Next Article in Journal
Composition of Sugars, Organic Acids, Phenolic Compounds, and Volatile Organic Compounds in Lingonberries (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) at Five Ripening Stages
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Pre-Emulsification with Thermal-Denatured Whey Protein on Texture and Microstructure of Reduced-Sodium Processed Cheese
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of CaCl2 on 3D Printing Quality of Low-Salt Surimi Gel
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of pH and Ionic Strength in Calcium on the Stability and Aeration Characteristics of Dairy Emulsion
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/foods12112151
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:
Article

Determination and Risk Assessment of Flavor Components in Flavored Milk

by
Baorong Chen
1,
Xiaodan Wang
1,
Yumeng Zhang
1,
Wenyuan Zhang
1,
Xiaoyang Pang
1,
Shuwen Zhang
1,*,
Jing Lu
2,* and
Jiaping Lv
1
1
Institute of Food Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
2
Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Food Nutrition and Human Health, Beijing Engineering and Technology Research Center for Food Additives, School of Food and Health, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(11), 2151; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112151
Submission received: 13 April 2023 / Revised: 12 May 2023 / Accepted: 16 May 2023 / Published: 26 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dairy: Chemistry, Processing Technology and Structure– Function Relationships)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to determine chemical composition and assess exposure in flavored milk among Chinese residents, based on risk assessment methodologies of acceptable daily intake (ADI) and toxicological concern threshold (TTC). Esters (32.17%), alcohols (11.19%), olefins (9.09%), aldehydes (8.39%), and ketones (7.34%) comprised the majority of the flavoring samples. Methyl palmitate (90.91%), ethyl butyrate (81.82%), and dipentene (81.82%) had the highest detection rates in flavor samples. This study screened fifteen flavor components of concern and discovered that 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine, furfural, benzaldehyde, and benzenemethanol were detected in 100% of flavored milk samples. Benzenemethanol was found in the highest concentration (14,995.44 μg kg−1). The risk assessment results revealed that there was no risk for Chinese residents in consuming flavored milk, and the maximum per capita daily consumption of 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine, furfural, and benzenemethanol were 226.208 g, 140.610 g, and 120.036 g, respectively. This study could provide guidelines for amounts of flavor additive ingredients in milk.

1. Introduction

According to the Chinese Dairy Industry Quality Report (2019), ultra-high temperature sterilized milk, flavored milk, fermented milk, and pasteurized milk accounted for 40.6%, 28.1%, 21.3%, and 10% of total liquid milk consumption, respectively. Flavored milk is a type of sterilized liquid milk that comprises at least 80% raw bovine (caprine) milk or reconstituted milk (GB 25191-2010), and serves as a nutritional alternative to plain milk [1]. Distribution of volatile compounds is directly related to food flavor [2]. Flavor can be added in appropriate proportions and unlimited amounts according to GB 2760-2014 “National Standard for Food Safety Food Additive Use”. However, maltol directly stimulates Cyp1a1 gene expression [3]. Maltol has harmful effects on the skin, eyes, and respiratory system [4]. Mutagenesis and genotoxicity are linked to furfural compounds [5]. Moreover, the safety of flavor components is frequently neglected, with the characteristic of self-limiting and low dosage.
The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has clearly stated the safe amount of flavor additives in soft drinks, candies, baked goods, puddings, and meat, as shown in Table 1. Unfortunately, the amount added to dairy products was rarely mentioned. Flavored dairy products, as the most popular dairy products among children, should be given greater attention. Acceptable daily intake (ADI) was initiated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1961 and is accessible for toxicological evaluation [6]. When estimated daily intake (EDI) is smaller than ADI, it does not cause harm [7]. Toxicological concern threshold (TTC) is also a useful screening and prioritizing measure for assessing food safety [8]. Each substance is examined and categorized based on chemical structure, and divided into three human exposure thresholds (1800, 540 and 90 μg p−1 d−1). When a substance’s human exposure is lower than the threshold value, the potential safety risk is negligible. Risk exposure assessment needs to combine the concentration of chemicals and the amount of food consumed [9]. A common means of determining this is to interview and record by questionnaire, such as investigating and analyzing the correlation between dairy product consumption and cardiovascular diseases [10], serum vitamin D deficiency [11], ACEN [12], cultural factors and purchasing behavior [13]. Hence, it is an excellent choice that this study adopts a questionnaire method to investigate the consumption of flavored milk in different age groups.
Currently, flavor extraction and determination procedures in dairy products include solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) [14,15], supercritical CO2 fluid extraction (SFE), and dynamic headspace (DHS) [16]. The flavor compounds of infant milk powder [17], reduced-fat dairy products [18], raw goat cheese [19], pea protein beverages [20], camel milk [21], cattle and sheep milk [22], mascarpone cheese [23], and sweet condensed milk [24] were mainly determined by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC/MS). We investigated and measured the consumption of flavored milk in various age groups and established a risk assessment model for flavored milk. This risk assessment has been carried out by taking the mean value as the food consumption data and the maximum detected value as the substance concentration data. This study was necessary and important to provide additive standards for flavor ingredient amounts in milk.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Reagents and Equipment

The online survey “Residents’ flavored milk consumption questionnaire” was created on the Questionnaire website and was available for completion from 1 January 2021 to 30 May 2021. Table S1 has provided details of the questionnaire model. Flavor samples of five brands (Givaudan, MANE, Huacheng, ARTSCI, and Firmenich) were collected from Chinese dairy companies. Twenty-eight flavored milk samples were obtained from Chinese supermarkets, including brands such as Bright Dairy, Mengniu Dairy, Yili Dairy, and Sanyuan Daiy. 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine (99%), phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)- (>99.5%), maltol (99%), benzenemethanol (≥99.5%), methyl salicylate (≥99.5%), benzyl acetate (≥99.7%), 5-methylfurfural (98%), linalool (98%), benzaldehyde (≥99.5%), furfural (≥99.5%), hexanoic acid 2-propenyl ester (98%), 1-hexanol (>99.5%), ethyl 3-methylbutyrate (≥99.7%), and 2-methylpropanal (99%) were purchased from Shanghai Aladdin Biochemical Technology Company (Shanghai, China). Methyleugenol (≥98%) was purchased from Shanghai Yuanye Biology Science and Technology Company (Shanghai, China). Methanol (99.9%) was collected from Thermofisher Scientific Technology Company (Boston, MA, USA). C7-C40 N-alkanes (99.5%) was purchased from an American company, O2si (USA). 50/30 μm divinylbenzene carbon molecular sieve polydimethylsiloxane (DVB/CAR/PDMS) extraction head was obtained from the American company Supelco (Missouri, USA). Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry equipment was purchased from Thermo Scientific. A DB-WAX column (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm) was obtained from Agilent (Santa Clara, CA, USA).

2.2. Sample Pretreatment

The method of measuring flavor samples was that used by Li Ning et al. [21]. Fifteen flavor components of concern were configured into mixed standard solutions and stored in a 4 °C refrigerator. An external standard approach was used for quantitative analysis. Flavored milk samples were put in solid phase extraction bottles for investigation. The 50/30 μm DVB/CAR/PDMS fiber head was aged at 250 °C until the baseline was stable [25]. The extraction temperature of the solid phase micro extraction platform was set to 60 °C and rotation speed to 800 rpm, then balanced for 10 min after inserting the aged fiber extraction head. A distance of 1.5 cm was kept between the fiber head and the liquid surface. The extraction temperature was kept at 55 °C for 50 min, and the extraction fiber head was put into the GC–MS injection port at 250 °C for 5 min of analysis.

2.3. GC/MS Conditions

A DB-WAX column was adopted for GC separation. The heating procedure was as follows: the initial temperature was 40 °C for 5 min, and the temperature rose to 150 °C at 3 °C/min, then to 230 °C at 6 °C/min and held for 5 min. The inlet temperature was set to 250 °C and flow rate set to at 1.0 mL/min. No shunt injections and solvent was delayed for 3 min. MS settings were as follows: electron ion source (EI), no solvent delay, SCAN mode, mass scanning range m/z 35~450 u. NIST, Wiley 9, and other libraries were searched for flavor compounds. Those compounds with an SI above 750 and Total Score above 90 were taken as preliminary screening results. Retention Index (RI), as calculated by the instruments, with RI obtained from the retrieval database, was used to further determine flavor compounds.

2.4. Exposure Risk Assessment Methods in Flavored Milk

The estimated daily intake (EDI) and per capita daily intake (PCI) of flavor components of concern in flavored milk were calculated according to Equations (1) and (2).
EDI (μg/(kg·bw)/day) = F × C/W.
PCI (μg/person/day) = F × C.
in which F is daily intake of dairy products per capita in kg/person/day; C is maximum flavor additive content in μg kg−1; and W is average weight in kg.

2.5. Data Analysis

The data was shown by mean ± SD. Non-parametric tests were used to analyze significant differences by IBM SPSS Statistics 26. The bar plot diagram, heat map, and principal component analysis were drawn in Tutools (https://www.cloudtutu.com/ accessed on 9 March 2023).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Distribution of Sample Characteristics

There were 2108 valid questionnaires obtained, with a questionnaire efficiency of 90.36%. The sociological characteristics of participants are shown in Table S2, including genders, ages, occupations, region of residence, and flavor preferences. In this study, the distribution of gender was lopsided, with females (60.2%) more represented than males (39.8%). This gender ratio is consistent with the study investigating the impact of society and lifestyle factors on dairy consumption [26]. The average weight (kg) and daily consumption per capita (g) from different ages and regions were shown in Table 2. There was a significant difference in the daily per capita intake of flavored milk between males and females (p < 0.01). Males consumed more than females among all age groups, but the results were not consistent with Marek Kardas et al. [27]. Teenagers (<18 years old) had the highest dairy consumption (males 77.57 ± 89.34 g, females 55.14 ± 52.44 g), followed by persons aged 18~24 years (males 57.66 ± 89.59 g, females 50.57 ± 56.66 g). Previous studies indicated teenagers consumed more flavored milk than plain milk in order to enhance their consumption of sugar and fat [28]. Chinese teenagers (66 g) consumed more flavored milk per day than adolescents (50 g) in the United States [1].
This study also analyzed flavored milk consumption in seven regions, namely eastern, southern, central, northern, northwestern, southwestern, and northeastern China. Males from northern China (55.13 ± 133.73 g) and northeastern China (64.33 ± 87.32 g) had higher flavored milk consumption than other regions. In the northeast, the consumption of males (64.33 ± 87.32 g) was much higher than that of females (36.12 ± 48.83 g). Gender, grade, and region all had an impact on the intake of milk. Some results found that children in northern schools were more likely to consume milk than children in southern schools in the United States [29].
In addition, we investigated flavor preferences for flavored milk in Figure 1. Results indicated that people preferred strawberry flavor, milk flavor, chocolate flavor, wheat flavor, red date flavor, mango flavor, and yellow peach flavor, while raspberry flavor, red bean flavor, passion fruit flavor, and pineapple flavor were liked by fewer people. Taste had a significant impact on children’s flavored milk consumption, and a high association with brands and emotions was shown. Some studies discovered that 50% of Belgian children (8~13 years old) preferred chocolate flavor first and fruit flavors second [30] and removing the option of chocolate flavored milk significantly reduced intake of milk [31].

3.2. Composition and Content of Flavor Samples

In flavor samples, 285 flavor components were identified and the basic information of flavor compounds is shown in Table S3. As shown in Figure 2a, the flavor samples mainly consisted of esters (32.17%), alcohols (11.19%), olefins (9.09%), aldehydes (8.39%), ketones (7.34%), aromatic compounds (4.20%), and pyrazines (3.85%). Various fruit flavors (68.2%) made up the majority of flavor samples, and studies showed that fruit volatile compounds were mostly composed of esters, alcohols, aldehydes, and ketones [32].
The detection rate was calculated by the ratio of flavor component detection times to the number of flavor samples. Compounds with a detection rate > 35% were as follows: methyl palmitate (90.91%) > ethyl butyrate (81.82%) = dipentene (81.82%) > ethyl laurate (77.27%) > γ-decalactone (72.73%) > isoamyl acetate (68.18%) = benzaldehyde (68.18%) > linalool (63.64%) = hexyl acetate (63.64%) > ethyl 2-methylbutyrate (54.55%) = peach aldehyde (54.55%) > ethyl phenylacetate (50.00%) = dodecanol (50.00%) > citrated acetone (45.45%) = nonanal (45.45%) > benzyl acetate (40.91%) = α-terpineol (40.91%) > etheyl octanoat (36.36%) = leaf alcohol (36.36%) = lauryl alcohol (36.36%) = ethyl caprate (36.36%). Methyl palmitate was the most common compound in flavors and fragrance [33]. Alphonso mango flavor (26.14%), pineapple flavor (54.4%), and passion fruit flavor (24.67%) were mainly composed of allyl hexanoate. Strawberry concentrate flavor (18.02%), golden mango flavor (37.49%), peach flavor (24.77%), and coconut flavor (16.18%) were mainly made up of γ-decalactone. Although different flavor samples shared many volatile compounds, each flavor had a distinctive aroma depending upon the volatile mixture, concentration, and perception threshold of individual volatile compounds (Figure 2c).

3.3. Composition Analysis of Seven Flavor Samples

Strawberry flavor, milk flavor, chocolate flavor, wheat flavor, red date flavor, mango flavor, and yellow peach flavor were analyzed, as shown in Figure 2b–d. A total of 168 compounds were identified, esters being the main components among the seven flavor samples. The strawberry flavor had the highest proportion of esters, as the most important category [34], including propyl decalactones, ethyl 2-methylbutyrates, ethyl butyrate, methyl cinnamate, phyllyl acetate, and ethyl caproate. These compounds were also detected in previous studies [35]. The PCA (Figure 2c) showed that mango and strawberry had the most similar composition. Mango had a higher percentage of ethers, anhydrides, alcohols, and olefins [36,37].
The chocolate flavor had a complex composition of aldehydes, pyrazines, alcohols, esters, ketons, furans, acids, and phenols [38]. According to this study, chocolate had the most aldehydes, while other studies discovered pyrazines were the major volatile and key odor compounds in chocolate flavor. It is possible that pyrazines produced by the Maillard reaction were the most important compounds that contributed to the final chocolate flavor [39]. The PCA diagram revealed that chocolate and wheat flavors had a similar composition. Wheat flavor had the largest amount of pyrazines and alkanes. According to the heat map (Figure 2d), wheat flavor mostly consisted of pyrazines, thiazoles, and furan compounds. Milk flavor had the highest proportion of alcohols relative to other flavor samples and was mainly composed of alkanes, phenols, and acids. Yellow peach flavor was mainly made up of esters, alcohols, aldehydes, and ketones. Additionally, yellow peach flavor had a higher content of peach aldehyde (26.26%), benzyl acetate (17.71%), and hexyl acetate (16.64%) which was considered key odorants influencing the flavor quality of peach fruit [40].
In the PCA analysis, the red date flavor had a unique flavor composition. The largest class of aroma-impact compounds was esters, including ethyl laurate, ethyl palmitate, methyl hydroxyacetate, and isopentyl acetate. Another important class of odor-active chemicals was aldehydes, and three aroma-impact aldehyde compounds were found in the samples. 5-methylfuranal, furfural, and benzaldehyde were among them [41]. Flavor is a complex mixture of volatile compounds, and the composition was specific to the species and variety of fruits [42].

3.4. The Screening of Flavor Concerned Component

The screening process related to the acute toxicity dosage grading standard in GB 15193.3-2014, and took LD 50 < 3000 as the basic screening criterion under the following two conditions: (I) detection rate greater than 10% (frequency of detection in all flavor samples) and LD 50 < 3000. (II) The detection rate was lower than 10%, the components of seven favorite flavor samples accounted for more than half of the total, and LD 50 < 3000. The fifteen flavor ingredients of concern were 2-methylpropanal, ethyl 3-methylbutyrate, 1-hexanol, allyl hexanoate, 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine, furfural, benzaldehyde, linalool, 5-methylfurfural, benzyl acetate, methyl salicylate, benzenemethanol, maltol, methyleugenol, and phenol 2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-, as shown in Table 3. The linear equation, R2, and detection limit of flavor components of concern are shown in Tables S4 and S5.

3.5. Quantitative Analysis of Flavor Concerned Components in Flavored Milk

Fifteen components of concern were quantitatively analyzed in flavored milk samples and shown in Table 4. Benzenemethanol, 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine, furfural, and benzaldehyde were all detected in 100% of flavored milk samples. Benzenemethanol is a colorless liquid with a mild pleasant aromatic odor naturally produced by fruits and teas. Pyrazines are nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compounds that contribute significantly to the flavor of various grilled, roasted, and similarly cooked foods, including baked potatoes, nuts, and meats [46]. Differences in furfural and benzaldehyde levels in flavored milk were generated by the Maillard reaction and the protein denaturation reaction. Benzaldehyde is an aromatic aldehyde bearing a single formyl group and an almond odor, and can be extracted naturally and is widely utilized in the production of aniline dyes, perfumes, flavorings, and medicines. In addition, the detection rates of 5-methylfurfural (96.4%), maltol (96.4%) and 1-hexanol (92.9%) were higher than 90%. Maltol is one of the byproducts of sugar degradation. There were differences in the content of flavor components of concern in various flavored milk brands, which were influenced by additive amount and manufacturing techniques. Maltol concentrations ranged from 0.83 μg kg−1 to 1682.11 μg kg−1. The maximum content of benzenemethanol (14,995.44 μg kg−1) was determined, which was significantly higher than 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine (2387.18 μg kg−1), furfural (3840.42 μg kg−1), and linalool (4958.30 μg kg−1).

3.6. Risk Exposure Assessment of Flavored Milk

The maximum EDI of different age groups was found to be considerably smaller than the ADI in the risk evaluation. The findings suggested that the flavor components had nothing exposure risks or health threats to the Chinese people. The detailed data is showed in Table 5. However, EDI values were different among age groups. Among people < 18 years old, EDI (0.023~20.27 μg kg−1, bw d−1) was much higher than other age groups, which was closely related to the high flavored milk consumption by teenagers. The EDIs of benzenemethanol (5.231~20.27 μg kg−1, bw d−1), furfural (1.34~5.19 μg kg−1, bw d−1), and linalool (1.73~6.70 μg kg−1, bw d−1) were much higher than other components.
The PCI of different age groups was less than or significantly less than TTC. The results of risk assessment are shown in Table 6 and indicated that there was no exposure risk to human health. The results showed that PCI of 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine, furfural, linalool, and benzenemethanol were the highest across different groups, particularly among people under 18 years old. The PCI of furfural (297.92 g p−1 d−1) and benzenemethanol (1163.26 g p−1 d−1) in males (>18 years old) was closed due to their toxicological concern thresholds of 540 and 1800, respectively. Therefore, children should pay closer attention to the consumption of flavored milk. The maximum daily consumption was estimated using the TTC of the concerned components. The daily maximum intake of three flavor components (2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine, furfural, benzenemethanol) was less than one box of milk (250 g). The highest linalool and maltol consumption was less than two boxes of milk (250 g). This might serve as a starting point for additional research into maximal exposure and utilization in flavored milk.

4. Conclusions

Through the investigation of the intake of flavored milk in different regions, ages, and demographics, it was found that males (<18 years old) in southwestern regions had the highest intake of flavored milk. At the same time, 285 components of different flavor components were determined, and 15 flavor components of concern were screened for risk assessment. Two risk assessments confirmed that Chinese residents’ intake of flavors in flavored milk was safe for their bodies. In addition, the maximum intake of 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine (226.21 g), furfural (140.61 g), and benzenemethanol (120.04 g) was less than 250 g, which can provide a reference value for flavor additive amounts in milk. The result of per capita dairy product consumption in the questionnaire survey was a rough estimate and all the estimates were based on one-week records of flavored milk consumption. Although this may not represent the usual intake, it was enough for estimating people’s average intake.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods12112151/s1. Table S1: Residents flavored milk consumption questionnaire; Table S2: Sample characteristics of flavored milk consumption questionnaire; Table S3: The basic information of 285 flavor compounds; Table S4: Linear equation, R2 and detection limit of flavor concerned components; Table S5: Recovery and precision of 15 concerned components.

Author Contributions

B.C. and J.L. (Jing Lu): Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing-original draft. X.W. and Y.Z.: Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing-original draft. W.Z. and X.P.: Investigation and writing—original draft. J.L. (Jiaping Lv) and S.Z.: Conceptualization, supervision, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Central Guidance on Local Science and Technology Development Fund (2022ZY0003), China Agriculture Research System-National Dairy Industry and Technology System (CARS-36), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (G2022-IFST-04). The composition and content of flavored milk were determined in Beijing Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Johnson, R.K.; Frary, C.; Wang, M.Q. The nutritional consequences of flavored-mild consumption by school-aged children and adolescents in the United States. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 2002, 102, 853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Natalia, M.; George, A.Z. Determination of Volatile Compounds in Nut-Based Milk Alternative Beverages by HS-SPME Prior to GC-MS Analysis. Molecules 2019, 24, 3091. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anwar-Mohamed, A.; El-Kadi, A.O.S. Induction of cytochrome P450 1a1 by the food flavoring agent, maltol. Toxicol. Vitro 2007, 21, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Guido, R.; Gabriele, A.; Giovanna, A.; Vasileios, B.; Maria, L.B.; Georges, B. Safety and efficacy of maltol belonging to chemical group 12 when used as flavouring for all animal species. EFSA J. 2016, 14, e04619. [Google Scholar]
  5. Xing, Q.; Ma, Y.; Fu, X.; Cao, Q.; Zhang, Y.; You, C. Effects of heat treatment, homogenization pressure, and over processing on the content of furfural compounds in liquid milk. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 5276–5282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fitch, S.E.; Payne, L.E.; Ligt, J.L.G.; Doepker, C.; Handu, D.; Cohen, S.M. Use of acceptable daily intake (ADI) as a health-based benchmark in nutrition research studies that consider the safety of low-calorie sweeteners (LCS): A systematic map. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alger, H.M.; Maffini, M.V.; Kulkarni, N.R.; Bongard, E.D.; Neltner, T. Perspectives on how FDA Assesses Exposure to Food Additives When Evaluating Their Safety: Workshop proceedings. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2013, 12, 90–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. More, S.J.; Bampidis, V.; Benford, D.; Bragard, C.; Halldorsson, T.I.; Hernández-Jerez, A.F.; Hougaard Bennekou, S.; Koutsoumanis, K.P.; Machera, K.; Naegeli, H.; et al. Guidance on the use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern approach in food safety assessment. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05708. [Google Scholar]
  9. Food, E.; Authority, S. Overview of the procedures currently used at EFSA for the assessment of dietary exposure to different chemical substances. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2490. [Google Scholar]
  10. Panagiotakos, D.B.; Pitsavos, C.H.; Zampelas, A.D.; Chrysohoou, C.A.; Stefanadis, C.I. Dairy products consumption is associated with decreased levels of inflammatory markers related to cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy adults: The ATTICA study. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2010, 29, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Leiu, K.H.; Chin, Y.S.; Shariff, Z.M.; Arumugam, M.; Chan, Y.M. High body fat percentage and low consumption of dairy products were associated with Vitamin D inadequacy among older women in Malaysia. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Dreno, B.; Shourick, J.; Kerob, D.; Bouloc, A.; Taïeb, C. The role of exposome in acne: Results from an international patient survey. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2020, 34, 1057–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Fuller, F.; Beghin, J.; Rozelle, S. Consumption of dairy products in urban China: Results from Beijing, Shangai and Guangzhou. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2007, 51, 459–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cecilia Alberini, I. Primary Characterization of the Volatile Profile of Port Salut Argentino Light Cheese with the Addition of Milk Protein Concentrate by HS-SPME/GC-MS. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2016, 4, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ai, N.S.; Liu, H.L.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.M.; Zhang, H.J.; Chen, H.T.; Huang, M.Q.; Liu, Y.G.; Zheng, F.P.; Sun, B.G. Triple-channel comparative analysis of volatile flavour composition in raw whole and skim milk via electronic nose, GC-MS and GC-O. Anal. Methods 2015, 7, 4278–4284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jansson, T.; Jensen, S.; Eggers, N.; Clausen, M.R.; Larsen, L.B.; Ray, C.; Sundgren, A.; Andersen, H.J.; Bertram, H.C. Volatile component profiles of conventional and lactose-hydrolyzed UHT milk - A dynamic headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry study. Dairy Sci. Technol. 2014, 94, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ren, R.; Jin, Q.; He, H.-L.; Bian, T.-B.; Wang, S.-T.; Fan, J.-C. Determination of 17 Phthalate Esters in Infant Milk Powder and Dairy Products by GC–MS with 16 Internal Standards. Chromatographia 2016, 79, 903–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chi, X.; Shao, Y.; Pan, M.; Yang, Q.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Ai, N.; Sun, B. Distinction of volatile flavor profiles in various skim milk products via HS-SPME–GC–MS and E-nose. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 1539–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Delgado, F.J.; González-Crespo, J.; Cava, R.; Ramírez, R. Formation of the aroma of a raw goat milk cheese during maturation analysed by SPME-GC-MS. Food Chem. 2011, 129, 1156–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Trikusuma, M.; Paravisini, L.; Peterson, D.G. Identification of aroma compounds in pea protein UHT beverages. Food Chem. 2020, 312, 126082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, N.; Zheng, F.P.; Chen, H.T.; Liu, S.Y.; Gu, C.; Song, Z.Y.; Sun, B.G. Identification of volatile components in Chinese Sinkiang fermented camel milk using SAFE, SDE, and HS-SPME-GC/MS. Food Chem. 2011, 129, 1242–1252. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mahdieh, I.; Hamid, E.; Behrouz, A.; Karimi, T. SPME/GC-MS characterization of volatile compounds of Iranian traditional dried Kashk. Int. J. Food Prop. 2018, 21, 1067–1079. [Google Scholar]
  23. Capozzi, V.; Lonzarich, V.; Khomenko, I.; Cappellin, L.; Navarini, L.; Biasioli, F. Unveiling the Molecular Basis of Mascarpone Cheese Aroma: VOCs analysis by SPME-GC/MS and PTR-ToF-MS. Molecules 2020, 25, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shimoda, M.; Yoshimura, Y.; Noda, K.; Osajima, Y. Volatile flavor compounds of sweetened condensed milk. J. Food. Sci. 2001, 66, 804–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Z.; Wang, S.; Liao, P.; Chen, L.; Sun, J.; Sun, B.; Zhao, D.; Wang, B.; Li, H. HS-SPME Combined with GC-MS/O to Analyze the Flavor of Strong Aroma Baijiu Daqu. Foods 2022, 11, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guiné, R.P.F.; Florença, S.G.; Carpes, S.; Anjos, O. Study of the Influence of Sociodemographic and Lifestyle Factors on Consumption of Dairy Products: Preliminary Study in Portugal and Brazil. Foods 2020, 9, 1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kardas, M.; Grochowska-Niedworok, E.; Całyniuk, B.; Kolasa, I.; Grajek, M.; Bielaszka, A. Consumption of milk and milk products in the population of the Upper Silesian agglomeration inhabitants. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 60, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Murphy, M.M.; Barraj, L.M.; Toth, L.D.; Harkness, L.S.; Bolster, D.R. Daily intake of dairy products in Brazil and contributions to nutrient intakes: A cross-sectional study. Public Health Nutr. 2016, 19, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yon, B.A.; Johnson, R.K. New school meal regulations and consumption of flavored milk in ten US Elementary Schools, 2010 and 2013. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2015, 12, E166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Pelsmaeker, S.; Schouteten, J.; Gellynck, X. The consumption of flavored milk among a children population. The influence of beliefs and the association of brands with emotions. Appetite 2013, 71, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thompson, H.R.; Ritchie, L.; Park, E.; Madsen, K.A.; Gosliner, W. Effect of removing chocolate milk on milk and nutrient intake among urban secondary school students. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2020, 17, E95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. El Hadi, M.A.M.; Zhang, F.J.; Wu, F.F.; Zhou, C.H.; Tao, J. Advances in fruit aroma volatile research. Molecules 2013, 18, 8200–8229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Saravanan, K.; Tyagi, B.; Shukla, R.S.; Bajaj, H.C. Solvent free synthesis of methyl palmitate over sulfated zirconia solid acid catalyst. Fuel 2016, 165, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jetti, R.R.; Yang, E.; Kurnianta, A.; Finn, C.; Qian, M.C. Quantification of selected aroma-active compounds in strawberries by headspace solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography and correlation with sensory descriptive analysis. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, S487–S496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Xu, J.; He, Z.; Zeng, M.; Li, B.; Qin, F.; Wang, L.; Wu, S.; Chen, J. Effect of xanthan gum on the release of strawberry flavor in formulated soy beverage. Food Chem. 2017, 228, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Silva, E.d.S.; Dos Santos Junior, H.B.; Guedes, T.J.F.L.; Sandes, R.D.D.; Rajan, M.; Leite Neta, M.T.S.; Narain, N. Comparative analysis of fresh and processed mango (Mangifera indica L, cv. “Maria”) pulps: Influence of processing on the volatiles, bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Maldonado-Celis, M.E.; Yahia, E.M.; Bedoya, R.; Landázuri, P.; Loango, N.; Aguillón, J.; Restrepo, B.; Guerrero Ospina, J.C. Chemical Composition of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Fruit: Nutritional and Phytochemical Compounds. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Braga, S.C.G.N.; Oliveira, L.F.; Hashimoto, J.C.; Gama, M.R.; Efraim, P.; Poppi, R.J.; Augusto, F. Study of volatile profile in cocoa nibs, cocoa liquor and chocolate on production process using GC × GC-QMS. Microchem. J. 2018, 141, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Toker, O.S.; Palabiyik, I.; Pirouzian, H.R.; Aktar, T.; Konar, N. Chocolate aroma: Factors, importance and analysis. Trends. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 99, 580–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Eduardo, I.; Chietera, G.; Bassi, D.; Rossini, L.; Vecchietti, A. Identification of key odor volatile compounds in the essential oil of nine peach accessions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 1146–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, L.; Zhu, J.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Chen, F.; Wang, X. Characterization of aroma-impact compounds in dry jujubes (Ziziphus jujube mill.) by aroma extract dilution analysis (aeda) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometer (gc-ms). Int. J. Food Prop. 2018, 21, 1844–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schwab, W.; Davidovich-Rikanati, R.; Lewinsohn, E. Biosynthesis of plant-derived flavor compounds. Plant J. 2008, 54, 712–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Arts, J.H.E.; Muijser, H.; Appel, M.J.; Kuper, C.F.; Bessems, J.G.M.; Woutersen, R.A. Subacute (28-day) toxicity of furfural in Fischer 344 rats: A comparison of the oral and inhalation route. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2004, 42, 1389–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gralak, M.A.; Hogstrand, C.; Leng, L.; López-puente, S.; Martelli, G.; Mayo, B.; Renshaw, D.; Rychen, G.; Saarela, M.; Sejrsen, K. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of straight-chain primary aliphatic alcohols/aldehydes/acids, acetals and esters with esters containing saturated alcohols and acetals containing saturated aldehydes (chemical group 1) when used as flavourings for all animal species. EFSA J. 2013, 11, 3169. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rychen, G.; Aquilina, G.; Azimonti, G.; Bampidis, V.; de Lourdes Bastos, M.; Bories, G.; Cocconcelli, P.S.; Flachowsky, G.; Gropp, J.; Kolar, B.; et al. Safety and efficacy of pyrazine derivatives including saturated ones belonging to chemical group 24 when used as flavourings for all animal species. EFSA J. 2017, 15, e04671. [Google Scholar]
  46. Adams, T.B.; Cohen, S.M.; Doull, J.; Feron, V.J.; Goodman, J.I.; Marnett, L.J.; Munro, I.C.; Portoghese, P.S.; Smith, R.L.; Waddell, W.J.; et al. The FEMA GRAS assessment of benzyl derivatives used as flavor ingredients. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2005, 43, 1207–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 12 02151 g001 550
Figure 1. Heat map analysis of Chinese residents’ preference in milk flavors.
Figure 1. Heat map analysis of Chinese residents’ preference in milk flavors.
Foods 12 02151 g001
Foods 12 02151 g002 550
Figure 2. Visualized analysis of the volatile compounds in flavor samples: (a) content ratios in types of volatile compounds among all flavor samples; (b) bar plot diagram analysis of the compound types in seven flavor samples; (c) classification by PCA of the seven flavor samples; (d) cluster heat map analysis of the compound content of the different types.
Figure 2. Visualized analysis of the volatile compounds in flavor samples: (a) content ratios in types of volatile compounds among all flavor samples; (b) bar plot diagram analysis of the compound types in seven flavor samples; (c) classification by PCA of the seven flavor samples; (d) cluster heat map analysis of the compound content of the different types.
Foods 12 02151 g002
Table
Table 1. The adding amount of flavor ingredients in different foods regulated by FEMA (mg kg−1).
Table 1. The adding amount of flavor ingredients in different foods regulated by FEMA (mg kg−1).
ComponentsDairy ProductsSoft DrinksCold DrinksCandiesBakery ProductsLiquorPuddingGum ConfectionaryMeat and Meat SaucesSyrupChewing GumJelly
2-methylpropanal-0.300.25~0.500.670.5~1.05------
ethyl 3-methylbutyrate-4.907.502927-580~430----
1-hexanol-6.60262118-0.22~0.28-----
allyl hexanoate-7113225-22-----
2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine15.00~10-5.00~105.00~10---2---
furfural-4131217100.8045-30--
benzaldehyde-364212011050~60160840----
linalool-23.608.409.60-2.300.80~9040---
5-methylfurfural-0.130.130.03~0.130.03-------
benzyl acetate-7.80143422-23760----
methyl salicylate-592784054--8400-200--
benzenemethanol-1516047220-----1200-
maltol-4.108.703130-7.50---9015
methyleugenol-104.801113------52
phenol,2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)--4.603.806.809-4---0.30-
Table
Table 2. Age and regional grouping, average weight, daily consumption.
Table 2. Age and regional grouping, average weight, daily consumption.
GenderAgeAverage Weight/kg *Day per Capita
Consumption/g *		Coefficient of VariationAreaAverage Weight/kg *Day per Capita
Consumption/g *		Coefficient of Variation
Male<1857.39 ± 10.9577.57 ± 89.341.15Eastern China67.11 ± 9.2453.08 ± 96.821.82
18~2465.89 ± 10.2957.66 ± 89.591.55Southern China63.43 ± 9.9750.86 ± 68.901.35
25~3070.09 ± 9.9150.49 ± 135.402.68Central China68.99 ± 9.9842.71 ± 52.441.23
31~4072.69 ± 9.2837.90 ± 62.891.66Northern China71.21 ± 10.4855.13 ± 133.7324.19
41~5073.73 ± 9.4859.21 ± 127.552.15Northwestern China69.19 ± 10.5050.53 ± 69.151.37
>5171.61 ± 10.3549.99 ± 64.021.28Southwestern China63.23 ± 9.4150.06 ± 54.181.08
Northeastern China70.01 ± 11.8064.33 ± 87.321.36
Female<1851.62 ± 7.0555.14 ± 52.440.95Eastern China54.80 ± 8.5042.54 ± 54.631.28
18~2453.33 ± 8.3350.57 ± 56.661.12Southern China51.58 ± 7.9445.21 ± 50.211.11
25~3054.87 ± 7.7935.13 ± 46.751.33Central China54.53 ± 8.3355.82 ± 57.141.02
31~4057.41 ± 9.8120.03 ± 31.941.59Northern China55.89 ± 9.0138.00 ± 52.231.38
41~5058.86 ± 7.6735.32 ± 51.761.47Northwestern China55.17 ± 7.2946.50 ± 55.751.20
>5160.10 ± 8.5437.70 ± 55.601.47Southwestern China51.41 ± 7.2742.14 ± 46.221.10
p****** Northeastern China56.84 ± 9.4136.12 ± 48.831.35
p***0.03 **
* Mean values (M) and standard deviation (SD). *** shows a significant difference between columns (p < 0.01). ** shows a difference between columns (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Flavor concerned components information.
Table 3. Flavor concerned components information.
NumberRT/minCAS NumberNameMolecular FormulaCalculated RILibrary RILD50/mg/kADI * (μg kg−1, bw d−1)TTC (μg kg−1, bw d−1)
16.55978-84-22-methylpropanalC4H8O8128209605001800
214.629108-64-5ethyl 3-methylbutyrateC7H14O210671082120015001800
327.896111-27-31-hexanolC6H14O1350135572012001800
428.936123-68-2allyl hexanoateC9H16O213731360218130540
530.27714667-55-12,3,5-trimethylpyrazineC7H10N214021402806500540
633.15998-01-1furfuralC5H4O21468147765960540
735.756100-52-7benzaldehydeC7H6O15301541130050001800
836.37978-70-6linaloolC10H18O1545154927905001800
937.753620-02-05-methylfurfuralC6H6O21578158822005000540
1043.739140-11-4benzyl acetateC9H10O217361720249050001800
1145.34119-36-8methyl salicylateC8H8O3178617968875001800
1247.966100-51-6benzenemethanolC7H8O18811890123050001800
1350.117118-71-8maltolC6H6O31973198414101000540
1451.07493-15-2methyleugenolC11H14O22017201381050001800
1554.15297-53-0phenol,2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-C10H12O221792185193025001800
* The ADI (μg kg−1, bw d−1) of allyl hexanoate, benzaldehyde, linalool, benzyl acetate, methyl salicylate, benzenemethanol, maltol, phenol 2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)- was collected by JECFA and got from Pubchem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ accessed on 9 March 2023). ADI of 2-methylpropanal was provided by the European Food Safety Authority. Furfural [43], ethyl 3-methylbutyrate [44], and 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine [45], were obtained from relevant studies. ADI of 5-methylfurfural and methyleugenol were given by the Communauté européenne.
Table
Table 4. Quantitative analysis results of 28 flavored milk samples.
Table 4. Quantitative analysis results of 28 flavored milk samples.
NumberCompoundsMinimum MedianMaximumMean ± SD DetectionsDetection Rate
(μg kg−1)
12-methylpropanal7.6432.15679.44135.07 ± 209.712071.40
2ethyl 3-methylbutyrate1.111.2021.743.55 ± 6.43932.10
31-hexanol4.606.12179.8317.23 ± 34.862692.90
4allyl hexanoate13.9816.24270.8452.21 ± 88.411450.00
52,3,5-trimethylpyrazine13.7214.742387.18162.19 ± 488.8228100.00
6furfural12.6916.613840.42158.71 ± 708.6628100.00
7benzaldehyde15.0526.10931.7798.07 ± 208.0028100.00
8linalool11.1111.434958.30218.77 ± 968.392589.30
95-methylfurfural12.4713.371050.9766.38 ± 200.662796.40
10benzyl acetate9.8717.35643.09117.37 ± 203.891657.10
11methyl salicylate11.5120.6227.3020.01 ± 5.95414.30
12benzenemethanol20.6128.9614,995.44773.61 ± 2890.1728100.00
13maltol0.8360.141682.11353.91 ± 531.512796.40
14methyleugenol24.1224.5524.8224.51 ± 0.27414.30
15phenol,2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-23.6924.301418.60129.61 ± 331.141760.70
Table
Table 5. Comparison of maximum EDI and ADI between different consumer groups.
Table 5. Comparison of maximum EDI and ADI between different consumer groups.
CompoundsMaximum EDI (μg kg−1, bw d−1)ADI (μg kg−1, bw d−1)
Male/YearsFemale/Years
<1818–2425–3031–4041–50>50<1818–2425–3031–4041–50>50
2-methylpropanal0.920.600.490.350.550.470.73 0.64 0.44 0.24 0.41 0.43 500
ethyl 3-methylbutyrate0.030.020.020.010.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1500
1-hexanol0.240.160.130.090.14 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.11 1200
allyl hexanoate0.370.240.200.140.22 0.19 0.29 0.26 0.17 0.09 0.16 0.17 130
2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine3.232.091.721.251.92 1.67 2.55 2.26 1.53 0.83 1.43 1.50 500
furfural5.193.362.772.003.08 2.68 4.10 3.64 2.46 1.34 2.30 2.41 960
benzaldehyde1.260.820.670.490.75 0.65 1.00 0.88 0.60 0.33 0.56 0.58 5000
linalool6.704.343.572.593.98 3.46 5.30 4.70 3.18 1.73 2.98 3.11 500
5-methylfurfural1.420.920.760.550.84 0.73 1.12 1.00 0.67 0.37 0.63 0.66 5000
benzyl acetate0.870.560.460.340.52 0.45 0.69 0.61 0.41 0.22 0.39 0.40 5000
methyl salicylate0.040.020.020.010.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 500
benzenemethanol20.2713.1210.807.8212.04 10.47 16.02 14.22 9.60 5.23 9.00 9.41 5000
maltol2.271.471.210.881.35 1.17 1.80 1.60 1.08 0.59 1.01 1.06 1000
methyleugenol0.030.020.020.010.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 5000
phenol,2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-1.921.241.020.741.14 0.99 1.52 1.35 0.91 0.50 0.85 0.89 2500
Table
Table 6. Comparison of maximum PCI and TTC between different age groups.
Table 6. Comparison of maximum PCI and TTC between different age groups.
Compounds Maximum PCI (μg p−1 d−1)TTC
(μg kg−1, bw d−1)		PCI/TTC > 1Max per Capita Daily Intake/gMax Box/
250 g
Male/YearsFemale/Years
<1818–2425–3031–4041–50>50<1818–2425–3031–4041–50>50
2-methylpropanal52.7139.1834.3125.7540.2333.9737.4734.3623.8713.6124.0025.611800NO2649.2410.60
ethyl 3-methylbutyrate1.691.251.100.821.291.091.201.100.760.440.770.821800NO82,796.69331.20
1-hexanol13.9510.379.086.8210.658.999.929.096.323.606.356.781800NO10,009.4540.00
allyl hexanoate21.0115.6213.6810.2716.0413.5414.9413.709.525.429.5710.21540NO1993.808.00
2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine185.18137.65120.5490.48141.35119.34131.6489.9883.8747.8084.3189.98540NO226.210.90
furfural297.92221.44193.92145.56227.40191.98211.77194.21134.9276.90135.63144.76540NO140.610.60
benzaldehyde72.2853.7347.0535.3255.1746.5851.3847.1232.7418.6632.9135.121800NO1931.817.70
linalool384.64285.90250.36187.93293.60247.87273.42250.74174.2099.29175.11186.901800NO363.031.50
5-methylfurfural81.5360.6053.0739.8462.2352.5457.9553.1536.9221.0537.1239.62540NO513.812.10
benzyl acetate49.8937.0832.4724.3838.0832.1535.4632.5222.5912.8822.7124.241800NO2798.9911.20
methyl salicylate2.121.571.381.041.621.371.511.380.960.550.961.031800NO65,934.07263.70
benzenemethanol1163.26864.64757.17568.37887.93749.63826.90758.31526.83300.28529.60565.251800NO120.040.50
maltol130.4996.9984.9463.7699.6084.0992.7685.0659.1033.6859.4163.41540NO321.031.30
methyleugenol1.931.431.250.941.471.241.371.260.870.500.880.941800NO72,522.16290.10
phenol,2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-110.0581.8071.6353.7784.0070.9278.2371.7449.8428.4150.1053.471800NO1268.865.10
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, B.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Pang, X.; Zhang, S.; Lu, J.; Lv, J. Determination and Risk Assessment of Flavor Components in Flavored Milk. Foods 2023, 12, 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112151

AMA Style

Chen B, Wang X, Zhang Y, Zhang W, Pang X, Zhang S, Lu J, Lv J. Determination and Risk Assessment of Flavor Components in Flavored Milk. Foods. 2023; 12(11):2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112151

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Baorong, Xiaodan Wang, Yumeng Zhang, Wenyuan Zhang, Xiaoyang Pang, Shuwen Zhang, Jing Lu, and Jiaping Lv. 2023. "Determination and Risk Assessment of Flavor Components in Flavored Milk" Foods 12, no. 11: 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112151

APA Style

Chen, B., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, W., Pang, X., Zhang, S., Lu, J., & Lv, J. (2023). Determination and Risk Assessment of Flavor Components in Flavored Milk. Foods, 12(11), 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112151

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