1
|
Bolan S, Sharma S, Mukherjee S, Zhou P, Mandal J, Srivastava P, Hou D, Edussuriya R, Vithanage M, Truong VK, Chapman J, Xu Q, Zhang T, Bandara P, Wijesekara H, Rinklebe J, Wang H, Siddique KHM, Kirkham MB, Bolan N. The distribution, fate, and environmental impacts of food additive nanomaterials in soil and aquatic ecosystems. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2024; 916:170013. [PMID: 38242452 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/06/2024] [Indexed: 01/21/2024]
Abstract
Nanomaterials in the food industry are used as food additives, and the main function of these food additives is to improve food qualities including texture, flavor, color, consistency, preservation, and nutrient bioavailability. This review aims to provide an overview of the distribution, fate, and environmental and health impacts of food additive nanomaterials in soil and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the major nanomaterials in food additives include titanium dioxide, silver, gold, silicon dioxide, iron oxide, and zinc oxide. Ingestion of food products containing food additive nanomaterials via dietary intake is considered to be one of the major pathways of human exposure to nanomaterials. Food additive nanomaterials reach the terrestrial and aquatic environments directly through the disposal of food wastes in landfills and the application of food waste-derived soil amendments. A significant amount of ingested food additive nanomaterials (> 90 %) is excreted, and these nanomaterials are not efficiently removed in the wastewater system, thereby reaching the environment indirectly through the disposal of recycled water and sewage sludge in agricultural land. Food additive nanomaterials undergo various transformation and reaction processes, such as adsorption, aggregation-sedimentation, desorption, degradation, dissolution, and bio-mediated reactions in the environment. These processes significantly impact the transport and bioavailability of nanomaterials as well as their behaviour and fate in the environment. These nanomaterials are toxic to soil and aquatic organisms, and reach the food chain through plant uptake and animal transfer. The environmental and health risks of food additive nanomaterials can be overcome by eliminating their emission through recycled water and sewage sludge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shiv Bolan
- UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia; The UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia; Healthy Environments And Lives (HEAL) National Research Network, Canberra, Australia
| | - Shailja Sharma
- School of Biological & Environmental Sciences, Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, Solan 173229, India; School of Agriculture, Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, Solan 173229, India
| | - Santanu Mukherjee
- School of Biological & Environmental Sciences, Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, Solan 173229, India; School of Agriculture, Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences, Solan 173229, India
| | - Pingfan Zhou
- School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China
| | - Jajati Mandal
- School of Science, Engineering & Environment, University of Salford, Manchester M5 4WT, UK
| | - Prashant Srivastava
- The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Environment, Urrbrae, South Australia, Australia
| | - Deyi Hou
- School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China
| | - Randima Edussuriya
- Ecosphere Resilience Research Center, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda 10250, Sri Lanka
| | - Meththika Vithanage
- Ecosphere Resilience Research Center, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda 10250, Sri Lanka
| | - Vi Khanh Truong
- Biomedical Nanoengineering Laboratory, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia
| | - James Chapman
- University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia
| | - Qing Xu
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Farmland Soil Pollution Prevention and Remediation, Key Laboratory of Plant-Soil Interactions of Ministry of Education, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, People's Republic of China
| | - Tao Zhang
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Farmland Soil Pollution Prevention and Remediation, Key Laboratory of Plant-Soil Interactions of Ministry of Education, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, People's Republic of China
| | - Pramod Bandara
- Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Belihuloya 70140, Sri Lanka
| | - Hasintha Wijesekara
- Department of Natural Resources, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Belihuloya 70140, Sri Lanka
| | - Jörg Rinklebe
- University of Wuppertal, School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Institute of Foundation Engineering, Water- and Waste-Management, Laboratory of Soil- and Groundwater-Management, Pauluskirchstraße 7, 42285 Wuppertal, Germany
| | - Hailong Wang
- Biochar Engineering Technology Research Center of Guangdong Province, School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Foshan University, Foshan, Guangdong 528000, People's Republic of China
| | - Kadambot H M Siddique
- UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia; The UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia
| | - M B Kirkham
- Department of Agronomy, Throckmorton Plant Sciences Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States of America
| | - Nanthi Bolan
- UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia; The UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia; Healthy Environments And Lives (HEAL) National Research Network, Canberra, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sandall A, Smith L, Svensen E, Whelan K. Emulsifiers in ultra-processed foods in the UK food supply. Public Health Nutr 2023; 26:2256-2270. [PMID: 37732384 DOI: 10.1017/s1368980023002021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/22/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Ultra-processed foods (UPF), including those containing food additive emulsifiers, have received research attention due to evidence implicating them in the pathogenesis of certain diseases. The aims of this research were to develop a large-scale, brand-level database of UPF in the UK food supply and to characterise the occurrence and co-occurrence of food additive emulsifiers. DESIGN A database was compiled sampling all products from the food categories contributing to energy intake from UPF in the UK from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-2014). Every food in these categories were identified from online supermarket provision from the 'big four' supermarkets that dominate the market share in the UK, comprising Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons. SETTING Major supermarkets in the UK. RESULTS A total of 32 719 food products in the UK supermarket food supply were returned in searches. Of these, 12 844 products were eligible and manually reviewed for the presence of emulsifiers. Emulsifiers were present in 6642 (51·7 %) food products. Emulsifiers were contained in 95·0 % of 'Pastries, buns and cakes', 81·9 % of 'Milk-based drinks', 81·0 % of 'Industrial desserts' and 77·5 % of 'Confectionary'. Fifty-one per cent of all emulsifier-containing foods contained multiple emulsifiers. Across emulsifier-containing foods, there were a median of two emulsifiers (IQR 2) per product. The five most common emulsifiers were lecithin (23·4 % of all products), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (14·5 %), diphosphates (11·6 %), and xanthan gum and pectin (8·0 %). CONCLUSIONS Findings from this study are the first to demonstrate the widespread occurrence and co-occurrence of emulsifiers in UPF in the UK food supply.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alicia Sandall
- King's College London, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Franklin Wilkins Building, London, SE1 9NH, UK
| | - Leanne Smith
- King's College London, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Franklin Wilkins Building, London, SE1 9NH, UK
| | - Erika Svensen
- King's College London, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Franklin Wilkins Building, London, SE1 9NH, UK
| | - Kevin Whelan
- King's College London, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Franklin Wilkins Building, London, SE1 9NH, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dunford EK, Miles DR, Popkin B. Food Additives in Ultra-Processed Packaged Foods: An Examination of US Household Grocery Store Purchases. J Acad Nutr Diet 2023; 123:889-901. [PMID: 36931919 PMCID: PMC10200736 DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2022.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2022] [Revised: 09/18/2022] [Accepted: 11/18/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Food additives have been used mainly in the past century to perform specific functions in foods. Some types of food additives have been linked to adverse health outcomes, yet there is little research examining food additives in the US food supply. OBJECTIVE To examine the proportion of products purchased by US households containing four common technical food additives using time-specific food composition data and examine whether purchases have changed over time. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING Nielsen Homescan Consumer Panels, 2001 and 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The proportion of packaged food products containing common types of food additives purchased by US households was determined overall and by food category. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED Differences were examined using Student t test; P value < 0.001 was considered significant. RESULTS Between 2001 and 2019, the proportion of food products purchased by US households that contained additives increased from 49.6% to 59.5% (P < 0.001). The proportion of carbonated soft drinks purchased containing flavors decreased, with a subsequent increase in purchases containing nonnutritive sweeteners. Baby foods showed a 20% increase in the proportion of purchases containing additives and >15% increase in the proportion of purchases containing three or more additives. CONCLUSIONS There is convincing evidence that US household purchases of common types of technical food additives are increasing. Despite some positive changes such as a decrease in the use of added flavors in carbonated soft drinks, across most food categories an increase in purchases of all types of products containing additives was observed. In particular the finding that purchases of baby food products containing additives have increased substantially is crucial in informing future research in this area and warrants further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth K Dunford
- Food Policy Division, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Nutrition, Gillings Global School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
| | - Donna R Miles
- Carolina Population Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Nutrition, Gillings Global School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Barry Popkin
- Carolina Population Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Nutrition, Gillings Global School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|