Evaluation of Free- and Bound-Carbonyl Compounds in Craft Beers

Abstract

Carbonyl compounds (CC) can be formed during the craft beer production process, which influence the sensory properties, in addition to their toxicity. The formation of bound CC, in craft beers, is favored by the high reactivity of these substances. This work aimed to quantify 15 carbonyl compounds, in free and bound forms, in craft beers using hydrolysis (bound CC only) and derivatization reactions. Acetaldehyde concentrations ranged from 8.83 to 466.1 µg L^-1 (free fraction) and 22.47 to 1665 µg L^-1 (bound fraction). Other compounds found were acrolein (free + bound_max.: 2897 µg L^-1), benzaldehyde (free + bound_max.: 1326 µg L^-1), heptanal (free + bound_max.: 1140 µg L^-1) and formaldehyde (free + bound_max.: 97.73 µg L^-1). Craft beers showed a proportion of up to 76% for CC in the bound form, which can be related to undesirable flavors in beverages. The consumption of craft beers containing freeand bound-CC (especially acrolein) could pose a risk to the health of frequent consumers.

Keywords:
carbonyl compounds; craft beer; derivatization; 2,4-DNPH; HPLC-DAD

Introduction

Beer is an alcoholic beverage produced from the fermentation of cereals. Its original formula contains barley malt, drinking water, hops and yeast as its main ingredients, and other cereals, classified as brewing adjuncts, can be added to the formulation, replacing part of the barley malt up to 45% by mass. In craft beers, ingredients such as fruits, fruit juices, condiments and others can be added, as long as they do not change the original composition of the beverage.¹,² The beer manufacturing process can be described in several stages, according to the formulation used. However, the main stages of the beverage production are (i) malting, (ii) milling, (iii) mashing, (iv) filtration, (v) boiling, (vi) fermentation, (vii) maturation and (viii) bottling.³-⁷

According to the Brazilian Beer Industry Association (CERVBRASIL),⁸ Brazil is the third largest producer of the beverage, with an annual production of around 14 billion liters. In addition to production, the country stands out as a major consumer of the beverage, occupying the 17^th position in the world.⁸ An advance in the growth of the beer market has been observed over the last few years. A significant part of this growth is related to new consumption trends, with highlight on the increase in craft breweries.⁹

Craft beers are identified as a product with high added value and their main characteristics are the variety of colors, aromas and flavors.¹⁰ In the absence of an official definition, craft beers have been considered as those produced on a small scale and are associated with a slow fermentation process, without the addition of preservatives, stabilizers, dyes or that contain any difference compared to industrialized beers. They can be produced with small amounts of natural products and are modified in a particular way by each producer until they have specific organoleptic properties.²,¹¹-¹⁴

Fermentation, environmental conditions, yeast strain and raw materials (mainly malt and hops) are factors that contribute to the beer chemical profile, promoting the formation of compounds that contribute to the composition of the aroma and flavor characteristic of the beverage. However, the combination of these factors can also promote the formation of compounds with undesirable characteristics, such as carbonyl compounds (CC), furan derivatives (furfural and furfuryl alcohol), biogenic amines, among others.³,¹⁵,¹⁶

The presence of carbonyl compounds in beer significantly influences the sensory properties, especially the flavor and aroma of the beverage.¹⁷ Additionally, the ingestion of high concentrations of carbonyl compounds can promote mutations in the human body and increase the risk of some types of cancer.¹⁸,¹⁹ Thus, in the classification list of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), some carbonyl compounds are among those with carcinogenic characteristics.²⁰ Ingestion of carbonyl compounds may also be associated with multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular disease, hepatotoxicity, and nephrotoxicity.²¹ Another effect caused mainly by acetaldehyde, is veisalgia (better known as “next day hangover”). Symptoms of the hangover include headache, nausea, drowsiness, fatigue and vomiting.²²

In addition to fermentation, aging is one of the main stages in the formation of carbonyl compounds in beers, which are products of oxidative and non-oxidative reactions. Among the carbonyl compounds formed during beer aging, those with higher molecular weight such as 3-methylbutanal, 2-methylbutanal, (E)-2-nonenal, heptanal, benzaldehyde, among others, stand out. Carbonyl compounds formed during aging are mainly responsible for the rancid taste of beer.²³

The main pathways of the formation of carbonyl compounds in beers can include the Strecker degradation of amino acids, the oxidation of alcohols and the autoxidation of fatty acids.²⁴ Carbonyl compounds can be present in beer in two forms (free and/or bound). In free form, they contribute significantly to the taste of the drink. In the bound form, these compounds are neither evaporated nor transformed into their corresponding alcohols, which makes it difficult to perceive them from an analytical and sensory point of view.²⁵

The formation of bound-carbonyl compounds is favored by the high reactivity of these substances, which can react with several other components present in beer. The clear mechanism of how these interactions occur has not yet been fully elucidated. However, as cysteine and bisulfite are well-known intermediaries in brewing products, the bonding of carbonyl compounds to these species to form bound-carbonyl compounds is quite usual.²⁶,²⁷ On the other hand, carbonyl compounds (especially aldehydes) can react with SO₂ from yeast metabolism or any exogenous sulfite added before the bottling step to form α-hydroxysulfonates.²⁸ As proposed by Trueba et al.,²⁶ a schematic representation of the chemical reactions for the formation of bound-carbonyl compounds in beers is represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Schematic representation of chemical reactions involving the formation of bound-aldehydes in beers (adapted from Trueba et al.²⁶).

In view of the above, this work aimed to identify and quantify 15 carbonyl compounds, in free and bound forms, in real samples of craft beers using hydrolysis reactions and derivatization with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine and subsequent analysis by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection (HPLC-DAD).

Experimental

Standards, reagents and samples

The analytical standards of carbonyl compounds, in the form of their respective 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazones (2,4-DNPHo), used in this study were formaldehyde-2,4 DNPHo; acetaldehyde-2,4-DNPHo; acrolein-2,4 DNPHo; propionaldehyde-2,4-DNPHo; crotonaldehyde-2,4-DNPHo; methacrolein-2,4-DNPHo; butyraldehyde-2,4-DNPHo; benzaldehyde-2,4-DNPHo; valeraldehyde-2,4-DNPHo; cyclohexanone-2,4-DNPHo; hexaldehyde-2,4-DNPHo; heptanal-2,4-DNPHo; octanal-2,4-DNPHo; nonanal-22,4-DNPHo; decanal-2,4-DNPHo, all purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Co. (Saint Louis, MO, USA), with purity ≥ 99%.

Other reagents used were 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (2,4-DNPH), 97% purity (Sigma-Aldrich Co., Saint Louis, MO, USA), phosphoric acid (Vetec Química Fina Ltda, Duque de Caxias, RJ, Brazil), sodium hydroxide (Dinâmica Química Contemporânea Ltda, São Paulo, SP, Brazil), pesticide grade dichloromethane (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), HPLC grade acetonitrile (J.T. Baker Chemical Company, Radnor, PA, USA), fuming hydrochloric acid (Synth, Diadema, SP, Brazil) and ultrapure water (Milli-Q, Darmstadt, Germany).

Stock solutions of the carbonyl compounds hydrazones were prepared individually, in acetonitrile, at the following concentrations: formaldehyde (510 mg L^-1); acetaldehyde (511 mg L^-1); acrolein (480 mg L^-1); propionaldehyde (410 mg L^-1); crotonaldehyde (400 mg L^-1); methacrolein (510 mg L^-1); butyraldehyde (400 mg L^-1); benzaldehyde (400 mg L^-1); valeraldehyde (444 mg L^-1); cyclohexanone (410 mg L^-1); hexaldehyde (510 mg L^-1); heptanal (400 mg L^-1); octanal (410 mg L^-1); nonanal (500 mg L^-1) and decanal (444 mg L^-1). From the respective stock solutions, an intermediate solution was prepared (10 mg L^-1) containing the mixture of all carbonyl compounds. All solutions were stored in amber bottles under refrigeration.

Craft beer samples (n = 13) were acquired in commercial establishments located in the city of Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. To obtain the samples, different brands, styles and commercial availability were considered. Information about the craft beers used in this study can be found in Table 1.

Table 1
Information on the analyzed craft beer samples

Sample	Style/type of beer	Adjuncts/ingredients	Origin country
01	Witbeer	coriander, allspice and orange	Belgium
02	Premium Lager	herbal	Jamaica
03	Lager	wheat	Brazil
04	Weiss	ginger	Brazil
05	Pilsen	wheat	Argentina
06	Amber Lager	caramel	Argentina
07	Weiss	orange and coriander	Argentina
08	Honey Wheat Ale	bee’s honey	Brazil
09	American Lager	orange	Brazil
10	American India Pale Ale	passion fruit	Brazil
11	Ale Fruit Beer	cinnamon and berries	Brazil
12	Weissbeer	cloves and bananas	Brazil
13	Pilsen	fruity cereals	Brazil

All samples of craft beers were submitted to the decarbonation process, according to the methodology described by the Instituto Adolfo Lutz (IAL), for the removal of CO₂, before being submitted to the procedure of derivatization of carbonyl compounds.²⁹ After decarbonation, the samples were kept closed and stored under refrigeration, in the original packaging, properly closed, until the time of analysis.

Before carrying out the derivatization reaction of the cabonyl compounds, in the samples of craft beers, a solution of 0.5% 2,4-DNPH (in acetonitrile) was prepared from the recrystallized and purified derivatizing agent (using liquid-liquid extraction), according to the procedure described by Cardozo et al.³⁰ This step is very important for this type of analysis because it minimizes the presence of possible contamination of the derivatizing agent, which can compromise the analytical quality of the data obtained by liquid chromatography.

The preparation of samples for the analysis of free and bound-carbonyl compounds was carried out through adaptations of the procedures proposed by Cardozo et al.³⁰,³¹

Preparation of the craft beer samples

Analysis of the free-carbonyl compounds

To 50 mL of craft beer samples, 5 drops of fuming hydrochloric acid were added to reduce the pH to < 2. Then, 10 mL of 0.5% 2,4-DNPH solution, previously purified, were added to the respective acidified samples and the mixture was subjected to an ultrasound bath for 20 min. After the derivatization reaction, the samples were pre-concentrated by means of solid phase extraction (SPE), using Sep-pack^® C18 cartridges (Waters Co., Milford, MA, USA), previously conditioned with 2 mL of methanol. A polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filter (0.45 µm) was connected to the end of the cartridge and the carbonyl compounds retained in the adsorbent were eluted with 1 mL of acetonitrile and, therefore, filtered directly into the respective 2.0 mL vials and injected into the chromatographic system.

Analysis of the bound-carbonyl compounds

Initially, the pH of the samples was adjusted to 11, to allow the hydrolysis of bound-carbonyl compounds to substances present in craft beers, in order to release them in solution. For this, 1 mol L^-1 sodium hydroxide was added to 50 mL of craft beer samples and stirred for 30 min. After stirring, 10 mL of 0.5% 2,4-DNPH solution were added to the samples, together with 5 drops of fuming hydrochloric acid, and they were subjected to an ultrasound bath for 20 min. After derivatization, the samples were percolated in Sep-pack^® C18 cartridges (Waters Co., Milford, MA, USA), previously conditioned with 2 mL of methanol, for pre-concentration of the analytes. Then, the samples were eluted from the cartridges (1 mL of acetonitrile) and filtered directly into the respective 2.0 mL vials and injected into the chromatographic system. In this way, the total concentration or CC_free+bound (CC_free+bound = CC_free + CC_bound) of each CC individually present in the craft beers samples were analyzed.

Thus, the bound form of each carbonyl compound was analyzed indirectly, through the quantification of free form (CC_free) and of total portion (CC_free+bound) of each CC individually present in the craft beers samples. The concentration of each bound-CC was then obtained by the difference between the concentrations of CC_free+bound and CC_free present in the samples (CC_bound = CC_free+bound - CC_free). Thus, a chemical fractioning of the carbonyl compounds present in craft beers was carried out.

Chromatographic analysis

The analyzes of freeand bound-carbonyl compounds were performed in a high-performance liquid chromatograph (Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan) equipped with a diode array detector (SPD-M20A), a quaternary pump (LC 20AT); communication interface (CBM-20A); automatic injector (SIL-20A); and column oven (CTO 20A). The chromatographic separation of the analytes was performed using a Shim-pack VP-ODS Shimadzu column (250 mm × 4.6 mm; 5 µm), coupled to a Shim-pack GVP-ODS Shimadzu pre-column (10 mm × 4.6 mm; 5 µm).

Water (solvent A) and acetonitrile (solvent B) were used as the mobile phase. Elution gradient was 0-2.0 min (45% B to 75% B); 2.0-10.0 min (75% B); 10.0 23.0 min (75% B to 100% B); 23.0-25.0 min (100% B); 25.0 27.0 min (100% B to 50% B); 27.0-33.0 min (50% B to 45% B); 33.0 33.5 min (45% B). The mobile phase flow was 1.0 mL min^-1. The oven temperature was 40 °C. The injection volume for the standard solutions and the samples was 20 µL. Chromatographic runs were performed at a wavelength of 365 nm. It is worth mentioning that the chromatographic conditions used in this work were adapted from Cardozo et al.³¹

The quantification of the freeand bound-carbonyl compounds in craft beer samples was performed by the external standardization method. Analytical curves were constructed through successive dilutions of the intermediate solution (10 mg L^-1) containing the hydrazones of the respective carbonyl compounds, in acetonitrile, at concentrations ranging from 5.0 to 300 µg L^-1. The samples that presented analytes with concentrations above the linear range were diluted in acetonitrile. All samples and standard solutions were analyzed in triplicate.

To attest the performance of the analytical method, the following figures of merit were evaluated: selectivity, linearity, limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), repeatability (intraday precision) and intermediate precision (interday precision).³²-³⁴

Exposure risk assessment for consumption of craft beers containing carbonyl compounds

The determination of the estimated daily intake (EDI) for assessmenting the exposure to carbonyl compounds (CC_free+bound) found in the analyzed craft beer samples was performed according to equation 1, as suggested by Hernandes et al.³⁵

(1) $$\mathrm{EDI}\left(\mu \mathrm{g}{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g}}^{-1}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{y}}^{-1}\right)=\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}{C}_{\text{free}+\text{bound concentration}}\\ \left(\mu \mathrm{g}{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{L}}^{-1}\right)\end{array}\right)\times \left(\begin{array}{c}\text{craft beer consumption}\\ \left(\mathrm{m}\mathrm{L}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{y}}^{-1}\right)\end{array}\right)}{\text{body weight}(\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g})}$$

For EDI calculations, the sums of individual concentrations of freeand bound-carbonyl compounds (CC_free+bound) identified and quantified in craft beers were taken into account (as mentioned in “Analysis of the bound-carbonyl compounds” sub-section). To obtain the EDI values, the following considerations were made: (i) average daily craft beer consumption of 300 mL for women and 600 mL for men, considering a moderate consumption; (ii) average body weight (BW) of 70.3 kg for Brazilian women and 80.7 kg for Brazilian men.³⁵-³⁷

The ratio between the benchmark dose’s lower one-sided confidence limit (BMDL) and predicted human consumption/exposure of the same substance is known as the margin of exposure (MOE) (equation 2). As mentioned by Hernandes et al.,³⁵ since the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has not established levels for safe ingestion of genotoxic compounds (such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein), MOE can be used for risk characterization for the consumption of craft beers containing these compounds. MOE is typically used to compare the health risks of various chemicals and, as a result, to prioritize risk management efforts. The lower the MOE, the greater the risk to people; typically, a value of less than 10000 is used to indicate health risk.³⁸

(2) $$\mathrm{M}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{E}=\frac{{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{M}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{L}}_{10}\left(\mu \mathrm{g}{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g}}^{-1}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{y}}^{-1}\right)}{\mathrm{E}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{I}\left(\mu \mathrm{g}{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g}}^{-1}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{W}{\text{day}}^{-1}\right)}$$

BMDL₁₀ values considered in our work, for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein, were the same mentioned by Hernandes et al.³⁵

Results and Discussion

Validation of the method

Chromatographic profile of the carbonyl compounds

The chromatographic separation was satisfactory for the analyzed carbonyl compounds. The chromatogram shown in Figure 2 is the result of the injection of a standard solution of 50 µg L^-1, containing the fifteen carbonyl compounds studied, and of one craft beer sample. However, only fourteen peaks were observed in the chromatogram of the mixture of carbonyl compounds using the proposed chromatographic method, since there was coelution of the compounds valeraldehyde and cyclohexanone. These compounds, when analyzed individually, presented very close retention times (14.127 and 13.974 min, respectively) which may have resulted in the overlapping of the peaks during the simultaneous injection. Thus, the identification and quantification of these two compounds were performed considering the sum of both them, which did not compromise the analytical quality of the results for the other analytes.

Figure 2
Chromatograms obtained, by HPLC-DAD (365 nm), for (a) a standard mixture of carbonyl compounds (CC), at a concentration of 200 µg L^-1, and for (b) a sample of craft beer (CC_free+bound analysis). Peak identification: 1-formaldehyde; 2-acetaldehyde; 3-acrolein; 4-propionaldehyde; 5-crotonaldehyde; 6-methacrolein; 7-butyraldehyde; 8-benzaldehyde; 9-valeraldehyde+cyclohexanone; 10-hexaldehyde; 11-heptanal; 12-octanal; 13-nonanal; 14-decanal.

Figures of merit

Table 2 shows the figures of merit obtained to attest the analytical quality of the data, through the validation of the method.

Table 2
Figures of merit obtained for freeand bound-carbonyl compounds analysis in craft beers

Carbonyl compound	tR / min	Linear range / (µg L-1)	R2	LOD / (µg L-1)	LOQ / (µg L-1)	Repeatability (intraday precision)					Intermediate precision (interday precision)
						RSD / %					RSD / %
						5 µg L-1	25 µg L-1	50 µg L-1	200 µg L-1		5 µg L-1	25 µg L-1	50 µg L-1	200 µg L-1
Formaldehyde	7.875	5.00-200	0.9996	2.90	9.66	12.7	12.6	13.8	4.03		-	6.83	3.91	4.09
Acetaldehyde	8.701	5.00-200	0.9997	2.37	7.89	2.63	4.45	4.41	2.04		2.56	1.34	0.68	0.67
Acrolein	9.613	5.00-100	0.9994	2.11	7.02	11.6	3.29	3.47	2.06		10.1	4.14	1.30	0.44
Propionaldehyde	10.116	5.00-200	0.9996	2.93	9.68	14.2	2.86	4.94	2.14		8.97	4.77	1.90	0.48
Crotonaldehyde	11.037	5.00-200	0.9997	2.58	8.61	9.07	1.67	1.74	1.13		7.28	1.6	1.23	0.95
Methacrolein	11.418	25.0-300	0.9996	6.13	20.5	-	16.9	4.93	2.97		-	14.5	8.26	2.08
Butyraldehyde	11.790	5.00-200	0.9996	2.68	8.94	9.28	3.78	3.29	1.72		7.94	4.02	1.71	0.35
Benzaldehyde	12.361	10.0-200	0.9990	5.52	18.4	-	13.0	6.78	2.78		-	11.6	10.2	1.42
Valeraldehyde + Cyclohexanone	14.089	5.00-200	0.9995	3.08	10.3	10.5	4.60	2.74	1.86		7.82	3.69	1.73	0.66
Hexaldehyde	17.303	5.00-200	0.9992	3.99	13.3	12.9	12.2	4.59	2.18		16.8	16.9	3.32	1.21
Heptanal	20.122	5.00-200	0.9991	4.12	13.7	16.5	6.40	5.21	2.02		13.7	10.9	3.47	0.94
Octanal	22.721	5.00-200	0.9999	1.69	5.62	15.0	6.35	6.19	1.59		7.67	8.08	3.73	0.97
Nonanal	24.912	5.00-200	0.9995	3.28	10.9	15.5	7.36	5.74	1.91		14.1	5.74	3.33	1.04
Decanal	26.989	5.00-200	0.9996	2.91	9.71	12.1	6.60	3.42	2.00		11.2	7.34	3.75	0.96

_R²

Selectivity

In the chromatographic conditions used, it was possible to observe that the samples of craft beers did not present chemical species interfering in the retention times of the studied carbonyl compounds. This fact was observed by comparing the chromatogram of a sample of craft beer without the addition of the standard solution of carbonyl compounds and that of the same sample fortified with the standards of carbonyl compounds at a concentration of 100 µg L^-1 (Figure S1, ^{Supplementary Information (SI)} section).

Linearity

It was possible to observe that the method presented good linearity for the concentration levels considered as working range, being 5 to 100 µg L^-1 for acrolein; 25 to 300 µg L^-1 for methacrolein; 10 to 200 µg L^-1 for benzaldehyde and 5 to 200 µg L^-1 for the other carbonyl compounds. These intervals showed the best responses in relation to the coefficients of determination (R²), whose values ranged from 0.9990 to 0.9999 (Table 2). These values indicate a good dispersion of the points and an ideal fit of the data to the regression line, since the R² values remained greater than 0.99, as recommended.³²,³⁴

Limits of detection and quantification

The limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) were obtained through the parameters of the analytical curves.³²,³⁴ The values found for the limits of detection ranged between 1.69 µg L^-1 (octanal) and 6.13 µg L^-1 (methacrolein). While, for the limits of quantification, the variation was from 5.62 µg L^-1 (octanal) to 20.45 µg L^-1 (metacrolein) (Table 2). For the limits of detection, the values found in the present work were lower when compared to the values found by Zhao et al.³⁹ (16 µg L^-1, for formaldehyde) considering the same analytical technique (HPLC-DAD) used in both studies. Hernandes et al.³⁵ obtained limits of detection ranging from 0.03 to 0.3 µg L^-1 for the analysis of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, furfural, acetylfuran and 5-methylfurfural in beers using HS-SPME/GC-MS (headspace solid phase microextraction followed by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry), after derivatization of the analyzes with 2,2,2-trifluoroethylhydrazine (TFEH). For the analysis of free-CC (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein and furfural) in craft beers, LOD values between 0.01 and 0.5 µg L^-1 were obtained using derivatization with TFEH, followed by analysis by HS-SPME/GC-MS.¹⁵ Nevertheless, the low LOD and LOQ obtained in our work attest the good sensitivity of the proposed method for determining freeand bound-CC in craft beers.

Precision

Repeatability and intermediate precision were the precision parameters evaluated in this work and the concentration levels tested were 5.0, 25, 50 and 200 µg L^-1. In the intraday precision (repeatability), the values of relative standard deviations found were between 1.13% (crotonaldehyde), at a concentration of 200 µg L^-1, and 16.9% (metacrolein), at a concentration of 25 µg L^-1. For the interday precision (intermediate precision), the values varied between 0.35% (butyraldehyde), at a concentration of 200 µg L^-1, and 16.9% (hexaldehyde), at a concentration of 25 µg L^-1 (Table 2). For these parameters, the acceptance criteria for the relative standard deviation (RSD) can be from 1 to 2%, for the quantification of macro quantities, and up to 20% for trace analysis.³⁴ In this work, the determinations of freeand bound-carbonyl compounds were performed at trace levels, obtaining relative standard deviations below 20% for all tested concentration levels, attesting that the precision for the proposed method was satisfactory.

Freeand bound-carbonyl compounds analysis in craft beers

The results obtained for the freeand bound-carbonyl compounds identified and quantified in the craft beer samples are shown in Table 3. The concentrations of free carbonyl compounds ranged from 7.30 (acrolein, sample 10) to 2897 µg L^-1 (acrolein, sample 1). For the bound-carbonyl compounds, the variation was from 11.20 (octanal, sample 10) to 2270 µg L^-1 (propionaldehyde, sample 12).

Table 3
Freeand bound-carbonyl compounds concentration in craft beers

Carbonyl compounds	Concentrationa / (µg L-1)
	Sample 1		Sample 2		Sample 3		Sample 4		Sample 5		Sample 6		Sample 7
	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound
Formaldehyde	< 2.90	32.72 ± 0.95	15.77 ± 0.24	< 9.66	< 9.66	28.69 ± 3.07	< 2.90	14.02 ± 0.06	< 2.90	19.00 ± 0.14	< 2.90	14.02 ± 0.06	< 9.66	< 2.90
Acetaldehyde	460.0 ± 11.3	165.7 ± 3.5	8.831 ± 0.556	22.47 ± 4.68	34.04 ± 0.95	142.9 ± 0.1	242.1 ± 2.6	159.0 ± 0.8	142.1 ± 4.0	1665 ± 9	242.1 ± 2.6	159.0 ± 0.8	< 2.37	< 7.89
Acrolein	2897 ± 11	< 7.02	2153 ± 19	713.4 ± 52.3	1400 ± 10	ND	2570 ± 1	ND	< 7.02	12.09 ± 0.58	2570 ± 1	ND	< 2.11	< 2.11
Propionaldehyde	ND	< 9.68	ND	ND	ND	< 9.68	ND	< 2.93	1182 ± 28	ND	ND	< 2.93	362.9 ± 4.7	ND
Crotonaldehyde	ND	ND	173.6 ± 8.0	464.0 ± 20.9	< 8.61	ND	ND	< 2.58	ND	< 2.58	ND	< 2.58	ND	< 2.58
Methacrolein	ND	ND	128.4 ± 12.6	ND	ND	< 6.13	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	1124 ± 53
Butyraldehyde	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	< 8.94	ND	ND	ND	25.54 ± 0.26	ND	ND	ND	ND
Benzaldehyde	ND	ND	ND	ND	< 18.4	1326 ± 23	10.33 ± 2.07	1282 ± 90	< 5.52	158.7 ± 5.2	< 5.52	508.5 ± 3.7	ND	ND
Valeraldehyde + Cyclohexanone	12.11 ± 0.51	ND	< 3.08	< 3.08	ND	ND	ND	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	ND	< 3.08	ND	ND
Hexaldehyde	ND	< LOD	ND	< LOD	113.8 ± 7.9	ND	165.2 ± 1.4	ND	ND	< LOD	165.2 ± 1.4	ND	ND	ND
Heptanal	1040 ± 31	ND	1140 ± 25	ND	445.4 ± 7.9	ND	127.1 ± 1.8	ND	ND	ND	127.1 ± 1.8	ND	ND	ND
Octanal	ND	ND	ND	18.99 ± 3.89	ND	< 5.62	< 1.69	< 1.69	ND	ND	< 1.69	< 1.69	ND	ND
Nonanal	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	< 3.28	< 3.28	< 10.9	ND	< 3.28	< 3.28	ND	< 3.28
Decanal	ND	< 2.91	ND	ND	ND	13.09 ± 2.37	< 2.91	< 9.71	ND	ND	< 2.91	< 9.71	ND	< 2.91
CCtotalb / (mg L-1)	4.61		4.84		3.51		4.25		3.20		3.79		1.49
	Sample 8		Sample 9		Sample 10		Sample 11		Sample 12		Sample 13
	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound	CCfree	CCbound
Formaldehyde	< 2.90	12.71 ± 0.85	< 2.90	< 2.90	< 2.90	< 9.66	< 2.90	19.28 ± 0.76	< 9.66	97.73 ± 3.00	< 2.90	< 9.66
Acetaldehyde	252.5 ± 5.8	814.9 ± 40.9	69.43 ± 1.31	303.1 ± 11.0	466.1 ± 10.1	675.3 ± 0.6	142.0 ± 5.1	1048 ± 60	10.41 ± 0.23	302.6 ± 11.0	57.05 ± 1.02	1303 ± 0
Acrolein	< 2.11	< 7.02	1.416 ± 28	ND	7.30 ± 0.26	ND	1316 ± 37	ND	1812 ± 44	ND	853.2 ± 2.7	ND
Propionaldehyde	925.7 ± 10.1	ND	ND	< 2.93	617.3 ± 10.0	ND	ND	< 2.93	ND	2270 ± 15	ND	< 2.93
Crotonaldehyde	ND	333.9 ± 12.7	148.2 ± 6.1	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Methacrolein	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Butyraldehyde	ND	ND	ND	ND	< 2.68	< 2.68	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Benzaldehyde	ND	ND	ND	ND	< 5.52	< 5.52	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Valeraldehyde + Cyclohexanone	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08	< 3.08
Hexaldehyde	< 3.99	< 3.99	< 3.99	< 3.99	< 3.99	< 13.3	< 3.99	19.93 ± 0.78	< 3.99	< 3.99	< 3.99	< 13.3
Heptanal	< 4.12	< 4.12	72.51 ± 5.43	ND	ND	< 13.7	ND	< 13.7	< 4.12	< 4.12	< 13.7	< 13.7
Octanal	< 1.69	< 1.69	< 1.69	< 1.69	ND	11.20 ± 1.36	561.6 ± 27.4	ND	ND	ND	564.6 ± 5.9	ND
Nonanal	222.1 ± 33.1	ND	ND	ND	< 10.9	< 3.28	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	18.03 ± 0.16
Decanal	ND	16.64 ± 0.52	ND	ND	ND	22.34 ± 1.99	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	27.64 ± 0.11
CCtotalb / (mg L-1)	2.56		2.01		1.78		3.11		4.49		2.80

• ^a
  Mean ± standard deviation;
• ^b
  CC_total: sum of individual concentrations of freeand bound-CC (CC_free + CC_bound). ND: not detected. Analytes indicated as ND represent concentrations that could be below the instrumental limits of detection, different from the limits of detection of the method, estimated in this work.³²

It is worth mentioning that data related to the determination of freeand bound-carbonyl compounds in different types of beverages are scarce. Most works present only the determination of the free fraction of carbonyl compounds, which may be underestimating CC concentrations in different types of beverages. One of the main carbonyl compounds found in fermented and distilled beverages is acetaldehyde (Table 4). In this work, the acetaldehyde was identified and quantified in 92% of the analyzed craft beer samples. In 69% of the craft beer samples, the bound-acetaldehyde fraction was higher than the free-acetaldehyde fraction. In general, acetaldehyde concentrations ranged from 8.83 to 466.1 µg L^-1 (free fraction) and from 22.47 to 1665 µg L^-1 (bound fraction), in the craft beer samples (Table 3).

Table 4
(Free-) carbonyl compounds analysis in different types of beverages

Matrix	Carbonyl compounds	Derivatizing agent	Instrumental technique	LOD	Concentration range	Reference
Craft beer	formaldehyde; acetaldehyde; acrolein; furfural	TFEH	HS-SPME/ GC-MS-SIM	0.01 to 0.5 µg L-1	< 1.0 to 24.8 µg L-1	15
Wine	formaldehyde; acetaldehyde; acrolein; furfural	TFEH	HS-SPME/ GCxGC-ToFMS	0.5 to 3.0 µg L-1	8.4 to 1.715 µg L-1	19
Wine	formaldehyde; acetaldehyde; acrolein; furfural; 5-methylfurfural	not informed	HS-SPME/ GC-MS-SIM	< 1.5 µg L-1	< 1.5 to 227.9 µg L-1	21
Mineral water	formaldehyde; acetaldehyde; acrolein; acetone; propionaldehyde; crotonaldehyde; methacrolein; isobutyraldehyde; butyraldehyde; valeraldehyde; hexaldehyde; benzaldehyde; o-tolualdehyde; and m-tolualdehyde	2,4-DPNH	UFLC-MS	0.6 to 4.0 ng mL-1	< LOD to 125 ng mL-1	31
Beer	formaldehyde; acetaldehyde; acrolein; furfural; acetylfuran; 5-methylfurfural	TFEH	HS-SPME/ GC-MS-SIM	0.03 to 0.3 µg L-1	< 1.0 to 4264.3 µg L-1	35
Beer	formaldehyde	EAHC	HPLC-DAD	0.016 mg L-1	0.17 to 0.62 mg L-1	39
Sugar cane spirit	furfural acrolein	2,4-DPNH	HPLC	0.02758 mg/100mL	4.28 to 39.78 mg/100mL up to 7.45 mg/100mL	40
Sugar cane spirit	acrolein	2,4-DNPH	HPLC	0.0516 mg/100 mL	up to 25.95 mg/100mL	41
Beer	formaldehyde	2,4-DNPH	HPLC-UV	0.6 ng mL-1	172 to 385 ng mL-1	42
White wine Red wine	acetaldehyde	2,4-DNPH	HPLC-DAD/MS	5 µg L-1	30 to 70 mg L-1 4 to 6 mg L-1	43
Beer	furfural	2,4-DNPH	HPLC-DAD	19 µg L-1	205 to 687 µg L-1	44
Mineral water	formaldehyde acetaldehyde	2,4-DPNH	LC-MS/MS	-	2.6 to 31.4 µg mL-1 5.3 to 144 µg mL-1	45
Wine	formaldehyde; acetaldehyde; acrolein; furfural	TFEH	HS-SPME/ GCxGC-ToFMS	0.5 to 3.0 µg L-1	8.4 to 1715 µg L-1	46
Craft beer	formaldehyde; acetaldehyde; acrolein; propionaldehyde; crotonaldehyde; methacrolein; butyraldehyde; benzaldehyde; valeraldehyde; cyclohexanone; hexaldehyde; heptanal; octanal; nonanal; decanal	2,4-DPNH	HPLC-DAD	1.69 to 6.13 µg L-1	7.30 to 2897 µg L-1 (free-CC) 11.20 to 2270 µg L-1 (bound-CC)	this work

2,4-DNPH: 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine; EAHC: ethoxyamine hydrochloride; TFEH: 2,2,2-trifluoroethylhydrazine; LOD: limit of detection; HS-SPME/GC-MS-SIM: headspace solid phase microextraction followed by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry in selective ion monitoring mode; GC-MS: gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry; UFLC-MS: ultra-fast liquid chromatography with diode-array detection; HPLC-DAD: high performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection; HS-SPME/GCxGC-ToFMS: headspace solid phase microextraction followed by comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography with time-of-flight mass spectrometer.

The concentrations of acetaldehyde in the free form can decrease after the maturation step (1.5 µg L^-1), especially in craft ale-type beers, with a reduction in the concentration of approximately 90% for this compound, compared to previous steps in the production process (15.2 µg L^-1). Aldehydes (including acetaldehyde, formaldehyde and acrolein) can bind to phenolic compounds, in addition to other substances, due to the electrophilic and nucleophilic character of these compounds, respectively.¹⁵ Phenolic compounds such as catechin, epicatechin, caffeic acid, rutin and formononetin have been identified and quantified in different types of craft beers.¹³ This could explain the higher concentrations of acetaldehyde, formaldehyde and others carbonyl compounds in the bound fraction, compared to the free fraction, for most craft beer samples analyzed in our work, with emphasis on samples 8 and 10, which are craft beers with ale-type fermentation.

In addition to acetaldehyde, other more relevant compounds found in craft beer samples were formaldehyde (free: < 9.66 to 15.77 µg L^-1; bound: < 9.66 to 97.73 µg L^-1) and acrolein (free: < 7.02 to 2897 µg L^-1; bound: < 7.02 to 713.4 µg L^-1), which were found predominantly in the bound and free fraction, respectively.

Hernandes et al.¹⁵ reported that acetaldehyde, acrolein and formaldehyde were found in their respective free forms in all stages of fermentation to produce craft beers of the ale and lager types. Additionally, the boiling and fermentation processes appear to be important steps in the formation of acrolein and acetaldehyde in ale-type beers. It is noteworthy that these authors analyzed carbonyl compounds only in free forms, at different stages of the craft beers production process; in addition to having analyzed a reduced number of analytes, when compared to our work, with emphasis on the analysis of low molecular weight carbonyl compounds.

Other analytical techniques have been used to determine CC in beers. The work of Hernandes et al.³⁵ showed the use of HS-SPME/GC-MS for the identification and quantification of CC such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein and furfural in ale and lager beers, in concentrations that varied from 1.3 to 4264 µg L^-1, in their respective free forms. Substances from other chemical classes were also analyzed such as ethyl carbamate, furfuryl alcohol and other four furan-containing compounds. The authors point out that acrolein (concentrations found of up to 5.4 µg L^-1) was present in concentration capable of causing health risk.

The carbonyl compounds are chemical species whose characteristics make their individual quantification difficult through classical methods. The complex nature of carbonyl compounds requires, in addition to the use of an adequate instrumental technique, a pretreatment of the samples before analysis.³⁰,³¹,⁴⁷ In this sense, derivatization using 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine as a derivatizing agent has been a common treatment, followed by analysis by high performance liquid chromatography (Table 4). The main advantage of using this derivatizing reagent is the ability to analyze a complex mixture of several aldehydes and ketones simultaneously.²⁴

In addition, the method proposed in this work showed adequate sensitivity to analyze carbonyl compounds in free and bound forms in craft beers, since limits of detection (1.69 to 6.13 µg L^-1) were compatible with previously published papers (Table 4).

It is worth mentioning the scarcity of data in the literature regarding the analysis of carbonyl compounds with higher molecular weights in beers and, consequently, these substances have not been evaluated in their free and bound forms in the beverage in a discriminated way (Table 4). As shown in Table 3, in this work, the carbonyl compounds with the highest molecular weights identified in craft beer samples, with the highest analytical frequency, were crotonaldehyde (free_max: 199.5 µg L^-1; bound_max: 464.0 µg L^-1); benzaldehyde (free_max: < 18.39 µg L^-1; bound_max: 1326 µg L^-1); hexaldehyde (free_max: 364.9 µg L^-1; bound_max: < 13.29 µg L^-1); heptanal (free_max: 1140 µg L^-1; bound_max: < 13.74 µg L^-1); octanal (free_max: 564.6 µg L^-1; bound_max: 18.99 µg L^-1).

Carbonyl compounds present in beers can be classified into different groups according to their precursors such as (i) group 1: Strecker aldehydes which have amino acids and higher alcohols as precursors (methylpropanal, 2-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanal, benzaldehyde, phenylacetaldehyde); (ii) group 2: aldehydes formed from saturated fatty acids (hexanal, heptanal, octanal); (iii) group 3: aldehydes formed from unsaturated fatty acids ((E)-2-nonenal, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-butenal); and (iv) group 4: the precursors of 2-furfural, which are saccharides. It is noteworthy that some of these aldehydes have been shown to be directly proportional to the unpleasant flavors associated with aging beer (oxidized, rancid, sweet mouldy-musty).⁴⁸ Thus, aldehydes from different precursor groups were identified and quantified in free and bound forms in our work. Benzaldehyde (group 1) was found mainly in bound form in concentrations ranging from 10.33 to 1326 µg L^-1. Aldehydes that have saturated fatty acids as precursors (group 2) were found predominantly in the free fraction (hexaldehyde or hexanal: 113.8-165.2 µg L^-1; heptanal: < 13.7-1040 µg L^-1; octanal: < 5.62-561.6 µg L^-1; nonanal: < 10.9-222.1 µg L^-1), except for the decanal that was identified only in the bound fraction (< 9.71-27.64 µg L^-1). Crotonaldehyde ((E)-2-butenal) and methacrolein (methylpropenal) have unsaturated fatty acids as precursors in their formation (group 3), having been found predominantly as bound-CC in the analyzed craft beers, with concentrations that varied from 333.9-464.0 µg L^-1 and < 20.5-1124 µg L^-1, in the respective bound forms.

If the average concentrations of CC, mainly of aldehydes, are calculated based on a “standard drink”, it is possible to observe that, when consuming a 600 mL bottle of craft beer, a person will be ingesting up to 58.6 μg of formaldehyde, 1084 μg of acetaldehyde and 1738 μg of acrolein, approximately, considering the sum of the free and bound fractions of both compounds. Compared to other groups of beverages (such as carbonated mineral water, wine, fortified wine, and spirits) these results are significantly higher, even considering the absolute intake of the respective beverages. For the consumption of a “standard drink” (500 mL) of carbonated mineral water, the intake of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein can be up to 48, 16, and 0.13 μg, respectively.³¹ Lachenmeier and Sohnius⁴⁹ showed that the most problematic group seems to be fortified wine, which has the highest concentration of acetaldehyde in a 90 mL standard drink, with 1000 μg per standard drink, approximately. Regarding formaldehyde concentrations, the average amount in a “standard drink” (50 mL) of different distilled beverages can reach 12.8, 23.5, and 1.7 μg for cachaça, rum, and vodka, respectively.⁵⁰

The total concentration of carbonyl compounds in the craft beer samples can be expressed as the sum of the individual concentrations of free-CC and the individual concentrations of bound-CC. In this way, the total concentration of carbonyl compounds in craft beer samples ranged from 1.487 to 4.838 mg L^-1 (Figure 3). The proportion of carbonyl compounds in the bound form represented from 4 (sample 1) to 76% (sample 7) of the total concentration of these substances in the beverage. As can be observed, all craft beers samples showed significant concentrations of carbonyl compounds in the bound form, highlighting the samples 5, 7 and 12, which have the fraction of bound-carbonyl compounds greater than the free-carbonyl compounds. Bound-carbonyl compounds have a negative influence on the quality of craft beer, as they can significantly interfere with the flavor and aroma of the beverage. According to Trueba et al.,²⁶,⁵¹ the low volatility of these bound species is one of the factors that hinder their elimination during the heating of the must and the action of the yeasts in the fermentation stage, being carried to the final product. These compounds, bound to intermediates such as imines, bisulfite, cysteine, proteins, and others, are considered the most relevant for the formation of unpleasant flavors in beer.

Figure 3
Distribution of carbonyl compounds concentrations for free and bound forms in craft beer samples (CC = carbonyl compounds), according to data in Table 3.

In Brazil, beer quality standards are regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA) (Normative Instruction No. 65, December 10, 2019)¹ and by the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) (RDC No. 65, November 29, 2011).⁵² However, to date, no reference to freeand/or bound-carbonyl compounds in beers has been observed in current legislation. Due to the lack of a specific legislation that regulates the concentration of carbonyl compounds in beers, an assessment of the risk of exposure was carried out for the consumption of craft beers containing the compounds identified and quantified in our work. Thus, Table 5 shows the results obtained for the determination of the estimated daily intake (EDI) and the margin of exposure (MOE), related to carbonyl compounds (CC_free+bound) present in craft beers.

Table 5
Exposure risk assessment through estimated daily intake levels (EDI) and margin of exposure (MOE) for men (M) and for women (W) calculated for toxic compounds (CC_free+bound) found in craft beers

CCfree+bounda		Craft beer samples
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
		EDI / (μg kg-1 body weight day-1)
Formaldehyde	M W	0.24 0.14	0.12 0.07	0.21 0.12	0.62 0.36	0.14 0.08	0.10 0.06	- -	0.09 0.05	- -	- -	0.14 0.08	0.73 0.42	- -
Acetaldehyde	M W	4.65 2.67	0.23 0.13	1.32 0.76	0.96 0.55	13.4 7.71	2.98 1.71	- -	7.94 4.56	2.77 1.59	8.49 4.87	8.85 5.08	2.33 1.34	10.1 5.80
Acrolein	M W	21.5 12.4	21.3 12.2	10.4 5.98	15.0 8.63	0.09 0.05	19.1 11.0	- -		10.5 6.04	0.05 0.03	9.79 5.62	13.5 7.73	6.34 3.64
Propionaldehyde	M W	- -	- -	- -	- -	8.79 5.04	- -	2.70 1.55	6.88 3.95	- -	4.59 2.63	- -	16.9 9.69	- -
Crotonaldehyde	M W	- -	4.74 2.72	- -	1.48 0.85	- -	- -	- -	2.48 1.42	1.10 0.63	- -	- -	- -	- -
Methacrolein	M W	- -	0.95 0.55	- -	- -	- -	- -	8.36 4.80	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Butyraldehyde	M W	- -	- -	- -	- -	0.19 0.11	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Benzaldehyde	M W	- -	- -	9.86 5.66	9.61 5.51	1.18 0.68	3.78 2.17	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Valeraldehyde + Cyclohexanone	M W	0.09 0.05	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Hexaldehyde	M W	- -	- -	0.85 0.49	2.71 1.56	- -	1.23 0.70	- -	- -	- -	- -	0.15 0.09	- -	- -
Heptanal	M W	7.73 4.44	8.48 4.86	3.31 1.90	0.75 0.43	- -	0.95 0.54	- -	- -	0.54 0.31	- -	- -	- -	- -
Octanal	M W	- -	0.14 0.08	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	0.08 0.05	4.18 2.40	- -	4.20 2.41
Nonanal	M W	- -	- -	- -	0.41 0.24	- -	- -	- -	1.65 0.95	- -	- -	- -	- -	0.13 0.08
Decanal	M W	- -	- -	0.10 0.06	- -	- -	- -	- -	0.12 0.07	- -	0.17 0.10	- -	- -	0.21 0.12
		MOEb
Formaldehyde	M W	115098 200530	238808 416064	131265 228698	44919 78260	198211 345333	268616 467998	- -	296302 516234	- -	- -	195332 340318	38535 67137	- -
Acetaldehyde	M W	12039 20975	240639 419255	42568 74165	58556 102019	4168 7261	18781 32722	- -	7056 12294	20221 35230	6599 11497	6328 11026	24065 41928	5538 9648
Acrolein	M W	16.71 29.12	16.89 29.43	34.58 60.24	23.95 41.72	4005 6978	18.84 32.82	- -	- -	34.20 59.59	6633 11556	36.78 64.08	26.73 46.56	56.75 98.88

• ^a
  For the EDI calculations, the sum of the concentrations of the free and bound fractions of each carbonyl compound, individually, were considered.
• ^b
  MOE values in bold represent a risk to consumer health (MOE < 10000).

Acrolein had the highest EDI values (21.5 (men (M) and 12.4 (women (W) μg kg^-1 bw day^-1), followed by propionaldehyde (16.9 (M) and 9.69 (W) μg kg^-1 bw day ¹) and acetaldehyde (13.4 (M) and 7.71 (W) μg kg^-1 bw day ¹). For compounds that were identified at concentrations lower than the LOQ in craft beer samples, the EDI was not calculated. In work related to the assessment of toxicity to consumption of wines containing carbonyl compounds, acetaldehyde and acrolein were also among the compounds with the highest EDI values.²¹

Although there are other methods to assess the health risks associated with alcohol consumption, the margin of exposure (MOE) method is recommended to compare the risks of different components present in alcoholic beverages. The MOE compares exposure levels to toxicological thresholds, which are derived from dose-response assessments for carcinogens and non-carcinogens.³⁸ In view of this, a fact that draws a lot of attention was that the high concentrations of acrolein identified in the analyzed craft beers resulted in MOE < 10000 values in all samples, with the exception of sample 10, considering a moderate consumption for women (Table 5). This could result in public health problems since MOE < 10000 values indicate possible problems for consumers’ health. Thus, the formation of acrolein during craft beers production needs to be strictly monitored. Additionally, more rigorous studies related to risk exposure and toxicity to the consumption of craft beers containing acrolein and other carbonyl compounds need to be developed. Exposure of men (daily consumption of 300 mL of wine) and women (200 mL per day) to acrolein could also pose a risk to the health of wine consumers, since MOE values were lower than 10000 in more than 50% of the samples analyzed in that study.²¹

Exposure to acetaldehyde could pose risk on the consumer health only for men, since 5 craft beer samples showed MOE < 10000. On the other hand, exposure to formaldehyde could not represent a risk to the health of consumers through the consumption of craft beers analyzed in our study (Table 5).

Hernandes et al.³⁵ assessed the risk of exposure to free carbonyl compounds and other unwanted substances through beer consumption. The highest values found for EDI were for furfural (12.6 (M) and 5.2 (W) μg kg^-1 bw day ¹), followed by furfuryl alcohol (0.1 (M) and 0.06 (W) μg kg^-1 bw day ¹), acrolein (0.03 (M) and 0.02 (W) μg kg^-1 bw day^-1), acetaldehyde (0.01 (M) and 0.02 (W) μg kg^-1 bw day^-1) and formaldehyde (0.03 (M) and 0.008 (W) μg kg^-1 bw day^-1). The authors verified that acrolein could represent a problem for the health of male consumers, since the calculated MOE values were lower than 10000 in some analyzed beer samples. Other compounds analyzed, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and ethyl carbamate, could not represent a risk to the health of consumers of beers evaluated in that study. It is noteworthy that the EDI values found by these authors may have been lower than those obtained in our study, since in our work the concentration of free and bound fractions of carbonyl compounds was evaluated in craft beers.

Conclusions

The method showed good analytical quality for the analysis of freeand bound-carbonyl compounds in craft beers, since it was possible to identify and quantify these analytes at low concentrations and with good precision.

The concentrations obtained for the carbonyl compounds in the craft beer samples confirmed the presence of these species in the free form and bound to other substances in the beverage. The total concentration of carbonyl compounds presented a proportion of up to 76% of the concentration for carbonyl compounds in the bound form.

In this way, this study can contribute significantly to encourage the deepening of knowledge about the formation of carbonyl compounds in craft beers, mainly in their respective bound forms, improving the quality of the final product. In addition, this work can be an incentive for greater rigor in the legislation for the identity and quality standards of beers, related to the presence of carbonyl compounds in the beverage.

According to the exposure risk assessment, the consumption of craft beers containing freeand bound CC (especially acrolein) could pose a risk to the health of frequent consumers.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information is available free of charge at http://jbcs.sbq.org.br as PDF file.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). The authors thank also the National Institute of Science and Technology of Energy and Environment (INCT E&A) by the financial support, and to Machado, B.A.S. by the technical support.

• #
  Current address: Centro de Ciências Naturais e Humanas (CCNH), Universidade Federal do ABC, 09210-580 Santo André-SP, Brazil

References

• ¹
  Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA); Instrução Normativa (IN) No. 65, de 10 de dezembro de 2019, Estabelece os Padrões de Identidade e Qualidade para os Produtos de Cervejaria; 2019. [Link] accessed on June 17, 2023
  » Link
• ²
  Villacreces, S.; Blanco, C. A.; Caballero, I.; Food Biosci. 2022, 45, 101495. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ³
  Coelho Neto, D. M.; Ferreira, L. L. P.; Sad, C. M. S.; Borges, W. S.; Castro, E. V. R.; Filgueiras, P. R.; Lacerda Jr., V.; Rev. Virtual Quim. 2020, 12, 120. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴
  Pimenta, L. B.; Rodrigues, J. K. L. A.; Sena, M. D. D.; Corrêa, A. L. A.; Pereira, R. L. G.; Cad. Cienc. Tecnol. 2020, 37, 26715. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁵
  Kempka, A. P.; Thomé, B. C.; de Conto, R. M.; Braz. J. Food Res. 2017, 8, 105. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁶
  Payá, A. L.; Garcia, L.; Cunha, M. D. C.; Crespi, N. M.; de Angellis, V. C.; Leoni, J. N.; de Moraes, P. A. V.; Rev. Eng. Ação UniToledo 2019, 4, 52. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁷
  Coelho Neto, D. M.; Moreira, L. L. P. F.; de Castro, E. V. R.; Souza, W. B.; Filgueiras, P. R.; Romão, W.; Folli, G. S.; Lacerda Jr., V.; Quim Nova 2022, 45, 518. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁸
  CERVBRASIL, http://www.cervbrasil.org.br, accessed in June 2023.
  » http://www.cervbrasil.org.br
• ⁹
  Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento Secretaria de Defesa Agropecuária; Anuário da Cerveja 2020; MAPA: Brasília, 2021. [Link] accessed in June 2023
  » Link
• ¹⁰
  Freire, B. R.; Lemes, D. S.; Moraes, A. S. S.; Gris, E. F.; Chaker, J. A.; Orsi, D. C.; Agrarian 2020, 13, 280. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹¹
  Schabo, D. C.; Freire, L.; Sant’Ana, A. S.; Schaffner, D. W.; Magnani, M.; Food Res. Int. 2021, 141, 110114. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹²
  Ferreira, A. C.; Pereira, M. M. O.; Rezende, D. C.; Vieira, A. S.; Revista da Micro e Pequena Empresa 2019, 13, 12. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹³
  Silva, M. C.; Anjos, J. P.; Guarieiro, L. L. N.; Machado, B. A. S.; Molecules 2021, 26, 4716. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹⁴
  Baiano, A.; Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 1829. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹⁵
  Hernandes, K. C.; Souza-Silva, E. A.; Assumpção, C. F.; Zini, C. A.; Welke, J. E.; Food Addit. Contam.: Part A 2020, 37, 61. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹⁶
  Gil, R. L.; Amorim, C. M. P. G.; Amorim, H. G.; Montenegro, M. C. B. S. M.; Araújo, A. N.; Sensors 2022, 23, 343. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹⁷
  Ncube, S.; Dube, S.; Nindi, M. M.; Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2020, 3, 256. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹⁸
  Peterle, G. P.; Hernandes, K. C.; Schmidt, L.; Maciel, J. B. H.; Zini, C. A.; Welke, J. E.; Cienc. Rural 2019, 49, e20180986. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ¹⁹
  Lago, L. O.; Nicolli, K. P.; Marques, A. B.; Zini, C. A.; Welke, J. E.; Food Chem. 2017, 230, 594. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²⁰
  International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); List of Classifications by Cancer Sites with Sufficient or Limited Evidence in Humans, IARC Monographs vol.1-133. [Link] accessed on June 17, 2023
  » Link
• ²¹
  Ferreira, D. C.; Nicolli, K. P.; Souza-Silva, É. A.; Manfroi, V.; Zini, C. A.; Welke, J. E.; Food Addit. Contam.: Part A 2018, 35, 2315. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²²
  Srinivasan, S.; Dubey, K. K.; Singhal, R. S.; Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2019, 1, 8. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²³
  Mascia, I.; Fadda, C.; Karabín, M.; Dostálek, P.; del Caro, A.; LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 65, 487. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²⁴
  Osório, V. M.; Cardeal, Z. L.; J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2013, 24, 1711. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²⁵
  Lehnhardt, F.; Gastl, M.; Becker, T.; Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 2642. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²⁶
  Trueba, P. B.; Jaskula-Goiris, B.; de Clippeleer, J.; Goiris, K.; Praet, T.; Sharma, U. K.; van der Eycken, E.; Sanders, M. G.; Vincken, J.-P.; de Brabanter, J.; de Rouck, G.; Aerts, G.; de Cooman, L.; J. Chromatogr. A 2019, 1604, 460467. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²⁷
  Trueba, P. B.; de Clippeleer, J.; van der Eycken, E.; Romero, J. S. G.; de Rouck, G.; Aerts, G.; de Cooman, L.; J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2018, 76, 272. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²⁸
  Anderson, H. E.; Santos, I. C.; Hildenbrand, Z. L.; Schug, K. A.; Anal. Chim. Acta 2019, 1085, 1. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ²⁹
  Zenebon, O.; Pascuet, N. S.; Tiglea, P.; Métodos Físico-Químicos para Análise de Alimentos, 4^th ed.; Instituto Adolfo Lutz: São Paulo, Brazil, 2008. [Link] accessed in June 2023
  » Link
• ³⁰
  Cardozo, I. M. M.; Sousa, E. T.; Rocha, G. O.; Anjos, J. P.; Andrade, J. B.; Talanta 2020, 217, 121033. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ³¹
  Cardozo, I. M. M.; Anjos, J. P.; Rocha, F. O. C.; Andrade, J. B.; Food Chem. 2021, 365, 130475. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ³²
  Thompson, M.; Ellison, S. L. R.; Wood, R.; Pure Appl. Chem. 2002, 74, 835. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ³³
  Instituto Nacional de Metrologia (INMETRO); DOQ-CG-CRE-008, Orientação sobre Validação de Métodos Analíticos; INMETRO: Brazil, 2020. [Link] accessed in June 2023
  » Link
• ³⁴
  Ribani, M.; Bottoli, C. B. G.; Collins, C. H.; Jardim, I. C. S. F.; Melo, L. F. C.; Quim. Nova 2004, 27, 771. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ³⁵
  Hernandes, K. C.; Souza-Silva, E. A.; Assumpção, C. F.; Zini, C. A.; Welke, J. E.; Food Addit. Contam.: Part A 2019, 36, 1808. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ³⁶
  Dados Mundiais; Altura Média de Homens e Mulheres, https://www.dadosmundiais.com/altura-media.php, accessed on April 3.
  » https://www.dadosmundiais.com/altura-media.php
• ³⁷
  NCD RisC; Risk Factor Collaboration, https://www.ncdrisc.org/index.html, accessed on April 3.
  » https://www.ncdrisc.org/index.html
• ³⁸
  Okaru, A. O.; Lachenmeier, D. W.; Nutrients 2021, 13, 3785. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ³⁹
  Zhao, J.; Wang, G.; Cao, T.; Guo, Z.; Food Anal. Methods 2016, 9, 156. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴⁰
  Zacaroni, L. M.; Cardoso, M. G.; Saczk, A. A.; Santiago, W. D.; Anjos, J. P.; Masson, J.; Duarte, F. C.; Nelson, D. L.; Quim. Nova 2011, 34, 320. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴¹
  Masson, J.; Cardoso, M. G.; Zacaroni, L. M.; Anjos, J. P.; Sackz, A. A.; Machado, A. M. R.; Nelson, D. L.; Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 32, 568. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴²
  Wang, T.; Gao, X.; Tong, J.; Chen, L.; Food Chem. 2012, 131, 1577. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴³
  Han, G.; Wang, H.; Webb, M. R.; Waterhouse, A. L.; Talanta 2015, 134, 596. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴⁴
  Rico-Yuste, A.; González-Vallejo, V.; Benito-Peña, E.; de las Casas Engel, T.; Orellana, G.; Moreno-Bondi, M. C.; Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 3959. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴⁵
  Abe, Y.; Kobayashi, N.; Yamaguchi, M.; Mutsuga, M.; Ozaki, A.; Kishi, E.; Sato, K.; Food Chem. 2021, 344, 128708. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴⁶
  Ferreira, D. C.; Hernandes, K. C.; Nicolli, K. P.; Souza-Silva, E. A.; Manfroi, V.; Zini, C. A.; Welke, J. E.; Food Anal. Methods 2019, 12, 108. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴⁷
  Peng, Z.; Luo, Y.; Song, C.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, S.; Yu, A.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, S.; Xie, J.; Food Chem. 2022, 383, 132380. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴⁸
  Mikyška, A.; Jurková, M.; Horák, T.; Slabý, M.; Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2022, 248, 533. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁴⁹
  Lachenmeier, D. W.; Sohnius, E.; Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 2903. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁵⁰
  de Oliveira, F.; Sousa, E.; de Andrade, J.; Talanta 2007, 73, 561. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁵¹
  Trueba, P. B.; Jaskula-Goiris, B.; Ditrych, M.; Filipowska, W.; Brabanter, J.; Rouck, G.; Aerts, G.; de Cooman, L.; de Clippeleer, J.; Food Res. Int. 2021, 140, 110049. [Crossref]
  » Crossref
• ⁵²
  Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA); Resolução da Diretoria Colegiada (RDC) No. 65, de 29 de novembro de 2011, Dispõe sobre a Aprovação de Uso de Aditivos Alimentares para Fabricação de Cervejas; 2011. [Link] accessed in June 2023
  » Link

Edited by

Editor handled this article: Rodrigo A. A. Muñoz (Associate)

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  05 Jan 2024
• Date of issue
  Jan 2024

History

• Received
  06 Apr 2023
• Accepted
  21 June 2023