| Literature DB >> 26813701 |
Kristina Harris Jackson1, Jason Polreis1, Laura Sanborn1, David Chaima2, William S Harris3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of breast milk fatty acid (FA) composition, particularly levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), on infant health outcomes is unclear. Part of the reason for this is difficulties in collecting, storing and shipping milk samples to the laboratory. Here we report the validation of a dried milk spot (DMS) system to measure FA composition to help overcome these obstacles. Milk FA were measured by gas chromatography and reported as percent of total FA; the FA of primary interest in this study were DHA and industrially produced trans FA (iTFA). Experiments were carried out using pooled milk samples from US (n = 5) and Malawian women (n = 50). Experiments compared liquid vs. DMS samples (n = 55), assessed stability of FA composition under different storage conditions (n = 5), and compared the results from two different labs using the same methods (n = 5).Entities:
Keywords: Assessment of nutritional status; Breast milk; Docosahexaenoic acid; Infant and child nutrition; Lactation; Maternal nutrition
Year: 2016 PMID: 26813701 PMCID: PMC4727292 DOI: 10.1186/s13006-016-0060-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Breastfeed J ISSN: 1746-4358 Impact factor: 3.461
Fig. 1Comparison of liquid with dried milk spot for % DHA (a) and %iTFA (b; n = 55). Regression equations for the whole cohort: Liquid % DHA = 0.8974 (DMS % DHA) – 0.0015 (R2 = 0.996, P < 0.0001) and Liquid % iTFA = 0.9605 (DMS % iTFA) - 0.0146 (R2 = 0.994, P < 0.0001). For the subset of samples less than 1 % DHA, the regression equation was: Liquid % DHA = 0.9116 (DMS % DHA) – 0.0054 (R2 = 0.981, P < 0.0001)
Fig. 2% DHA and % iTFA from dried milk spots (n = 5) over time and in different storage conditions. Temperature Storage a, 23 °C [room temperature]; b, 4 °C [refrigeration]; c, -20 °C [standard freezer]; d, -80 °C [research freezer]). Dotted lines represent 15 % deviation from baseline values. Open squares represent iTFA values; closed circles represent DHA values.
Comparison of % DHA and % iTFA values from identical samples analyzed affiliated labs, OmegaQuant Analytics (Sioux Falls, South Dakota, US) and OmegaQuant-Asia (Seoul, South Korea)
| % DHA | ||||
| Samples | Referencea | Acceptable rangeb | OmegaQuant | OmegaQuant-Asia |
| 1 | 0.06 % | 0.05–0.07 % | 0.06 % | 0.07 % |
| 2 | 0.08 % | 0.07–0.09 % | 0.07 % | 0.09 % |
| 3 | 0.16 % | 0.14–0.18 % | 0.15 % | 0.16 % |
| 4 | 0.32 % | 0.27–0.37 % | 0.30 % | 0.34 % |
| 5 | 0.45 % | 0.38–0.52 % | 0.41 % | 0.49 % |
| Average | 0.21 % | 0.18–0.25 % | 0.20 % | 0.23 % |
| % iTFA | ||||
| Samples | Referencea | Acceptable rangeb | OmegaQuant | OmegaQuant-Asia |
| 1 | 2.15 % | 1.83–2.48 % | 2.22 % | 2.09 % |
| 2 | 2.52 % | 2.14–2.89 % | 2.65 % | 2.38 % |
| 3 | 2.07 % | 1.76–2.38 % | 2.23 % | 1.92 % |
| 4 | 1.56 % | 1.32–1.79 % | 1.69 % | 1.42 % |
| 5 | 1.09 % | 0.92–1.25 % | 1.10 % | 1.08 % |
| Average | 1.88 % | 1.60–2.16 % | 1.98 % | 1.78 % |
aThe reference values for % DHA and % TFA are the average of the values from each lab
bAcceptable range is ± 15 % from the reference value