Degree of food processing and serum poly- and perfluoroalkyl substance concentrations in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003–2018

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Diana C. Pacyga , Jessie P. Buckley , Euridice Martinez-Steele , Paige A. Bommarito , Kelly K. Ferguson , Danielle R. Stevens
{"title":"Degree of food processing and serum poly- and perfluoroalkyl substance concentrations in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003–2018","authors":"Diana C. Pacyga ,&nbsp;Jessie P. Buckley ,&nbsp;Euridice Martinez-Steele ,&nbsp;Paige A. Bommarito ,&nbsp;Kelly K. Ferguson ,&nbsp;Danielle R. Stevens","doi":"10.1016/j.ijheh.2025.114557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Ultra-processed foods account for &gt;50% of total energy consumed among U.S. individuals and may be a source of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure – chemicals linked with cancer/cardiometabolic disorders.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate associations between degree of food processing and PFAS exposure.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Serum concentrations of seven PFAS were analyzed in 11,530 individuals ≥12-years-old from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003–2018). We averaged responses from two 24-h dietary recalls to calculate relative energy intakes of unprocessed/minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods using the Nova food classification system. We estimated percent differences in concentrations (β; PFAS with ≥70% detection) or odds ratios of detection (OR; PFAS with &lt;70% detection) using linear or logistic regression, respectively. We explored associations stratified by cycle, life stage, sex, body mass index, race/ethnicity, and poverty/income ratio.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Each 10% increase in ultra-processed food intake was associated with higher serum perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS; β: 1.40; 95%CI: -0.12, 2.94), but lower perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA; β: -4.41; 95%CI: -5.55, −3.26) and perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA; OR: 0.82; 95%CI: 0.79, 0.86) concentrations. Positive associations between ultra-processed foods and PFHxS were driven by adolescents and under-/normal weight individuals. Additionally, each 10% increase in unprocessed/minimally processed food intake was associated with lower perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; β: -1.10; 95%CI: -2.38, 0.20) and PFHxS (β: -1.50; 95%CI: -3.03, 0.06), but higher perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA; β: 1.71; 95%CI: 0.24, 3.21), PFDA (β: 5.33; 95%CI: 3.78, 6.90), and PFUnDA (OR: 1.22; 95%CI: 1.16, 1.27). Positive and negative associations of unprocessed/minimally processed foods and ultra-processed foods, respectively, with PFDA and PFUnDA were strongest in recent survey cycles, males, and non-Hispanic Asians.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>Unprocessed/minimally processed foods, more than ultra-processed, were associated with serum PFAS concentrations. Efforts should focus on eliminating PFAS from multiple parts of the food chain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13994,"journal":{"name":"International journal of hygiene and environmental health","volume":"266 ","pages":"Article 114557"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of hygiene and environmental health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463925000392","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Ultra-processed foods account for >50% of total energy consumed among U.S. individuals and may be a source of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure – chemicals linked with cancer/cardiometabolic disorders.

Objective

To evaluate associations between degree of food processing and PFAS exposure.

Methods

Serum concentrations of seven PFAS were analyzed in 11,530 individuals ≥12-years-old from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003–2018). We averaged responses from two 24-h dietary recalls to calculate relative energy intakes of unprocessed/minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods using the Nova food classification system. We estimated percent differences in concentrations (β; PFAS with ≥70% detection) or odds ratios of detection (OR; PFAS with <70% detection) using linear or logistic regression, respectively. We explored associations stratified by cycle, life stage, sex, body mass index, race/ethnicity, and poverty/income ratio.

Results

Each 10% increase in ultra-processed food intake was associated with higher serum perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS; β: 1.40; 95%CI: -0.12, 2.94), but lower perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA; β: -4.41; 95%CI: -5.55, −3.26) and perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA; OR: 0.82; 95%CI: 0.79, 0.86) concentrations. Positive associations between ultra-processed foods and PFHxS were driven by adolescents and under-/normal weight individuals. Additionally, each 10% increase in unprocessed/minimally processed food intake was associated with lower perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; β: -1.10; 95%CI: -2.38, 0.20) and PFHxS (β: -1.50; 95%CI: -3.03, 0.06), but higher perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA; β: 1.71; 95%CI: 0.24, 3.21), PFDA (β: 5.33; 95%CI: 3.78, 6.90), and PFUnDA (OR: 1.22; 95%CI: 1.16, 1.27). Positive and negative associations of unprocessed/minimally processed foods and ultra-processed foods, respectively, with PFDA and PFUnDA were strongest in recent survey cycles, males, and non-Hispanic Asians.

Significance

Unprocessed/minimally processed foods, more than ultra-processed, were associated with serum PFAS concentrations. Efforts should focus on eliminating PFAS from multiple parts of the food chain.
2003-2018年美国国家健康与营养检查调查中食品加工程度和血清多氟烷基和全氟烷基物质浓度
超加工食品占美国人总能量消耗的50%,可能是多氟和全氟烷基物质(PFAS)暴露的来源,PFAS是与癌症/心脏代谢紊乱有关的化学物质。目的探讨食品加工程度与PFAS暴露的关系。方法分析美国国家健康与营养调查(2003-2018)中11,530名≥12岁的个体的7种PFAS的血清浓度。我们取两次24小时饮食召回的平均反应,计算未加工/最低加工食品、加工烹饪配料、加工食品和超加工食品的相对能量摄入量,使用Nova食品分类系统。我们估计了浓度差异的百分比(β;PFAS检出率≥70%)或检出率比值比(or;PFAS与<;70%的检测)分别使用线性或逻辑回归。我们探讨了按周期、生命阶段、性别、体重指数、种族/民族和贫困/收入比分层的关联。结果超加工食品摄入量每增加10%,血清全氟己磺酸(PFHxS;β:1.40;95%CI: -0.12, 2.94),但全氟癸酸(PFDA;β:-4.41;95%CI: -5.55, - 3.26)和全氟癸酸(PFUnDA;OR: 0.82;95%CI: 0.79, 0.86)。青少年和体重不足/正常的个体推动了超加工食品和PFHxS之间的正相关。此外,未加工/最低限度加工食品摄入量每增加10%,全氟辛酸(PFOA;β:-1.10;95%CI: -2.38, 0.20)和PFHxS (β: -1.50;95%CI: -3.03, 0.06),但更高的全氟壬烷酸(PFNA;β:1.71;95%ci: 0.24, 3.21), pfda (β: 5.33;95%CI: 3.78, 6.90)和PFUnDA (OR: 1.22;95%ci: 1.16, 1.27)。未加工/最低加工食品和超加工食品分别与PFDA和PFUnDA的正相关和负相关在最近的调查周期中最强,男性和非西班牙裔亚洲人。未加工/最低加工食品与血清PFAS浓度的相关性大于超加工食品。努力的重点应放在从食物链的多个部分消除PFAS上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health serves as a multidisciplinary forum for original reports on exposure assessment and the reactions to and consequences of human exposure to the biological, chemical, and physical environment. Research reports, short communications, reviews, scientific comments, technical notes, and editorials will be peer-reviewed before acceptance for publication. Priority will be given to articles on epidemiological aspects of environmental toxicology, health risk assessments, susceptible (sub) populations, sanitation and clean water, human biomonitoring, environmental medicine, and public health aspects of exposure-related outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信