Acid-labile protein-adducted heterocyclic aromatic amines in human blood are not viable biomarkers of dietary exposure: A systematic study.

Heterocyclic aromatic amines (HCA) are carcinogenic mutagens formed during cooking of protein-rich foods. HCA residues adducted to blood proteins have been postulated as biomarkers of HCA exposure. However, the viability of quantifying HCAs following hydrolytic release from adducts in vivo and correlation with dietary intake are unproven. To definitively assess the potential of labile HCA-protein adducts as biomarkers, a highly sensitive UPLC-MS/MS method was validated for four major HCAs: 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP), 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQx), 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (4,8-DiMeIQx) and 2-amino-3,7,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (7,8-DiMeIQx). Limits of detection were 1e5 pg/ml plasma and recoveries 91e115%. Efficacy of hydrolysis was demonstrated by HCA-protein adducts synthesised in vitro. Plasma and 7-day food diaries were collected from 122 fasting adults consuming their habitual diets. Estimated HCA intakes ranged from 0 to 2.5 mg/day. An extensive range of hydrolysis conditions was examined for release of adducted HCAs in plasma. HCA was detected in only one sample (PhIP, 9.7 pg/ml), demonstrating conclusively for the first time that acid-labile HCA adducts do not reflect dietary HCA intake and are present at such low concentrations that they are not feasible biomarkers of exposure. Identification of biomarkers remains important. The search should concentrate on stabilised HCA peptide markers and use of untargeted proteomic and metabolomic approaches.

An evaluation of portion size estimation aids precision, ease of use and likelihood of future use

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate the precision, ease of use and likelihood of future use of portion size estimation aids (PSEA).

DESIGN: A range of PSEA were used to estimate the serving sizes of a range of commonly eaten foods and rated for ease of use and likelihood of future usage.

SETTING: For each food, participants selected their preferred PSEA from a range of options including: quantities and measures; reference objects; measuring; and indicators on food packets. These PSEA were used to serve out various foods (e.g. liquid, amorphous, and composite dishes). Ease of use and likelihood of future use were noted. The foods were weighed to determine the precision of each PSEA.

SUBJECTS: Males and females aged 18-64 years (n 120).

RESULTS: The quantities and measures were the most precise PSEA (lowest range of weights for estimated portion sizes). However, participants preferred household measures (e.g. 200 ml disposable cup) - deemed easy to use (median rating of 5), likely to use again in future (all scored either 4 or 5 on a scale from 1='not very likely' to 5='very likely to use again') and precise (narrow range of weights for estimated portion sizes). The majority indicated they would most likely use the PSEA preparing a meal (94 %), particularly dinner (86 %) in the home (89 %; all P<0·001) for amorphous grain foods.

CONCLUSIONS: Household measures may be precise, easy to use and acceptable aids for estimating the appropriate portion size of amorphous grain foods.