
==== Front
J Perinatol
J Perinatol
Journal of Perinatology
0743-8346
1476-5543
Nature Publishing Group US New York

38879586
2029
10.1038/s41372-024-02029-8
Perspective
Deciphering macronutrient information about human milk
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8799-3313
Belfort Mandy B. 1
Stellwagen Lisa 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9283-4413
North Krysten 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8091-5742
Unger Sharon 34
O’Connor Deborah L. 45
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-8310
Perrin Maryanne T. mtperrin@uncg.edu

6
1 https://ror.org/04b6nzv94 grid.62560.37 0000 0004 0378 8294 Department of Pediatrics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA
2 grid.266100.3 0000 0001 2107 4242 Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, CA USA
3 https://ror.org/01e6qks80 grid.55602.34 0000 0004 1936 8200 IWK Health, and Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Canada
4 https://ror.org/03dbr7087 grid.17063.33 0000 0001 2157 2938 Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, and the Department of Pediatrics, Sinai Health, Toronto, ON Canada
5 https://ror.org/057q4rt57 grid.42327.30 0000 0004 0473 9646 Translational Medicine Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON Canada
6 https://ror.org/04fnxsj42 grid.266860.c 0000 0001 0671 255X Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC USA
15 6 2024
15 6 2024
2024
44 9 13771381
12 2 2024
5 6 2024
6 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Clinicians caring for small, vulnerable newborns increasingly have access to specific nutritional information about human milk through point-of-care analyzers and labeled products. It is critical for clinicians to recognize that there is considerable variability in how human milk nutritional data are derived and reported, which impacts the interpretation of nutritional values, comparison of nutritional data between products, and ultimately the ability to deliver optimal nutritional care. This article distills key issues that will enable clinicians to interpret human milk nutritional labels/analysis more effectively, ultimately allowing them to make better decisions about dietary strategies. We aim to empower clinicians to ask questions about milk sampling techniques, reported nutrient values, analysis techniques, and milk bank pooling practices. This knowledge can put human milk nutrient values in context, improve clinical care, and help to drive more rigorous research for exploring the impact of human milk feeding on infant outcomes.

Subject terms

Paediatrics
Nutritional supplements
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature America, Inc. 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Increasingly, clinicians caring for small vulnerable newborns have access to nutritional information about mother’s own milk (MOM) and pasteurized donor human milk (PDHM) through point-of-care analyzers and labeled products. It is critical for clinicians to recognize that there is considerable variability in how nutritional data for human milk are derived and reported, which impacts the interpretation of nutritional values, comparison of nutritional data between human milk products, and ultimately the ability to deliver optimal nutritional care. The purpose of this article is to distill key issues that will enable clinicians to more effectively interpret point-of-care nutritional data and thereby make better decisions about infant dietary strategies. We focus primarily on nutritional information derived using infrared spectroscopy (IR) because this technology is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in a clinical setting and is commonly used by non-profit milk banks for labeling PDHM. IR is a technique for measuring macronutrients in milk based on the vibration patterns of different chemical bonds. This technique originated in the dairy industry; therefore, differences between the human milk matrix and the bovine milk matrix – including presence and abundance of oligosaccharides and nitrogen containing substances – must be taken into consideration when interpreting results. Where more accurate methods for determining nutritional values for human milk are available, we will also discuss these. Table 1 provides a summary of human milk macronutrients and measurement considerations.Table 1 Summary of human milk macronutrient analysis and clinical implications.

Category	Analyte	Definition	Measurement notes & clinical implications	
Carbohydrates	Lactose	Makes up 70–85% of the total carbohydrates in human milk. Digestible by infant for energy.	• IR carbohydrate values depend on whether instrument was calibrated to total carbohydrates (includes lactose and HMOs) or lactose.

• While IR is not strongly correlated with chemical methods for measuring carbohydrates, it is accurate within FDA requirement of +/−15%

• IR instruments calibrated to total carbohydrates will overestimate the available energy in human milk.

• Reliable methods for measuring lactose that are not influenced by HMOs include AOAC 984.22 and AOAC 2006.06.

	
HMOs	Makes up 15–25% of the total carbohydrates in human milk. Not digestible by infant. Serves multiple functions in the infant gut.	
Monosaccharides	Makes up less than 1% of the total carbohydrates in human milk.	
Total carbohydrates	Sum of monosaccharides, lactose, and HMOs.	
Fat	Total fat	Primarily in the form of triglycerides; a major contributor to energy and the most variable macronutrient in human milk.	• Total fat values are profoundly influenced by sample collection and handling practices.

• Lack of proper sample handling may contribute to errors and bias.

• IR provides reliable values for total fat, provided proper sample handling techniques are used.

• Creamatocrit reliability decreases when fat concentrations are low, and when milk has undergone storage.

	
Protein	Crude Protein	Also referred to as Total Protein. Assumes all the nitrogen in milk is from protein; therefore, crude/total protein over-estimates protein in human milk.	• Protein is estimated from the amount of nitrogen in milk.

• Nitrogen in human milk can be measured with IR or the Kjeldahl assay.

• In human milk, 20–50% of nitrogen is from non-protein sources.

• Kjeldahl can be adapted to also measure non-protein nitrogen, whereas IR cannot distinguish non-protein nitrogen and uses a correction factor to estimate true protein value (e.g., Miris IR calculates true protein as [crude protein]*0.8)

	
True Protein	Accounts for the non-protein nitrogen (NPN) either through measurement of NPN or applying a constant discount. This is the most nutritionally relevant value.	
Energy	Gross Energy	Energy provided when all organic molecules are burned in a bomb calorimeter.	• Metabolizable energy requires distinguishing protein from non-protein nitrogen, and lactose from HMOs.

• FAO’s recommended metabolizable energy conversion factors are 9, 4, 4, and 2 per gram of fat, true protein, digestible carbohydrate (lactose) and indigestible carbohydrate (HMOs).

• Energy estimates from IR are based on how the instrument is calibrated and configured. Miris IR instrument estimates gross energy using crude protein, total fat, and total carbohydrate measures.

	
	Metabolizable Energy	The energy that is biologically available to an infant after digesting and metabolizing nutrients.	

Protein

Milk proteins are sources of amino acids for the growing infant [1], and also have bioactive functions [2]. Protein concentration declines after delivery, falling sharply in the first month [3], and is higher after preterm birth versus full-term, particularly in the first 4 weeks postpartum [3]. Protein concentrations do not vary by time-of-day [4], or by sample collection method [5], suggesting that there are few limitations in obtaining a representative sample of milk for protein analysis.

A common approach to measuring protein in foods is to assess the nitrogen, since most nitrogen in foods is found in the protein fraction. Measured nitrogen is then used to estimate protein content using a general or food-specific nitrogen conversion factor. Non-protein nitrogen (NPN) in different food varies and can influence the accuracy of nitrogen-based protein quantification techniques. For example, human milk averages 25–30% NPN, with values reported as high as 55% [6, 7], whereas cow’s milk contains ~5% NPN [8]. For more accurate assessment of protein, NPN is accounted for through direct measurement or through estimation. The term “crude protein” (also referred to as “total protein”) assumes that all nitrogen in food is attributed to protein, while the term “true protein” accounts only for the protein fraction. From a clinical standpoint, crude/total protein overestimates protein due to the large fraction of NPN in human milk. In other words, true protein–rather than crude/total protein–is more clinically relevant for nutritional purposes.

The gold standard for measuring nitrogen in milk is the modified Kjeldahl method, a wet-lab method that is practical in food production and research settings. In clinical settings, IR is more practical and quantifies nitrogen based on the infrared radiation absorbed by nitrogen-containing bonds. Importantly, IR cannot distinguish between nitrogen in protein versus NPN, therefore a standard correction factor is usually applied to estimate true protein.

Recent studies have compared the accuracy of different IR instruments. Kwan et al. evaluated two different IR instruments in 13 clinical and milk bank settings and found that protein precision and accuracy varied between sites regardless of the instrument used. Performance improved with appropriate calibration using reference standard materials and/or use of correction factors, as well as use of good laboratory practices [9]. Perrin et al. evaluated four IR instruments used in three milk banks against accuracy thresholds determined by the FDA (±15% for crude protein) and reported that all analyzers typically met this threshold [10]. To achieve accurate true protein estimates, instruments required different correction factors ranging from 20 to 30%, highlighting the importance of instrument monitoring and calibration. When NPN in human milk is high (e.g. 40–50%), true protein values will be overestimated using a standard correction factor in the range of 20–30% (actual percent NPN less standard correction factor).

Clinical pearls

Given variations in how protein is reported, to better understand nutritional information provided about MOM and PDHM, clinicians should ask: (i) Does this value represent true protein or crude/total protein? Implications: crude/total protein includes NPN and overstates available protein. (ii) If true protein, how was NPN accounted for (measured vs standard correction factor)? Implications: Use of a standard correction factor may overstate true protein by 20–30% in situations where actual milk NPN is higher than the correction factor.

Carbohydrates

The human milk carbohydrate matrix is influenced by lactation stage and consists of lactose (70–85%), human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs; 15–25%), and monosaccharides (<1%) [1, 11]. Lactose increases significantly in the first weeks postpartum and then remains stable, while many HMOs decline throughout lactation and are highly variable between individuals [12–15]. Lactose provides a major source of energy, while HMOs are indigestible by the infant, though can contribute some energy when metabolized by gut microbiome. Thus, being able to distinguish between lactose and HMOs is critical for reliably estimating available energy values. Carbohydrate concentrations in human milk do not vary by time of day [4], or by sample collection method [5], suggesting that there are few limitations in obtaining a representative milk sample for carbohydrate analysis.

Two methods – one enzymatic, and the other using chromatography – were recently validated for measuring lactose in human milk [16], however, these techniques are typically not feasible to implement in clinical settings. Lactose and HMOs are not distinguishable by IR devices because of similarities in their chemical structures, specifically the terminal lactose unit on each HMO [16, 17]. Carbohydrate estimates using IR are strongly influenced by calibration and instrumentation [9, 10]. A study of 4 different IR analyzers used in 3 milk bank settings reported significantly different results across a shared set of samples (ranging from an average of 5.9–7.9 g/dL) [10]. The instruments were all highly correlated for their carbohydrate readings (correlation coefficient of 0.87–0.98; unpublished data) suggesting they were reading similar signals, but differed in how carbohydrate values were computed. Validation studies report that IR and chemical methods for lactose quantification are not well-correlated [9, 18]; however IR instruments are still able to achieve FDA accuracy standard (±15%) when estimating carbohydrates [10, 19] due to the limited variability of carbohydrates in human milk [12, 20]. Whether IR instruments are calibrated to lactose or to total carbohydrates will strongly influence carbohydrate estimates. Instruments calibrated to total carbohydrates will systematically over-report the available energy in human milk by assigning the same energy values to digestible (lactose) and indigestible (HMOs) carbohydrates [21]. The impact of this will be further discussed in the “Energy” subsection of this paper.

Clinical pearls

Given variations in how carbohydrates are reported, to fully understand nutritional information provided about MOM and PDHM, clinicians should ask: (i) Do carbohydrate values reflect lactose (digestible carbohydrate), or total carbohydrates (digestible and indigestible carbohydrates)? Implication: if values reflect total carbohydrates, available energy will be overstated.

Fat

Lipids in human milk are primarily composed of fatty acids esterified to glycerol (i.e. triglycerides, 98%) and smaller quantities of cholesterol and phospholipids [1, 22]. Triglycerides provide 45–50% of the total energy in human milk [20], while other lipids found in the milk fat globule membranes are associated with important health benefits [23]. Fat composition is highly variable, with estimates for mature milk averaging from 3.3 to 3.7 g/dL [3].

Fat composition may be influenced by factors including maternal adiposity and maternal diet [24–26], and changes throughout the day, with highest concentrations reported in the evening [4]. Fat is profoundly influenced by sample collection and handling practices, with post-feed collections being significantly higher than pre-feed collections [5]. Thus, sampling and handling can markedly influence the trustworthiness of values regarding human milk fat [1, 27]. Strategies for collecting a representative sample for clinical decision making include using an aliquot from milk pooled for feeding over 24-hours or having mothers pool their milk expressions over 24-h [1, 28].

The gold standard method for analyzing human milk fat is the gravimetric method which is based on the extraction and weighing of fat [1]. This wet-laboratory-based technique requires proper handling of organic solvents and is not practical clinically. Within the NICUs and milk banks, both creamatocrit and IR analyzers have been employed for rapid measurement of human milk fat.

Creamatocrit involves placing a small volume of milk (about 0.1 mL) in a measurement tube which is centrifuged to separate the milk into fat and aqueous layers. The fat layer is measured and compared to the size of the total column. Creamatocrit percentage is then converted to concentration (g/dL) using a published equation [29]. Creamatocrit is reliable for estimating fat within a typical range, but becomes unreliable when composition is below 2 g/dL, or when milk has undergone prolonged storage, due to hydrolysis of triglycerides into free fatty acids that may pack more tightly [30–32].

Studies to evaluate the reliability of IR for measuring fat in human milk report strong agreement with chemical reference methods when samples are appropriately homogenized [9, 10, 18]. One study reported improved IR accuracy when milk was sonicated using sound waves [27]. Further, a recent study noted that sample volumes of 4.5 mL versus 1.5 mL produced more reliable fat measurements [9], suggesting that clinicians may want to prioritize collecting larger sample volumes when possible.

Clinical pearls

Standardized sample collection and careful handling techniques are critical for generating reliable information about fat composition of human milk. IR analysis is reliable for measuring fat in human milk when appropriate sample collection and handling processes have been followed. Creamatocrit reliability decreases when fat concentrations are low, and when milk has undergone storage.

Energy

Gross energy refers to the total energy in foods if all organic constituents were biologically available for fuel. It is typically assessed by burning food in a bomb calorimeter. Energy can also be estimated in foods by applying conversion factors to different nutrient classes. Metabolizable energy differs from gross energy as it reflects the biologically available energy and does not include organic molecules that are not readily converted to energy (e.g. vitamins, NPN). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recommends reporting the metabolizable energy in foods using the Atwater conversion factors of 9 kcal/g of fat, 4 kcal/g of true protein, 4 kcal/g of digestible carbohydrates, and 2 kcal/g of indigestible carbohydrates (HMOs) [21]. Balance studies of term and preterm infants support the principle that not all energy in human milk is available for the infant [33, 34]. Thus, metabolizable energy values are most relevant when estimating energy in human milk [35].

IR instruments estimate energy in human milk by applying conversion factors to the different macronutrients. Some IR instruments are calibrated and configured to estimate the metabolizable energy using metabolizable nutrients (e.g. true protein, lactose) and the Atwater conversion factors, while others estimate the gross energy using gross nutrients (e.g. crude protein, total carbohydrates) and alternate conversion factors [36]. In a study that compared a variety of energy conversion factors that have been used in the literature to quantify the energy in human milk, the FAO-recommended Atwater factors were consistently 2–3 kcal/oz lower than energy values generated by other conversion factors [37]. A review of preterm milk composition comparing gross energy to metabolizable energy reported 5–10% higher estimates when gross energy was used [35]. Overall, IR instruments that are calibrated and configured to estimate energy using crude/total protein and total carbohydrate values and/or conversion factors other than Atwater will likely overestimate the available energy compared to the more clinically relevant metabolizable energy (based on true protein, lactose, and Atwater conversion factors).

Clinical pearls

In the absence of standards for how human milk energy values are reported, to better understand energy information provided about MOM and PDHM, clinicians should ask: (i) Was energy measured using bomb calorimetry (gross energy) or estimated using conversion factors? (ii) If estimated, were they based on metabolizable nutrients (e.g lactose and true protein) or gross nutrients (e.g. crude protein, total carbohydrates)? (iii) What conversion factors were used to compute energy? Implications: energy values obtained using crude protein, total carbohydrates, and/or using factors other than the Atwater conversion factors may potentially overstate available energy by up to 10%.

Important clinical considerations

When using pasteurized donor human milk

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends PDHM as a preferential alternative for feeding small vulnerable newborns in the absence of adequate volumes of maternal milk [38]. While many country-specific milk banking guidelines exist for the management and safety of PDHM, quality control efforts have historically focused on microbial contaminants, not nutrient content [39]. Multi-donor pooling and including milk expressed from mothers of preterm infants and milk expressed in early versus later postpartum periods are strategies used by many milk banks to reduce nutrient variability and avoid low protein content [40, 41]. Mitigating nutrient loss during processing, improving pooling protocols, and creating nutrient and labeling standards for PDHM may improve infant growth and potentially the bioactivity of human milk products [42]. In the future, milk banks will need to standardize target goals for fat and protein content so clinicians can confidently adhere to preterm nutrition protocols [43].

Clinical pearls

To fully understand the PDHM hospitals are using, clinicians may find it helpful to contact their milk provider and ask questions related to milk pooling practices and nutritional labels including: (i) How many donors are typically pooled together during PDHM production? (ii) Does the milk bank routinely analyze milk for nutrient content? (iii) Does nutritional information reflect true protein or crude protein? (iv) Does nutritional information reflect gross or metabolizable energy? Implications: As noted above, true protein and metabolizable energy are more accurate indicators whereas crude protein and gross energy overestimate nutrients that are available for the infant.

When fortifying mother’s milk or pasteurized donor human milk

Although not explicitly stated, typical clinical guidelines for human milk fortification rest on a premise that milk composition aligns with published reference values. While practical, this approach does not consider the true variation in human milk composition. Fortification strategies based upon assumed reference values for protein and energy – often referred to as ‘standard” fortification – may lead to under-fortification when the actual milk—whether maternal or donor—is considerably lower than reference values.

Individual human milk analysis in the NICU and/or nutritional analysis and labeling of PDHM products are intriguing strategies to inform targeted fortification with the goal of ensuring that recommended intakes are met. This approach is often referred to as individualized fortification. Emerging literature and ongoing trials are creating an evidence base regarding the extent to which routine clinical milk analysis, or individualized fortification, translates to improved clinical outcomes [44]; an alternative strategy is to incorporate “as needed” clinical milk analysis in the evaluation of infants with growth faltering. Before analyzing milk, we recommend starting by ensuring that inadvertent fat loss is not occurring, for example fat loss during transfer of milk between containers and/or unnecessarily prolonged feeding times with milk fed using a pump [45], and that standard fortification has been maximized according to the local practice guideline. If growth remains inadequate, milk analysis may provide helpful insights, either supporting further fortification, or shifting the focus to other causes of growth impairment such as an infant with increased nutritional requirements, malabsorption, or genetic causes. A potential unintended consequence of nutrient analysis of MOM is that parents begin to view their milk as “inadequate,” so we caution about messaging when performing nutrient analysis on MOM.

Clinical pearls

When interpreting clinical milk analysis and/or PDHM labels to inform fortification interventions, it is critical to understand the importance of using the true protein value (e.g., crude/total protein discounted for NPN) and the metabolizable energy values to avoid overestimating protein and energy intakes and thereby under-fortifying. It is also critical to obtain representative milk samples for analysis, to ensure trustworthy results.

Conclusion

While macronutrient information about MOM and PDHM is increasingly available in clinical settings, there are currently no standards for measuring and reporting this data. Clinicians can ask questions to better understand what nutrient values are being reported, how they were assessed, and how milk banks pool donors, which can help to put nutrient values in context, and create more rigorous research for exploring the impact of human milk feeding on infant outcomes. In settings where clinicians do not have access to labeled or analyzed human milk products, we direct readers to systematic reviews that considered the macronutrient measurement issues described in this report [3, 46]. A more recent review did not consider analytical methods and consistently reported higher protein values by 0.2–0.5 g/dL [47], further highlighting the importance of analytical methods.

Author contributions

Mandy Belfort, Krysten North, Deborah O’Connor, Maryanne Perrin, Lisa Stellwagen, and Sharon Unger conceived of the paper and participated in the drafting and editing of the manuscript. All authors approve the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

Open access funding provided by the Carolinas Consortium.

Competing interests

LS serves on the Board of Directors for the Human Milk Banking Association of North America in an unpaid capacity, and on the Scientific and Clinical Advisory Board for Medela Americas. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. McGuire M, O’Connor DL, editors. Human Milk: Sampling and Measurement of Energy-Yielding Nutrients and Other Macromolecules. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2020.
2. Lönnerdal B Bioactive proteins in breast milk J Paediatr Child Health 2013 49 1 7 10.1111/jpc.12104 23448314
Lönnerdal B. Bioactive proteins in breast milk. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49:1–7.23448314 10.1111/jpc.12104
3. Gidrewicz DA, Fenton TR. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the nutrient content of preterm and term breast milk. BMC Pediatr. 2014;14:216.
4. Italianer Naninck MF Roelants EFG van der Horst JA Reiss GTJ Goudoever IKM Circadian variation in human milk composition, a systematic review Nutrients 2020 12 2328 10.3390/nu12082328 32759654
Italianer, Naninck MF, Roelants EFG, van der Horst JA, Reiss GTJ, Goudoever IKM, et al. Circadian variation in human milk composition, a systematic review. Nutrients. 2020;12:2328.32759654 10.3390/nu12082328
5. Leghi GE, Middleton PF, Netting MJ, Wlodek ME, Geddes DT, Muhlhausler BS. A Systematic review of collection and analysis of human milk for macronutrient composition. J Nutr. 2020;150:1652–70.
6. Smilowitz JT Gho DS Mirmiran M German JB Underwood MA Rapid Measurement of Human milk macronutrients in the neonatal intensive care unit: Accuracy and precision of Fourier transform mid-infrared spectroscopy J Hum Lact 2014 30 180 9 10.1177/0890334413517941 24423984
Smilowitz JT, Gho DS, Mirmiran M, German JB, Underwood MA. Rapid Measurement of Human milk macronutrients in the neonatal intensive care unit: Accuracy and precision of Fourier transform mid-infrared spectroscopy. J Hum Lact. 2014;30:180–9.24423984 10.1177/0890334413517941
7. Feng P Gao M Burgher A Zhou TH Pramuk K A nine-country study of the protein content and amino acid composition of mature human milk Food Nutr Res 2016 60 31042 10.3402/fnr.v60.31042 27569428
Feng P, Gao M, Burgher A, Zhou TH, Pramuk K. A nine-country study of the protein content and amino acid composition of mature human milk. Food Nutr Res. 2016;60:31042.27569428 10.3402/fnr.v60.31042
8. DePeters EJ Ferguson JD Nonprotein nitrogen and protein distribution in the milk of cows J Dairy Sci 1992 75 3192 209 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78085-0 1460144
DePeters EJ, Ferguson JD. Nonprotein nitrogen and protein distribution in the milk of cows. J Dairy Sci. 1992;75:3192–209.1460144 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78085-0
9. Kwan C, Fusch G, Rochow N, Fusch C, MAMAS Study collaborators. Milk analysis using milk analyzers in a standardized setting (MAMAS) study: A multicentre quality initiative. Clin Nutr. 2020;39:2121–8.
10. Perrin MT Festival J Starks S Mondeaux L Brownell EA Vickers A Accuracy and reliability of infrared analyzers for measuring human milk macronutrients in a milk bank setting Curr Dev Nutr 2019 3 nzz116 10.1093/cdn/nzz116 31723725
Perrin MT, Festival J, Starks S, Mondeaux L, Brownell EA, Vickers A. Accuracy and reliability of infrared analyzers for measuring human milk macronutrients in a milk bank setting. Curr Dev Nutr. 2019;3:nzz116.31723725 10.1093/cdn/nzz116
11. Coppa GV Gabrielli O Pierani P Catassi C Changes in carbohydrate composition in human milk over 4 months of lactation Pediatrics 1993 91 637 10.1542/peds.91.3.637 8441573
Coppa GV, Gabrielli O, Pierani P, Catassi C. Changes in carbohydrate composition in human milk over 4 months of lactation. Pediatrics. 1993;91:637.8441573 10.1542/peds.91.3.637
12. Allen JC Keller RP Archer P Neville MC Studies in human lactation: milk composition and daily secretion rates of macronutrients in the first year of lactation Am J Clin Nutr 1991 54 69 80 10.1093/ajcn/54.1.69 2058590
Allen JC, Keller RP, Archer P, Neville MC. Studies in human lactation: milk composition and daily secretion rates of macronutrients in the first year of lactation. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;54:69–80.2058590 10.1093/ajcn/54.1.69
13. Chaturvedi P Warren CD Altaye M Morrow AL Ruiz-Palacios G Pickering LK Fucosylated human milk oligosaccharides vary between individuals and over the course of lactation Glycobiology 2001 11 365 72 10.1093/glycob/11.5.365 11425797
Chaturvedi P, Warren CD, Altaye M, Morrow AL, Ruiz-Palacios G, Pickering LK, et al. Fucosylated human milk oligosaccharides vary between individuals and over the course of lactation. Glycobiology. 2001;11:365–72.11425797 10.1093/glycob/11.5.365
14. Sprenger N Lee LY De Castro CA Steenhout P Thakkar SK Longitudinal change of selected human milk oligosaccharides and association to infants’ growth, an observatory, single center, longitudinal cohort study PloS One 2017 12 e0171814 10.1371/journal.pone.0171814 28182762
Sprenger N, Lee LY, De Castro CA, Steenhout P, Thakkar SK. Longitudinal change of selected human milk oligosaccharides and association to infants’ growth, an observatory, single center, longitudinal cohort study. PloS One. 2017;12:e0171814.28182762 10.1371/journal.pone.0171814
15. Thum C Wall CR Weiss GA Wang W Szeto IMY Day L Changes in HMO concentrations throughout lactation: Influencing factors, health effects and opportunities Nutrients 2021 13 2272 10.3390/nu13072272 34209241
Thum C, Wall CR, Weiss GA, Wang W, Szeto IMY, Day L. Changes in HMO concentrations throughout lactation: Influencing factors, health effects and opportunities. Nutrients. 2021;13:2272.34209241 10.3390/nu13072272
16. McCune S Khwajazada S Yerabandi N Bode L Belfort M Todd D The influence of oligosaccharides when measuring lactose and total carbohydrates in human milk and comparison of methods J Nutr 2023 153 2117 24 10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.05.004 37149285
McCune S, Khwajazada S, Yerabandi N, Bode L, Belfort M, Todd D, et al. The influence of oligosaccharides when measuring lactose and total carbohydrates in human milk and comparison of methods. J Nutr. 2023;153:2117–24.37149285 10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.05.004
17. Bode L Human milk oligosaccharides: every baby needs a sugar mama Glycobiology 2012 22 1147 62 10.1093/glycob/cws074 22513036
Bode L. Human milk oligosaccharides: every baby needs a sugar mama. Glycobiology. 2012;22:1147–62.22513036 10.1093/glycob/cws074
18. Fusch G Kwan C Kotrri G Fusch C Bed side” human milk analysis in the neonatal intensive care unit A Syst Rev Clin Perinatol. 2017 44 209 67 10.1016/j.clp.2016.11.001
Fusch G, Kwan C, Kotrri G, Fusch C. Bed side” human milk analysis in the neonatal intensive care unit. A Syst Rev Clin Perinatol. 2017;44:209–67.10.1016/j.clp.2016.11.001
19. Food and Drug Association. FDA permits marketing of a diagnostic test to aid in measuring nutrients in breast milk. 2019. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-permits-marketing-diagnostic-test-aid-measuring-nutrients-breast-milk.
20. Nommsen LA Lovelady CA Heinig MJ Lönnerdal B Dewey KG Determinants of energy, protein, lipid, and lactose concentrations in human milk during the first 12 mo of lactation: the DARLING Study Am J Clin Nutr 1991 53 457 65 10.1093/ajcn/53.2.457 1989413
Nommsen LA, Lovelady CA, Heinig MJ, Lönnerdal B, Dewey KG. Determinants of energy, protein, lipid, and lactose concentrations in human milk during the first 12 mo of lactation: the DARLING Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;53:457–65.1989413 10.1093/ajcn/53.2.457
21. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food Energy - Methods of Analysis and Conversion Factors. 2002. Available from: http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/FAO_2003_Food_Energy_02.pdf.
22. Jensen RG Lipids in human milk Lipids 1999 34 1243 71 10.1007/s11745-999-0477-2 10652985
Jensen RG. Lipids in human milk. Lipids. 1999;34:1243–71.10652985 10.1007/s11745-999-0477-2
23. Ambrożej D Dumycz K Dziechciarz P Ruszczyński M Milk fat globule membrane supplementation in children: Systematic review with meta-analysis Nutrients 2021 13 714 10.3390/nu13030714 33668227
Ambrożej D, Dumycz K, Dziechciarz P, Ruszczyński M. Milk fat globule membrane supplementation in children: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13:714.33668227 10.3390/nu13030714
24. Daniel AI Shama S Ismail S Bourdon C Kiss A Mwangome M Maternal BMI is positively associated with human milk fat: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis Am J Clin Nutr 2021 113 1009 22 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa410 33675341
Daniel AI, Shama S, Ismail S, Bourdon C, Kiss A, Mwangome M, et al. Maternal BMI is positively associated with human milk fat: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;113:1009–22.33675341 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa410
25. Hopperton KE Pitino MA Chouinard-Watkins R Shama S Sammut N Bando N Determinants of fatty acid content and composition of human milk fed to infants born weighing <1250 g Am J Clin Nutr 2021 114 1523 34 10.1093/ajcn/nqab222 34254983
Hopperton KE, Pitino MA, Chouinard-Watkins R, Shama S, Sammut N, Bando N, et al. Determinants of fatty acid content and composition of human milk fed to infants born weighing <1250 g. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;114:1523–34.34254983 10.1093/ajcn/nqab222
26. Keikha M Bahreynian M Saleki M Kelishadi R Macro- and micronutrients of human milk composition: Are they related to maternal diet? A comprehensive systematic review Breastfeed Med 2017 12 517 27 10.1089/bfm.2017.0048 28880568
Keikha M, Bahreynian M, Saleki M, Kelishadi R. Macro- and micronutrients of human milk composition: Are they related to maternal diet? A comprehensive systematic review. Breastfeed Med. 2017;12:517–27.28880568 10.1089/bfm.2017.0048
27. Fusch G Rochow N Choi A Fusch S Poeschl S Ubah AO Rapid measurement of macronutrients in breast milk: How reliable are infrared milk analyzers? Clin Nutr 2015 34 465 76 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.05.005 24912866
Fusch G, Rochow N, Choi A, Fusch S, Poeschl S, Ubah AO, et al. Rapid measurement of macronutrients in breast milk: How reliable are infrared milk analyzers? Clin Nutr. 2015;34:465–76.24912866 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.05.005
28. Stellwagen LM Vaucher YE Chan CS Montminy TD Kim JH Pooling expressed breastmilk to provide a consistent feeding composition for premature infants Breastfeed Med 2013 8 205 9 10.1089/bfm.2012.0007 23039396
Stellwagen LM, Vaucher YE, Chan CS, Montminy TD, Kim JH. Pooling expressed breastmilk to provide a consistent feeding composition for premature infants. Breastfeed Med. 2013;8:205–9.23039396 10.1089/bfm.2012.0007
29. Meier PP Engstrom JL Zuleger JL Motykowski JE Vasan U Meier WA Accuracy of a user-friendly centrifuge for measuring creamatocrits on mothers’ milk in the clinical setting Breastfeed Med 2006 1 79 87 10.1089/bfm.2006.1.79 17661567
Meier PP, Engstrom JL, Zuleger JL, Motykowski JE, Vasan U, Meier WA, et al. Accuracy of a user-friendly centrifuge for measuring creamatocrits on mothers’ milk in the clinical setting. Breastfeed Med. 2006;1:79–87.17661567 10.1089/bfm.2006.1.79
30. O’Neill EF Radmacher PG Sparks B Adamkin DH Creamatocrit analysis of human milk overestimates fat and energy content when compared to a human milk analyzer using mid-infrared spectroscopy J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2013 56 569 72 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31828390e4 23274342
O’Neill EF, Radmacher PG, Sparks B, Adamkin DH. Creamatocrit analysis of human milk overestimates fat and energy content when compared to a human milk analyzer using mid-infrared spectroscopy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013;56:569–72.23274342 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31828390e4
31. Vázquez-Román S Alonso-Díaz C García-Lara NR Escuder-Vieco D Pallás-Alonso CR Effect of freezing on the “creamatocrit” measurement of the lipid content of human donor milk Pediatría 2014 81 185 8
Vázquez-Román S, Alonso-Díaz C, García-Lara NR, Escuder-Vieco D, Pallás-Alonso CR. Effect of freezing on the “creamatocrit” measurement of the lipid content of human donor milk. Pediatría. 2014;81:185–8.
32. Tie J, Kent J, Lai C, Rea A, Hepworth AR, Murray K, et al. Reproducibility of the creamatocrit technique for the measurement of fat content in human milk. Food Chem. 2021;356:129708.
33. Southgate DA Barrett IM The intake and excretion of calorific constituents of milk by babies Br J Nutr 1966 20 363 72 10.1079/BJN19660036 5952575
Southgate DA, Barrett IM. The intake and excretion of calorific constituents of milk by babies. Br J Nutr. 1966;20:363–72.5952575 10.1079/BJN19660036
34. De Curtis M Senterre J Rigo J Putet G Carbohydrate derived energy and gross energy absorption in preterm infants fed human milk or formula Arch Dis Child 1986 61 867 10.1136/adc.61.9.867 3639729
De Curtis M, Senterre J, Rigo J, Putet G. Carbohydrate derived energy and gross energy absorption in preterm infants fed human milk or formula. Arch Dis Child. 1986;61:867.3639729 10.1136/adc.61.9.867
35. Fenton TR Elmrayed S The importance of reporting energy values of human milk as metabolizable energy Front Nutr 2021 8 655026 10.3389/fnut.2021.655026 34307434
Fenton TR, Elmrayed S. The importance of reporting energy values of human milk as metabolizable energy. Front Nutr. 2021;8:655026.34307434 10.3389/fnut.2021.655026
36. Miris HMA. Human milk analyzer user manual. 2017. https://www.mirissolutions.com/support/user-manuals.
37. Perrin MT Spence EH Belfort MB Parker MG Bode L A comparison of macronutrient-based methods for deriving energy values in human milk J Perinatol 2020 40 1688 93 10.1038/s41372-020-0731-0 32665689
Perrin MT, Spence EH, Belfort MB, Parker MG, Bode L. A comparison of macronutrient-based methods for deriving energy values in human milk. J Perinatol. 2020;40:1688–93.32665689 10.1038/s41372-020-0731-0
38. WHO Recommendations for Care of the Preterm or Low-Birth-Weight Infant. World Health Organization; 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240058262.
39. PATH. Strengthening human milk banking: A global implementation framework. Seattle, WA: PATH; 2019. Report No.: version 2.0. Available from: https://www.path.org/resources/webinar-strengthening-human-milk-banking-a-resource-toolkit-for-establishing-and-integrating-human-milk-banks-audio/.
40. Friend LL Perrin MT Fat and protein variability in donor human milk and associations with milk banking processes Breastfeed Med 2020 15 370 6 10.1089/bfm.2020.0046 32311292
Friend LL, Perrin MT. Fat and protein variability in donor human milk and associations with milk banking processes. Breastfeed Med. 2020;15:370–6.32311292 10.1089/bfm.2020.0046
41. Tabasso C Piemontese P Pesenti N Perrone M Menis C Liotto N Pooling strategies to modify macronutrient content of pasteurized donor human milk Breastfeed Med 2023 18 370 6 10.1089/bfm.2023.0043 37098175
Tabasso C, Piemontese P, Pesenti N, Perrone M, Menis C, Liotto N, et al. Pooling strategies to modify macronutrient content of pasteurized donor human milk. Breastfeed Med. 2023;18:370–6.37098175 10.1089/bfm.2023.0043
42. Colaizy TT Effects of milk banking procedures on nutritional and bioactive components of donor human milk Semin Perinatol 2021 45 151382 10.1016/j.semperi.2020.151382 33632557
Colaizy TT. Effects of milk banking procedures on nutritional and bioactive components of donor human milk. Semin Perinatol. 2021;45:151382.33632557 10.1016/j.semperi.2020.151382
43. Bergner EM Taylor SN Gollins LA Hair AB Human milk fortification: A practical analysis of current evidence Clin Perinatol 2022 49 447 60 10.1016/j.clp.2022.02.010 35659096
Bergner EM, Taylor SN, Gollins LA, Hair AB. Human milk fortification: A practical analysis of current evidence. Clin Perinatol. 2022;49:447–60.35659096 10.1016/j.clp.2022.02.010
44. Fabrizio V Trzaski JM Brownell EA Esposito P Lainwala S Lussier MM Individualized versus standard diet fortification for growth and development in preterm infants receiving human milk Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020 11 CD013465 33226632
Fabrizio V, Trzaski JM, Brownell EA, Esposito P, Lainwala S, Lussier MM, et al. Individualized versus standard diet fortification for growth and development in preterm infants receiving human milk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;11:CD013465.33226632
45. Castro M Asbury MR Shama S Stone D Yoon E O’Connor DL Energy and fat intake for preterm infants fed donor milk are significantly impacted by enteral feeding method J Parenter Enter Nutr 2019 43 162 5 10.1002/jpen.1430
Castro M, Asbury MR, Shama S, Stone D, Yoon E, O’Connor DL, et al. Energy and fat intake for preterm infants fed donor milk are significantly impacted by enteral feeding method. J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2019;43:162–5.10.1002/jpen.1430
46. Boyce C Watson M Lazidis G Reeve S Dods K Simmer K Preterm human milk composition: a systematic literature review Br J Nutr 2016 116 1033 45 10.1017/S0007114516003007 27522863
Boyce C, Watson M, Lazidis G, Reeve S, Dods K, Simmer K, et al. Preterm human milk composition: a systematic literature review. Br J Nutr. 2016;116:1033–45.27522863 10.1017/S0007114516003007
47. Gates A Marin T Leo GD Stansfield BK Review of preterm human-milk nutrient composition Nutr Clin Pr 2021 36 1163 72 10.1002/ncp.10570
Gates A, Marin T, Leo GD, Stansfield BK. Review of preterm human-milk nutrient composition. Nutr Clin Pr. 2021;36:1163–72.10.1002/ncp.10570
