4.7 Article

Hemoglobin adducts as a measure of variations in exposure to acrylamide in food and comparison to questionnaire data

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 2531-2539

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.04.004

关键词

Acrylamide; Dietary intake; Glycidamide; Dietary history methodology; Individual variation; Food frequency questionnaire

资金

  1. European Commission [FOOD-CT-2003-506820]
  2. Swedish Research Council Formas
  3. Swedish Cancer and Allergy Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurement of haemoglobin (Hb) adducts from acrylamide (AA) and its metabolite glycidamide (GA) is a possibility to improve the exposure assessment in epidemiological studies of AA intake from food. This study aims to clarify the reliability of Hb-adduct measurement from individual single samples for exposure assessment of dietary AA intake. The intra-individual variations of AA- and GA-adduct levels measured in blood samples collected over 20 months from 13 non-smokers were up to 2-fold and 4-fold, respectively. The corresponding interindividual variations observed between 68 non-smokers, with large differences in AA intake, were 6-fold and 8-fold, respectively. The intra-individual variation of the GA-to-AA-adduct level ratio was up to 3-fold, compared to 11-fold between individuals (n = 68). From AA-adduct levels the average AA daily intake (n = 68) was calculated and compared to that estimated from dietary history methodology: 0.52 and 0.67 mu g/kg body weight and day, respectively. At an individual level the measures showed low association (Rs = 0.39). Conclusions: Dietary AA is the dominating source to measured AA-adduct levels and corresponding inter- and intra-individual variations in non-smokers. Measurements from single individual samples are useful for calculation of average M intake and its variation in a cohort, and for identification of individuals only from extreme intake groups. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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