4.7 Article

Biomonitoring of nutritional acrylamide intake by consumers without dietary preferences as compared to vegans

期刊

ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
卷 93, 期 4, 页码 987-996

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-019-02412-x

关键词

Acrylamide; Biomonitoring; Dietary exposure; Human study; Mercapturic acids; Vegan diet

资金

  1. Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) [Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589, 68561]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acrylamide (AA) is a heat-induced food contaminant considered as genotoxic carcinogen. The present study investigated the influence of nutritional and lifestyle preferences on human AA exposure. A 10-day human study was performed with ten volunteers without nutritional preferences (omnivores) and ten vegans. Volunteers self-reported their daily routine and dietary habits. Overall mean AA intake, calculated from contents of diet duplicates, was 0.32 +/- 0.19 mu g/kg body weight (bw)/day with marked inter-day and inter-volunteer variabilities. Vegans ingested more AA (0.38 +/- 0.23 mu g/kg bw/day) than omnivore volunteers without dietary restrictions (0.26 +/- 0.10 mu g/kg bw/day). Excretion kinetics of urinary AA-related mercapturic acids N-acetyl-S-(2-carbamoylethyl)-l-cysteine and N-acetyl-S-(2-hydroxy-2-carbamoylethyl)-l-cysteine were essentially concordant with the respective dietary AA intake. Disproportionately enhanced AA-related biomarker excretion could be traced back to reportedly inadvertent, passive exposure to tobacco and/or fire smoke, as evidenced by the respective urinary exposure biomarkers, cotinine and N-acetyl-S-(2-cyanoethyl)-l-cysteine. Although the study is based on the comparison of small volunteer groups, the results confirm the association of AA exposure biomarkers with documented dietary preferences and lifestyle factors. Some additional contribution of endogenous background AA exposure was demonstrated individually. Disproportionately enhanced AA exposure is suggested to result from passive exposure to tobacco and/or barbecue smoke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据