, R.M.; Xiao, Z.J.; Ma, J.K. Microbial quality and formation of biogenic amines in the meat and edible offal of Camelus dromedaries with a protection trial using gingerol and nisin. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 2094–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Woinowski, W.; Kalinowska, K.; Majchrzak, T.; Płotka-Wasylka, J.; Namieśnik, J. Prediction of the biogenic amines index of poultry meat using an electronic nose. Sensors 2019, 19, 1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Algahtani, F.D.; Morshdy, A.E.; Hussein, M.A.; Abouelkeir, E.S.; Adeboye, A.; Valentine, A.; Elabbasy, M.T. Biogenic amines and aflatoxins in some imported meat products: Incidence, occurrence, and public health impacts. J. Food Qual. 2020, 2020, 8718179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Saewan, S.A.; Khidhir, Z.K.; Al-Bayati, M.H. The impact of storage duration and conditions on the formation of biogenic amines and microbial content in poultry meat. Iraqi J. Vet. Sci. 2021, 35, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mahmoud, A.F.A.; Elshopary, N.F.; El-Naby, G.R.H.; El Bayomi, R.M. Reduction of biogenic amines production in chilled minced meat using antimicrobial seasonings. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2021, 10, e3663. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cho, J.; Kim, H.J.; Kwon, J.S.; Kim, H.J.; Jang, A. Effect of marination with black currant juice on the formation of biogenic amines in pork belly during refrigerated storage. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 763–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Papavergou, E.J.; Savvaidis, I.N.; Ambrosiadis, I.A. Levels of biogenic amines in retail market fermented meat products. Food Chem. 2012, 135, 2750–2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Buňka, F.; Zálešáková, L.; Flasarová, R.; Pachlová, V.; Budinský, P.; Buňková, L. Biogenic amines content in selected commercial fermented products of animal origin. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2012, 2, 209–218. [Google Scholar]
  32. Papavergou, E.J. Biogenic amine levels in dry fermented sausages produced and sold in Greece. Procedia Food Sci. 2011, 1, 1126–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Xie, C.; Wang, H.H.; Nie, X.K.; Chen, L.; Deng, S.L.; Xu, X.L. Reduction of biogenic amine concentration in fermented sausage by selected starter cultures. CyTA-J. Food 2015, 13, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Çiçek, Ü. Biogenic amine level of Bez Sucuks—A type of fermented beef sausages. J. Agric. Fac. Gaziosmanpasa Univ. 2016, 33, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sun, X.; Zhou, K.; Gong, Y.; Zhang, N.; Yang, M.; Qing, D.; Li, Y.; Lu, J.; Li, J.; Feng, C.; et al. Determination of biogenic amines in Sichuan-style spontaneously fermented sausages. Food Anal. Method 2016, 9, 2299–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Laranjo, M.; Gomes, A.; Agulheiro-Santos, A.C.; Potes, M.E.; Cabrita, M.J.; Garcia, R.; Rocha, J.M.; Roseiro, L.C.; Fernandes, M.J.; Fraqueza, M.J.; et al. Impact of salt reduction on biogenic amines, fatty acids, microbiota, texture and sensory profile in traditional blood dry-cured sausages. Food Chem. 2017, 218, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lorenzo, J.M.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Domínguez, R. Role of autochthonous starter cultures in the reduction of biogenic amines in traditional meat products. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 14, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ekici, K.; Omer, A.K. The determination of some biogenic amines in Turkish fermented sausages consumed in Van. Toxicol. Rep. 2018, 5, 639–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ikonic, P.; Jokanovic, M.; Peulic, T.; Cucevic, N.; Tomicic, Z.; Skaljac, S.; Ivic, M. Evolution of amino acids and biogenic amines in traditional dry-fermented sausage Sjenički sudžuk during processing. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 333, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, L.; Zou, D.; Ruan, L.; Wen, Z.; Chen, S.; Xu, L.; Wei, X. Evaluation of the biogenic amines and microbial contribution in traditional Chinese sausages. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Roselino, M.N.; Maciel, L.F.; Sirocchi, V.; Caviglia, M.; Sagratini, G.; Vittori, S.; Taranto, M.P.; Cavallini, U.; Cardoso, D. Analysis of biogenic amines in probiotic and commercial salamis. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2020, 94, 103649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Serio, A.; Laika, J.; Maggio, F.; Sacchetti, G.; D’Alessandro, F.; Rossi, C.; Martuscelli, M.; Chaves-Lόpez, C.; Paparella, A. Casing contribution to proteolytic changes and biogenic amines content in the production of an artisanal naturally fermented dry sausages. Foods 2020, 9, 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barger, G. Bases of bio-chemical interest derived from the proteins. Sci. Prog. Twent. Century 1911, 6, 221–242. [Google Scholar]
  44. Geiger, E.; Courtney, G.; Schakenberg, G. The content and formation of histamine in fish muscle. Arch. Biol. Chem. Biophys. 1944, 3, 311–319. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ababouch, L.; Afilal, M. Histamine forming bacteria isolated from spoiling sardines. Food Microbiol. 1988, 2, 385–389. [Google Scholar]
  46. Arnold, S.H.; Brown, W.D. Histamine (?) toxicity from fish products. Adv. Food Res. 1978, 24, 113–154. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tiecco, G.; Tantillo, G.; Francioso, E.; Paparella, A.; De Natale, G. Ricerca quali-quantitativa di alcune amine biogene in insaccati nel corso della stagionatura. Ind. Alim. 1985, 25, 209–213. [Google Scholar]
  48. Montel, M.C.; Masson, F.; Talon, R. Comparison of biogenic amine content in traditional and industrial French dry sausages. Sci. Aliment. 1999, 19, 247–254. [Google Scholar]
  49. Eerola, S.; Roig-Sagués, A.X.; Hirvi, T.K. Biogenic amines in Finnish dry sausages. J. Food Saf. 1998, 18, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Masson, F.; Talon, R.; Montel, M.C. Histamine and tyramine production by bacteria from meat products. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1996, 32, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Edwards, R.A.; Dainty, R.H.; Hibbard, C.M.; Ramantanis, S.V. Amines in fresh beef of normal pH and the role of bacteria in changes in concentration observed during storage in vacuum packs in chilled temperature. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1987, 63, 427–434. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gardini, F.; Özogul, Y.; Suzzi, G.; Tabanelli, G.; Özogul, F. Technological factors affecting biogenic amine content in foods: A review. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Paparella, A.; Tofalo, R. Fermented sausages: A potential source of biogenic amines. In Biogenic Amines in Food: Analysis, Accurrence and Toxicity; Saal, B., Tofalo, R., Eds.; The Royal Society of Chemistry: Croydon, UK, 2020; pp. 103–118. ISBN 978-1-78801-436-6. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sirocchi, V.; Caprioli, G.; Cecchini, C.; Coman, M.M.; Cresci, A.; Maggi, F.; Papa, F.; Ricciutelli, M.; Vittori, S.; Sagratini, G. Biogenic amines as freshness index of meat wrapped in a new active packaging system formulated with essential oils of Rosmarinus officinalis. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 64, 921–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Miller, K.; Reichert, C.L.; Schmid, M. Biogenic amine detection systems for intelligent packaging concepts: Meat and Meat Products. Food Rev. Int. 2021, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mercogliano, R.; Felice, A.D.; Murru, N.; Santonicola, S.; Cortesi, M.L. Ozone decontamination of poultry meat and biogenic amines as quality index. J. Food Process. Technol. 2014, 5, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Li, Y.; Yu, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Cao, Z. Selection of nitrite-degrading and biogenic amine-degrading strains and its involved genes. Food Qual. Saf. 2020, 4, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Biesuz, R.; Magnaghi, L.R. Role of biogenic amines in protein foods sensing: Myths and evidence. In Meat and Nutrition; Ranabhat, C.L., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018, 361, 6399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. ST/ESA/SER.A/423. 2019. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/ (accessed on 28 January 2022).
  61. Bronzwaer, S.; Geervliet, M.; Hugas, M.; Url, B. EFSA’s expertise supports One Health policy needs. EFSA J. 2021, 19, e190501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. De Gavelle, E.; Davidenko, O.; Fouillet, H.; Delarue, J.; Darcel, N.; Huneau, J.F.; Mariotti, F. Self-declared attitudes and beliefs regarding protein sources are a good prediction of the degree of transition to a low-meat diet in France. Appetite 2019, 142, 104345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Red Meat and Processed Meat; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  64. Santeramo, F.G.; Carlucci, D.; De Vitis, B.; Seccia, A.; Stasi, A.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G. Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry. Food Res. Int. 2018, 104, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Flores, M.; Mora, L.; Reig, M.; Toldrà, F. Risk assessment of chemical substances of safety concern generated in processed meats. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Martuscelli, M.; Pittia, P.; Casamassima, L.M.; Manetta, A.C.; Lupieri, L.; Neri, L. Effect of intensity of smoking treatment on the free amino acids and biogenic amines occurrence in dry cured ham. Food Chem. 2009, 116, 955–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Martuscelli, M.; Esposito, L.; Mastrocola, D. Biogenic Amines’ Content in Safe and Quality Food. Foods 2021, 10, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Doeun, D.; Davaatseren, M.; Chung, M.S. Biogenic amines in foods. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 26, 1463–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Jairath, G.; Singh, P.J.; Singh Dabur, R.; Rani, M.; Chaudhari, M. Biogenic amines in meat and meat products and its public health significance: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 6835–6846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Alessandroni, L.; Caprioli, G.; Faiella, F.; Fiorini, D.; Galli, R.; Huang, X.; Marinelli, G.; Nzekoue, F.; Ricciutelli, M.; Scortichini, S.; et al. A shelf-life study for the evaluation of a new biopackaging to preserve the quality of organic chicken meat. Food Chem. 2022, 371, 131134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Chmiel, M.; Roszko, M.; Hać-Szymańczuk, E.; Cegiełka, A.; Adamczaka, L.; Florowski, T.; Pietrzak, D.; Bryła, M.; Świder, O. Changes in the microbiological quality and content of biogenic amines in chicken fillets packed using various techniques and stored under different conditions. Food Microbiol. 2022, 102, 103920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, S.; Johansson, M.; Vidanarachchi, J.K.; Pickova, J.; Zamaratskaia, G. Determination of biogenic amines in aerobically stored beef using high-performance thin-layer chromatography densitometry. Acta Agric. Scand. A Anim. Sci. 2017, 66, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Motaghifar, A.; Akbari-Adergani, B.; Rokney, N.; Mottalebi, A. Evaluating red meat putrefaction in long term storage in freezing condition based on co-variation of major biogenic amines and total volatile nitrogen. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 41 (Suppl. S1), 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, M.; Tian, L.; Zhao, G.; Zhang, Q.; Gao, X.; Huang, X.; Sun, L. Formation of biogenic amines and growth of spoilage-related microorganisms in pork stored under different packaging conditions applying PCA. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 843–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cruz-Monterrosa, R.G.; Reséndiz-Cruz, V.; Rayas-Amor, A.A.; López, M.; Miranda-de la Lama, G.C. Bruises in beef cattle at slaughter in Mexico: Implications on quality, safety and shelf life of the meat. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017, 49, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Muñoz-Esparza, N.C.; Latorre-Moratalla, M.L.; Comas-Basté, O.; Toro-Funes, N.; Veciana-Nogués, M.T.; Vidal-Carou, M.C. Polyamines in Food. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bae, D.H.; Lane, D.J.R.; Jansson, P.J.; Richardson, D.R. The old and new biochemistry of polyamines. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2018, 1863, 2053–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Taie, H.A.A.; Seif El-Yazal, M.A.; Ahmed, S.M.A.; Rady, M.M. Polyamines modulate growth, antioxidant activity, and genomic DNA in heavy metal–stressed wheat plant. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 22338–22350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Terui, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Sakamoto, A.; Saito, D.; Oshima, T.; Kawazoe, M.; Yokoyama, S.; Igarashi, K.; Kashiwagi, K. Polyamines protect nucleic acids against depurination. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2018, 99, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Jastrzębska, A.; Kowalska, S.; Szłyk, E. Studies of levels of biogenic amines in meat samples in relation to the content of additives. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2015, 33, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sørensen, K.M.; Aru, V.; Khakimov, B.; Aunskjær, U.; Balling Engelsen, S. Biogenic amines: A key freshness parameter of animal protein products in the coming circular economy. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2018, 22, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bekhit, A.E.-D.A.; Giteru, S.G.; Holman, B.W.B.; Hopkins, D.L. Total volatile basic nitrogen and trimethylamine in muscle foods: Potential formation pathways and effects on human health. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 3620–3666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Shashank, A.; Gupta, A.K.; Singh, S.; Ranjan, R. Biogenic amines (BAs) in meat products, regulatory policies, and detection methods. Curr. Nutr. Food Sci. 2021, 17, 995–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sallam, K.I.; Morgan, S.E.M.; Sayed-Ahmed, M.Z.; Alqahtani, S.S.; Abd-Elghany, S.M. Health hazard from exposure to histamine produced in ready-to-eat Shawarma widely consumed in Egypt. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 97, 103794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wakas, H.; Mohammed, G.I.; Al-Eryani, D.A.; Saigl, Z.M.; Alyuobi, A.O.; Alwael, H.; Bashammakh, A.S.; O’Sullivan, C.K.; El-Shahawi, M.S. Biogenic amines formation mechanism and determination strategies: Future challenges and limitations. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2020, 50, 485–500. [Google Scholar]
  86. Delgado-Ospina, J.; Di Mattia, C.D.; Paparella, A.; Mastrocola, D.; Martuscelli, M.; Chaves-Lopez, C. Effect of Fermentation, Drying and Roasting on Biogenic Amines and Other Biocompounds in Colombian Criollo Cocoa Beans and Shells. Foods 2020, 9, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Vidal-Carou, M.C.; Veciana-Nogués, M.T.; Latorre-Moratalla, M.L.; Bover-Cid, S. Biogenic Amines: Risks and control. In Handbook of Fermented Meat and Poultry; Toldrá, F., Hui, Y.H., Astiasarán, I., Sebranek, J.G., Talon, R., Eds.; John and Wiley and Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kumar, P.; Chatli, M.K.; Verma, K.A.; Mehta, N.; Malav, O.P.; Kumar, D.; Sharma, N. Quality, functionality, and shelf life of fermented meat and meat products: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 57, 2844–2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Martuscelli, M.; Serio, A.; Capezio, O.; Mastrocola, D. Safety, quality and analytical authentication of halal meat products, with particular emphasis on salami: A review. Foods 2020, 9, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Barzegar, F.; Kamankesh, M.; Mohammadi, A. Recent development in formation, toxic effects, human health and analytical techniques of food contaminants. Food Rev. Int. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Moradi, S.; Shariatifar, N.; Akbari-adergani, B.; Agahee, E.M.; Arbameri, M. Analysis and health risk assessment of nitrosamines in meat products collected from markets, Iran: With the approach of chemometric. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2021, 19, 1361–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lorenzo, J.M.; Franco Ruìz, D.J.; Carballo, J. Biogenic amines in fermented meat products. In Fermented Meat Products: Health Aspects, 1st ed.; Zdolec, N., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 450–473. [Google Scholar]
  93. Bubelová, Z.; Buňka, F.; Taťáková, M.; Štajnochová, K.; Purevdorj, K.; Buňková, L. Effects of temperature, pH and NaCl content on in vitro putrescine and cadaverine production through the growth of Serratia marcescens CCM 303. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2015, 50, 797–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lorencová, E.; Buňková, L.; Pleva, P.; Dráb, V.; Kubán, V.; Buňka, F. Selected factors influencing the ability of Bifidobacterium to form biogenic amines. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 49, 1302–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gardini, F.; Martuscelli, M.; Crudele, M.A.; Paparella, A.; Suzzi, G. Use of Staphylococcus xylosus as a starter culture in dried sausages: Effect on the biogenic amine content. Meat Sci. 2002, 61, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Casaburri, A.; Piombino, P.; Nychas, G.J.; Villani, F.; Ercolini, D. Bacterial populations and the volatilome associated to meat spoilage. Food Microbiol. Part A 2015, 45, 83–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Latorre-Moratalla, M.L.; Comas-Basté, O.; Bover-Cid, S.; Vidal-Carou, M.C. Tyramine and histamine risk assessment related to consumption of dry fermented sausages by the Spanish population. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017, 99, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Parente, E.; Martuscelli, M.; Gardini, F.; Grieco, S.; Crudele, M.A.; Suzzi, G. Evolution of microbial population and biogenic amine production in dry sausages produced in Southern Italy. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 90, 882–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. del Rio, B.; Redruello, B.; Linares, D.M.; Ladero, V.; Fernandez, M.; Martin, M.C.; Ruas-Madiedo, P.; Alvarez, M.A. The dietary biogenic amines tyramine and histamine show synergistic toxicity towards intestinal cells in culture. Food Chem. 2017, 218, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. del Rio, B.; Redruello, B.; Linares, D.M.; Ladero; Ruas-Madiedo, P.; Fernandez, M.; Martin, M.C.; Alvarez, M.A. The biogenic amines putrescine and cadaverine show in vitro cytotoxicity at concentrations that can be found in foods. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Halagarda, M.; Wójciak, K.M. Health and safety aspects of traditional European meat products. A review. Meat Sci. 2022, 184, 108623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Rabie, M.A.; Peres, C.; Malcata, F.X. Evolution of amino acids and biogenic amines throughout storage in sausages made of horse, beef and turkey meats. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Alves, S.P.; Alfaia, C.M.; Škrbić, B.D.; Živančev, J.R.; Fernandes, M.J.; Bessa, R.J.B.; Fraqueza, M.J. Screening chemical hazards of dry fermented sausages from distinct origins: Biogenic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy elements. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2017, 59, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, D.; Hu, G.; Wang, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zou, Y.; Zhao, L.; Liu, F.; Jin, Y. Effect of mixed starters on proteolysis and formation of biogenic amines in dry fermented mutton sausages. Foods 2021, 10, 2939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Alvarez, M.A.; Moreno-Arribas, M.V. The problem of biogenic amines in fermented foods and the use of potential biogenic amine-degrading microorganisms as a solution. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 39, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Chaves-Lopez, C.; Serio, A.; Montalvo, C.; Ramirez, C.; Peréz Álvarez, J.A.; Paparella, A.; Mastrocola, D.; Martuscelli, M. Effect of nisin on biogenic amines and shelf life of vacuum packaged rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fillets. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 3268–3277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Kobayashi, J. Effect of diet and gut environment on the gastrointestinal formation of N-nitroso compounds: A review. Nitric Oxide 2018, 73, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Drabik-Markiewicz, G.; Dejaegher, B.; De Meya, E.; Kowalsk, T.; Paelincka, H.; Vander Heyden, Y. Influence of putrescine, cadaverine, spermidine or spermine on the formation of N-nitrosamine in heated cured pork meat. Food Chem. 2011, 126, 1539–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Long Yan Fong, F.; El-Nazemi, H.; Tung Po Sze, E. Biogenic amines—Precursors of carcinogens in traditional Chinese fermented food. NFS J. 2021, 23, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Martuscelli, M.; Lupieri, l.; Chaves-Lopez, C.; Mastrocola, D.; Pittia, O. Technological approach to reduce NaCl content of traditional smoked dry-cured hams: Effect on quality properties and stability. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 7771–7782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Martuscelli, M.; Lupieri, L.; Sacchetti, G.; Mastrocola, D.; Pittia, P. Prediction of the salt content from water activity analysis in dry-cured ham. J. Food Eng. 2017, 200, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Muñoz-Esparza, N.C.; Costa-Catala, J.; Comas-Basté, O.; Toro-Funes, N.; Latorre-Moratalla, M.L.; Veciana-Nogués, M.T.; Vidal-Carou, M.C. Occurrence of polyamines in foods and the influence of cooking processes. Foods 2021, 10, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Czajkowska-Mysłek, A.; Leszczynska, J. Risk assessment related to biogenic amines occurrence in ready-to-eat baby foods. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017, 105, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 11 00788 g001 550
Figure 1. Scheme of biogenic amines formation. Legend: Hstd = Histidine; Trsn = Tyrosine; Trpt = Tryptophan; Lys = Lysine; Arg = Arginine; Glu = Glutamine; Orn = Ornithine.
Figure 1. Scheme of biogenic amines formation. Legend: Hstd = Histidine; Trsn = Tyrosine; Trpt = Tryptophan; Lys = Lysine; Arg = Arginine; Glu = Glutamine; Orn = Ornithine.
Foods 11 00788 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schirone, M.; Esposito, L.; D’Onofrio, F.; Visciano, P.; Martuscelli, M.; Mastrocola, D.; Paparella, A. Biogenic Amines in Meat and Meat Products: A Review of the Science and Future Perspectives. Foods 2022, 11, 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11060788

AMA Style

Schirone M, Esposito L, D’Onofrio F, Visciano P, Martuscelli M, Mastrocola D, Paparella A. Biogenic Amines in Meat and Meat Products: A Review of the Science and Future Perspectives. Foods. 2022; 11(6):788. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11060788

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schirone, Maria, Luigi Esposito, Federica D’Onofrio, Pierina Visciano, Maria Martuscelli, Dino Mastrocola, and Antonello Paparella. 2022. "Biogenic Amines in Meat and Meat Products: A Review of the Science and Future Perspectives" Foods 11, no. 6: 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11060788

APA Style

Schirone, M., Esposito, L., D’Onofrio, F., Visciano, P., Martuscelli, M., Mastrocola, D., & Paparella, A. (2022). Biogenic Amines in Meat and Meat Products: A Review of the Science and Future Perspectives. Foods, 11(6), 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11060788

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop