We report here the first confirmation of the recent Swedish findings of acrylamide in heated foods. The verification exercise used an LC-MS/MS method developed for the purpose as well as an established GCMS method for acrylamide analysis. LC-MS/MS was suitable for the direct determination of acrylamide in aqueous extracts of foods by isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) using triply deuterated acrylamide. Some food matrices were not suited to the new method and mixed-mode solid-phase extraction (SPE) was used to clean these extracts. The foods tested included UK versions of some of the key food groups analysed in Sweden. Also tested were some foods heated under home-cooking conditions. There was good agreement between the LC-MS/MS results and the GC-MS results and the levels of acrylamide found here were similar to those reported for the corresponding foods analysed in the Swedish study. The analyses confirmed that acrylamide is absent from the raw or boiled foods but present at significant levels in fried, grilled, baked and toasted foods. The highest result was 12000 microg kg(-1) acrylamide in overcooked oil-fried chips.

The migration of melamine and formaldehyde, monomers used in the production of melamine-ware food contact articles, has been determined from 50 retail articles purchased in the UK. The food simulant 3% aqueous acetic acid was used as this is the most aggressive simulant towards melamine plastics. The test conditions used were repeated exposure to the simulant for 2 hours at 70 degrees C, since the articles were all intended for general use including contact with hot foods and beverages. Melamine migrated from 43 of the 50 samples tested and formaldehyde migrated from all 50 samples. Directive 2002/72/EC specifies migration limits for both of these monomers in foods and food simulants. Melamine is restricted by a specific migration limit (SML) of 30 mg/kg (equivalent to 5 mg/dm(2)) and formaldehyde, along with hexamethylenetetramine expressed as formaldehyde, is restricted by a total (T) SML(T) of 15 mg/kg (equivalent to 2.5 mg/dm(2)). In all cases the migration of melamine was much lower than the SML for this monomer. The migration of formaldehyde exceeded the SML(T) for 5 of the 50 samples tested. The failure to comply with the SML(T) was accompanied by a number of visible surface effects including discolouration and/or pitting of the simulant contact surface and cracking of the articles. Similar surface effects were observed when one of the samples was exposed to fruit juice which confirmed the suitability of the exposure conditions and 3% acetic acid as a simulant for the articles tested. The ratio of specific migration to overall migration was consistent with, but did not prove, the hypothesis that high formaldehyde migration could be due to the use of excessive hexamethylenetetramine in the polymer formulation. All illegal products were voluntarily removed from the market by the product suppliers.

Methodology for the determination of 15 phthalate diesters (dimethyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, diisopropyl phthalate, diallyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, di-n-pentyl phthalate, di-n-hexyl phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate, dicyclohexyl phthalate, di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, diisononyl phthalate, diisodecyl phthalate, and di-n-decyl phthalate) is described. The method was validated in-house and its broad applicability demonstrated by the analysis of high-fat, high-carbohydrate and high-protein foodstuffs as well as combinations of all three major food constituents. Following on from the analysis of the 20 UK Total Diet Study samples, 261 foodstuffs were purchased and tested for their phthalate levels. Phthalate diesters were confirmed to be present in 77 samples. Di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was the most frequently detected (66 samples), although the highest levels found were for the isomeric mixture diisononyl phthalate. Additional studies confirmed that, for some foodstuffs, packaging materials did contribute to the phthalate diester concentration in the foodstuff and one example is presented.

Phthalates are ubiquitous in the environment and thus exposure to these compounds can occur in various forms. Foods are one source of such exposure. There are only a limited number of studies that describe the levels of phthalates (diesters, monoesters and phthalic acid) in foods and assess the exposure from this source. In this study the levels of selected phthalate diesters, phthalate monoesters and phthalic acid in total diet study (TDS) samples are determined and the resulting exposure estimated. The methodology for the determination of phthalic acid and nine phthalate monoesters (mono-isopropyl phthalate, mono-n-butyl phthalate, mono-isobutyl phthalate, mono-benzyl phthalate, mono-cyclohexyl phthalate, mono-n-pentyl phthalate, mono-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, mono-n-octyl phthalate and mono-isononyl phthalate) in foods is described. In this method phthalate monoesters and phthalic acid are extracted from the foodstuffs with a mixture of acidified acetonitrile and dichloromethane. The method uses isotope-labelled phthalic acid and phthalate monoester internal standards and is appropriate for quantitative determination in the concentration range of 5-100 µg kg⁻¹. The method was validated in-house and its broad applicability demonstrated by the analysis of high-fat, high-carbohydrate and high-protein foodstuffs as well as combinations of all three major food constituents. The methodology used for 15 major phthalate diesters has been reported elsewhere. Phthalic acid was the most prevalent phthalate, being detected in 17 food groups. The highest concentration measured was di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in fish (789 µg kg⁻¹). Low levels of mono-n-butyl phthalate and mono-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were detected in several of the TDS animal-based food groups and the highest concentrations measured corresponded with the most abundant diesters (di-n-butyl phthalate and di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate). The UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) considered the levels found and concluded that they did not indicate a risk to human health from dietary exposure alone.

No abstract