UKRAINIAN PSYCHIATRY NEWS Brief reports, abstracts and selected full text articles in English
More than 1000 full text articles in Russian and Ukrainian

THE COMPOSITION OF UNRECORDED ALCOHOL FROM EASTERN UKRAINE: IS THERE A TOXICOLOGICAL CONCERN BEYOND ETHANOL ALONE?

D. W. Lachenmeier, A. V. Samokhvalov, J. Leitz, K. Schoeberl, T. Kuballa, I. V. Linskiy, O. I. Minko, J. Rehm

* 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.

1. Introduction

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).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sampling

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.

  1. Samples of the cheapest vodka (recorded alcohol), hypothesized as potentially the most dangerous for consumer’s health, were purchased in shops and bars in the poorest parts of the city. This category of beverages was included into the sampling agenda despite classification as recorded alcohol due to its extremely low price, which suggests the possibility of illegality or, more likely, grey sector origin (produced industrially, though not shown for taxation). The hypothesised grey sector origin of these beverages led us to the assumption that the quality of these samples would generally not differ from that of recorded alcohol and therefore only require a small number of samples for inspection.
  2. Samples of samohon (unrecorded alcohol) produced for sale were purchased at the typical points of distribution as indicated by medical consultants and patients of addictions clinic. Additionally, some samples were purchased and provided by the relatives of the patients institutionalized due to alcohol dependence (samohon production for commercial purposes is illegal in Ukraine, thus in certain places samohon is only sold to known or “recommended” customers).
  3. Samples of homemade samohon (unrecorded alcohol) produced predominantly for personal consumption were collected through a wide network of key community informants asking their relatives, friends and neighbours. These samples were collected from all parts of the city, suburbs and small villages and towns of the province, as well as other parts of the country.
  4. Samples of medical liquids containing alcohol (unrecorded alcohol) were purchased in local pharmacies based on the list of “drinks” identified by patients and physicians as typically consumed in the absence of alcoholic beverages. It must be mentioned that alcoholic beverages in Ukraine tend to be less expensive and more accessible than alcohol-containing liquids intended for medical or other purposes.

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.

Table 1

Sample description of alcohol products from the Ukrainian market

Group

Description

n
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).

3. Results

Results for the most important parameters are summarized in Table 2. The full dataset of analysis results is available as supplementary data online.

Table 2

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)
Vodka Average 39.6 3.8 0.7 nd nd 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.002 0.03
Median 39.6 4.0 0.7 nd nd 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.002 0.03
Minimum 39.3 0.6 0.6 nd nd 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.02
Maximum 39.9 7.4 0.9 nd nd 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.003 0.03
% > AMPHORA limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medicine Average 59.1 7.2 1.9 5.7 nd 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.06
Median 68.9 6.2 1.1 0.5 nd 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04
Minimum 37.6 5.1 0.8 0.5 nd 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.004 0.01
Maximum 73.4 15 5.6 16 nd 0.07 0.1 0.03 0.02 0.2
% > 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
Median 42.3 5.7 11 334 0.09 3.8 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.4
Minimum 32.5 1.3 3.4 1.9 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.02
Maximum 52.2 262 62 819 1.5 25.9 3.3 3.2 2.5 41.9
% > 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
Median 39.2 4.6 10.5 334 0.04 5.1 0.01 0.01 0.004 0.2
Minimum 34.8 0.9 1.5 5.3 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.002 0.03
Maximum 49.9 39 30 842 0.3 17.5 5.7 0.02 0.1 6.8
% > AMPHORA limit 0 0 0 0 65 8 0 0 4
Total Average 42.8 10.0 11.7 334 0.2 4.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 3.1
Median 40.1 4.8 9.9 330 0.05 1.4 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.2
Minimum 32.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.01
Maximum 73.4 262 62 842 1.5 25.9 5.7 3.2 2.5 41.9
% > 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. Discussion

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.

5. Conclusions

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.

6. Funding

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.

Acknowledgements

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.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

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]
V1 39.4 1.5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
V2 39.6 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
V3 39.9 1.7 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
V4 39.5 3.7 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
V5 39.6 0.6 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
V6 39.6 3.5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
V7 39.3 1.7 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
V8 39.6 4.4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
S1 40.6 4.4 10 15 0.5 nd 60 229 3.0 36 nd nd 308 nd
S2 50.8 26 6.9 22 0.8 nd 122 299 3.0 18 nd nd 447 0.04
S3 36.4 2.9 7.2 24 0.5 3.5 38 155 46 4.3 nd 1.3 267 1.52
S4 71.1 5.6 1.3 nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.9 nd nd nd nd
S5 67.7 5.1 1.0 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.3 nd nd nd nd
S6 73.4 6.5 1.2 nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.9 nd nd nd nd
S7 37.6 5.1 5.6 nd nd nd nd 0.5 nd 1.4 nd nd 0.5 nd
S8 41.3 6.6 3.3 nd nd nd nd 0.5 nd 3.6 nd nd 0.5 nd
S9 36.5 4.7 9.3 11 0.5 nd 100 212 7.0 23 nd nd 331 nd
S10 40.4 5.9 8.5 14 0.8 nd 91 214 2.9 21 nd nd 323 nd
S11 36.4 6.1 15 16 1.0 nd 117 273 2.6 27 nd nd 410 nd
S12 45.8 4.4 24 8.8 0.5 nd 119 131 5.7 17 0.6 nd 265 0.41
S13 42.9 3.5 8.1 18 0.6 nd 91 245 7.1 29 10 nd 362 nd
S14 39.9 3.9 20 46 2.4 nd 138 205 4.4 28 nd nd 396 nd
S15 52.2 4.2 5.0 22 0.5 nd 133 367 6.4 47 0.8 nd 529 nd
S16 47.4 7.3 21 23 1.2 nd 99 196 7.5 39 1.6 nd 327 nd
S17 48.3 3.8 21 10 0.6 nd 99 194 7.9 18 0.6 nd 312 nd
S18 46.0 4.0 15 16 1.0 nd 108 222 6.8 24 2.6 nd 354 nd
S19 43.3 4.3 10 34 3.3 nd 153 275 13 26 0.7 nd 478 nd
S20 41.1 14 33 13 0.5 nd 25 78 15 73 4.1 nd 132 0.15
S21 48.0 7.3 7.3 36 1.2 nd 161 333 8.2 23 3.9 nd 539 0.38
S22 48.7 27 13 50 0.8 nd 86 179 4.9 73 3.7 0.5 321 0.33
S23 39.8 5.9 0.8 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.8 nd nd nd nd
S24 43.6 3.9 11 19 0.7 nd 208 334 12 19 nd nd 574 nd
S25 44.7 6.1 35 16 0.8 nd 50 168 12 47 38 nd 247 0.13
S26 35.8 38 62 49 4.6 7.0 97 335 18 428 15 nd 511 0.39
S27 44.9 4.0 18 21 0.5 nd 172 390 23 23 0.7 nd 607 nd
S28 44.1 3.7 10 18 0.5 nd 76 207 6.3 31 4.0 nd 308 nd
S29 35.9 4.8 20 12 0.5 nd 64 257 15 25 1.1 nd 349 nd
S30 40.6 4.2 11 9.2 0.5 nd 106 212 8.3 23 0.8 nd 336 nd
S31 41.3 7.1 7.7 15 0.7 nd 93 303 13 21 0.6 nd 425 nd
S32 45.1 17 19 38 3.0 nd 82 243 26 37 0.6 nd 392 0.05
S33 45.7 4.7 19 14 0.5 nd 161 250 7.4 80 0.7 nd 433 nd
S34 38.1 4.7 1.5 4.8 nd nd 0.5 nd nd 2.3 nd nd 5.3 nd
S35 37.5 6.2 3.4 2.8 nd nd 37 30 1.5 5.4 2.1 nd 71 nd
S36 37.9 6.8 7.9 1.6 0.5 nd 84 227 4.0 21 0.6 nd 317 0.11
S37 42.3 4.6 7.2 9.7 0.5 nd 70 166 18 19 0.8 nd 264 nd
S38 38.9 1.3 11 11 0.5 nd 81 219 22 18 1.0 1.7 334 0.05
S39 37.6 6.3 3.5 2.8 nd nd 38 31 1.6 5.4 2.1 nd 73 nd
S40 45.0 3.8 7.7 13 0.6 nd 102 240 15 24 0.8 nd 371 nd
S41 43.1 4.6 14 15 0.5 nd 97 306 9.1 33 nd nd 428 0.31
S42 35.9 0.9 7.1 22 1.3 nd 137 241 20 26 0.9 nd 421 0.02
S43 38.6 1.6 8.5 19 0.5 nd 130 254 19 20 6.6 nd 423 0.04
S44 38.1 4.9 14 17 0.5 nd 84 184 7.6 23 4.1 nd 293 nd
S45 38.9 4.1 9.5 12 0.5 nd 73 311 41 22 1.6 nd 438 0.05
S46 34.8 0.9 25 17 0.3 nd 68 100 2.9 30 2.0 nd 188 0.04
S47 40.2 1.8 16 15 0.5 nd 69 143 9.1 22 nd nd 237 0.04
S48 37.0 1.4 22 14 0.3 nd 69 156 8.1 82 7.4 nd 247 0.03
S49 32.7 2.3 14 8.3 nd nd 101 211 9.1 22 nd nd 329 0.03
S50 38.8 262 24 100 2.3 nd 333 373 11 41 3.6 1.7 819 0.04
S51 46.0 5.7 14 14 0.5 nd 235 231 8.0 20 1.6 nd 489 0.09
S52 42.1 5.2 12 17 0.5 nd 135 212 8.8 20 0.7 nd 373 0.02
S53 42.8 4.8 9.8 14 0.5 nd 88 158 3.7 11 0.5 nd 264 0.04
S54 71.8 15 1.0 15 nd nd 0.7 nd nd 2.9 nd nd 16 nd
S55 70.0 8.1 0.9 nd nd nd nd nd nd 3.1 nd nd nd nd
S56 39.4 4.4 11 16 0.7 nd 103 190 3.8 28 6.3 nd 314 0.01
S57 36.3 5.2 9.3 14 0.5 nd 121 319 7.9 20 1.8 nd 462 nd
S58 36.4 5.1 9.7 8.8 0.5 nd 92 199 6.6 19 5.1 nd 307 nd
S59 35.1 18 12 15 0.5 nd 61 70 3.5 21 0.9 nd 150 0.12
S60 42.0 4.9 8.5 14 0.5 nd 107 291 11 30 nd nd 424 nd
S61 42.1 4.2 14 14 0.5 nd 42 98 2.4 35 nd nd 157 nd
S62 41.5 4.6 10 14 0.5 nd 109 229 7.6 30 nd nd 360 nd
S63 49.9 8.7 30 19 1.2 nd 61 219 10 33 8.1 nd 310 0.03
S64 42.2 39 6.1 39 17 nd 175 593 11 7.6 1.3 nd 842 nd
S65 32.5 9.3 11 nd 0.4 nd 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.6 nd nd 1.9 0.02
A1 39.8 5.0 0.9 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.6 nd nd nd nd
A2 39.7 7.4 0.7 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.7 nd nd nd nd
A3 39.6 6.3 0.6 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.9 nd nd nd nd
A4 39.7 5.3 0.7 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.8 nd nd nd nd
A5 39.7 4.3 0.7 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.6 nd nd nd Nd
AMPHORA limit 1000 50 1000 500 1000 0.4

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

[mg/l] Al B Cr Cu Mn Ni Pb Zn Conductivity
[μS/cm]
Chloride Nitrate Phosphate Sulfate
V1 0.03 nd 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.003 0.03 141 12 nd 5.5 22
V2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 7.8 nd nd nd nd
V3 nd nd 0.05 0.01 nd nd 0.001 nd 23 nd nd nd nd
V4 nd nd 0.02 nd 0.03 nd nd nd 9 nd nd nd nd
V5 nd nd nd 0.01 0.01 nd nd nd 8 nd nd nd nd
V6 nd nd 0.05 nd 0.02 nd nd nd 8 nd nd nd nd
V7 nd nd 0.04 0.01 0.04 nd nd 0.03 16 nd nd nd nd
V8 nd nd 0.02 nd nd nd nd nd 48 5.6 7.3 nd 4.4
S1 nd 0.16 nd 0.01 nd nd 0.01 0.02 36 nd nd nd nd
S2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 70 4.4 6.4 nd 25
S3 0.44 nd 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.08 385 64 2.0 99 10
S4 nd nd nd 0.01 nd nd 0.01 0.04 1.6 nd nd nd nd
S5 nd 0.53 nd 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.06 199 6.1 nd 83 110
S6 nd nd nd 0.02 nd nd 0.004 nd 8.3 nd 5.2 nd nd
S7 0.04 nd 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.01 nd 0.06 59 7.9 2.0 6.6 5.1
S8 0.02 nd 0.39 0.04 0.1 0.03 0.01 0.21 200 40 5.7 14 107
S9 0.02 nd nd 3.7* nd 0.01 0.004 nd 28 nd nd nd nd
S10 0.72 nd 0.04 0.06 3.3* 0.04 0.002 0.13 400 10 nd 15 15
S11 nd nd 0.01 nd nd nd nd nd 517 11 nd nd 17
S12 0.02 nd nd 7.9* nd 0.03 1.6* 10.3* 30 nd nd nd nd
S13 nd nd nd 5.0* 0.02 nd nd 5.0* 31 nd nd nd 3.6
S14 nd nd nd 25.9* 0.37 3.2* nd 0.1 36 nd nd nd 2.2
S15 nd nd 0.04 0.8 nd nd nd 1.3 7.7 nd nd nd nd
S16 nd nd nd 25.1* 0.01 0.01 nd 0.02 29 nd nd nd nd
S17 nd nd nd 8.5* 0.01 0.06 0.01 23.8* 33 nd nd nd nd
S18 nd nd nd 10.8* nd 0.03 nd 14.0* 31 nd nd nd 2.1
S19 nd nd nd 13.9* nd nd 0.02 0.05 24 nd nd nd 3.4
S20 0.01 nd 0.01 15* nd 0.17 0.01 11.5* 47 nd nd nd 2.5
S21 0.42 nd 0.02 5.9* nd nd 0.003 12.1* 26 nd nd nd nd
S22 nd nd 0.02 8.6* nd nd nd 32.2* 37 nd nd nd nd
S23 0.02 nd 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 38 4.7 nd nd 4.1
S24 nd nd nd 20.4* nd 0.03 2.5* 41.9* 56 nd nd nd nd
S25 0.1 nd 0.08 1.4 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 86 nd nd 6.0 32
S26 nd nd nd 7.5* 0.01 nd nd 12.5* 37 nd nd nd 2.5
S27 nd nd nd 5.4* 0.01 nd nd 4 24 nd nd nd nd
S28 nd nd 0.01 10.6* 0.02 nd nd 0.06 26 nd nd nd 3.1
S29 0.02 nd nd 5.2* nd nd nd 1.71 25 nd nd nd nd
S30 nd nd nd 2.4* nd nd nd 0.08 27 nd nd nd nd
S31 nd nd nd 0.02 0.01 nd nd 0.03 13 nd nd nd nd
S32 nd nd 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 nd 0.43 23 nd nd nd 3.4
S33 nd nd nd 6.8* 0.01 nd nd 0.32 47 nd nd nd 3.3
S34 nd nd 0.02 nd nd nd nd nd 419 137 nd nd 49
S35 nd nd 0.01 11.4* 0.01 nd 0.001 0.23 21 2.2 nd nd 2.3
S36 0.11 nd 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.01 0.004 0.17 414 91 nd 118 18
S37 0.02 nd nd 2.6* 0.01 0.01 nd 1.26 51 2.7 nd 4.3 7.7
S38 0.38 0.28 0.03 0.04 0.70* 0.04 0.01 0.69 500 94 nd 124 21
S39 nd nd nd 7.0* 0.01 nd nd 0.03 21 nd nd nd 2.3
S40 nd nd nd 5.0* nd nd nd 1.49 26 nd nd nd 3.1
S41 nd nd nd 3.5* 5.7* nd nd 0.39 127 3.5 7.7 nd 11
S42 nd nd nd 0.02 0.01 nd nd 0.03 32 nd nd nd 2.3
S43 nd nd 0.02 0.5 nd nd 0.01 0.3 24 nd nd nd nd
S44 0.06 nd 0.03 11.3* nd nd nd 1.5 67 21 nd nd nd
S45 nd nd 0.01 1.07 nd nd 0.002 0.73 16 nd nd nd nd
S46 nd nd nd 13.9* nd nd 0.002 0.12 44 nd 2.7 nd 4.4
S47 0.02 nd 0.03 17.5* nd nd 0.002 0.43 29 nd nd nd 2.5
S48 0.052 nd 0.02 0.04 nd nd 0.002 0.11 29 nd nd nd nd
S49 nd nd 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.14 276 48 8.7 6.5 65
S50 0.01 nd 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 nd 0.06 38 nd 3.4 nd 13
S51 nd nd 0.02 3.8* 0.11 0.18 0.001 2.0 18 nd nd nd nd
S52 0.21 nd 0.03 0.82 0.12 0.01 nd 0.33 80 nd nd 4.7 5.5
S53 nd nd 0.05 17.2* nd nd 0.01 0.29 29 nd nd nd 4.0
S54 nd nd 0.03 0.02 nd 0.01 nd 0.02 2.5 nd nd nd nd
S55 nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd nd 0.01 3.7 nd nd nd nd
S56 0.02 nd 0.04 0.01 nd 0.01 0.004 0.06 39 2.5 nd nd 8.4
S57 0.05 nd 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 45 3.0 nd nd 7.9
S58 0.61 nd 0.02 0.03 nd 0.01 0.01 0.14 33 nd nd nd 5.9
S59 nd nd 0.04 6.5* 4.6* nd 0.12 1.4 80 3.3 nd nd 5.2
S60 nd nd 0.02 6.6* 0.02 nd 0.002 0.35 19 nd nd nd nd
S61 0.13 nd 0.03 7.0* nd nd 0.002 0.24 45 3.6 2.6 nd 11
S62 0.43 nd 0.02 15.5* 0.01 nd 0.01 0.13 29 nd nd nd 3.0
S63 nd nd nd 6.1* 0.01 0.01 0.01 6.8* 36 nd nd nd 3.2
S64 nd nd 0.03 0.03 0.02 nd nd 0.07 29 3.7 6.5 nd 2.0
S65 0.02 nd 0.07 0.31 0.34 0.1 0.01 2.3 1004 25 5.4 224 126
A1 nd nd 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 nd 0.02 25 nd nd nd nd
A2 nd nd 0.03 0.05 0.01 nd nd nd 112 14 nd nd 28
A3 nd nd 0.03 nd nd nd nd nd 110 14 2.8 nd 27
A4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 155 20 3.5 nd 40
A5 nd nd 0.04 nd nd nd nd nd 114 11 nd nd 16
AMPHORA Limit 2 5 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 5.0 2500 500 1000

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

References

  1. Anonymous, 2007. Ukrainian Alcoholic Beverages. http://homedistiller.org/ukraine.htm (accessed 21.10.09, Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5kgzLhjgw).
  2. Babor, T., Caetano, R., Casswell, S., Edwards, G., Giesbrecht, N., Graham, K., Grube, J., Hill, L., Holder, H., Homel, R., Livingstone, M., Osterberg, E., Rehm, J., Room, R., Rossow, I. (2010) Alcohol: no ordinary commodity. In: Research and public policy, second ed. Oxford and London, Oxford University Press.
  3. Botha, A. (2009) Understanding alcohol availability. Noncommercial beverages. In: Grant, M., Leverton, M. (Eds.) Working together to reduce harmful drinking. New York, Routledge, pp. 39–62.
  4. Bromet, E. J., Gluzman, S. F., Paniotto, V. I., Webb, C. P., Tintle, N. L., Zakhozha, V., Havenaar, J. M., Gutkovich, Z., Kostyuchenko, S., Schwartz, J. E. (2005) Epidemiology of psychiatric and alcohol disorders in Ukraine: findings from the Ukraine World Mental Health survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40, 681–690.
  5. Conacher, H. B. S., Page, B. D. (1986) Ethyl carbamate in alcoholic beverages: a Canadian case history. In: Proceedings of Euro Food Tox II, European Society of Toxicology. Schwerzenbach, pp. 237–242.
  6. Ejim, O. S., Brands, B., Rehm, J., Lachenmeier, D. W. (2007) Composition of surrogate alcohol from south-eastern Nigeria. African Journal of Drug and Alcohol Studies, 6, 65–74.
  7. European Commission (2000) Commission regulation (EC) no 2870/2000 laying down community reference methods for the analysis of spirits drinks. Official Journal of the European Communities, L333, 20–46.
  8. European Parliament and Council (2008) Regulation (EC) no 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing council regulation (EEC) no 1576/89. Official Journal of European Union, L39, 16–54.
  9. Ezzati, M., Lopez, A. D., Rodgers, A., Vander Hoorn, S., Murray, C. J. L., Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group (2002) Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet, 360, 1347–1360.
  10. Gil, A., Polikina, O., Koroleva, N., McKee, M., Tomkins, S., Leon, D. A. (2009) Availability and characteristics of nonbeverage alcohols sold in 17 Russian cities in 2007. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 33, 79–85.
  11. Holzlein, H. (1989) Chronik des deutschen Branntweinmonopols. 1. Fortsetzung [chronicle of the German spirits monopoly. First sequel]. Branntweinwirtschaft, 129, 328–330.
  12. Huckenbeck, W., Freudenstein, P., Jeszenszky, E., Scheil, H. G. (2003) Congeners in spirits produced by moonshine distillers. Blutalkohol, 40, 294–301.
  13. IARC, in press. Alcoholic beverage consumption and ethyl carbamate (urethane). In: IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 96. Lyon.
  14. JECFA (2009) Summary of evaluations performed by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Geneva, World Health Organization (www.inchem.org).
  15. Krasovsky, K. (2009) Alcohol-related mortality in Ukraine. Drug and Alcohol Review, 28, 396–405.
  16. Lachenmeier, D. W. (2007) Rapid quality control of spirit drinks and beer using multivariate data analysis of Fourier transform infrared spectra. Food Chemistry, 101, 825–832.
  17. Lachenmeier, D. W. (2009) Reducing harm from alcohol: what about unrecorded products? Lancet, 374, 977.
  18. Lachenmeier, D. W., Musshoff, F. (2004) Volatile congeners in alcoholic beverages. Retrospective trends, batch comparisons and current concentration ranges. Rechtsmedizin, 14, 454–462.
  19. Lachenmeier, D. W., Rehm, J. (2009) Unrecorded alcohol: a threat to public health? Addiction, 104, 875–877.
  20. Lachenmeier, D. W., Rehm, J. (2010) Bootleggers and heavy drinkers: the impact of the German alcohol monopoly on public health and consumer safety. Sucht, 56, 91–93.
  21. Lachenmeier, D. W., Sohnius, E.-M. (2008) The role of acetaldehyde outside ethanol metabolism in the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages: evidence from a large chemical survey. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46, 2903–2911.
  22. Lachenmeier, D. W., Attig, R., Frank, W., Athanasakis, C. (2003) The use of ion chromatography to detect adulteration of vodka and rum. European Food Research and Technology, 218, 105–110.
  23. Lachenmeier, D. W., Frank, W., Kuballa, T. (2005a) Application of tandem mass spectrometry combined with gas chromatography to the routine analysis of ethyl carbamate in stone-fruit spirits. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 19, 108–112.
  24. Lachenmeier, D. W., Schehl, B., Kuballa, T., Frank, W., Senn, T. (2005b) Retrospective trends and current status of ethyl carbamate in German stone-fruit spirits. Food Additives and Contaminants, 22, 397–405.
  25. Lachenmeier, D. W., Sohnius, E.-M., Attig, R., Lopez, M. G. (2006) Quantification of selected volatile constituents and anions in Mexican Agave spirits (Tequila, Mezcal, Sotol, Bacanora). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54, 3911–3915.
  26. Lachenmeier, D. W., Rehm, J., Gmel, G. (2007) Surrogate alcohol: what do we know and where do we go? Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 31, 1613–1624.
  27. Lachenmeier, D. W., Schmidt, B., Bretschneider, T. (2008a) Rapid and mobile brand authentication of vodka using conductivity measurement. Microchimica Acta, 160, 283–289.
  28. Lachenmeier, D. W., Haupt, S., Schulz, K. (2008b) Defining maximum levels of higher alcohols in alcoholic beverages and surrogate alcohol products. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 50, 313–321.
  29. Lachenmeier, D. W., Ganss, S., Rychlak, B., Rehm, J., Sulkowska, U., Skiba, M., Zatonski, W. (2009a) Association between quality of cheap and unrecorded alcohol products and public health consequences in Poland. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 33, 1757–1769.
  30. Lachenmeier, D. W., Sarsh, B., Rehm, J. (2009b) The composition of alcohol products from markets in Lithuania and Hungary, and potential health consequences: a pilot study. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 44, 93–102.
  31. Lachenmeier, D. W., Schoeberl, K., Kanteres, F., Kuballa, T., Sohnius, E.-M., Rehm, J. (in press) Is contaminated alcohol a health problem in the European Union? A review of existing and methodological outline for future studies. Addiction.
  32. Lang, K., Vali, M., Szucs, S., Adany, R., McKee, M. (2006) The composition of surrogate and illegal alcohol products in Estonia. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41, 446–450.
  33. Leitz, J., Kuballa, T., Rehm, J., Lachenmeier, D. W. (2009) Chemical analysis and risk assessment of diethyl phthalate in alcoholic beverages with special regard to unrecorded alcohol. PLoS One 4, e8127.
  34. McKee, M., Suzcs, S., Sarvary, A., Adany, R., Kiryanov, N., Saburova, L., Tomkins, S., Andreev, E., Leon, D. A. (2005) The composition of surrogate alcohols consumed in Russia. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 1884–1888.
  35. Nordstrom, D. L. (2007) Ukraine set to act on high suicide burden. Injury Prevention, 13, 224–226.
  36. Nuzhnyi, V. (2004) Chemical composition, toxic, and organoleptic properties of noncommercial alcohol samples. In: Haworth, A., Simpson, R. (Eds.) Moonshine markets. Issues in unrecorded alcohol beverage production and consumption. New York, Brunner–Routledge, pp. 177–199.
  37. O’Leary, K. D., Tintle, N., Bromet, E. J., Gluzman, S. F. (2008) Descriptive epidemiology of intimate partner aggression in Ukraine. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43, 619–626.
  38. Paine, A. J., Dayan, A. D., 2001. Defining a tolerable concentration of methanol in alcoholic drinks. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 20, 563–568.
  39. Pomerleau, J., McKee, M., Rose, R., Haerpfer, C. W., Rotman, D., Tumanov, S. (2008) Hazardous alcohol drinking in the former Soviet Union: a cross-sectional study of eight countries. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 43, 351–359.
  40. Popova, S., Rehm, J., Patra, J., Zatonski, W. (2007) Comparing alcohol consumption in central and eastern Europe to other European countries. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 42, 465–473.
  41. Rehm, J., Greenfield, T. K. (2008) Public alcohol policy: current directions and new opportunities. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 640–643.
  42. Rehm, J., Room, R., Monteiro, M., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Rehn, N., Sempos, C. T., Jernigan, D. (2003) Alcohol as a risk factor for global burden of disease. European Addiction Research, 9, 157–164.
  43. Rehm, J., Room, R., Monteiro, M., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Rehn, N., Sempos, C. T., Frick, U., Jernigan, D. (2004) Alcohol use. In: Ezzati, M., Lopez, A. D., Rodgers, A., Murray, C. J. L. (Eds.) Comparative quantification of health risks. Global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors, vol. 1. Geneva, World Health Organization, pp. 959–1108.
  44. Rehm, J., Sulkowska, U., Manczuk, M., Boffetta, P., Powles, J., Popova, S., Zatonski, W. (2007) Alcohol accounts for a high proportion of premature mortality in central and eastern Europe. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 458–467.
  45. Rehm, J., Mathers, C., Popova, S., Thavorncharoensap, M., Teerawattananon, Y., Patra, J. (2009) Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet, 373, 2223–2233.
  46. Rehm, J., Kanteres, F., Lachenmeier, D. W. (2010) Unrecorded consumption, quality of alcohol and health consequences. Drug and Alcohol Review, 29, 426–436.
  47. Secretan, B., Straif, K., Baan, R., Grosse, Y., El Ghissassi, F., Bouvard, V., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Freeman, C., Galichet, L., Cogliano, V. (2009) A review of human carcinogens — Part E: tobacco, areca nut, alcohol, coal smoke, and salted fish. Lancet Oncology, 10, 1033–1034.
  48. Szucs, S., Sarvary, A., McKee, M., Adany, R. (2005) Could the high level of cirrhosis in central and eastern Europe be due partly to the quality of alcohol consumed? An exploratory investigation. Addiction, 100, 536–542.
  49. Webb, C. P., Bromet, E. J., Gluzman, S., Tintle, N. L., Schwartz, J. E., Kostyuchenko, S., Havenaar, J. M. (2005) Epidemiology of heavy alcohol use in Ukraine: findings from the world mental health survey. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 40, 327–335.
  50. Wertelecki, W. (2006) Birth defects surveillance in Ukraine: a process. Journal of Applied Genetetics, 47, 143–149.
  51. WHO (2009) Global Information System on Alcohol and Health. Geneva, World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/globalatlas/default.asp (accessed 22.10.09).