Next Article in Journal
The Role of Inflammation in Anal Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Natural and Vaccine-Induced Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunity: A Comparative Study between Different Groups of Volunteers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Interaction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Allostatic Load among Adults in Various Occupations

by
Tahir Bashir
1,2 and
Emmanuel Obeng-Gyasi
1,2,*
1
Department of Built Environment, North Carolina A & T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA
2
Environmental Health and Disease Laboratory, North Carolina A & T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diseases 2022, 10(2), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases10020026
Submission received: 17 March 2022 / Revised: 23 April 2022 / Accepted: 28 April 2022 / Published: 29 April 2022

Abstract

:
Objective: This study sought to assess the associations between occupation, serum concentrations of selected of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), and chronic physiological stress, as operationalized by Allostatic Load (AL), among adults aged ≥20 years. Methods: To explore the interactions of occupation with PFAS levels and AL, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2014 were used. We performed Poisson regression modeling to evaluate AL’s relationships with PFAS concentrations and occupations on weighted data. Results: The results demonstrated that increased AL was positively associated with different occupation groups such as a) Public Administration and b) Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (p-values 0.018 and 0.002, respectively), and with certain PFAS concentrations (Perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA, p-value = 0.002). Finally, AL had a strong association with the interaction of some PFAS such as Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and occupation (AL: PFBS: occupation, p-value < 0.0001), with different association measures existing across varying occupations. Conclusions: Occupation and PFOA seem to be associated with AL. This suggests the need of implementing further strategies to limit the exposure to stressors and PFAS in the work environment to promote longevity among the workforce in the U.S. Finally, policymakers must do more to clearly define standards and regulations in the work environment related to PFAS exposure.

1. Introduction

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are toxic organic substances that have been used worldwide as part of commodities to produce goods for people for a long time. They have been used in non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, and carpets [1,2]. PFAS have also been employed and used in many industries such as the aerospace, automotive, construction, electronics, and military and have been used in a variety of applications, for instance, food packaging and firefighting foams, in addition to products that resist grease, water, and oil [3].
Owing to the enormous variety of PFAS chemicals, they are unevenly distributed, with different PFAS posing differing exposure risks depending on the environment [4]; these properties mean that they are used in different applications. For this reason, different PFAS are more prevalent in certain occupations. For instance, Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) is a compound used in military and firefighter equipment/devices [5,6]. In a study by Mamsen et al. examining firefighting foams and hydraulic fluids that are used in this occupational environment, it was found that participants had high PFOS and Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) serum concentrations among individuals who held this occupation [7,8]. Other occupations have variable PFAS exposure levels, demonstrating the variability of PFAS exposures in the workplace environment.
The occupational workers in jobs such as manufacturing and assembly line workers are at greater health risk of having higher PFAS serum levels than the general population because they are likely to be exposed to individual or complex mixtures of PFAS [5]. A study conducted in Shenzhen, China, compared occupational workers to the general population on potential health concerns from exposure to PFAS; health concerns such as cancer, inflammation, liver disease, HIV/AIDS infection, diabetes, etc., were explored. The authors found that levels six PFAS, i.e., Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and 6:2 chlorinated Polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonate (6:2 Cl-PFESA) in the plasma had a geometric mean of 1770 ng/mL for occupational workers and of 22.2 ng/mL for the general population [5]. These findings confirmed that manufacturing workers and assembly lines workers are at risk of health challenges compared to the general population owing to PFAS, such as PFOA exposure [5].
Stress is an unavoidable part of human life. Allostatic load (AL) provides insight into the effects of accumulated stress. The physiological response of stress processes is to promote the adaptation of the body to changing stimuli while preserving homeostasis. Allostasis refers to these physiological effects activated to achieve “stability through change” [9]. In turn, AL reflects the cost paid by the body for continual adaptation to environmental stressors [10,11]. Thus, an elevated AL results from excessive stress or inadequacy of adaptive allostatic processes. AL is often operationalized using the AL index, which captures dysregulation across various biological systems such as the cardiovascular, metabolic, and inflammatory systems [12]. This study aimed to examine the interaction associations between the serum concentration of selected PFAS, including Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHS), Pefluorodecanoic acid (PFDE), Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHP), Perflurododecanoic acid (PFDO), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUA), Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) with AL, among workers in 22 different occupations within the NHANES. We hypothesized that (a) AL would be associated with occupation and (b) the interaction of PFAS and occupation would be associated with increased levels of AL.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

This study used data from NHANES 2007–2014 among U.S. adults aged 20 and older to explore the relationships between occupations and PFAS serum levels with chronic stress operationalized using the AL index. The NHANES is a surveillance of the nation’s health conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NHANES uses a complex, multistage, stratified study design for collecting nationally representative data from the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.

2.2. Allostatic Load Measurement and Definition

Informed by previous studies [13,14], AL was operationalized and measured by quantifying a cumulative and health-related stress index, which depended on physiological assessments including 10 health indicators, i.e., systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), as well as albumin (Alb), triglyceride (TG), body mass index (BMI), creatinine clearance (CLCR), and C-reactive protein (CRP). AL biomarkers were transformed into quartiles based on their distribution within the data. High risk for each marker was assigned to the top 25% in the distribution for all markers apart from albumin, creatinine clearance, and HDL cholesterol, for which the bottom 25% of the distribution were considered to have the highest risk as determined by the literature [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Binary indicators were assigned to individuals in the study: a value of 1 if they were in the high-risk category and a value of 0 if in the low-risk category for all markers to calculate a total AL value out of 10.

2.3. Analytical Procedures

Automated solid-phase extraction coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography–turbo ion spray ionization–tandem mass spectrometry was used to detect PFAS serum levels. An Agilent LC1260 (St. Clara, CA, USA) AB Sciex API 5500 (Foster City, CA, USA) platform was used in the analysis.

PFAS Detection Limits

The detection limits were constant for all the PFAS analytes in the dataset (0.10 ng/mL). In the NHANES, two variables’ names were provided for each of these analytes. The value “0” meant that the result was at or above the limit of detection, “1” indicated that the result was below the limit of detection. For analytes with analytic results below the lower limit of detection, an imputed fill value was placed in the analyte results field. This value was the lower limit of detection divided by a square root of 2 (LLOD/sqrt(2)), which was 0.10/√2 = 0.07. So, the LOD for each PFAS was either 0.10 or 0.07. [22,23]. Further details on analytical processes and procedures are provided in the NHANES Laboratory Procedures Manual [24].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

This study used basic descriptive statistics to explore the mean differences of AL and PFAS levels by occupation. We performed Pearson correlations to assess the relationships between individual serum PFAS concentrations. We also performed Poisson regression models to evaluate the interaction and association of selected PFAS and occupations with AL. Missing values were imputed using standard methods [25].
All analyses factored in the study design and weights to get representative results. Wilcoxon test was conducted on continuous variables, and Wald chi-squared test on categorical variables analysis, which revealed that the variables were not normally distributed, so they were natural log-transformed. All analyses were conducted using R software, version 4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) in the RStudio platform, version 2021.9.1.372, with the release name Ghost Orchid. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant for all analyses in this study.

3. Results

We explored the PFAS levels among the 22 different occupations. There was a statistically significant higher detection rate for PFOS for mining and armed forces workers, with means of 6.327 and 6.128, respectively, among the occupations compared to other PFAS concentration levels (Table 1 and Table 2).
Table 1 and Table 2 present the mean differences between the PFAS serum concentrations for different occupations and AL levels. The mean serum PFNA concentration was the highest among all the selected PFASs for the occupations of interest in this study. In addition, serum PFOS levels were more elevated than the other PFAS concentrations when analyzed by AL levels.
We calculated descriptive statistics to assess the presence of PFAS and then we evaluated the overall mean prevalence of AL among the participants. The corresponding means (Table 3 and Table 4) showed the serum concentrations of PFOS had the highest mean (mean = 3.138) amongst the PFAS chemical compounds, by AL levels. An AL ≥ 3 was considered high, and an AL < 3 was considered low.
Poisson regression models were used on weighted data to estimate the associations of AL and occupations and the interactions of the association between occupation and PFAS and AL levels. The results revealed that an increase of AL was associated with different occupations groups, such as a) Public Administration and b) Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (p-value = 0.018 and p-value = 0.002, respectively), and with PFAS concentrations (PFOA p-value = 0.002); it was also strongly associated with the interaction of PFAS and occupation (AL-by-PFBS-by-Longest held occupation) with a p-value < 0.001), as well as with differences existing across occupations.
The occupation groups examined in this study had various levels of association with AL; for instance, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation had a positive and statistically significant relationship (p-value = 0.002) with AL. Likewise, Educational occupations had positive relationships with AL, but they were not statistically significant (p-values = 0.935). Regarding socioeconomics, family income was associated with AL levels, p-value < 0.0001 (Table 5).
The work-related environment and types of occupations, specifically, (a) Arts, Entertainment, Recreation jobs, and (b) Public Administration occupations, were associated with levels of AL, with p-values = 0.002 and 0.018, respectively. Table 5 shows the relationship between AL and PFAS, occupation, and income.
Figure 1 presents a matrix of pair plots with relationships between selected PFAS. The upper triangle contains the Pearson correlations as r-values, which represent the strength of the association between the variables. The r-value can either be positive or negative depending on the direction of correlation. If the r-value is between 0–0.19, the correlation is considered very weak. An r-value between 0.2–0.39 indicates a weak correlation, an r-value between 0.40–0.59 a moderate one, An r-value between 0.6–0.79 a strong one, and an r-value between 0.8–1 a very strong correlation [26]. On the other hand, the correlation coefficients values (r-values) had the corresponding statistically significance levels (if no star is present, the variable was not statistically significant, while one (*), two (**) and three stars (***) mean that the corresponding variable was significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively). The graphs for continuous variables (PFAS variables considered as continuous variables) are presented as scatterplots, and the graphs for the categorical variable (gender) are presented as boxplots, with all the dots distant from the majority of points in the graphs considered as outliers.
As Figure 1 demonstrates, the correlations between selected PFAS were somewhat different. For instance, PFDO had a weak positive relationship and was not correlated with PFBS (r < 0.001). The aforementioned relationship was slightly different in females (r = 0.013) as compared with males (r = 0.014).
Regarding PFUA and PFDE, there was a strong and positive correlation between PFUA and PFDE (r = 0.792), with a moderate correlation in females (r = 0.431) and a very weak correlation in males (r = 0.185).
As shown in Figure 1, all relationships between selected PFAS were statistically significant (three stars ***), except for the correlation between PFDO and PFBS, which was not statistically significant (no stars), as mentioned above.
Table 6 shows the linear relationships between individual PFAS. PFDO and PFBS showed a weak positive correlation (r = 0.010). In addition, there existed a strong correlation between PFDO with PFUA, with an r-value = 0.743, and another strong correlation between PFDO and PFDE, with an r-value = 0.807. All correlations between PFAS were positive.
The Poisson regression model was used to evaluate the association of the interaction between AL and individual PFAS serum levels (AL with PFAS). There were significant associations of the interactions between AL and PFBS, p-value < 0.0001, AL and PFHS, p-value = 0.055, AL and PFDO, p-value = 0.048, and AL and longest occupation held, p-value = 0.023. On the other hand, there were no significant associations of the interactions between AL and some PFAS, such as AL and PFDE. p-value = 0.119, AL and PFHP, p-value = 0.441, AL and PFNA, p-value = 0.129, AL and PFOS, p-value = 0.155, AL and PFUA, p-value = 0.199, and AL and PFOA, p-value = 0.922, (Table 7).
For interactions of AL with PFAS concentrations and occupation (three interactions simultaneously), there were statistically significant interactions of AL with PFAS and occupations as follows: for AL with PFBS and occupation, with a p-value of <0.0001, and for AL with PFDO and occupation, with a p-value of 0.0387. On the other hand, there were no statistically significant associations of AL and PFDE with occupation, p-value = 0.4224, between AL, PFHP, and occupation, p-value = 0.890, between AL, PFNA, and occupation, p-value = 0.2073, between AL, PFOS, and occupation, p-value = 0.2414, between AL, PFUA, and occupation, p-value = 0.0953, between AL, PFOA, and occupation, p-value = 0.1525, and between AL, PFHS, and occupation, p-value = 0.1828, (Table 7).
Figure 2 shows the PFHS serum concentration in relation to the longest occupation held by the participants and the AL levels. PFHS was the most detected PFAS in this study, which promoted further analysis by AL and occupation. The results indicated that the highest AL was among those in the armed forces followed by utility workers.

4. Discussion

PFAS and occupation were shown to be associated with chronic physiological stress (AL). The mean PFAS serum concentrations for different occupations and AL levels showed significant differences in our study. The overall mean for PFNA serum concentrations was the highest among all the PFAS examined in this study. This is consistent with and very similar to a study by Graber et al. [21]. Serum PFOS levels were also more elevated than the other PFAS concentrations when explored by AL levels. This is relevant when considering the exposure risk to PFAS and how PFAS levels in various occupational settings can potentially contribute to AL among adults.
Many studies have found numerous stressors in the work environment [27,28,29]. These findings are consistent with these observations. Our study uniquely explored the role that PFAS may have on the biological response to stress in various occupations and found significant associations for PFBS and PFDO. A study by Piolanti et al. found that, in general, occupational factors were associated with chronic physiological stress, with distress associated with the increasing AL levels [30]. This association with AL levels is connected to the early course of physiological dysfunction [31], making it critical to explore these relationships in the work environment.
Our study found associations between AL and family income. The participants with higher annual income were less ‘biologically’ stressed (lower AL) than lower-income participants. For example, the association between AL and income when considering the $75,000 to $99,999 income range had a p-value = 0.875. On the other hand, AL was associated with income for those earning between $10,000 and $14,999, with p-value = 0.0225. This is in agreement with the works of Guidi et al. and Buschmann et al., who found that family income was associated with AL [32,33].
The association between AL and gender was significant; this was similar to the findings of Juster et al. and of others [34,35], which indicated that males have higher AL levels than females.
This study found that the interaction of PFAS with occupation may explain the biological response to stress. This is critical, as AL is potentially a mediator of several chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease and cancer. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how exposure to multiple PFAS in various occupations with different exposure levels affects AL. In this regard, occupational conditions are changeable and manageable factors that can be mitigated to limit their effects on AL [36]. Limiting PFAS exposure and changing conditions in the work environment can limit the exposure risk and subsequent disease.
After modifying the model (Poisson Regression) from interactions between AL and PFAS individually to interactions that included the occupations with AL and PFAS together, the statistical significance changed for some of the variables, from statistically significant to not statistically significant and vice versa. For instance, the interaction between AL and PFHS changed from significant (p-value = 0.05) to non-significant (p-value = 0.183) for these two variables. When the interaction was between three variables (AL with PFHS and occupation), the relationship remained the same for most of the variables before and after the two types of interaction tests (two variables or three variables). Nevertheless, a statistically significant and positive association between AL and occupation was observed (p-value = 0.023).
The study has some limitations. Firstly, the study design was cross-sectional, so we could not determine temporality. Second, the study lacks an in-depth assessment of PFAS exposure sources; for example, it is unclear whether participants were exposed to PFAS in the work environment or somewhere else. This indicates the need for a further exposure assessment to determine where individuals are being exposed to PFAS.
Nonetheless, this study has several strengths. To our knowledge, it is the first study to examine the impacts of interactions of occupational factors and PFAS on AL for people aged 20 years and older. The findings are beneficial for understanding and explaining the environmental basics of work-related stressors. This has not been extensively studied but includes critical factors that must be considered.

5. Conclusions

The findings in this study indicated that occupation and some PFAS are associated with AL. The increase of AL was positively associated with different occupations, for example, Public Administration, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation jobs. AL was also associated with PFAS concentrations and with the interaction of PFAS and occupation (AL with PFAS and occupation).
We recommend that further investigation of the possible health impacts of PFAS exposure on workers outside the U.S. be performed to see how differential exposure levels to PFAS in various occupations may affect AL in other environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.O.-G.; methodology, T.B., E.O.-G.; formal analysis, T.B., E.O.-G.; investigation, T.B., E.O.-G.; resources, E.O.-G.; data curation, T.B., E.O.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, T.B.; writing—review and editing, T.B., E.O.-G.; supervision, E.O.-G.; project administration, E.O.-G.; funding acquisition, E.O.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded in part by NHLBI grant R25 HL105400.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not require IRB approval because de-identified secondary data were used. In the collection of the data by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The NHANES dataset is publicly available online, accessible at cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm (accessed on 12 February 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Prevedouros, K.; Cousins, I.T.; Buck, R.C.; Korzeniowski, S.H. Sources, fate and transport of perfluorocarboxylates. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Obeng-Gyasi, E. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances: Toxic chemicals of concern in North. Carolina. North Carol. Med. J. 2022, 83, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Glüge, J.; Scheringer, M.; Cousins, I.T.; DeWitt, J.C.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Ng, C.A.; Trier, X.; Wang, Z. An overview of the uses of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22, 2345–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). 2021. Available online: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm. (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  5. Lu, Y.; Gao, K.; Li, X.; Tang, Z.; Xiang, L.; Zhao, H.; Fu, J.; Wang, L.; Zhu, N.; Cai, Z.; et al. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics reveals occupational exposure to per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances relates to oxidative stress, fatty acid β-oxidation disorder, and kidney injury in a manufactory in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 9800–9809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mamsen, L.S.; Björvang, R.D.; Mucs, D.; Vinnars, M.-T.; Papadogiannakis, N.; Lindh, C.H.; Andersen, C.Y.; Damdimopoulou, P. Concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in human embryonic and fetal organs from first, second, and third trimester pregnancies. Environ. Int. 2019, 124, 482–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barton, K.E.; Starling, A.P.; Higgins, C.P.; McDonough, C.A.; Calafat, A.M.; Adgate, J.L. Sociodemographic and behavioral determinants of serum concentrations of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in a community highly exposed to aqueous film-forming foam contaminants in drinking water. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2020, 223, 256–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Posner, S. Perfluorinated compounds: Occurrence and uses in products. In Polyfluorinated Chemicals and Transformation Products; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg Germany, 2012; pp. 25–39. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sterling, P. Allostasis: A new paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In Handbook of Life Stress, Cognition and Health; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  10. McEwen, B.S. Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1998, 840, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McEwen, B.S.; Stellar, E. Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading to disease. Arch. Intern. Med. 1993, 153, 2093–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Obeng-Gyasi, E.; Obeng-Gyasi, B. Chronic stress and cardiovascular disease among individuals exposed to lead: A pilot study. Diseases 2020, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Sabbah, W.; Watt, R.G.; Sheiham, A.; Tsakos, G. Effects of allostatic load on the social gradient in ischaemic heart disease and periodontal disease: Evidence from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008, 62, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mauss, D.; Li, J.; Schmidt, B.; Angerer, P.; Jarczok, M.N. Measuring allostatic load in the workforce—A systematic review. Ind. Health 2014, 53, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Goldbourt, U.; Yaari, S.; Medalie, J.H. Isolated low HDL cholesterol as a risk factor for coronary heart disease mortality: A 21-year follow-up of 8000 men. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 1997, 17, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Mahon, N.G.; Blackstone, E.H.; Francis, G.S.; Starling, R.C.; Young, J.B.; Lauer, M.S. The prognostic value of estimated creatinine clearance alongside functional capacity in ambulatory patients with chronic congestive heart failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2002, 40, 1106–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Horwich, T.B.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; MacLellan, R.W.; Fonarow, G.C. Albumin levels predict survival in patients with systolic heart failure. Am. Heart J. 2008, 155, 883–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Ackermann, R.T.; Cheng, Y.J.; Williamson, D.F.; Gregg, E.W. Identifying adults at high risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease using hemoglobin A1c: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005–2006. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 40, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Navas-Acien, A.; Guallar, E.; Silbergeld, E.K.; Rothenberg, S.J. Lead exposure and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 472–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Isomaa, B.; Almgren, P.; Tuomi, T.; Forsen, B.; Lahti, K.; Nissen, M.; Taskinen, M.-R.; Groop, L. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Care 2001, 24, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Weverling-Rijnsburger, A.W.; Blauw, G.J.; Lagaay, A.M.; Knock, D.L.; Meinders, A.E.; Westendorp, R.G. Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old. Lancet 1997, 350, 1119–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) MEC Laboratory Procedures Manual; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Walley, CA, USA, 2013.
  23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Laboratory Procedure Manual for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (NHANES 2013−2014)(Method No. 6304.06). 2013. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2013-2014/labmethods/PFAS_H_MET.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  24. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey—CDC. Laboratory Procedure Manual. 2013–2014. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_13_14/PFAS_H_MET.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  25. Yadav, M.L.; Roychoudhury, B. Handling missing values: A study of popular imputation packages in R. Knowl.Based Syst. 2018, 160, 104–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Akoglu, H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 18, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. De Castro, A.; Voss, J.G.; Ruppin, A.; Dominguez, C.F.; Seixas, N.S. Stressors among Latino day laborers: A pilot study examining allostatic load. AAOHN J. 2010, 58, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Mauss, D.; Jarczok, M.N.; Fischer, J.E. A streamlined approach for assessing the Allostatic Load Index in industrial employees. Stress 2015, 18, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mauss, D.; Jarczok, M.N.; Fischer, J.E. The streamlined allostatic load index: A replication of study results. Stress 2016, 19, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Piolanti, A.; Gostoli, S.; Gervasi, J.; Sonino, N.; Guidi, J. A trial integrating different methods to assess psychosocial problems in primary care. Psychother. Psychosom. 2019, 88, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Savransky, A.; Chiappelli, J.; Fisseha, F.; Wisner, K.M.; Xiaoming, D.; Mirmomen, S.M.; Jones, A.D.; Adhikari, B.M.; Bruce, H.A.; Rowland, L.M.; et al. Elevated allostatic load early in the course of schizophrenia. Transl. Psychiatry 2018, 8, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Guidi, J.; Lucente, M.; Sonino, N.; Fava, G.A. Allostatic load and its impact on health: A systematic review. Psychother. Psychosom. 2021, 90, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Buschmann, R.N.; Prochaska, J.D.; Cutchin, M.P.; Peek, M.K. Stress and health behaviors as potential mediators of the relationship between neighborhood quality and allostatic load. Ann. Epidemiol. 2018, 28, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Juster, R.-P.; Lupien, S. A sex-and gender-based analysis of allostatic load and physical complaints. Gend. Med. 2012, 9, 511–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Obeng-Gyasi, E.; Ferguson, A.C.; Stamatakis, K.A.; Province, M.A. Combined effect of lead exposure and allostatic load on cardiovascular disease mortality—a preliminary study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Theorell, T. Regeneration and anabolism: The good perspective. In Handbook of Socioeconomic Determinants of Occupational Health: From Macro-Level to Micro-Level Evidence; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Pair plots showing correlations between selected PFAS by gender. PFAS were measured in micrograms per liter (μg/L).
Figure 1. Pair plots showing correlations between selected PFAS by gender. PFAS were measured in micrograms per liter (μg/L).
Diseases 10 00026 g001
Figure 2. Boxplot showing the interaction between PFHS, occupation, and AL. *Occupation numbers are: 1 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, 2 Mining, 3 Utilities, 4 Construction, 5 Manufacturing: Durable Goods, 6 Manufacturing: Non-Durable Goods, 7 Wholesale Trade, 8 Retail Trade, 9 Transportation, Warehousing, 10 Information, 11 Finance, Insurance, 12 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing, 13 Professional, Technical Services, 14 Management, Business, Cleaning/Waste Services, 15 Education Services, 16 Health Care, Social Assistance, 17 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, 18 Accommodation, Food Services, 19 Other Services, 20 Private Households, 21 Public Administration, and 22 Armed Forces.
Figure 2. Boxplot showing the interaction between PFHS, occupation, and AL. *Occupation numbers are: 1 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, 2 Mining, 3 Utilities, 4 Construction, 5 Manufacturing: Durable Goods, 6 Manufacturing: Non-Durable Goods, 7 Wholesale Trade, 8 Retail Trade, 9 Transportation, Warehousing, 10 Information, 11 Finance, Insurance, 12 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing, 13 Professional, Technical Services, 14 Management, Business, Cleaning/Waste Services, 15 Education Services, 16 Health Care, Social Assistance, 17 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, 18 Accommodation, Food Services, 19 Other Services, 20 Private Households, 21 Public Administration, and 22 Armed Forces.
Diseases 10 00026 g002
Table 1. Summary mean differences in participants’ serum PFAS (PFDE, PFBS, PFHP, PFDO, PFNA) concentrations (ng/mL) according to occupational factors.
Table 1. Summary mean differences in participants’ serum PFAS (PFDE, PFBS, PFHP, PFDO, PFNA) concentrations (ng/mL) according to occupational factors.
PFAS
PFDE
N = 23,119
PFBS
N = 19,010
PFHP
N = 22,250
PFDO
N = 20,502
PFNA
N = 23,008
VariableMeanSEMeanSEMeanSEMeanSEMeanSE
* Occupations
10.1650.0180.070<0.0010.0870.0050.0780.0020.4500.070
20.2080.0390.0740.0040.0990.0120.0790.0040.8880.437
30.1330.0130.070<0.0010.0970.0060.0820.0040.3810.055
40.1580.0120.0710.0010.0900.0030.0790.0020.4680.063
50.1740.0200.070<0.0010.0920.0030.0820.0030.4320.031
60.1700.0200.070<0.0010.0960.0050.0810.0030.4610.047
70.1440.0190.070<0.0010.0860.0030.0770.0020.3780.060
80.1440.0070.070<0.0010.0950.0040.0790.0030.4310.033
90.1660.0160.070<0.0010.1020.0100.0770.0010.5370.075
100.1360.0110.070<0.0010.0950.0060.0760.0010.3770.043
110.1430.0090.070<0.0010.0890.0030.0760.0010.3710.026
120.1540.0210.070<0.0010.0930.0100.0780.0030.4530.103
130.1400.0100.070<0.0010.0940.0050.0780.0020.4250.047
140.1390.0100.070<0.0010.0910.0040.0770.0010.3960.039
150.1650.0100.0710.0010.1000.0030.0790.0010.5070.046
160.1480.0040.070<0.0010.0900.0010.0790.0010.4140.017
170.1540.0190.0740.0040.1040.0110.0800.0020.4880.090
180.1390.0090.070<0.0010.0940.0040.0790.0010.3560.023
190.1330.0100.070<0.0010.0900.0040.0770.0010.3760.035
200.1810.0420.070<0.0010.1030.0120.0870.0070.4380.112
210.1620.0130.070<0.0010.0880.0040.0800.0020.4430.030
220.1960.0210.070<0.0010.0960.0070.0790.0020.6520.082
* Note: Occupations numbers are: 1 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, 2 Mining, 3 Utilities, 4 Construction, 5 Manufacturing: Durable Goods, 6 Manufacturing: Non-Durable Goods, 7 Wholesale Trade, 8 Retail Trade, 9 Transportation, Warehousing, 10 Information, 11 Finance, Insurance, 12 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing, 13 Professional, Technical Services, 14 Management, Business, Cleaning/Waste Services, 15 Education Services, 16 Health Care, Social Assistance, 17 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, 18 Accommodation, Food Services, 19 Other Services, 20 Private Households, 21 Public Administration, and 22 Armed Forces.
Table 2. Summary mean differences in participants’ serum PFAS (PFOS, PFUA, PFOA, PFHS) concentrations (ng/mL) according to occupational factors.
Table 2. Summary mean differences in participants’ serum PFAS (PFOS, PFUA, PFOA, PFHS) concentrations (ng/mL) according to occupational factors.
PFAS
PFOS
N = 23,400
PFUA
N = 22,907
PFOA
N = 21,985
PFHS
N = 23,006
VariableMeanSEMeanSEMeanSEMeanSE
Occupations
14.0050.0020.1270.0120.7870.0970.5860.048
26.3270.0040.1660.0471.2640.5370.7760.230
34.6110.0040.1020.0090.9660.1451.1470.354
43.6090.0020.1230.0100.9170.1060.8660.083
54.1240.0030.1490.0281.1070.1050.9400.094
63.6160.0030.1470.0260.8850.0800.7940.090
72.6230.0020.1100.0130.7280.0980.6600.089
82.7500.0030.1080.0040.8570.0830.5850.040
93.5140.0010.1200.0091.0770.1470.8150.080
102.4690.0010.1180.0110.8660.1330.6810.108
112.5600.0010.1140.0060.7750.0940.7580.090
122.8260.0030.1300.0180.7760.1920.6400.160
132.8930.0020.1200.0070.9130.1340.8760.137
142.7280.0010.1140.0080.7890.0910.6800.079
153.7860.0010.1290.0071.0840.1090.8050.076
162.8670.0010.1180.0030.8690.0340.7070.031
174.0530.0020.1400.0231.0070.1580.9470.151
182.4540.0010.1090.0060.7690.0590.5950.063
193.3710.0010.1110.0080.8790.1020.7210.076
202.6620.0070.1410.0270.7170.1420.5760.117
213.2220.0020.2200.0890.8950.1031.0230.218
226.2810.0020.1500.0201.5700.2251.6820.236
Table 3. Summary differences in participants’ serum PFAS (PFDE, PFBS, PFHP, PFDO, PFNA) concentrations (ng/mL) by Allostatic Load.
Table 3. Summary differences in participants’ serum PFAS (PFDE, PFBS, PFHP, PFDO, PFNA) concentrations (ng/mL) by Allostatic Load.
PFAS
PFDEPFBSPFHPPFDOPFNA
VariableMeanSEMeanSEMeanSEMeanSEMeanSE
Allostatic Load
Low0.1460.0030.0700.0000.0900.0010.0790.0010.4250.020
High0.1540.0040.0700.0000.0930.0020.0790.0010.4280.016
Table 4. Summary differences in participants’ serum PFAS (PFOS, PFUA, PFOA, PFHS) concentrations (ng/mL) by Allostatic Load.
Table 4. Summary differences in participants’ serum PFAS (PFOS, PFUA, PFOA, PFHS) concentrations (ng/mL) by Allostatic Load.
PFAS
PFOSPFUAPFOAPFHS
VariableMeanSEMeanSEMeanSEMeanSE
Allostatic Load
Low3.0100.1730.1190.0050.8350.0300.7330.029
High3.1380.1530.1250.0050.9290.0350.7510.032
Table 5. Poisson models used to assess the association of AL with PFAS, occupation, and annual family income.
Table 5. Poisson models used to assess the association of AL with PFAS, occupation, and annual family income.
PFASCoeff95% CIp-Value
PFDE−0.0083(−0.291, 1.010)0.427
PFBS0.3188(−0.012, 0.337)0.280
PFHP−0.0432(−4.823, 1.298)0.513
PFDO0.0639(−0.362, 0.891)0.444
PFNA0.0115(−2.421, 0.520)0.022
PFOS0.0006(0.921, 5.530)0.428
PFUA−0.0146(−0.156, 0.554)0.109
PFOA−0.0128(−0.005, 1.833)0.001
PFHS0.0009(−0.025, 1.052)0.641
Family income−0.0006(0.001, 0.006)<0.0001
* Occupations
10.0525(−0.486, 0.116)0.215
20.0620(−0.767, 0.235)0.225
3−0.0230(−0.556, 0.467)0.640
40.0502(−0.496, 0.114)0.118
50.0338(−0.37, 0.190)0.331
60.0451(−0.544, 0.148)0.226
70.0530(−0.552, 0.211)0.205
8−0.0332(−0.065, 0.435)0.294
90.0739(−0.498, 0.234)0.049
10−0.0334(−0.158, 0.604)0.439
110.0310(−0.398, 0.249)0.418
120.0308(−0.533, 0.474)0.579
13−0.0100(−0.215, 0.522)0.794
140.0267(−0.272, 0.319)0.438
15−0.0013(−0.343, 0.241)0.935
16−0.0283(−0.087, 0.370)0.260
17−0.1148(0.223, 0.973)0.002
18−0.0214(−0.242, 0.400)0.527
19−0.0095(−0.332, 0.336)0.784
200.0439(−0.389, 0.468)0.305
210.0841(−0.726, −0.085)0.018
220.0094(−0.475, 0.337)0.865
* Note: Occupations numbers are:1 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, 2 Mining, 3 Utilities, 4 Construction, 5 Manufacturing: Durable Goods, 6 Manufacturing: Non-Durable Goods, 7 Wholesale Trade, 8 Retail Trade, 9 Transportation, Warehousing, 10 Information, 11 Finance, Insurance, 12 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing, 13 Professional, Technical Services, 14 Management, Business, Cleaning/Waste Services, 15 Education Services, 16 Health Care, Social Assistance, 17 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, 18 Accommodation, Food Services, 19 Other Services, 20 Private Households, 21 Public Administration, and 22 Armed Forces.
Table 6. Pearson correlation was used to describe the relationships between selected PFAS.
Table 6. Pearson correlation was used to describe the relationships between selected PFAS.
PFHSPFDEPFBSPFHPPFDOPFNAPFUAPFOAPFOS
PFHS1.0000.1960.0690.3410.1680.4040.1120.5160.539
PFDE0.1961.0000.0220.1610.8070.3620.7920.2400.447
PFBS0.0690.0221.0000.0510.0100.0460.0090.0680.055
PFHP0.3410.1610.0511.0000.2450.3440.0680.5670.436
PFDO0.1680.8070.0100.2451.0000.2340.7430.1910.343
PFNA0.4040.3620.0460.3440.2341.0000.2600.5420.566
PFUA0.1120.7920.0090.0680.7430.2601.0000.1150.231
PFOA0.5160.2400.0680.5670.1910.5420.1151.0000.674
PFOS0.5390.4470.0550.4360.3430.5660.2310.6741.000
Table 7. Poisson regression model to assess the interactions of occupation with PFAS and AL.
Table 7. Poisson regression model to assess the interactions of occupation with PFAS and AL.
PFASCoeff95% CIp-Value
PFDE−0.012(−0.593, 0.557)0.102
PFBS−14.586(−22.159, 0.100)<0.0001
PFHP0.011(−1.452, 0.552)0.283
PFDO−0.452(−2.742, 0.132)0.054
PFNA0.023(−0.108, 1.072)0.144
PFOS−0.003(−0.009, 5.004)0.138
PFUA−0.024(−0.343, 0.413)0.245
PFOA0.003(−0.055, 0.162)0.561
PFHS0.004(−0.055, 0.951)0.037
Occupation−0.068(−0.028, 0.0154)0.022
1 AL: PFDE0.006(−0.713, 0.848)0.119
AL: PFBS3.724(−8.595, 6.708)<0.0001
AL: PFHP−0.012(−1.998, 2.085)0.441
AL: PFDO 0.148(−3.451, 4.131)0.048
AL: PFNA−0.005(−0.176, 0.233)0.129
AL: PFOS 0.0005(−0.030, 0.201)0.155
AL: PFUA0.0006(−0.600, 0.449)0.199
AL: PFOA−0.001(−0.008, 0.091)0.922
AL: PFHS−0.001(−0.007, 0.061)0.055
AL: Occupation0.018(0.060, 0.065)0.023
2 AL: PFDE: Occupation−0.001(−0.040, 0.032)0.4224
AL: PFBS: Occupation−0.237(−0.905, 0.769)<0.0001
AL: PFHP: Occupation0.0006(−0.128, 0.112)0.890
AL: PFDO: Occupation−0.007(−0.228, 0.186)0.0387
AL: PFNA: Occupation0.0003(−0.002, 0.042)0.2073
AL: PFOS: Occupation−0.00006(−0.011, 0.021)0.2414
AL: PFUA: Occupation0.0008(−0.001, 0.012)0.0953
AL: PFOA: Occupation0.0003(−0.083, 0.503)0.1525
AL: PFHS: Occupation0.00001(−0.021, 0.104)0.1828
1 Interaction of AL with occupation and PFAS individually. 2 Interactions between three variables (AL, occupation, and PFAS) with each other.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bashir, T.; Obeng-Gyasi, E. Interaction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Allostatic Load among Adults in Various Occupations. Diseases 2022, 10, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases10020026

AMA Style

Bashir T, Obeng-Gyasi E. Interaction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Allostatic Load among Adults in Various Occupations. Diseases. 2022; 10(2):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases10020026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bashir, Tahir, and Emmanuel Obeng-Gyasi. 2022. "Interaction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Allostatic Load among Adults in Various Occupations" Diseases 10, no. 2: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases10020026

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop