Objective
The heat treatment of protein-rich food like meat and fish products generates potent mutagenic compounds like heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs). These genotoxic food contaminants are strongly suspected to be involved in human colon and breast cancer.
Due to the very low levels (ng/g) of these molecules present in broiled/fried/baked foods, the identification and quantitative estimation of HAAs remains a challenge, which needs extensive fractionations, in multiple step procedures. Actually, about 20 structures have been identified, but complex industrial preparations like processed meat like flavors seems to contain isomers with extraction and chromatographic profiles very similar to HAAs. In order to estimate the level of human consumption of HAAs and to elaborate a reliable risk assesment it is necessary to develop strong routine methods in order to quantify correctly these HAAs, in different food matrices. In the past, several complicated methods have been proposed, but the results were not reproducible, leading to confusion in the calculated amounts ingested.
A first objective of the project was to establish and optimize the accuracy, repetability and reproducibility of the available end-methods for the quantification of four HAAs (IQ, MeIQx, 4,8-DiMeIQx and PhIP), during a preliminary intercomparison with methanolic solutions .
A second intercomparison was organized on a common batch of a commercial sample of beef extract , in order to evaluate the influence of the complete extraction and clean up procedure on the final recovery of the four HAAs.
The results of the first intercomparison revealed a good agremment between the results obtained by the participants and the target content; no discrepancies linked to the analytical method were detected.No statistical difference was found regarding the day of work, the use of an automatic sampler or the calculation method used to determine the unknown content.
Based on the results obtained, the participants have agreed the within-laboratory and between-day reproducibility, for the four HAAs considered.
The study of the stability of the four HAAs in beef extract revealed a significant loss at +25°C and +60°C. A recommend solid phase extraction procedure was used by most of the participants followed by HPLC analysis. The comparison of the results obtained revealed important variations not only between but also within laboratories. This led to the conclusions that whereas the analytical methods used were satisfactory, the extraction and clean up procedure could be improved.
In a first phase, a common batch of four methanolic solutions of the most representative HAAs was prepared and checked for stability and homogeneity. When the results were found satisfactory, an intercomparison was organized between height European laboratories, which received a metanolic solution of identity and content both unknown to participants, together with the reference solutions. Whereas the choice of the end-method was left free, all the participants used HPLC with various detection systems.
In a second step, a batch of commercial beef extract was selected, spiked with the four HAAs, tested for stability and homogeneity and finally distributed to the participants.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
- medical and health sciences clinical medicine oncology breast cancer
- natural sciences chemical sciences organic chemistry amines
You need to log in or register to use this function
We are sorry... an unexpected error occurred during execution.
You need to be authenticated. Your session might have expired.
Thank you for your feedback. You will soon receive an email to confirm the submission. If you have selected to be notified about the reporting status, you will also be contacted when the reporting status will change.
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Data not available
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Data not available
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Coordinator
1200 Bruxelles
Belgium
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.