Targeted and nontargeted wine analysis by 1H NMR spectroscopy combined with multivariate statistical analysis. differentiation of important parameters: Grape variety, geographical origin, year of vintage
Godelmann R.,Chemisches und Veterinaruntersuchungsamt CVUA Karlsruhe |
Fang F.,Bruker Biospin Gmbh |
Humpfer E.,Bruker Biospin Gmbh |
Schutz B.,Bruker Biospin Gmbh |
And 3 more authors.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry | Year: 2013
The authenticity, the grape variety, the geographical origin, and the year of vintage of wines produced in Germany were investigated by 1H NMR spectroscopy in combination with several steps of multivariate data analysis including principal component analysis (PCA), linear discrimination analysis (LDA), and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) together with cross-validation (CV) embedded in a Monte Carlo resampling approach (MC) and others. A total of about 600 wines were selected and carefully collected from five wine-growing areas in the southern and southwestern parts of Germany. Simultaneous saturation of the resonances of water and ethanol by application of a low-power eight-frequency band irradiation using shaped pulses allowed for high receiver gain settings and hence optimized signal-to-noise ratios. Correct prediction of classification of the grape varieties of Pinot noir, Lemberger, Pinot blanc/Pinot gris, Müller-Thurgau, Riesling, and Gewürztraminer of 95% in the wine panel was achieved. The classification of the vintage of all analyzed wines resulted in correct predictions of 97 and 96%, respectively, for vintage 2008 (n = 318) and 2009 (n = 265). The geographic origin of all wines from the largest German wine-producing regions, Rheinpfalz, Rheinhessen, Mosel, Baden, and Württemberg, could be predicted 89% correctly on average. Each NMR spectrum could be regarded as the individual "fingerprint" of a wine sample, which includes information about variety, origin, vintage, physiological state, technological treatment, and others. © 2013 American Chemical Society.
Lachenmeier D.W.,Chemisches und Veterinaruntersuchungsamt CVUA Karlsruhe
Side Effects of Drugs Annual | Year: 2015
This review covers publications during the period July 2013 to December 2014 on adverse reactions to antiseptic drugs and disinfectants. Specific agents discussed are aldehydes (formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde), guanidines (chlorhexidine, polyhexamethylene guanidine and polyhexamethylene biguanidine), benzalkonium compounds, ethylene oxide, triclosan, halogens (sodium hypochlorite, and the iodophors iodine, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and povidone-iodine). No new data were identified for tosylchloramide and phenolic compounds. Antiseptic drugs and disinfectants continue to be used in a variety of medical and occupational settings, in certain cosmetic products as well as in the household. Several epidemiological and experimental studies have confirmed the causal association between polyhexamethylene guanidine (PHMG) use in household humidifiers and lung disease in Korea. The respiratory effects and carcinogenicity of the sterilizing agent formaldehyde are still an important subject with several new epidemiologic and mechanistic studies, most of which confirmed the association. Adverse reactions to triclosan were described in a number of publications including endocrine and immunologic effects. Iodine and povidone-iodine are also well-established topical antiseptics, but they continue to cause adverse reactions, including allergic reactions and effects on thyroid function. It was specifically warned against the use of topical iodine in preterm neonates, which may cause a high incidence (12-33 per 100) of thyroid dysfunction.Antiseptics and disinfectants are used as preservatives and antimicrobials in numerous pharmaceutical formulations and personal care products, and their safety evaluation continues. A novel observation was the fact that all kinds of antiseptic solutions may cause microbial infections when diluted with contaminated water, by inappropriate handling, or by storing under non-sterile conditions. © 2015 Elsevier B.V.
Lachenmeier D.W.,Chemisches und Veterinaruntersuchungsamt CVUA Karlsruhe |
Sproll C.,Chemisches und Veterinaruntersuchungsamt CVUA Karlsruhe |
Musshoff F.,University of Bonn
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring | Year: 2010
Seeds of the opium poppy plant are legally sold and widely consumed as food. Due to contamination during harvesting, the seeds can contain morphine and other opiate alkaloids. The objective of this study is to review the toxicology of poppy seed foods regarding influence on opiate drug tests. Computer-assisted literature review resulted in 95 identified references. Normal poppy seed consumption is generally regarded as safe. During food processing, the morphine content is considerably reduced (up to 90%). The possibility of false-positive opiate drug tests after poppy food ingestion exists. There are no unambiguous markers available to differentiate poppy food ingestion from heroin or pharmaceutical morphine use. This is also a problem in heroin-assisted maintenance programs. A basic requirement in such substitution programs is the patients' abstinence from any other drugs, including additional illicit heroin. Also a lack of forensic ingestion trials was detected that consider all factors influencing the morphine content in biologic matrices after consumption. Most studies did not control for the losses during food processing, so that the initial morphine dosage was overestimated. The large reduction of the morphine content during past years raises questions about the validity of the "poppy seed defence." However, a threshold of food use that would not lead to positive drug tests with certainty is currently unavailable. Research is needed to prove if the morphine contents in today's foods still pose the possibility of influencing drug tests. Future trials should consider processing-related morphine losses. Copyright © 2010 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Lachenmeier D.W.,Chemisches und Veterinaruntersuchungsamt CVUA Karlsruhe |
Monakhova Y.B.,Chemisches und Veterinaruntersuchungsamt CVUA Karlsruhe |
Monakhova Y.B.,Chernyshevsky Saratov State University
Journal of Experimental and Clinical Cancer Research | Year: 2011
Background. An increasing body of evidence now implicates acetaldehyde as a major underlying factor for the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages and especially for oesophageal and oral cancer. Acetaldehyde associated with alcohol consumption is regarded as 'carcinogenic to humans' (IARC Group 1), with sufficient evidence available for the oesophagus, head and neck as sites of carcinogenicity. At present, research into the mechanistic aspects of acetaldehyde-related oral cancer has been focused on salivary acetaldehyde that is formed either from ethanol metabolism in the epithelia or from microbial oxidation of ethanol by the oral microflora. This study was conducted to evaluate the role of the acetaldehyde that is found as a component of alcoholic beverages as an additional factor in the aetiology of oral cancer. Methods. Salivary acetaldehyde levels were determined in the context of sensory analysis of different alcoholic beverages (beer, cider, wine, sherry, vodka, calvados, grape marc spirit, tequila, cherry spirit), without swallowing, to exclude systemic ethanol metabolism. Results. The rinsing of the mouth for 30 seconds with an alcoholic beverage is able to increase salivary acetaldehyde above levels previously judged to be carcinogenic in vitro, with levels up to 1000 M in cases of beverages with extreme acetaldehyde content. In general, the highest salivary acetaldehyde concentration was found in all cases in the saliva 30 sec after using the beverages (average 353 M). The average concentration then decreased at the 2-min (156 M), 5-min (76 M) and 10-min (40 M) sampling points. The salivary acetaldehyde concentration depends primarily on the direct ingestion of acetaldehyde contained in the beverages at the 30-sec sampling, while the influence of the metabolic formation from ethanol becomes the major factor at the 2-min sampling point. Conclusions. This study offers a plausible mechanism to explain the increased risk for oral cancer associated with high acetaldehyde concentrations in certain beverages. © 2011 Lachenmeier and Monakhova; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Monakhova Y.,Chernyshevsky Saratov State University |
Jendral J.,Chemisches und Veterinaruntersuchungsamt CVUA Karlsruhe |
Lachenmeier D.,Chemisches und Veterinaruntersuchungsamt CVUA Karlsruhe
Arhiv za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju | Year: 2012
Formaldehyde has been classified as carcinogenic to humans (WHO IARC group 1). It causes leukaemia and nasopharyngeal cancer, and was described to regularly occur in alcoholic beverages. However, its risk associated with consumption of alcohol has not been systematically studied, so this study will provide the first risk assessment of formaldehyde for consumers of alcoholic beverages.Human dietary intake of formaldehyde via alcoholic beverages in the European Union was estimated based on WHO alcohol consumption data and literature on formaldehyde contents of different beverage groups (beer, wine, spirits, and unrecorded alcohol). The risk assessment was conducted using the margin of exposure (MOE) approach with benchmark doses (BMD) for 10 % effect obtained from dose-response modelling of animal experiments.For tumours in male rats, a BMD of 30 mg kg-1 body weight per day and a "BMD lower confidence limit" (BMDL) of 23 mg kg-1 d-1 were calculated from available long-term animal experiments. The average human exposure to formaldehyde from alcoholic beverages was estimated at 8•10-5 mg kg-1 d-1. Comparing the human exposure with BMDL, the resulting MOE was above 200,000 for average scenarios. Even in the worst-case scenarios, the MOE was never below 10,000, which is considered to be the threshold for public health concerns.The risk assessment shows that the cancer risk from formaldehyde to the alcohol-consuming population is negligible and the priority for risk management (e.g. to reduce the contamination) is very low. The major risk in alcoholic beverages derives from ethanol and acetaldehyde.