4.7 Article

Exposure to Bisphenol A From Drinking Canned Beverages Increases Blood Pressure Randomized Crossover Trial

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 313-U142

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.04261

关键词

aging; bisphenol A; blood pressure; crossover trials

资金

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI13C0735]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used in plastic bottles and inner coating of beverage cans, and its exposure is almost ubiquitous. BPA has been associated with hypertension and decreased heart rate variability in the previous studies. The aim of the present study was to determine whether increased BPA exposure from consumption of canned beverage actually affects blood pressure and heart rate variability. We conducted a randomized crossover trial with noninstitutionalized adults, who were aged >= 60 years and recruited from a local community center. A total of 60 participants visited the study site 3 times, and they were provided the same beverage in 2 glass bottles, 2 cans, or 1 can and 1 glass bottle at a time. The sequence of the beverage was randomized. We then measured urinary BPA concentration, blood pressure, and heart rate variability 2 hours after the consumption of each beverage. The paired t test and mixed model were used to compare the differences. The urinary BPA concentration increased after consuming canned beverages by >1600% compared with that after consuming glass bottled beverages. Systolic blood pressure adjusted for daily variance increased by approximate to 4.5 mm Hg after consuming 2 canned beverages compared with that after consuming 2 glass bottled beverages, and the difference was statistically significant. The parameters of the heart rate variability did not show statistically significant differences. The present study demonstrated that consuming canned beverage and consequent increase of BPA exposure increase blood pressure acutely.

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