Exposure Assessment of Monosodium Glutamate in Prepared Foods

with Frying, Sautéing, Grilling or Baking Process

Hanifah Nuryani Lioe, Gabriella Clarinta Dyahpakarti, Nurkhurul Ain Binti Zakaria,

Haekal Rasyid Sudrajat and Ismiani Rahayu

Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, IPB University

(Bogor Agricultural University), IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia

Keywords: Exposure Assessment, Food Additive, Glutamic Acid, Monosodium Glutamate, Prepared Food.

Abstract: Prepared foods generally contain glutamic acid which can be derived from raw materials or from the addition

of monosodium glutamate (MSG) as a food additive. Consumption of prepared foods reached 650.3

g/capita/day in rural area (Bogor) and 710.8 g/capita/day in urban area (Jakarta) according to a previous study

in 2014. Prepared foods can be processed by frying, sautéing, grilling, or baking with high temperatures more

than 100 °C. This type of foods was consumed totally at 439.6 g/capita/day and 455.5 g/capita/day in urban

and rural area, respectively, comprised 62% and 64% of total consumption of prepared food. The aim of this

study was to determine MSG intake from the consumption of prepared foods processed under high

temperatures. The samples were composite samples obtained from Jakarta or Bogor recently, representing 30

different menus. Prior to analysis, the samples were extracted with distilled water. The extracted glutamates

were then analyzed using L-glutamic acid assay kit which then measured at 492 nm with a UV-Vis

spectrophotometer Glutamic acid concentrations were converted to MSG concentrations by a factor of

169.11/147.13 because MSG in its crystal form contributed dominantly in the intake of glutamate, as informed

by a previous study. By considering the Asian adult body weight of 57.7 kg as mentioned in a journal, MSG

exposure in urban area (29.89 mg/kg bw/day) was higher than its exposure in rural area (21.04 mg/kg bw/day).

When compared with the exposures of MSG from total prepared foods, calculated from the previous study by

considering the same adult body weight and using the conversion factor, for urban 36.13 mg/kg bw/day and

for rural 33.91 mg/kg bw/day, they reached 83% and 62% of the exposure. This give an insight that the high

temperature-prepared foods were the main contributor to the MSG exposure from all prepared foods.

1 INTRODUCTION

Based on the Government Regulation (PP) of the

Republic of Indonesia Number 28 of 2004 concerning

Food Safety, Quality and Nutrition, prepared food is

food and / or beverage that has been processed and

ready to be served directly at the business location or

outside the place of business on the basis of the order.

Prepared food consumption in Bogor (rural area) was

650.33 g/capita/day or 79.63% of total consumption

per person per day, while in Jakarta (urban area) was

710.75 g/capita/day or 86.29% of total consumption

per person per day (Nuraida et al. 2014). The study

shows that the amount of prepared food consumption

in both rural and urban areas is large because

respondents in both regions consumed prepared food

more than 50% of total consumption per person per

day. However, people in urban area tend to consume

fast food more than rural communities. Among

prepared foods, there are foods processed by frying,

sautéing, grilling and baking. The food processing is

known as the cooking process with temperatures

higher than 100 ° C (Sundari et al. 2015).

People tend to like prepared food that is processed

by frying, sautéing, grilling and baking. This can be

inferred from the research of Nuraida et al. (2014)

which shows that the people in urban and rural areas

consumed more prepared foods that are processed by

frying, sautéing, grilling and baking in the amount of

439.60 g/capita/day and 455.54 g/capita/day, namely

61.85% and 64.09% of total prepared food

consumption. This is due to foods that are processed

with the high temperatures found for frying, sautéing,

grilling and baking, can undergo Maillard reaction

which is important in the formation of aroma and taste

components in processed foods (Nagodawithana

Lioe, H., Dyahpakarti, G., Zakaria, N., Sudrajat, H. and Rahayu, I.

Exposure Assessment of Monosodium Glutamate in Prepared Foods with Frying, Sautéing, Grilling or Baking Process.

DOI: 10.5220/0009978100002833

In Proceedings of the 2nd SEAFAST International Seminar (2nd SIS 2019) - Facing Future Challenges: Sustainable Food Safety, Quality and Nutrition, pages 49-56

ISBN: 978-989-758-466-4

1995). Maillard reaction products from peptides and

sugars form strong umami and kokumi flavors in food

(Liu et al. 2015).

The addition of monosodium glutamate (MSG) in

crystal form to prepared food is often conducted in

prepared food processing, both in rural and urban

areas. This was revealed by a study on the exposure

of glutamates from the consumption of seasonings

and condiments. In urban area, 88.5% of the intake of

free glutamate in urban area and 95.0% of the intake

in rural area were come from the use of MSG in

crystal form (Andarwulan et al 2011). MSG is a

sodium salt of glutamic acid, which is an amino acid

used as a flavor enhancer (Rodriguez et al. 2003).

JECFA determined that MSG does not have a

numerical ADI or it can be said that MSG has an

"ADI not specified" (JECFA 2006). This is because

JECFA concluded that total glutamate intake arising

from its use at the level needed to achieve the desired

technological effect and from an acceptable source in

food did not represent a health hazard. This has been

shown in a study (Walker and Lupien 2000).

However, the EFSA panel has set the ADI for

glutamate additives which is 30 mg/kg bw/day after

re-evaluating the safety of glutamate additives (EFSA

2017).

Based on the previous study by Nuraida et al.

(2014), exposure to free glutamate from prepared

foods in urban area (Jakarta), 1813.96 mg/capita/day,

was higher than in rural area (Bogor), 1702.37

mg/capita/day or if re-calculated as MSG by a factor

of their molecular weights ratio, the exposures were

2084.95 mg/capita/day and 1956.69 mg/capita/day,

respectively. These are lower than those in other

studies. Research by Insawang et al. (2012) in six

rural areas in Khon Kaen Province, Thailand showed

a population MSG exposure of 3600 mg/capita/day.

MSG exposure in China was 3800 mg/capita/day

based on research in rural areas (Jiangyin, Taichang,

Shuining, Jurong, Sihong, and Haimen) and urban

areas in the capital cities of Nanjing and Xuzhou

Prefecture in Jiangsu Province (Shi et al. 2010).

Research in Hanoi, Thua Thien, and Ho Chi Minh,

Vietnam shows MSG exposure in urban areas at 2300

mg/capita/day, while in rural areas at 2100

mg/capita/day (Hien et al. 2012). According to

Henry-Unaeze (2017), Europe (United Kingdom) and

Africa (Nigeria) data gave estimated daily MSG

exposure of 600 and 560–1000 mg/capita/day,

meanwhile in East and Southeast Asia, MSG

exposures were 2-3 times higher than data reported in

Europe; 1500–3000 mg/capita/day in Taiwan, 1100–

1600 mg/capita/day in Japan and 1600–2300

mg/capita/day in South Korea.

This research was conducted to determine the

contribution of prepared foods processed under high

temperatures to MSG exposure from total prepared

foods in the previous study (Nuraida et al. 2014). This

study assumed that the amount of prepared food

consumption in urban and rural populations was the

same as the survey results by Nuraida et al. (2014),

by considering the consumption of a specific prepared

food in this current study was the same as that for a

respective composite prepared food in the previous

study. The concentrations of glutamate in prepared

foods in this study, which were prepared by frying,

sautéing, grilling and baking, were analyzed in foods

from the current food sampling.

2 MATERIAL AND METHOD

2.1 Materials

The material used in this study were prepared foods

and chemicals in the analytical kit for L-glutamic acid

analysys (R-Biopharm, Germany). The foods were

sampled from180 portions of foods bought from

Bogor for rural area (90 portions) and Jakarta for

urban area (90 portions), with the same 30 food

menus determined for rural and urban. The food

samples were composite samples. A composite

sample made for each menu was a composite of foods

collected from small, medium and large restaurants

found in rural or urban. Food processor (Panasonic

MK-5086M) was used to homogenize the composite

samples. The tools used for the analysis of glutamic

acid were glass wares, analytical balance

(Kern&Sohn GmbH, Germany), micropipettes (20,

200, 1000 µL capacities) and tips, plastic cuvettes

with 1.00 cm light path with 1.0 mL volume, and UV-

Vis Shimadzu mini-1240 spectrophotometer

(Shimadzu, Japan).

2.2 Prepared Food Consumption

The prepared food consumption data were secondary

data obtained from a survey in urban (Jakarta) and

rural (Bogor) areas conducted by Nuraida et al.

(2014). The survey was performed a Food Frequency

Questionnaire (FFQ) method with the number of

respondents for urban and rural areas respectively 112

and 110 respondents. Prepared food in the study of

Nuraida et al (2014) referred to composite food for

each dish menu from three different restaurants

(small, medium and large). The list of prepared foods

mentioned in the study (Nuraida et al. 2014) were

foods consumed by respondents purchased from

2nd SIS 2019 - SEAFAST International Seminar

outside the home or prepared by respondents at home

according to the consumption survey result.

The types of prepared food consumed by

respondents in rural and urban areas were basically

the same, but had different amounts of per capita

consumption. Respondents in the study conducted by

Nuraida et al. (2014) were adult people who are in

urban and rural areas with age categories from 19

years to more than 60 years old. Prepared food in the

study was grouped into six categories namely fruits

and vegetables, cereals and cereal products, bakery

products, meat and meat products (including poultry),

fish and fish products (including mollusc, crustacean,

and echinoderm), as well as eggs and processed egg

products. The total prepared food consumption in

urban area (710.75 g/capita/day) was reported higher

than in rural area (650.33 g/capita/day). However,

only the last five groups were focused in this current

study, due to the groups mentioned foods which were

processed under high temperatures: frying, sautéing,

grilling and baking. The types of food sampled and

tested in this study consisted of 30 menus either for

urban and rural areas, so that there were 60 composite

food samples in total.

2.3 Food Sampling and Sample

Preparation

Prepared foods that were selected as samples were

included in the five food groups in the study

conducted by Nuraida et al. (2014) with additional

criteria to the purpose of the current research.

Therefore, types of food processed by steaming and

boiling were not sampled. There were 30 food menus

from each area so that 60 composite samples were

obtained. The total portions purchased were 180

portions, consisting of 90 portion for urban area and

90 portions for rural area. Portions for each menu

were obtained from three different restaurants with

their respective criteria, namely small, medium and

large restaurants. Portions for urban area were

obtained from 58 restaurants/stalls in Jakarta, and for

rural area obtained from 56 restaurants/stalls in

Bogor. Several samples were obtained from the same

restaurant/stall so that one restaurant/stall could

provide more than one menu. The sample

homogenization was done by a food processor right

after purchasing, or a day after purchasing if the food

was stored in a freezer on the day of purchasing due

to limited time for homogenization. Homogenized

samples were packed in a plastic and then stored in a

freezer of -20 °C prior to glutamic acid analysis.

2.4 Glutamic Acid Analysis in Food

Samples

Food sample analysis consisted of sample extraction

and L-glutamic acid analysis. The extraction was

done for 2.0 g of sample after thawing overnight in a

refrigerator, the sample weight was recorded in four

decimals due to the use of an analytical balance. The

weighed sample was transferred to a 150 mL beaker,

then 20 mL of distilled water was added. The food

sample and distilled water were mixed using a

magnetic stirrer for 10 min. After that, the mixture

was transferred to a 50 mL volumetric flask. The

beaker used for mixing the sample and distilled water

was rinsed with distilled water for 10–20 mL and

transferred to the volumetric flask, then the volume in

the volumetric flask was adjusted to 50 mL with

distilled water. Then, the sample was filtered with

Whatman filter paper no. 1 with vacuum filtration.

The filtered sample solution was stored in a glass

bottle in the refrigerator for 2 hours. The oil in the top

layer of the solution was removed before the solution

was transferred into a 2 mL vial. The tube containing

the sample was covered with parafilm (3M, USA) and

stored in a freezer at -20 °C. Each sample was

extracted three times to get sample solutions in

triplicate.

The glutamic acid analysis was done by using a L-

glutamic acid assay kit (R-Biopharm) and following

its procedure. The all solutions including sample

solution were transferred into a cuvette using

micropipettes. The procedure began from the addition

of 120 μL Solution 1 (Potassium phosphate/

triethanolamine buffer, pH approximately 8.6; Triton

X-100), followed by 40 μL Solution 2 (Lyophilizate,

consisting of: diaphorase approximately 4 U; NAD at

approximately 28 mg in 2.5 mL distilled water), 40

μL Solution 3 (Iodonitrotetrazolium chloride

solution), and finally 40 μL sample or L-glutamic

acid standard solution (Solution 5: 73 µg/mL of L-

glutamic acid). A blank was done the same as the

sample, but the sample was replaced with distilled

water. Then, the mixture was added with distilled

water as much as 400 μL and mixed for 2 minutes,

then the absorbance was measured at a wavelength of

492 nm using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer. This

absorbance is Absorbance 1 (A1). Then, 6.0 μL

Solution 4 (Glutamate dehydrogenase solution at

approximately 1080 U/1.2 mL) was added to the

mixture and mixed for 15 minutes. This mixture was

measured for absorption at a wavelength of 492 nm

using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer and recorded as

Absorbance 2 (A2). The measured absorbance was in

the range of 0.100-0.700. Determination of the

Exposure Assessment of Monosodium Glutamate in Prepared Foods with Frying, Sautéing, Grilling or Baking Process

absorbance difference (A2-A1) was done for blank,

standard and sample. The absorbance (ΔA) of sample

or standard was calculated by subtracting (A2-A1)

blank from (A2-A1) sample or (A2-A1) standard. The

absorbance must be at least 0.100 absorbance units to

achieve sufficiently precise result. Measurement of L-

glutamic acid concentration in sample solution was

carried out by calculating the ratio of ΔA sample to

ΔA standard, multiplied by 73 µg/mL of L-glutamic

acid. Finally, the glutamic acid concentration in the

food sample was determined by multiplying the result

with 50 mL of total sample solution, then dividing by

the sample weight. Glutamic acid analysis in the

sample was done in duplicate. For exposure

assessment to MSG in food, MSG concentration in

the sample was obtained by multiplying the glutamic

acid concentration with a MSG to glutamic acid

molecular weights ratio (169.11/147.13), assuming

that glutamates were commonly found in the form of

MSG in the food sample.

2.5 Exposure to MSG in Prepared

Foods with High Temperature

Processing

Exposure to MSG from prepared foods was

conducted by deterministic method following

Nuraida et al. (2014). The exposure was calculated

by multiplying the consumption of each food menu

with respective MSG concentration. This value was

then divided by 57.7 kg according to the average body

weight of an adult Asian population (Walpole et al.

2012) to report the exposure in µg/kg bw/day. Daily

exposure to MSG, from the prepared foods with high

temperature processing, was a sum of the exposure

from each food sample.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Prepared Food Consumption

Prepared food consumption data used in this study

was obtained from the consumption data reported by

Nuraida et al. (2014) under the category of dish

menus. The consumption of prepared foods focused

for the current study was summarized in Table 1.

Prepared foods which were fried, sautéed, grilled, and

baked, were the most consumed prepared foods both

in urban and rural areas. This might be due to the

higher preference to the types of food. People in

urban area (Jakarta) consumed fried food, sautéed,

grilled, and baked food at 61.85% while in rural areas

Table 1: Daily consumption of prepared foods processed by

frying, sautéing, grilling and baking in urban (Jakarta) and

rural (Bogor) areas (Nuraida et al. 2014).

Food groups Prepared foods

Consumption

(g/capita/day)

Urban Rural

Cereals and their derived foods

(cereals, legumes, tubers)

Traditional

snack food

Fried pempek 55.15 85.05

Tempe-based

food

Fried tempe 40.99 39.92

Tofu-based

food

Fried tofu 36.46 34.42

Fried rice Fried rice with eggs 33.29 25.27

Legumes Fried peanut

crackers (rempeyek)

20.94 24.60

Noodles

(wheat), fried

Fried noodles with

eggs

13.94 10.10

Flour-based

food

Fried batagor (with

tapioca and wheat

flour)

12.07 4.28

Oncom-

based food

Fried oncom

4.12 16.35

Potato, fried Fried potato 3.02 0.47

Sub total

219.98 240.46

Bakery

Burger, hot

dog

Beef burger

2.79 0.11

Pizza Pizza with beef and

chicken meat

1.75 0.07

Sub total

4.54 0.18

Meats and their derived foods

(including chicken meat)

Chicken,

fried

Fried chicken with

pre-boiling in spices,

31.21 19.47

Fried chicken coated

with flour

31.21 19.47

Chicken,

grilled

Chicken satay 7.88 4.21

Grilled chicken 7.88 4.21

Grilled chicken steak 7.88 4.21

Fast food,

beef meat

derived food

Grilled beef steak 4.78 41.30

Grilled beef meat 4.78 41.30

Chicken

offal, fried

Fried chicken offal

(liver, gizzard)

4.19 2.43

Beef meat,

fried

Fried beef meat

cooked with coconut

milk (empal

)

4.13 1.48

Fried dry beef meat

(dendeng)

4.13 1.48

Lamb meat,

grilled

Lamb satay 2.6 0.36

Beef offal,

fried

Fried beef offal

(liver, lung)

2.03 0.19

Sub total

56.82 69.44

2nd SIS 2019 - SEAFAST International Seminar

Table 1: Daily consumption of prepared foods processed by

frying, sautéing, grilling and baking in urban (Jakarta) and

rural (Bogor) areas (Nuraida et al. 2014) (cont.).

Food groups Prepared foods

Consumption

(g/capita/day)

Urban Rural

Fishes and their derived foods

(including mollusk, crustacean,

echinoderm)

Catched fish,

non salted

Fried tuna

18.37 7.02

Fried mackerel 18.37 7.02

Aquacultured

fish

Grilled carp 17.50 8.78

Fried carp 17.50 8.78

Crustacea,

non salted

Fried shrimp 8.36 5.58

Catched fish,

salted

Fried salted tuna 5.07 20.02

Sub total

49.30 41.4

Eggs and

their

derived

foods

Eggs, fried Fried chicken egg 17.21 17.59

Total 439.60 455.54

at 64.09% of total prepared food consumption

(Nuraida et al. 2014). The category of vegetables and

fruits was not included in this study because

vegetables and fruits were considered not to undergo

processing with high temperatures such as frying,

sautéing, grilling, and baking.

3.2 MSG Concentration in Prepared

Food

The principle of glutamic acid determination in

prepared food samples using the L-glutamic assay kit

is by oxidative deamination of glutamic acid using

nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to 2-

oxoglutarate with the activity of the glutamic

dehydrogenase enzyme (GIDH). The reaction is

catalyzed by diaphorase and causes the formation of

NADH to convert iodonitrotetrazolium chloride

(INT) into a reddish formazan. After the reaction

stops, the absorbance of the sample can be measured

at a wavelength of 492 nm. The absorbance of the

sample was compared to that of the glutamic acid

standard (73 μg/mL).

MSG concentrations in prepared food collected

from urban and rural areas can be seen in Table 2. All

prepared food samples contained MSG, ranged from

152 to 14702 μg/g in urban and from 39 to 25630 μg/g

Table 2: MSG concentrations in prepared foods processed

by frying, sautéing, grilling and baking which were sampled

from Jakarta (urban) and Bogor (rural) in this current study.

Food groups Prepared foods

MSG

concentration*

(µg/g)

Urban Rural

Cereals and their derived foods

(cereals, legumes, tubers)

Traditional

snack food

Fried pempek

4940 1499

Tempe-based

food

Fried tempe 1609 39

Tofu-based

food

Fried tofu 152 46

Fried rice Fried rice with eggs 1701 7305

Legumes Fried peanut crackers

(rempeyek)

3889 483

Noodles

(wheat), fried

Fried noodles with eggs 3735 1453

Flour-based

food

Fried batagor (with

tapioca and wheat flour)

1307

5039

Oncom-based

food

Fried oncom 9230 6034

Potato, fried Fried potato 1119 598

Mean

4384 3952

Bakery

Burger, hot

dog

Beef burger 963 140

Pizza Pizza with beef and

chicken meat

988 851

Mean

976 496

Meats and their derived foods

(including chicken meat)

Chicken,

fried

Fried chicken with pre-

boiling in spices,

1323

3148

Fried chicken coated

with flour

3195 8670

Chicken,

grilled

Chicken satay 887 243

Grilled chicken 282 1901

Grilled chicken steak 1690 2088

Fast food,

beef meat

derived food

Grilled beef steak 3535 119

Grilled beef meat 1173 6000

Chicken

offal, fried

Fried chicken offal

(liver, gizzard)

4850 9161

Beef meat,

fried

Fried beef meat cooked

with coconut milk

(empal)

1230 1598

Fried dry beef meat

(dendeng)

7323 2563

Lamb meat,

grilled

Lamb satay 667 30

Beef offal,

fried

Fried beef offal (liver,

lung)

2580 2495

Mean

3387 5090

Exposure Assessment of Monosodium Glutamate in Prepared Foods with Frying, Sautéing, Grilling or Baking Process

Table 2: MSG concentrations in prepared foods processed

by frying, sautéing, grilling and baking which were sampled

from Jakarta (urban) and Bogor (rural) in this current study

(cont.).

Food groups Prepared foods

MSG

concentration*

(µg/g)

Urban Rural

Fishes and their derived foods

(including mollusk, crustacean,

echinoderm)

Catched fish,

non salted

Fried tuna 3575 609

Fried mackerel 4460 552

Aquacultured

fish

Grilled carp 2412 314

Fried carp 900 2368

Crustacea,

non salted

Fried shrimp 4885 1127

Catched fish,

salted

Fried salted tuna 1470

701

Mean

5156 945

Eggs and

their derived

foods

Eggs, fried Fried chicken egg 2650 218

in rural area. However, MSG concentrations in food

samples from rural area tend to be lower than those in

urban area, except for those of meat and derived food.

The highest MSG concentrations were found in

different samples, fried salted tuna from urban and

fried dry beef meat from rural area. The lowest MSG

concentrations were found in fried tofu from urban

and fried tempe from rural area. This can affect MSG

exposure in urban and rural areas.

3.3 Exposure to MSG in Prepared

Foods Processed under High

Temperatures

Exposure to MSG is presented in Table 3. Estimated

daily exposure to MSG from prepared food processed

under high temperatures for respondents in urban area

was 29890 µg/kg bw/day greater than in rural area

which was 21039 µg/kg bw/day. If stated per capita,

they were 1724.7 and 1214.0 mg/day for urban and

rural area respectively. It can be said that MSG

exposure in urban area was 42% or almost 1.5 times

higher than that in rural area. This is because prepared

foods in urban area were to contain higher MSG

levels. The level of food consumption can also affect

the exposure of MSG. However, the level of

consumption of prepared food in urban area was

slightly lower than the level of consumption in rural

area, thus it did not significantly affect the MSG

exposure.

Cereals and their derived foods contributed

dominantly to MSG exposure, followed by meats and

their derived foods, fishes and their derived foods,

eggs and and their derived foods, and finally bakery

products. This is in consistent with the research

conducted by Nuraida et al. (2014) that cereals and

their derived foods contributed dominantly to free

glutamate exposure.

When data from previous study (Nuraida et al.

2014) was calculated by taking into account an

averaged adult body weight in Asia of 57.7 kg, and

then calculated as MSG exposures from previously

free glutamate exposures, the exposures from total

prepared foods were 36134 µg/kg bw/day in urban,

and 33911 µg/kg bw/day in rural. If stated per capita,

they were 2084.9 and 1956.7 mg/day, respectively.

The above mentioned exposures for prepared foods

with processing at high temperatures, were

representing 83% and 62% of the MSG exposures

from total prepared foods in urban and rural areas,

respectively. These percentages show that the large

contribution of MSG exposure from prepared food

was come from those of fried, sautéed, grilled, and

baked prepared foods.

Table 3: Estimated daily exposure to MSG from prepared

foods processed under high temperatures for respondents in

urban and rural areas.

Food groups Prepared foods

Exposure to

MSG

(µg/kg bw/day)

Urban Rural

Cereals and their derived foods

(cereals, legumes, tubers)

Traditional

snack food

Fried pempek

4721 2209

Tempe-based

food

Fried tempe

1143 27

Tofu-based

food

Fried tofu

96 27

Fried rice Fried rice with eggs 981 3199

Legumes Fried peanut

crackers (rempeyek) 1411 206

Noodles

(wheat), fried

Fried noodles with

eggs 902 2544

Flour-based

food

Fried batagor (with

tapioca and wheat

flour) 2736 374

Oncom-based

food

Fried oncom

659 1710

Potato, fried Fried potato 59 5

Sub total

12709 10301

2nd SIS 2019 - SEAFAST International Seminar

Table 3: Estimated daily exposure to MSG from prepared

foods processed under high temperatures for respondents in

urban and rural areas (cont.).

Food groups Prepared foods

Exposure to

MSG

(µg/kg bw/day)

Urban Rural

Bakery

Burger, hot dog Beef burger 47 0

Pizza Pizza with beef and

chicken meat 30 1

Sub total

77 1

Meats and their derived foods

(including chicken meat)

Chicken, fried

Fried chicken with

pre-boiling in spices, 7158 1062

Fried chicken coated

with flour 1728 2925

Chicken, grilled

Chicken satay 121 18

Grilled chicken 39 139

Grilled chicken steak 231 152

Fast food, beef

meat derived

food

Grilled beef steak 293 85

Grilled beef meat

97 4295

Chicken offal,

fried

Fried chicken offal

(liver, gizzard)

352 386

Beef meat, fried Fried beef meat

cooked with coconut

milk (empal)

88 41

Fried dry beef meat

(dendeng)

524 657

Lamb meat,

grilled

Lamb satay

30 0

Beef offal, fried Fried beef offal

(liver, lung)

91 8

Sub total

10752 9769

Fishes and their derived foods

(including mollusk, crustacean,

echinoderm)

Catched fish,

non salted

Fried tuna

1138 74

Fried mackerel 1420 67

Aquacultured

fish

Grilled carp

732 48

Fried carp

273 360

Crustacea, non

salted

Fried shrimp

708 109

Catched fish,

salted

Fried salted tuna

1292 243

Sub total

5562 902

Eggs and their

derived foods

Eggs, fried Fried chicken egg 791 67

Estimated

Daily Exposure

29890 21039

4 CONCLUSIONS

All prepared foods processed with high temperatures,

sampled from urban and rural areas in this current

study, were containing MSG reached up to 2.56% wet

weight. The estimated daily exposures to MSG from

the prepared foods for respondents in rural, 21039

µg/kg bw/day, lower than in urban, 29890 µg/kg

bw/day. These exposures accounted more than 60%

of the MSG exposures from total prepared foods,

calculated from the previous study. This percentage

shows the large contribution of the specific prepared

foods processed under high temperatures to the

exposure of MSG from total prepared foods.

REFERENCES

Andarwulan, N., Nuraida, L., Madanijah, S., Lioe, H. N.,

Zulaikhah, 2011. Free glutamate content of condiments

and seasonings and their intake in Bogor and Jakarta,

Indonesia. Food and Nutrition Sciences 2: 764–769.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added

to Food, 2017. Re-evaluation of glutamic acid (E 620),

sodium glutamate (E 621), potassium glutamate (E

622), calcium glutamate (E 623), ammonium glutamate

(E 624) and magnesium glutamate (E 625) as food

additives. EFSA Journal 15(7): 4910–4999.

Henry-Unaeze, H. N., 2017. Update on food safety of

monosodium L-glutamate (MSG). Patophysiology

24(4): 243–249.

Hien, V. T. T., Lam, N. T., Khan, N. C., Wakita, A.,

Yamamoto, S., 2012. Monosodium glutamate is not

associated with overweight in Vietnamese adults.

Public Health Nutrition 16(5): 922–927.

Insawang, T., Selmi, C., Cha’on, U., Pethlert, S.,

Yongvanit, P., Areejitranusorn, P., Boonsiri, P.,

Khampitak, T., Tangrassameeprasert, R.,

Pinitsoontorn, C. et al., 2012. Monosodium glutamate

(MSG) intake is associated with the prevalence of

metabolic syndrome in a rural Thai population.

Nutrition & Metabolism 9: 50–55.

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives,

2006. Combined Compendium of Food Additive

Specifications. Monograph 1. WHO/FAO: Rome.

Liu, J., Liu, M., He, C., Song, H., Chen, F., 2015. Effect of

thermal treatment on the flavor generation from

Maillard reaction of xylose and chicken peptide. LWT

- Food Science and Technology 64: 316–325.

Mortensen, A., Aguilar, F., Crebelli, R., Domenico, A.,

Dusemund, B., Frutos, M. J., Galtier, P., Gott, D.,

Gundert-Remy, U., Leblanc, J. C. et al, 2017. Re-

evaluation of glutamic acid (E 620), sodium glutamate

(E 621), potassium glutamate (E 622), calcium

glutamate (E 623), ammonium glutamate (E 624) and

magnesium glutamate (E 625) as food additives. EFSA

Journal 15(7): 4910–4999.

Exposure Assessment of Monosodium Glutamate in Prepared Foods with Frying, Sautéing, Grilling or Baking Process

Nagodawithana, T. W., 1995. Savory Flavors. Esteekay

Associates Inc.: Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Nuraida, L., Madaniyah, S., Andarwulan, N., Briawan, D.,

Lioe, H. N., Zulaikhah, 2014. Free glutamate intake

from foods among adults: case study in Bogor and

Jakarta. Jurnal Mutu Pangan 1(2): 100–109.

Rodriguez, M. S., Gonzalez, M. E., Centurion, M. E., 2003.

Determination of monosodium glutamate in meat

products. The Journal of Argentine Chemical Society

91(4–6): 41–45.

Shi, Z., Luscombe-Marsh, N. D., Wittert, G. A., Yuan, B.,

Dai, Y., Pan, X., Taylor, A. W., 2010. Monosodium

glutamate is not associated with obesity or a greater

prevalence of weight gain over 5 years: findings from

the Jiangsu nutrition study of Chinese adults. British

Journal of Nutrition 104(3): 457–463.

Sundari, D., Almasyhuri, Lamid, A., 2015. Pengaruh proses

pemasakan terhadap komposisi zat gizi bahan pangan

sumber protein (Effect of cooking process of

composition nutritional substances some food

ingredients protein source). Media Litbangkes (Media

of Health Research and Development) 25(4): 235–242.

Walker, R., Lupien, J. R., 2000. The safety evaluation of

monosodium glutamate. The Journal of Nutrition

130(4): 1049–1052.

Walpole, S. C., Prieto-Merino, D., Edwards, P., Cleland, J.,

Stevens, G., Roberts, I., 2012. The weight of nations:

an estimation of adult human biomass. BMC Public

Health 12: 439–444.

2nd SIS 2019 - SEAFAST International Seminar