4.7 Article

Assessing dietary exposure to caffeine from beverages in the US population using brand-specific versus category-specific caffeine values

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 247-252

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.03.024

关键词

Caffeine; Database; Beverages; Intake; Exposure; US population

资金

  1. ILSI North America Caffeine Working Group
  2. ILSI North America

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent reports on caffeine intakes in the United States have highlighted the importance of obtaining accurate and valid measures of caffeine exposure. The objective of this study is to compare two methods of assigning caffeine values to beverages: brand-specific values versus an aggregate single value representing a broader range of products within a beverage category (i.e., category-specific). The two methods yielded some small, but statistically significant differences in the estimation of caffeine intake from coffee, tea, and carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) for all ages combined and within several of the adult age groups (i.e., 35-49, 50-64, and >= 65 years). These differences, while small, suggest that detailed brand-specific data, particularly for CSDs, commercially pre-packaged or bottled teas, coffee, and specialty coffee drinks, provide more accurate estimates of caffeine exposure for some age groups. Despite these differences, these data provide some assurance that studies using a single aggregate caffeine value provide reasonable measures of caffeine exposure, particularly for studies conducted over a decade ago when there were fewer caffeinated products and brand-specific data available. As the caffeinated beverage marketplace continues to evolve, the use of more detailed, brand-specific data will likely strengthen the assessment of caffeine exposure in the United States. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据