Shelley H. Liu , Yitong Chen , Leah Feuerstahler , Aimin Chen , Anne Starling , Dana Dabelea , Xiaobin Wang , Kim Cecil , Bruce Lanphear , Kimberly Yolton , Joseph M. Braun , Jessie P. Buckley
{"title":"2017-2018年美国PFAS暴露负担计算器:应用于 \"家庭 \"研究,并与 NHANES 的流行病学研究结果进行比较","authors":"Shelley H. Liu , Yitong Chen , Leah Feuerstahler , Aimin Chen , Anne Starling , Dana Dabelea , Xiaobin Wang , Kim Cecil , Bruce Lanphear , Kimberly Yolton , Joseph M. Braun , Jessie P. Buckley","doi":"10.1016/j.ntt.2024.107321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>The 2017–2018 U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator was designed to provide a summary exposure score for </span><em>per</em>- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mixtures using targeted PFAS analyte data. Its aim was to place PFAS burden score estimates onto a common scale based on nationally representative U.S. reference ranges from 2017 to 2018, enabling comparisons of overall PFAS burden scores across studies even if they did not measure the same set of PFAS analytes.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To use the U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator for comparing the same mixture of PFAS compounds in similarly aged adolescents and their associations with cardiometabolic outcomes in the HOME Study and NHANES between 2015 and 2018.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We applied the PFAS burden calculator to 8 PFAS analytes measured in the serum of adolescents from the HOME Study (Cincinnati, Ohio; age range 11–14 years; years: 2016–2019; <em>n</em> = 207) and NHANES (US; age range 12–14 years; years 2015–2018; <em>n</em> = 245). We used the non-parametric Mann-Whitney <em>U</em> test and chi-squared test to compare the two study samples. In both studies, we examined associations of PFAS burden scores with the same cardiometabolic outcomes, adjusted for the same core set of covariates using regression analyses. We conducted sensitivity analyses to verify robustness of exposure-outcome associations, by accounting for measurement error of PFAS burden scores.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>PFAS burden scores were significantly different (<em>p</em> = 0.004) between the HOME Study (median: 0.00, interquartile range − 0.37, 0.34) and the NHANES samples (median: 0.04, IQR -0.11, 0.54), while no significant difference was found for PFAS summed concentrations (<em>p</em><span> = 0.661). In the HOME Study, an interquartile (IQR) increase in PFAS burden score was associated with higher total cholesterol [7.0 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.6, 13.4]; HDL [2.8 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.4, 5.2]; LDL [5.9 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.5, 11.3], insulin [0.1 log(mIU/L), 95% CI: 0.01, 0.2], and HOMA-IR [0.1, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.2]. In NHANES, an IQR increase in PFAS burden score was associated with higher diastolic blood pressure [2.4 mmHg, 95% CI: 0.4, 4.4] but not with other outcomes. Sensitivity analyses in the HOME Study and NHANES were consistent with the main findings.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Performance of the U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator was similar in a local versus national sample of adolescents, and may be a useful tool for the assessment of PFAS mixtures across studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19144,"journal":{"name":"Neurotoxicology and teratology","volume":"102 ","pages":"Article 107321"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator for 2017–2018: Application to the HOME Study, with comparison of epidemiological findings from NHANES\",\"authors\":\"Shelley H. Liu , Yitong Chen , Leah Feuerstahler , Aimin Chen , Anne Starling , Dana Dabelea , Xiaobin Wang , Kim Cecil , Bruce Lanphear , Kimberly Yolton , Joseph M. Braun , Jessie P. Buckley\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ntt.2024.107321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>The 2017–2018 U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator was designed to provide a summary exposure score for </span><em>per</em>- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mixtures using targeted PFAS analyte data. Its aim was to place PFAS burden score estimates onto a common scale based on nationally representative U.S. reference ranges from 2017 to 2018, enabling comparisons of overall PFAS burden scores across studies even if they did not measure the same set of PFAS analytes.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To use the U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator for comparing the same mixture of PFAS compounds in similarly aged adolescents and their associations with cardiometabolic outcomes in the HOME Study and NHANES between 2015 and 2018.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We applied the PFAS burden calculator to 8 PFAS analytes measured in the serum of adolescents from the HOME Study (Cincinnati, Ohio; age range 11–14 years; years: 2016–2019; <em>n</em> = 207) and NHANES (US; age range 12–14 years; years 2015–2018; <em>n</em> = 245). We used the non-parametric Mann-Whitney <em>U</em> test and chi-squared test to compare the two study samples. In both studies, we examined associations of PFAS burden scores with the same cardiometabolic outcomes, adjusted for the same core set of covariates using regression analyses. We conducted sensitivity analyses to verify robustness of exposure-outcome associations, by accounting for measurement error of PFAS burden scores.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>PFAS burden scores were significantly different (<em>p</em> = 0.004) between the HOME Study (median: 0.00, interquartile range − 0.37, 0.34) and the NHANES samples (median: 0.04, IQR -0.11, 0.54), while no significant difference was found for PFAS summed concentrations (<em>p</em><span> = 0.661). In the HOME Study, an interquartile (IQR) increase in PFAS burden score was associated with higher total cholesterol [7.0 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.6, 13.4]; HDL [2.8 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.4, 5.2]; LDL [5.9 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.5, 11.3], insulin [0.1 log(mIU/L), 95% CI: 0.01, 0.2], and HOMA-IR [0.1, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.2]. In NHANES, an IQR increase in PFAS burden score was associated with higher diastolic blood pressure [2.4 mmHg, 95% CI: 0.4, 4.4] but not with other outcomes. Sensitivity analyses in the HOME Study and NHANES were consistent with the main findings.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Performance of the U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator was similar in a local versus national sample of adolescents, and may be a useful tool for the assessment of PFAS mixtures across studies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19144,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurotoxicology and teratology\",\"volume\":\"102 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurotoxicology and teratology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036224000035\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurotoxicology and teratology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036224000035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
The U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator for 2017–2018: Application to the HOME Study, with comparison of epidemiological findings from NHANES
Background
The 2017–2018 U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator was designed to provide a summary exposure score for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mixtures using targeted PFAS analyte data. Its aim was to place PFAS burden score estimates onto a common scale based on nationally representative U.S. reference ranges from 2017 to 2018, enabling comparisons of overall PFAS burden scores across studies even if they did not measure the same set of PFAS analytes.
Objective
To use the U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator for comparing the same mixture of PFAS compounds in similarly aged adolescents and their associations with cardiometabolic outcomes in the HOME Study and NHANES between 2015 and 2018.
Methods
We applied the PFAS burden calculator to 8 PFAS analytes measured in the serum of adolescents from the HOME Study (Cincinnati, Ohio; age range 11–14 years; years: 2016–2019; n = 207) and NHANES (US; age range 12–14 years; years 2015–2018; n = 245). We used the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test and chi-squared test to compare the two study samples. In both studies, we examined associations of PFAS burden scores with the same cardiometabolic outcomes, adjusted for the same core set of covariates using regression analyses. We conducted sensitivity analyses to verify robustness of exposure-outcome associations, by accounting for measurement error of PFAS burden scores.
Results
PFAS burden scores were significantly different (p = 0.004) between the HOME Study (median: 0.00, interquartile range − 0.37, 0.34) and the NHANES samples (median: 0.04, IQR -0.11, 0.54), while no significant difference was found for PFAS summed concentrations (p = 0.661). In the HOME Study, an interquartile (IQR) increase in PFAS burden score was associated with higher total cholesterol [7.0 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.6, 13.4]; HDL [2.8 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.4, 5.2]; LDL [5.9 mg/dL, 95% CI: 0.5, 11.3], insulin [0.1 log(mIU/L), 95% CI: 0.01, 0.2], and HOMA-IR [0.1, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.2]. In NHANES, an IQR increase in PFAS burden score was associated with higher diastolic blood pressure [2.4 mmHg, 95% CI: 0.4, 4.4] but not with other outcomes. Sensitivity analyses in the HOME Study and NHANES were consistent with the main findings.
Conclusions
Performance of the U.S. PFAS exposure burden calculator was similar in a local versus national sample of adolescents, and may be a useful tool for the assessment of PFAS mixtures across studies.
期刊介绍:
Neurotoxicology and Teratology provides a forum for publishing new information regarding the effects of chemical and physical agents on the developing, adult or aging nervous system. In this context, the fields of neurotoxicology and teratology include studies of agent-induced alterations of nervous system function, with a focus on behavioral outcomes and their underlying physiological and neurochemical mechanisms. The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed Research Reports of experimental, clinical, and epidemiological studies that address the neurotoxicity and/or functional teratology of pesticides, solvents, heavy metals, nanomaterials, organometals, industrial compounds, mixtures, drugs of abuse, pharmaceuticals, animal and plant toxins, atmospheric reaction products, and physical agents such as radiation and noise. These reports include traditional mammalian neurotoxicology experiments, human studies, studies using non-mammalian animal models, and mechanistic studies in vivo or in vitro. Special Issues, Reviews, Commentaries, Meeting Reports, and Symposium Papers provide timely updates on areas that have reached a critical point of synthesis, on aspects of a scientific field undergoing rapid change, or on areas that present special methodological or interpretive problems. Theoretical Articles address concepts and potential mechanisms underlying actions of agents of interest in the nervous system. The Journal also publishes Brief Communications that concisely describe a new method, technique, apparatus, or experimental result.