Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T21:06:26.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Rinsing Canned Foods on Bisphenol-A Exposure: The Hummus Experiment

Subject: Life Science and Biomedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2020

Brenna E. Blackburn
Affiliation:
Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Kyley J. Cox
Affiliation:
Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Yue Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
David J. Anderson
Affiliation:
Center for Human Toxicology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Diana G. Wilkins
Affiliation:
Center for Human Toxicology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Christina A. Porucznik*
Affiliation:
Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
*
Corresponding author: Christina A. Porucznik Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine 375 Chipeta Way, Suite A Salt Lake City, UT 84108. Phone: 801 587 3315 Email: christy.porucznik@utah.edu

Abstract

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is associated with adverse health outcomes and is found in many canned foods. It is not understood if some BPA contamination can be washed away by rinsing. The objective of this single-blinded crossover experiment was to determine whether BPA exposure, as measured by urinary concentrations, could be decreased by rinsing canned beans prior to consumption. Three types of hummus were prepared from dried beans, rinsed, and unrinsed canned beans. Fourteen healthy participants ate two samples of each hummus over six experimental days and collected spot urine specimens for BPA measurement. The geometric mean BPA levels for dried beans BPA (GM = 0.97 ng/ml, 95%CI = 0.74,1.26) was significantly lower than rinsed (GM = 1.89 ng/ml, 1.37,2.59) and unrinsed (GM = 2.46 ng/ml, 1.44,4.19). Difference-in-difference estimates showed an increase in GM BPA from pre- to post-hummus between unrinsed and rinsed canned beans of 1.39 ng/ml, p-value = 0.0400. Rinsing canned beans was an effective method to reduce BPA exposure.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Study protocol for crossover hummus consumption.

Figure 1

Table 1. Demographics of study population.

Figure 2

Table 2. Geometric mean BPA concentrations (ng/mL) by demographic characteristics.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Geometric mean BPA pre- and post-consumption of each hummus type.

Figure 4

Table 3. Model estimates from pre- vs post-hummus eating and difference-in-difference results.

Reviewing editor:  Martin Michaelis University of Kent, School of Biosciences, Canterbury, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CT2 7NJ
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and met required revisions.

Review 1: Effect of Rinsing Canned Foods on Bisphenol-A Exposure: The Hummus Experiment

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: This is an interesting and well-written manuscript. There are several comments: The selection criteria of subjects should be mentioned, such as age, non-smoker, non-pregnant and no renal diseases seem to be included. The authors should present the QA/QC data related precision and accuracy to ensure the quality of their measurement. Some studies have suggested to include urinary creatinine-adjusted levels or creatinine as a covariate to avoid overestimation of results. Another suggestion is that, how to prevent the study subjects from exposure to other sources of BPA, such as canned food intake three experimental periods. In the lines 108-9, the authors mentioned that “DD estimate from pre- to post-hummus was four times lower in the rinsed canned beans compared to the canned beans that were drained but not rinsed”. The authors did not describe how to calculate the estimation of “four times”, and please check the correctness.

Presentation

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: Effect of Rinsing Canned Foods on Bisphenol-A Exposure: The Hummus Experiment

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: I enjoy reading this concise and interesting paper and only have a few questions.

1. What is the eligibility? Any participants had health conditions that could affect BPA metabolism?

2. Was the urine sample for post-hummus collected right after the pre-hummus urine? Could the participants be exposed to BPA via other sources during that time gap? For pre-humus, was there only one urine collection? Can a spot urine explain variations?

3. It seems urinary BPA for pre-hummus was higher in the canned rinsed? Could some factors cause a within-person variation that was not controlled for, e.g. changes in kidney function or a recent dental visit before urine collection?

4. According to Ye 2015 in EHP, regardless of spot or 24-hr collection, urinary BPA concentrations changed considerably within a day and for 7 days, collecting urine samples in the morning and afternoon for each treatment may not account for such variations.

5. It would be more informative to stratify the analysis by age and sex if sample size allows.

6. SES could contribute to the levels of BPA. I was wondering if the authors have examined the associations between SES and BPA, and whether SES should be included in the models.

7. I was wondering if the concentrations of BPA in the original canned beans used to make hummus for both treatment groups are the same?

8. Could the authors discuss the findings from previous papers and compare the urinary levels of BPA among studies, and include limitations and advantages?

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 2.8 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
2 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5