4.7 Article

Impact of classical home cooking processes on chlordecone and chlordecol concentrations in animal products originated from French West Indies

Journal

FOOD CONTROL
Volume 152, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109871

Keywords

Chlordecone; Chlordecol; Processing factor; Animal products; QuEChERS extraction; ID-LC-MS; MS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The behaviors of chlordecone (CLD) and chlordecol (CLDOH) during home cooking processes were assessed on a variety of animal products. Oven and microwave cooking decreased CLD concentrations compared to the pre-cooked state. Cooking time, sample weight, and matrix composition were found to be important factors in cooking efficiencies. Occasionally, low to moderate concentrations of CLDOH were detected in cooked matrices. These findings can contribute to risk assessment in this specific context.
Behaviors of chlordecone (CLD) and chlordecol (CLDOH) during three home classical cooking processes (pan, oven, and microwave cooking) were assessed on a large variety of animal products (spiny lobster, crayfish, chicken, egg, pork and fish). Concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometer using isotopic dilution before and after home cooking process. Inter-species and intra-individual variability during microwave cooking, as well as the impact of cooking time and sample weight on CLD and CLDOH processing factors (PFs) were evaluated. In general, oven cooking (62% < PFs CLD <100%) and mi-crowave cooking (16% < PFs CLD <102%) decreased CLD concentrations compared to the pre-cooked state. Matrix composition, as well as cooking time and sample weight, could be key parameters of cooking efficiencies. Moreover, low to moderate concentrations of CLDOH were occasionally quantified in cooked matrices. These data will be useful for risk assessment in this specific context.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available