|UKRAINIAN PSYCHIATRY NEWS||Brief reports, abstracts and selected full
text articles in English|
More than 1000 full text articles in Russian and Ukrainian
* Publication details:
Lachenmeier, D. W., Samokhvalov, A. V., Leitz, J., Schoeberl, K., Kuballa T., Linskiy, I. V., Minko, O. I., Rehm, J. (2010) The composition of unrecorded alcohol from eastern Ukraine: Is there a toxicological concern beyond ethanol alone? Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48, 10, 2842–2847.
Alcohol is a major risk factor for burden of disease (Rehm et al., 2009), with an especially high impact in central and eastern Europe (Ezzati et al., 2002; Rehm et al., 2003, 2004, 2007). While Ukraine experienced a large reduction of mortality attributable to alcohol during the 1985–1988 anti-alcohol campaign (Krasovsky, 2009), since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 there has been an increase in mortality (especially from cardiovascular disease, accidents, and other causes related to alcohol), along with decreases in life expectancy and the standard of living (Bromet et al., 2005). Based on aggregate data in 2004, 24% of the total death burden for men and 6% for women in Ukraine was caused by alcohol consumption (Krasovsky, 2009). Descriptive reports also show that Ukraine experiences a comparably high burden for various alcohol-related disorders including suicide (Nordstrom, 2007), intimate partner aggression (O’Leary et al., 2008), and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (Wertelecki, 2006).
Heavy drinking patterns among adults are common in Ukraine (Webb et al., 2005), in addition to high overall consumption. According to the WHO Global Information System on Alcohol and Health (GISAH), the 2005 recorded alcohol per capita consumption among adults (15+) was 8.1 l (pure alcohol), with spirits being the main beverage group (61.5% of all the alcohol) followed by beer (31.7%) and wine (6.8%) (WHO, 2009). These numbers, however, do not account for the extremely high levels of unrecorded consumption, estimated at approximately half of total consumption (7.5 l of 15.6 l total consumption) (see also Pomerleau et al., 2008). ‘Unrecorded’ is an overview category for any kind of alcohol that is not taxed as beverage alcohol or registered in the jurisdiction where it is consumed (Lachenmeier et al., 2009b; Rehm et al., 2010). According to WHO (2009) nomenclature, unrecorded alcohol products include homemade informally produced alcohols, illegally produced or smuggled alcohol products, as well as surrogate alcohol that is not officially intended for human consumption.
Knowledge about unrecorded consumption in Ukraine is very limited, based on the available information and expert opinion, it should mainly be comprised of samohon, a homemade alcoholic beverage produced through the distillation of plant matter including sugar, beets, and corn (Pomerleau et al., 2008). It should be noted that this definition has been confirmed by an extensive, albeit anonymous, report on Ukrainian alcoholic beverages presented on a website devoted to home distilling, which also includes recipes for the home distillation of samohon (Anonymous, 2007); it is our opinion that this is a valid and valuable reference. The typical home fermenter size was described as 20 l, which is filled with water and one of the numerous food products such as sugar, malted grain, rye or wheat bread, sugarbeet juice or molasses, apple juice, plums, pears, grape pomace or honey, as well as yeast (baker’s yeast or special wine or beer yeast). After fermentation, traditional pot stills are used for distillation, which is legal in Ukraine for personal consumption (Anonymous, 2007).
We have found no literature on the composition of unrecorded beverages in Ukraine, not even for the most basic parameters such as alcoholic strength. The aim of this contribution was therefore to provide first insight into the composition of alcoholic beverages from the eastern Ukrainian market, with special regard to unrecorded products. The results are toxicologically evaluated as there has been some speculation that unrecorded alcohol may have more pronounced negative health effects than recorded alcohol (Lachenmeier and Rehm, 2009; Rehm et al., 2010).
The sampling strategy was defined based on consultations with Ukrainian addiction specialists from the Institute of Neurology, Psychiatry and Narcology of the Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine and Kharkiv Provincial Psychiatric Hospital # 3, as well as a wide network of key community informants. Local police and forensics representatives were also consulted regarding the occurrence of alcohol counterfeiting and alcohol poisonings. Based on our understanding of the general patterns of alcohol consumption (the majority of the Ukrainian population prefers spirits, primarily low-price vodkas and samohon produced for personal use or small-scale retail) several approaches were implemented for gathering different types of alcoholic beverages and surrogate alcohols, described below.
This sampling strategy was used as, according to expert opinion and the scarce literature available, unrecorded wine and beer are not thought to represent significant segments of unrecorded alcohol consumption. Moreover, spirits have traditionally been the preferred beverage in eastern Europe (Popova et al., 2007). Finally, homemade production of beer or wine requires more skills, knowledge, time and resources than that of samohon, which also has stronger physiological effects and can be both stored for longer time and transported more easily.
Due to the illegal nature of unrecorded consumption, no representative sample in the statistical sense could be obtained. However, we believe that the implementation of a systematic sampling strategy based on consultations with medical, forensic and legal officials and the high number of samples (n = 78) allows meaningful statements characterizing cheap alcoholic beverages in the central and eastern regions of Ukraine. Table 1 gives an overview about the category and origin of the samples.
Sample description of alcohol products from the Ukrainian market
|Vodka||Cheapest recorded vodka, from shops and bars in the poorest parts of Kharkiv||13|
|Medicine||Medical liquids containing alcohol||8|
|Samohon for personal use||Homemade samohon produced predominantly for personal consumption||31|
|Samohon for sale||Samohon produced for sale bought at the typical points of its distribution indicated by medical consultants and patients of addictions clinic||26|
2.2. Analytical procedure
The analytical methodology was similar to the one used in previous studies in central and eastern Europe (Lachenmeier et al. 2009a,b) except for the analysis of metal concentrations (see below). Alcoholic strength was determined by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (Lachenmeier, 2007). Volatile components were analyzed on the basis of the Reference Methods for the Analysis of Spirits using gas chromatography (GC) with a flame-ionization detector (FID) (European Commission, 2000; Lachenmeier et al., 2006). Ethyl carbamate (urethane) was determined using GC with tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) (Lachenmeier et al., 2005a). Additionally, anionic composition (Lachenmeier et al., 2003) and conductivity (Lachenmeier et al., 2008a) were measured (mainly to characterize quality of the dilution water). Furthermore, all samples were screened for unknown substances using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (Ejim et al., 2007), the GC/MS assay also included diethyl phthalate (Leitz et al., 2009).
2.3. Determination of metal contamination using ICP/MS
In previous studies, metal contamination was determined via the reduction of liquids to ash and subsequent reconstitution in nitric acid (Lachenmeier et al., 2009a,b), a notoriously labour-intensive and error-prone method. In this study, this method was modified to allow for a more robust, direct analysis of diluted samples. Semi-quantitative inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) was used as screening method for analysis of inorganic elements of the alcohol samples. Samples containing conspicuous contents of inorganic elements (i.e. contents above defined limits) were re-analyzed by atomic absorbance spectroscopy (AAS) to confirm the ICP-MS results.
For both ICP-MS and AAS, the alcohol samples were evaporated and re-constituted in ultra pure water. For this, a sample aliquot of 10 ml was pipetted in a silica glass test tube, which was placed into a water bath (110 °C) for evaporation of volatile components (mainly ethanol). After cooling the residue of the sample (0.5–1 ml) to 20 °C, 0.2 ml of HNO3 (65%) were added. The sample was transferred into a 10 ml volumetric flask and filled up with ultra pure water. Next, for ICP-MS analysis, the evaporated and re-constituted sample was diluted at a ratio of 1/10 (1 ml of the sample and 0.15 ml of HNO3 (65%), 0.1 ml of internal standard solution (10 mg/l of rhodium in HNO3 1%) and 8.75 ml of ultra pure water were added). The sample was analyzed for semi-quantitative elemental composition by ICP-MS (ELAN DRC-e, Perkin–Elmer, software version ELAN 3.4).
The recovery rate was ascertained using two standard solutions (A and B) in ultra pure and acidified water. Standard solution A contained aluminium (0.25 mg/l), arsenic (0.01 mg/l), boron (2.5 mg/l), cadmium (0.005 mg/l), copper (0.25 mg/l), lead (0.05 mg/l), tin (0.05 mg/l) and zinc (0.5 mg/l). Standard solution B contained antimony (0.025 mg/l), chromium (0.25 mg/l), manganese (0.25 mg/l), nickel (0.1 mg/l) and selenium (0.05 mg/l). The recovery rate was ascertained by adding 0.5 ml of standard solution A and B to different alcohol samples before evaporation. The average recovery rate for A was 85.5±12.7%, the average recovery rate for B was 83.6±13.8%. These results were sufficient for semi-quantitative screening analysis.
Samples containing copper, lead, manganese, nickel or zinc after ICP-MS analysis were also analyzed by flame AAS for confirmation (Analyst 400, Perkin Elmer, software version WinLab 32 AA Flame). The evaporated and re-constituted samples were diluted according to the metal concentration as determined by ICP-MS.
2.4. Toxicological evaluation
The toxicological evaluation of many compounds in alcoholic beverages is problematic, as even for the most common compounds such as higher alcohols, no European or international maximum limits have been established. This paper therefore uses the criteria established by the AMPHORA project, which are generally based on acceptable daily intakes (ADI) for foods with the assumption of a lifetime daily exposure. A detailed rationale for the limits proposed by AMPHORA was previously published (Lachenmeier et al., in press).
Results for the most important parameters are summarized in Table 2. The full dataset of analysis results is available as supplementary data online.
Summary of analytical results and incidence of exceeding limits
|Group of samples||Ethanol (% vol.)||Methanol (g/hl pa)||Acetaldehyde (g/hl pa)||Sum of higher alcohols (g/hl pa)||Ethyl carbamate (mg/l)||Cu (mg/l)||Mn (mg/l)||Ni (mg/l)||Pb (mg/l)||Zn (mg/l)|
|% > AMPHORA limit||—||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|% > AMPHORA limit||—||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|Samohon for personal use||Average||42.3||16.4||15.3||361||0.2||6.7||0.3||0.2||0.2||6.0|
|% > AMPHORA limit||—||0||3||0||7||52||7||3||7||29|
|Samohon for sale||Average||39.8||5.6||10.7||308||0.1||5.4||0.9||0.01||0.02||0.9|
|% > AMPHORA limit||—||0||0||0||0||65||8||0||0||4|
|% > AMPHORA limit||—||0||1||0||3||42||5||1||3||13|
A total of 78 samples were collected and analyzed. The alcoholic strengths of the samples ranged from 32.5% vol. to 73.4% vol. The highest alcoholic strengths were typically found in the medicinal alcohols from pharmacies (typically around 70% vol.), while the commercial alcohols had a very uniform alcoholic strength around 40% vol. The home-made samohons showed a higher variation in their alcoholic strengths, with a similar mean at around 40% vol. It must be noted that the preferred alcohol strength in Ukraine is 40% vol., therefore for consumption, medicinal ethanol is usually diluted with water or juice in order to achieve a strength of approximately 40% vol. Variances of alcoholic strength in homemade samohons depended mostly on the preferences of producers who usually make it for personal use and may add other ingredients like fruits or herbs in order to change the taste.
Methanol was detected in concentrations ranging from undetectable to 262 g/hl of pure alcohol (g/hl pa). Generally, the methanol contents were below 10 g/hl pa, while five of the samohons had concentrations above this level. Acetaldehyde was not detectable in the commercial samples, and was typically below 20 g/hl pa in the samohons, although higher concentrations were found in seven samples, with one sample with an exceptionally high acetaldehyde content of 62 g/hl pa. So called “higher alcohol” concentrations varied considerably in these samples between undetectable and 842 g/hl pa. Ethyl carbamate was detected in 27 samples using GC-MS/MS (0.01–1.5 mg/l).
During our ICP/MS screening analysis for elemental composition, most elements were not detectable or only found in traces below 0.1 mg/l. Only copper, manganese, nickel, lead and zinc were found in some samples in concentrations exceeding 1 mg/l. Copper and zinc contamination was frequent, with copper levels above 2 mg/l in 33 samples, and zinc above 5 mg/l in 10 samples. The highest concentration for copper was 25.9 mg/l and zinc was even higher at 41.9 mg/l.
None of the samples contained diethyl phthalate or any other phthalate. We also could not identify any other relevant substance during the GC/MS unknown screening.
4.1. Alcoholic strength
The majority of samples (n = 62, 79%) had an alcohol content between 35% vol. and 45% vol., which is close to the typical strength of legal spirits in Europe (Lachenmeier and Musshoff, 2004). This is in contrast to other studies, in which unrecorded alcohol contained higher alcoholic strengths than recorded alcohol. For example in Poland, the unrecorded spirits typically contained around 48% vol. with some products as high as 85% vol. (Lachenmeier et al., 2009a). In Ukraine, the problem with exceptionally high alcoholic strengths appears to be restricted to alcohol of medicinal origin. This observation is similar to a study on Estonian surrogate alcohol (Lang et al., 2006), in which the mean concentration of illegally homemade alcohol (moonshine) was 42.8% vol., while medicines used as surrogate alcohol contained 67.1% vol. of alcohol on average. Similarly, McKee et al. (2005) found an average alcohol content of 38.9% vol. in Russian samogon, while medicinal alcohol contained 65.7% vol. (McKee et al., 2005).
The finding of comparably high-strength alcohol in medicinal unrecorded alcohol is therefore consistent throughout the countries of the former Soviet Union. However, contrary to Russia (Gil et al., 2009), it does not seem to be of public health relevance in Ukraine, as the proportion of medicinal alcohol within unrecorded seems to be low, and as most medicinal alcohol consumed as a beverage is diluted by water or juice.
For Ukraine, we can conclude that ethanol in samohon would probably cause similar effects (i.e. regarding intoxication and chronic effects) as recorded spirits. Additional problems from ethanol may only arise from a few products, which contain significantly higher alcoholic strength without labelling (e.g. samples S2 with 50.8% vol. or S22 with 48.7% vol.). It would be desirable to introduce some form of quality control and labelling — especially regarding the ethanol content (see also below).
4.2. Volatile composition
In addition to ethanol, our samples contained a number of volatile compounds, which are to be expected in products derived from alcoholic fermentation. Methanol is the substance most often associated with the toxicity of surrogate and other alcohols (Lachenmeier et al., 2007), but the methanol content of the Ukrainian products was relatively low (i.e. lower than the EU limit of 30 g/hl pa for neutral alcohol (European Parliament and Council, 2008)), as well as lower than in recent studies of unrecorded alcohols from Poland (Lachenmeier et al., 2009a), Lithuania and Hungary (Lachenmeier et al., 2009b). The one exception was sample S50, which had a relatively high methanol content of 262 g/hl pa. This can be explained by the use of fruits as the base component (apples and pears) as the major source for methanol in spirits does not come from yeast fermentation but from the liberation of methanol from pectins contained in fruits (Lachenmeier and Musshoff, 2004). For this reason, the methanol limit for fruit spirits in the EU is set higher at 1000 g/hl pa (which equates to 0.4% vol. methanol at 40% vol. alcohol) (European Parliament and Council, 2008). None of the samples exceeded this limit. The level above which toxic effects are expected (2% vol.) is substantially higher than the EU limit (Paine and Dayan, 2001). In our samples, it appears that methanol content did not pose a threat to public health.
Acetaldehyde associated with alcohol consumption is regarded as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ (IARC Group 1) (Secretan et al., 2009). Using standard distillation stills, most of the acetaldehyde can be separated. However, complete separation is not technically possible (at least not for home producers). This is evidenced by acetaldehyde residues in almost all of the home-produced spirits, but in none of the commercially produced spirits. With few exceptions, the acetaldehyde content in the products was lower than the average acetaldehyde residue of international spirits which is 17±25 g/hl pa (Lachenmeier and Sohnius, 2008). The AMPHORA limit of 50 g/hl pa for acetaldehyde was exceeded only by a single sample, which was clearly produced from a microbiologically spoiled mash, indicated by concurrently high concentrations of ethyl acetate and ethyl lactate (i.e. esters of metabolites from acetic acid and lactic acid bacteria).
Alcohol containing more than two carbon atoms is commonly called ‘higher’ or ‘fusel’ alcohol. As expected and consistent with previous investigations of home-produced spirits (Huckenbeck et al., 2003; Lachenmeier et al., 2009a,b; Lang et al., 2006; Szucs et al., 2005) and samogon in Russia (Nuzhnyi, 2004), the samohons contained a sum of higher alcohols of around 400 g/hl pa. Notably, fruit spirits in the European Union, which are often produced on simple pot stills, must have a minimum volatile substances content of at least 200 g/hl pa, but the average content is higher (around 400 g/hl pa (Lachenmeier et al., 2008b)). The AMPHORA limit of 1000 g/hl pa was exceeded by none of the samples in Ukraine.
All other analyzed compounds were also not detectable or below the AMPHORA limits. We did not detect evidence of denaturants (e.g. phthalates) in any of the samples. As mentioned above, the low prices for home-produced alcohol appear to make it uneconomical to use denatured alcohols or other surrogates.
4.3. Ethyl carbamate
Ethyl carbamate (urethane) may be formed naturally as a result of fermentation and has been detected in a variety of fermented foods and beverages. It is also classified as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ (IARC Group 2A) (IARC, in press). The concentrations in wine and beer are usually below 0.1 mg/l, while higher levels (above 1 mg/l) have been found in some spirits, especially stonefruit spirits. Canada, for example, has established an upper limit of 0.4 mg/l ethyl carbamate for fruit spirits (Conacher and Page, 1986). While ethyl carbamate was detected in 27 samples, the concentrations were generally below this limit. Only two samples were above this limit, but only one sample showed an extremely high contamination level (1.5 mg/l). As a comparison, the incidence was lower than for recorded fruit spirits from Germany (Lachenmeier et al., 2005b).
4.4. Non-volatile compounds and water quality
The most troubling finding of our study was the prevalent metal contamination in the samples. In all our previous investigations of metals in unrecorded alcohol, we have never experienced such high levels.
The limits set by the AMPHORA project for evaluating unrecorded alcohol were exceeded in 33 samples for copper, 10 for zinc, 4 for manganese, 2 for lead, and 1 for nickel. The AMPHORA limits are based on international limits for drinking water and wine, as those for spirits were not available.
The major contaminants (copper and zinc) are also essential elements, and only toxic above certain thresholds. According to evaluations by the Joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives (JECFA), the provisional maximum tolerable daily intake (PMTDI) was 0.05–0.5 mg/kg bodyweight for copper and 0.3–1 mg/kg bodyweight for zinc (JECFA, 2009). Even for the highest contaminated products, drinking volumes of 0.1–1.2 l (for copper) or 0.4–1.4 l (for zinc) would be required to reach the PMTDI. This would be possible only for daily binge drinkers of highly contaminated alcohol. Due to the large variations in metal content, we currently would judge the public health risk of metals in alcohol as being rather low. Nevertheless, the exposure to metals from alcohol is unnecessary, as alcohol can be produced without metal contamination even in artisanal settings with little difficulty, as is demonstrated by samples from this and other countries (Lachenmeier et al., 2009a,b). The origin of the metals is currently unclear, though they are most likely derived from unsuitable distillation or storage equipment. An alternative hypothesis would be contaminated water, which might be an even larger public health problem. Further research is needed, e.g. by visiting samohon producers, to determine the origin of metal contamination, or by testing their process water quality.
This current study is the largest of its kind in Ukraine, and one of the largest in central and eastern Europe (Huckenbeck et al., 2003; Nuzhnyi, 2004). In general, as in the studies before us, we did not find substantial differences in the toxic effects of commercial alcoholic beverages and their unrecorded counterparts (Nuzhnyi, 2004). Currently, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that alcohol quality influences alcohol-attributable mortality rates over and above the effects of ethanol, aside from limited methanol outbreaks. We found some evidence for potentially toxic concentrations of acetaldehyde, ethyl carbamate, and metal contamination. However, given the low number and the nature of these samples, we cannot conclude at this point that the improvement of unrecorded alcohol quality should be a high priority alcohol policy. A limitation of the study is also that our samples provide only a cross-section of the situation in the central and eastern regions of Ukraine.
Given the high level of alcohol-attributable mortality and burden of disease in Ukraine (Rehm et al., 2009; Krasovsky, 2009), the first priority for alcohol policy in Ukraine should therefore be the reduction of total alcohol consumption. Because of the relatively low proportion of recorded consumption, conventional alcohol policy measures such as taxation and other availability restrictions (Babor et al., 2010; Rehm and Greenfield, 2008) might be less effective than normal, as they are designed for systems based on recorded consumption. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based effective policy options targeting unrecorded alcohol consumption (Lachenmeier, 2009). The alcohol industry favours the option of providing incentives for legal producers to sell quality low-cost alcohol (e.g. by reduced taxation for products targeted to low-income consumers) (Botha, 2009). However, as there is a generally accepted link between the net effects of taxation and price increase with reduced alcohol use and related problems (Babor et al., 2010), this option remains generally doubtful and possibly counterproductive, particularly in Ukraine and contexts where unrecorded consumption is a population scale phenomenon. A more reasonable suggestion is to accommodate and give the producers incentives to transition and join the legal sector and ensure safety of their products (Botha, 2009). This does not necessarily mean reduced taxation. For example, the implementation of an intermediate trade organization could offer financial incentives for the small-scale alcohol producers if they sell the alcohol to the trade organization and not directly to the final consumer. A similar model with an intermediary trade monopoly successfully reduced unrecorded alcohol production in Germany after the first world war and is still in place today (Holzlein, 1989). The intermediate trade organization could not only control the alcohol quality to avoid the contamination problems, but also control prices and availability of alcohol (Lachenmeier and Rehm, 2010). Thus far, it remains unclear if these policy options are feasible in Ukraine. In the authors’ opinion it would be worthwhile to test these policy options targeting unrecorded consumption, preferably in combination with evidence-based alcohol policies for overall consumption (Babor et al., 2010); based on this study Kharkiv is recommended as the setting for pilot research.
The development of the method for metal analysis in alcohol reported in this manuscript was partially financed by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme Project AMPHORA (Alcohol Measures for Public Health Research Alliance), project number 223059, granted to the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona (http://www.amphoraproject.net). Support to CAMH for the salaries of scientists and infrastructure has been provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care or other funders.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
The authors thank H. Heger, M. Jaworski, H. Havel, K. Muller, and G. Bippes for excellent technical assistance. We would like to thank Dr. Anatoliy F. Artemchuk, Dr. Valeriy V. Shalashov, Dr. Ilona V. Shalashova, Dr. Lubov M. Markozova, Dr. Georgiy A. Musiyenko, Dr. Elena S. Samoylova, Dr. Valeriy N. Kuzminov, Dr. Nikolay P. Yurchenko, Dr. Aleksey V. Baranenko, and Dr. Aleksey A. Minko for the information provided on unrecorded alcohol consumption in Ukraine and for their help in development of sampling strategy and sampling itself. Finally, we would like to thank Ben Taylor and Fotis Kanteres for English copy-editing the manuscript.
Supplementary Table 1
Sample description of alcohol products from the Ukrainian market
|Code||Product*||Manufacturer||Point of sale||Ethanol source*||Labelling|
|V1||Ukrainian tincture with pepper||Lubotin factory “Prodtovary”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|V2||Vodka “Pshenychna”||ABF1) Zolota arka™ “LIK”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|V3||Vodka “Grafska klasychna”||ABF “Zlatogor”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|V4||Vodka “Bilenka”||ABF “Prime”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|V5||Vodka “Prime Svitoviy Class”||ABF “Prime”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|V6||Vodka “Vdala”||ABF “Prime”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|V7||Vodka “Privatna Collectsiya”||ABF “Prime”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|V8||Vodka “Nemirovskaya”||Vodka Company “Nemiroff”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|S1||Samohon||home made||Kyiv||Sugar||no label|
|S2||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||made on peas||no label|
|S3||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||made on milk||no label|
|S4||Aethyl||“Bio-Pharma”||Hospital, Kharkiv||spiritus aethylicus||96% vol|
|S5||Crataegi tinctura||“Phytopharm”||Kharkiv||haw tincture||70% vol|
|S6||no name||Lubotin spiritus factory||Kharkiv||Grain||96% vol|
|S7||“Vigor” Balzam||Biolik||Ladijin||(unknown)||37–39% vol|
|S8||“Monomakh” Balzam||“Yan”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S9||Samohon||home made||Lubotin||Sugar||no label|
|S10||Samohon||home made||Lubotin||Sugar||no label|
|S11||Samohon||home made||Lubotin||Sugar||no label|
|S12||Samohon||home made||Tishki||(unknown)||no label|
|S13||Samohon||home made||Sheludkovka||(unknown)||no label|
|S14||Samohon||home made||Sheludkovka||(unknown)||no label|
|S15||Samohon||home made||Sheludkovka||(unknown)||no label|
|S16||Samohon||home made||Gyneyevka||(unknown)||no label|
|S17||Samohon||home made||Gyneyevka||(unknown)||no label|
|S18||Samohon||home made||Veseloye||(unknown)||no label|
|S19||Samohon||home made||Veseloye||(unknown)||no label|
|S20||Samohon||home made||Veseloye||(unknown)||no label|
|S21||Samohon||home made||Vasishevo||(unknown)||no label|
|S22||Samohon||home made||Vasishevo||(unknown)||no label|
|S23||“Buckwheat Honey” Tincture||“Image Holding”||Nove Zaporijjya||(unknown)||40% vol|
|S24||Samohon||home made||Kyiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S25||Samohon||home made||Kyiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S26||Samohon||home made||Kyiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S27||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S28||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S29||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S30||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S31||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Sugar||no label|
|S32||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Grapes||no label|
|S33||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S34||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S35||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S36||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Currants||no label|
|S37||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Sugar||no label|
|S38||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Cedar nuts||no label|
|S39||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S40||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S41||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S42||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S43||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S44||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S45||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S46||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S47||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S48||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S49||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Fruits||no label|
|S50||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Apples and pears||no label|
|S51||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Sugar||no label|
|S52||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Sugar and herbs||no label|
|S53||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S54||Farmacept||Pharmaceutical ethanol||Kharkiv||(unknown)||96% vol|
|S55||Ethanol||Pharmaceutical ethanol||Kharkiv||(unknown)||70% vol|
|S56||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S57||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S58||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S59||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S60||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S61||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S62||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S63||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S64||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||(unknown)||no label|
|S65||Samohon||home made||Kharkiv||Cedar nuts||no label|
|A1||Grafska gorilka||ABF “Zlatogor”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|A2||Dobirna gorilka||Vodka Company “Nemiroff”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|A3||Stolichnaya vodka||Vodka Company “Nemiroff”||Kharkiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|A4||Moskovskaya osobaya vodka||ABF Kristall||Khrakiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
|A5||Limonna nastojanka||Poltava ABF||Khrakiv||(unknown)||40% vol|
1) ABF = Alcoholic Beverage Factory
* According to vendor information or labelling. Ethanol source is likely to be sugar or grain for the unknown samples.
Supplementary Table 2
Volatile composition of Ukrainian alcohol products. Values are given in g/hl pa (with the exception of ethanol [% vol] and ethyl carbamate [mg/l])
Ethanol [% vol]
|Methanol||Acetaldehyde||1–Propanol||1–Butanol||2–Butanol||Iso-Butanol||Amyl alcohols||2–Phenyl ethanol||Ethyl acetate||Ethyl lactate||Benzaldehyde||Sum of higher alcohols||Ethyl carbamate [mg/l]|
nd: not detected (volatiles: detection limit 0.5 g/hl pa;
ethyl carbamate: detection limit 0.01 mg/l).
negative in all samples: 1–hexanol, benzyl alcohol, methyl acetate, benzyl acetate, ethyl caprylate, ethyl benzoate, and diethyl phthalate
Supplementary Table 3
Inorganic composition and miscellaneous parameters (conductivity, anionic composition) of Ukrainian alcohol
nd: not detected (detection limits: chloride 2 mg/l, nitrate
2 mg/l, phosphate 4 mg/l, sulfate 2 mg/l). Negative in all
samples: cadmium, arsenic, antimony, selenium, tin.
* value confirmed by AAS