Intrauterine exposure to perfluorinated compounds and overweight at age 4: A case-control study.

AIMS: The aims were to investigate the association between maternal serum levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) in early pregnancy and overweight in the child at 4 years and to assess potential heterogeneity in exposure effect between strata with different levels of other risk factors for overweight.
METHODS: We used a case-control design and included 354 cases (ISO-BMI ≥ 18 kg/m2) and 2 controls per case (ISO-BMI ≤17 kg/m2) from child health care centers in Malmö, Sweden. Controls were selected stratified on risk scores for overweight in a propensity score framework. Maternal serum levels were analyzed in biobanked samples collected by routine around gestational week 14. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios between quartiles of maternal serum levels and child overweight at age 4.
RESULTS: There were no consistent monotonic exposure-response relationships. We found some significant odds ratios in specific quartiles but these were regarded as spurious findings. The absence of an effect was consistent over risk strata.
CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence of an association between maternal serum levels of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA in early pregnancy and child overweight at age 4. The level of other risk factors for overweight did not affect children's susceptibility to prenatal PFAS exposure.

Introduction

Per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) are man-made compounds and many are persistent in the environment and human body. PFAS are used both in industrial and consumer products, such as food packaging, non-stick pans, waterproof clothing and furniture because of their water- and oil-repelling properties. The most important pathway of exposure for the general population is through food and drinking water [1].

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) all have biological half-lives of several years [2, 3]. PFAS are transferred from mothers to their children as PFAS cross the placental barrier [4] and the levels in maternal blood samples correlate with the levels in cord blood at birth [5]. PFAS are endocrine disruptors that might influence childhood weight by interfering with endogenous hormonal processes important to program or maintain growth and development. Overweight and obese children suffer an increased risk of staying overweight as adults [6] and child and adolescence overweight and obesity have been associated to premature death [7, 8].

Animal studies show that mice exposed to PFAS during gestation are more likely to become overweight compared to non-exposed mice [9, 10]. Epidemiological studies show associations between prenatal exposure to PFAS and adiposity, body mass index (BMI) [11-13], anthropometry [14], skinfold thickness and fat mass [15] and waist-to-height ratio [16] in children. However, the results are inconsistent and some studies found no associations [17, 18]. Previous studies have limitations that make extrapolation of their findings difficult, e.g. relying on self-reported body measurements and lack of a standardized strategy for sampling of maternal blood.

It has been suggested that the effect of environmental exposures may vary depending on the presence or absence of other risk factors that can be taken to reflect an unobserved variable for susceptibility [19]. Overweight is indeed a multifactorial disorder and it may be hypothesized that the level of other risk factors might render children more or less susceptible to the effect of prenatal PFAS exposure.

The primary aim of the study was to investigate the association between maternal serum levels of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA in early pregnancy and overweight in the child at 4 years of age using data from child health care centers and biobanked serum samples from around gestational week 14. A second aim was to explore potential heterogeneity of exposure effects between children with different levels of other risk factors for overweight.

Materials & methods

Study population

Children who underwent routine 4-year health examinations at child health care centers in Malmö, Sweden, during 2003–2008 and whose parents answered a self-administered questionnaire were eligible for inclusion. Child health care centers have scheduled visits with children up to school age and the coverage is close to 100%. The pediatric nurse recruited participants in connection with the visit and measured the weight and height of the child in a standardized manner. The questionnaire, described in more detail by Mangrio et al. [20], included 32 questions related to the family situation, the health of the child, the parents’ socioeconomic status, smoking in the family, breastfeeding and intake of soft drinks. The response rate was 68% (n = 9009). A flowchart describing the study population is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1

Flowchart describing the inclusion of the study population.

The study was restricted to children born ≥38 gestation weeks with a birth weight of 2000–6000 g and a weight and height at 4 years of 10–50 kg and 75–125 cm, respectively and with parents born in Sweden. The latter excluded a fairly large proportion of the children as 48% of children aged 1–5 years in Malmö had another native language than Swedish in 2008 [21]. After these restrictions the study population comprised 5853 children.

The study protocol followed the requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Lund (2014/696) with waived requirement for informed consent. Data was pseudonymized before the study was conducted.

Participants

Cases and controls

Age and sex adjusted body mass index (ISO-BMI) was calculated. Cases (n = 545) were defined as having ISO-BMI≥18 kg/m2, corresponding to a BMI of 25 kg/m2 in adults [22], and children with ISO-BMI≤17 kg/m2 (n = 4472) were considered controls. Children with 17

Control-selection strategy

Simple random selection of controls in a case-control study is often inefficient from a statistical perspective if there are known risk factors for the outcome [19]. Matching is traditionally performed to increase efficiency under the presence of one or few risk factors but it often becomes impractical in the case of a multifactorial disorder such as overweight. Therefore, we applied a two-step control-selection strategy based on risk scores in a propensity score framework that has been shown to improve statistical precision. The methodological approach is described in detail by Björk et al. [19].

Firstly, the risk (i.e. the propensity) of being overweight was modelled using logistic regression based on data on from the questionnaire. The risk model included maternal smoking during pregnancy (0/1), birth weight (continuous), economic strain (defined as not being able to buy adequate amounts of food and clothing for more than 6 months during the last year; 0/1), being a tenant (0/1), maternal obesity (0/1; BMI≥30 kg/m 2) and paternal obesity (0/1; BMI≥30 kg/m2). The child’s order among the siblings, sex, parental education and the child’s intake of soft drinks were considered as covariates but were not retained in the final risk model because of p-values >0.05 and an OR≤1.5 [19].

Secondly, we used the risk model to estimate risk scores for all children with complete data on the covariates (n = 3945) and categorized them into three risk strata: low (0–5%; n = 950), intermediate (6–13%; n = 2154) and high (≥14%; n = 841) risk. The cut-offs were set using a data-driven approach with a factor 2 increase in risk between the strata to create sufficient contrast between the low and the intermediate strata. All cases (n = 416) were retained for the final analyses and matched with 2 controls per case (n = 832) from the same risk strata, with further matching on sex.

Exposure assessment

The Southern Sweden Maternity Cohort is a population-based biobank containing >250,000 samples collected at the routine serological screening for viral infections and rubella immunity around gestational week 14. Pregnant women were asked by their maternal health care clinic whether their samples could be used for future purposes in an opt-out manner. This is standard procedure for all biobanks within Swedish health care. Serum samples from the mothers of 1062 study participants (85%) were available.

Chemical analyses

Serum concentrations of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA were analyzed at the Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in Lund, Sweden, using liquid chromatography-tandem-mass-spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) and the method previously described by Lindh et al. [23] with minor modifications. In brief, aliquots of 75 μl serum were added with glucuronidase, ammonium acetate buffer and labeled internal standards and digested at 37°C for 90 min. The proteins were then precipitated with 200 μl acetonitrile and vigorously shaken for 30 min. The samples were centrifuged and 4 μl of the supernatant was analyzed using LC/MS/MS (QTRAP5500, Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Each analytical batch included calibration standards, two quality control samples (QC) and chemical blank samples.

The samples were analyzed in duplicate and in a randomized order. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.07 ng/ml for PFOS, 0.04 ng/ml for PFOA and 0.03 ng/ml for PFHxS and PFNA. Coefficient of variation (CV) of the QC samples (n = 32) was 7% at 12 ng/ml and 8% at 13ng/ml for PFOS. For PFOA, the CV was 12% at 3 ng/ml and 9% at 4 ng/ml, for PFHxS the CV was 8% at 2 ng/ml and 10% at 3 ng/ml, and for PFNA the CV was 10% at 2 ng/ml and 9% at 4 ng/ml. The analyses of PFOS and PFOA are part of a quality control program between analytical laboratories coordinated by Professor Hans Drexler, Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. All samples had concentrations above LOD for the analyzed PFAS.

Statistical analyses

The final dataset contained 1048 children (cases n = 354, controls n = 694) after data cleansing (i.e. exclusion of invalid records and restriction to singleton births). We did not restrict the number of children per mother because we wanted to maximize the number of cases eligible for inclusion. Consequently, 4% of the women had multiple children in the dataset and this introduced a hierarchical data structure. Multilevel logistic regression with a random intercept for each mother enabled retention of all cases in the analyses without violating the assumption of independence. The SAS/STAT (version 9.4 for Microsoft Windows; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) procedure GLIMMIX with a logit link function was used to model the associations between overweight (cases: ISO-BMI≥18 kg/m2; controls: ISO-BMI≤17 kg/m2) and quartiles of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA defined according to the distributions among the controls. Analyses were performed separately for each PFAS (single-exposure models) as well as jointly for all PFAS (multi-exposure model; Spearman correlations between different PFAS after quartile split were in the range of 0.24 to 0.60). Models were run 1) on the full dataset, adjusting for risk strata, difference from the strata-specific mean and sex, and 2) stratified on risk strata, adjusting for difference from the strata-specific mean and sex. We explored interactions between exposures and risk strata in the full-dataset analyses but the terms were non-significant and therefore not included in the final models. P-values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Stratification by risk made cases and controls similar with respect to the covariates in the risk model (Table 1). The median maternal serum concentrations (Q1;Q3) were 16.6 ng/mL (12.6;22.0) for PFOS, 3.1 ng/mL (2.4;4.2) for PFOA, 0.7 ng/mL (0.5;1.0) for PFHxS and 0.4 ng/mL (0.3;0.5) for PFNA. Maternal serum concentrations of PFAS were similar over the risk strata, as shown in Table 2.

Table 1

Demographic details of the study participants and distribution of the covariates in the risk model for overweight at 4 years of age for cases (ISO-BMI ≥ 18 kg/m2) and controls (ISO-BMI ≤ 17 kg/m2), stratified by risk.

	Total				Low risk				Intermediate risk				High risk
	Cases a (n = 354)		Controls b (n = 694)		Cases (n = 42)		Controls b (n = 84)		Cases (n = 159)		Controls (n = 327)		Cases (n = 153)		Controls (n = 283)
Risk factor	%	Median (Q1;Q3)	%	Median (Q1;Q3)	%	Median (Q1;Q3)	%	Median (Q1;Q3)	%	Median (Q1;Q3)	%	Median (Q1;Q3)	%	Median (Q1;Q3)	%	Median (Q1;Q3)
Maternal obesity c	14.1		10.1		0		0		1.9		0.3		30.7		24.4
Paternal obesity d	15.0		11.5		2.4		0		8.2		5.5		25.5		21.9
Smoking during pregnancy	11.9		10.5		0		0		8.2		4.3		19.0		20.9
Economic strain e	4.2		3.3		0		0		2.5		0.6		7.2		7.4
Tenant	22.3		18.6		4.8		1.2		17.6		14.4		32		28.6
Birth weight, g		3750 (3460; 4105)		3725 (3395; 4060)		3410 (2980; 3570)		3365 (3205; 3553)		3700 (3410; 3980)		3675 (3360; 3980)		4015 (3695; 4370)		3920 (3650; 4295)
Sex (girls)	50.0		50.9		61.9		63.1		52.8		52.0		43.8		45.9

a ISO-BMI ≥ 18

b ISO-BMI ≤ 17

c,d BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2

e Defined as being unable to buy adequate amounts of food and clothes for more than 6 months during the last year.

Table 2

Maternal serum concentrations (median (Q1;Q3)) of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA (ng/mL) in early pregnancy and the child’s ISO-BMI at age 4, stratified by risk.

	Low risk		Intermediate risk		High risk
Variable	Cases a (n = 42)	Controls b (n = 84)	Cases (n = 159)	Controls (n = 327)	Cases (n = 153)	Controls (n = 283)
PFOS	18.8 (12.2;26.8)	16.6 (12.0;20.2)	17.2 (13.5;24.2)	16.9 (12.1;22.1)	16.4 (13.4;21.7)	15.7 (12.3;21.3)
PFOA	3.3 (2.9;4.6)	3.2 (2.4;4.4)	3.1 (2.4;4.3)	3.2 (2.3;4.3)	3.2 (2.5;4.2)	3.0 (2.3;4.0)
PFHxS	0.7 (0.5;1.1)	0.8 (0.5;1.0)	0.7 (0.5;1.0)	0.7 (0.5;0.9)	0.6 (0.5;1.0)	0.7 (0.5;0.9)
PFNA	0.4 (0.3;0.6)	0.4 (0.3;0.6)	0.4 (0.3;0.5)	0.4 (0.3;0.6)	0.4 (0.3;0.5)	0.4 (0.3;0.5)
ISO-BMI	18.5 (18.2;18.9)	15.5 (14.8;16.2)	18.5 (18.2–19.2)	15.7 (15.0;16.2)	18.8 (18.3;19.6)	15.8 (15.1;16.3)

PFOS: perfluorooctane sulfonate; PFOA: perfluorooctanoic acid; PFHxS: perfluorohexane sulfonate; PFNA: perfluorononanoic acid.

a ISO-BMI ≥ 18

b ISO-BMI ≤ 17

There were no monotonic exposure-response relationships in the analyses of the full dataset (Table 3). PFHxS had a significant overall association with the outcome (p = 0.02 in the multi-exposure model) and there were some significant odds ratios in specific quartiles for PFOS, PFHxS and PFNA, but with no patterns over the quartiles. The stratified analyses showed that the absence of an effect of maternal PFAS concentrations in early pregnancy on child overweight was consistent over the risk strata (Table 4).

Table 3

Single- and multi-exposure models regressing child overweight at 4 years on quartiles of maternal serum concentrations of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA in early pregnancy.

The analyses were adjusted for risk strata, difference from the strata-specific mean and sex and the quartiles were based on the distribution among the controls.

		Single-exposure model		Multi exposure models
Compound (ng/mL)	n	Odds ratio (95% CI)	p-value	OR (95% CI)	p-value
PFOS			0.13		0.10
2.93–12.24	239	1.00		1.00
12.25–16.34	272	1.42 (0.96–2.09)		1.53 (1.01–2.31)
16.35–21.61	261	1.26 (0.85–1.87)		1.41 (0.90–2.20)
21.62–65.67	276	1.57 (1.07–2.30)		1.82 (1.11–3.00)
PFOA			0.69		0.92
0.88–2.32	247	1.00		1.00
2.33–3.09	269	1.12 (0.76–1.64)		1.09 (0.73–1.64)
3.10–4.19	266	1.23 (0.84–1.79)		1.15 (0.74–1.79)
4.20–15.07	266	1.22 (0.84–1.79)		1.04 (0.64–1.71)
PFHxS			0.04		0.02
0.11–0.50	271	1.00		1.00
0.51–0.68	264	0.95 (0.66–1.37)		0.93 (0.63–1.38)
0.69–0.93	233	0.66 (0.44–0.97)		0.62 (0.40–0.96)
0.94–24.92	280	1.16 (0.81–1.66)		1.16 (0.75–1.80)
PFNA			0.20		0.08
0.08–0.30	281	1.00		1.00
0.31–0.39	264	0.74 (0.52–1.06)		0.71 (0.49–1.04)
0.40–0.52	255	0.75 (0.52–1.08)		0.66 (0.44–0.98)
0.53–1.53	248	0.69 (0.48–1.01)		0.59 (0.39–0.91)

PFOS: perfluorooctane sulfonate; PFOA: perfluorooctanoic acid; PFHxS: perfluorohexane sulfonate; PFNA: perfluorononanoic acid.

Table 4

Multi-exposure models regressing child overweight at 4 years on quartiles of maternal serum concentrations of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA in early pregnancy, stratified by risk of overweight according to other risk factors.

The analyses were adjusted for risk strata, difference from the strata-specific mean and sex and the quartiles were based on the distribution among the controls.

	Low risk			Intermediate risk			High risk
Compound (ng/mL)	n	OR (95% CI)	p-value	n	OR (95% CI)	p-value	n	OR (95% CI)	p-value
PFOS			0.19			0.28			0.35
2.93–12.24	33	1.00		114	1.00		92	1.00
12.25–16.34	22	0.60 (0.14–2.64)		118	1.60 (0.85–3.02)		132	1.84 (0.95–3.56)
16.35–21.61	41	1.33 (0.34–5.31)		115	1.47 (0.75–2.88)		105	1.62 (0.77–3.37)
21.62–65.67	30	3.59 (0.70–18.33)		139	2.04 (0.98–4.26)		107	1.58 (0.68–3.65)
PFOA			0.72			0.81			0.79
0.88–2.32	28	1.00		119	1.00		100	1.00
2.33–3.09	28	0.84 (0.21–3.34)		118	1.10 (0.60–2.02)		123	1.01 (0.53–1.94)
3.10–4.19	33	1.62 (0.35–7.58)		119	0.83 (0.42–1.65)		114	1.28 (0.65–2.55)
4.20–15.07	37	0.86 (0.17–4.45)		130	0.85 (0.41–1.77)		99	1.35 (0.59–3.08)
PFHxS			0.61			0.18			0.28
0.11–0.50	28	1.00		117	1.00		126	1.00
0.51–0.68	29	1.02 (0.27–3.93)		132	1.04 (0.57–1.90)		103	0.78 (0.42–1.45)
0.69–0.93	28	0.52 (0.12–2.22)		106	0.71 (0.35–1.42)		99	0.56 (0.28–1.11)
0.94–24.92	41	1.22 (0.27–5.64)		131	1.39 (0.71–2.73)		108	0.99 (0.49–1.99)
PFNA			0.33			0.07			0.55
0.08–0.30	27	1.00		130	1.00		124	1.00
0.31–0.39	29	0.49 (0.14–1.79)		111	0.70 (0.40–1.25)		124	0.79 (0.43–1.42)
0.40–0.52	29	0.29 (0.07–1.30)		115	0.71 (0.40–1.29)		111	0.70 (0.38–1.30)
0.53–1.53	41	0.27 (0.06–1.21)		130	0.44 (0.24–0.81)		77	1.03 (0.50–2.13)

PFOS: perfluorooctane sulfonate; PFOA: perfluorooctanoic acid; PFHxS: perfluorohexane sulfonate; PFNA: perfluorononanoic acid.

Discussion

We did not find any monotonic exposure-response relationships between prenatal exposure to PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA and overweight in 4-year-old children from the general population, nor did we find evidence of heterogeneous exposure effects over risk strata. Although some significant odds ratios were observed between different quartiles of PFOS, PFHxS and PFNA, no consistent patterns emerged and we regarded these findings as spurious.

Previous studies report inconsistent results regarding the effect of PFAS on overweight in children. Prenatal exposure to PFOS has been associated with increased weight in girls at 20 months [24]. PFOS and PFOA combined were associated with increased waist-to-height ratio in 5 to 9-years-old girls [16], whereas another study [12] found a tendency to positive associations between PFOS and weight in children from age 3 months to 5 years and BMI in age 4 to 5 years. Lauritzen et al. [13] found associations between both PFOS and PFOA and BMI, triceps skinfolds and child overweight/obesity in 5-year-old children. However, other studies have reported no association between PFOS and weight and body measures in children [11, 25].

Associations have been reported between prenatal exposure to PFOA and greater adiposity and increased BMI in 8-year-old children [11] and higher BMI, skin-fold thickness and total fat mass in 6 to 10-year-old children [15]. On the opposite, Shoaff et al. [14] have reported an inverse association between PFOA and child anthropometry in children aged from 4 weeks to 2 years.

Lee et al. [26] reported postnatal levels of PFHxS to be associated with a smaller weight gain from birth to 2 years of age. Other studies have found associations between PFHxS and increased adiposity [15] and BMI [12]. Yet others reported no associations between PFHxS and weight, BMI and adiposity in children [11, 27, 28].

Lee et al. [26] reported an inverse association between weight in 2-year old children and postnatal PFNA exposure levels but Gyllenhammar et al. [12] showed a positive association between PFNA and BMI in 3 to 4-year-old children. Mora et al. [15] used exposure samples from early pregnancy reported PFNA to be associated with increased adiposity in girls in mid-childhood.

It may be that the levels of PFAS in the general population in our study were not high enough to trigger the complex hormonal systems that might affect child weight. However, the serum levels of PFOS and PFOA in this study were well in line with those of other studies, although the levels of PFHxS and PFNA were in the lower range. The difference in maternal PFAS concentrations over risk strata was negligible thus suggesting that the variables in the risk model, all related to socioeconomic status, were not associated with maternal serum concentrations.

It is difficult to make comparisons with the results of previous studies as exposure assessment has occurred at different time periods and different outcomes have been investigated in children of varying ages. PFAS concentrations measured in different trimesters, or before and after delivery, are not comparable because PFAS concentrations change as a result of pregnancy-induced hemodynamic changes and alterations of the glomerular filtration rate [29].

However, the potential impact of publication bias must be acknowledged. In a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of environmental exposures and adverse health outcomes, Sheehan and Lam [30] found that approximately half of the reviews that investigated publication bias found evidence of it. As such, there may be a favorable selection of positive associations in the literature.

We speculated that children would be more or less vulnerable to the effect of prenatal PFAS exposure depending on the level of other risk factors present. We did however not find any evidence of heterogeneous exposure effects, suggesting that exposure to other risk factors do not make children more susceptible to the prenatal PFAS exposure.

Strengths and limitations

We used measurements of weight and height recorded by trained nurses as opposed to self-reported data. Measurement errors in weight and height are likely to be non-differential with respect to the exposure, leading to bias towards the null and decreased statistical power. However, the associations between several established risk factors and overweight in this cohort speak against issues with measurement error [19]. Blood sampling was performed in approximately the same gestational week for all women and we thereby reduced the risk of systematic errors in the exposure assessment that might arise in the absence of a standardized sampling period because of pregnancy-related physiological changes. Furthermore, the study was designed to create contrasts between the cases and controls in the risk model thus reducing the risk of misclassification error. The sample of participants can be considered representative for children who are born full term of parents born in Sweden. It should, however, be noted that the proportion of mothers who smoke during pregnancy has declined since the data in the present study was collected.

The study has some limitations. The study participants were from the general population with low levels of exposure and small exposure contrasts. We only had one measurement of ISO-BMI, although BMI is a dynamic state that should preferably be assessed based on repeated measures.

Conclusions

We did not find any monotonic exposure-response relationships between maternal serum levels of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA in early pregnancy and child overweight at age 4. The absence of an effect was consistent over risk strata and the level of exposure to other risk factors for overweight did consequently not affect children’s susceptibility to prenatal PFAS exposure.

12 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-31602

Intrauterine exposure to perfluorinated compounds and overweight at age 4: A case-control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Martinsson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 01/12/2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study, in particular regarding children data . Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant inclusion method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant inclusion, b) a table of relevant demographic details, c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper is generally well written and structured. It basically completes the research goals:

1. investigate the association between maternal serum levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) in early pregnancy and overweight in the child at 4 years.

2. assess potential heterogeneity in exposure effect between strata with different levels of other risk factors for overweight.

The authors carefully design the experiment and collect the data. However, in my opinion the paper has some issues regarding to some data analyses and text.

Major comments:

1. Please provide more details (formulations) about calculating the OR between quartiles of maternal serum levels and child overweight at age 4. It is not clear to me how you model the logistic regression.

2. From Table 1, we can see there are obvious differences between the case group and control group in terms of the levels of the risk factors. Could you demonstrate that the differences are negligible or won't affect the final result?

Minor comments:

1. Please give the full name of "OR" when it first appeared.

2. Lines 127 and 128: What do you mean by “All cases (n=416) were included and matched with 2 controls per case (n=832) from the same risk strata, with further matching on sex."? Where were the numbers 416 and 832 derived from and what were they used for?

3. Table 3 and Table 4: Labelling sample size as "Cases" is confusing as it include both "cases" and "controls". "Samples" would be better.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled, "Intrauterine exposure to perfluorinated compounds and overweight at age 4: A case-control study" fills a gap in the current literature on perfluorinated compounds as endocrine disruptors, intrauterine exposure to perfluorinated compounds and association with childhood overweight status during early to mid childhood. All statistical analyses and analytical measurements conducted in the research were described in detail in the manuscript in a sufficient manner to allow for replication by other researchers. The statistical analyses used were also rigorous and appropriate based upon the case-control study design, and there were sufficient explanations given for the matching criteria used and the number of controls per case.

The greatest strengths of the study were the use of serum samples from mothers at the same period of gestation, which allows for more accurate comparisons in the case-control study, and adequate contrasts between cases and controls in the risk model. The greatest limitations of the study were that there were small exposure contrasts within the study population as mentioned in your manuscript and height and weight of children were measured only once for calculation of BMI. I am interested to know if you plan to follow-up with this same study population as the children age to record/monitor their BMI status through puberty and into young adulthood.

Overall, your manuscript is well written and is scientifically sound.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Feb 2020

Response to academic editor and reviewers

Please find our response to each point raised below. The indicated page numbers and lines refer to the marked-up version of the revised manuscript.

Journal Requirements

1) In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study, in particular regarding children data. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

AU: No patient records were used. The children’s data comes from a research questionnaire that their parents agreed to fill out at the regular 4-year health examination, combined with weight and height measured at the same time by the nurse (clarified at p. 4; line 82).

The ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent and all analyses were performed on pseudonymized data. This has now been added to the text (p. 5; line 101).

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant inclusion method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant inclusion, b) a table of relevant demographic details, c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population.

AU: Participants were recruited by their pediatric nurse in connection with the routine 4-years health exam. This has now been added to the text (p. 4; line 82). The demographic details of the study sample are presented in Table 1. We have clarified this in the table heading.

a) Inclusion and exclusion criteria are stated under Study population (p. 4-5).

b) The demographics that was available is presented in Table 1. The table heading

has been clarified.

c) The sample can be considered representative for children who are born full term

of parents born in Sweden. In this context, it should be mentioned that the

proportion of women who smoke during pregnancy has declined since the data in

the study was collected. This has been added under Strengths and limitations

(p. 15; line 317).

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly.

AU: Data contains sensitive personal information and cannot be shared publicly for legal and ethical reasons.

Reviewers' comments

Reviewer #1:

Major comments:

1. Please provide more details (formulations) about calculating the OR between quartiles of maternal serum levels and child overweight at age 4. It is not clear to me how you model the logistic regression.

AU: In the logistic regressions, where the outcome was overweight at 4 years of age (yes/no), we took two analytical approaches:

i) On the full dataset we included the following variables

- Risk strata

- Difference from strata–specific mean

- Sex

ii) Within each risk strata (i.e. stratified analysis), we included the following variables

- Difference from strata–specific mean

- Sex

In both settings, we included a random term for mother to account for the hierarchical nature of the data.

We have carefully reconsidered each formulation in the text and make the judgement that all the information is there. Although we do respect Reviewer 1’s viewpoint, we would like to refer to Reviewer 2 stating that “All statistical analyses and analytical measurements conducted in the research were described in detail in the manuscript in a sufficient manner to allow for replication by other researchers”.

Please note that when reading the Methods section, we found that a sentence has dropped out of the text. Thus, we have added: “We explored interactions between exposures and risk strata in the full-dataset analyses but the terms were non-significant and therefore not included in the final models.” (p. 8; line 176).

2. From Table 1, we can see there are obvious differences between the case group and control group in terms of the levels of the risk factors. Could you demonstrate that the differences are negligible or won't affect the final result?

AU: Overweight is a multifactorial disease that is affected by several risk factors. Thus, it was expected that the cases would have more present risk factors than the controls. Potential confounding caused by the level of these risk factors was handled by adjusting for the difference in risk score from the strata-specific mean in the final models. However, as in all observational studies, bias due to residual confounding cannot be ruled out.

Minor comments:

1. Please give the full name of "OR" when it first appeared.

AU: A mistake on our behalf - thanks for pointing it out. Odds ratio has been spelled out both in the abstract and in the main text. We did not use it that many times and hence chose to spell it out rather than abbreviate it.

2. Lines 127 and 128: What do you mean by “All cases (n=416) were included and matched with 2 controls per case (n=832) from the same risk strata, with further matching on sex."? Where were the numbers 416 and 832 derived from and what were they used for?

AU: The 416 children were the overweight children with complete data on covariates in the risk model, and the 832 their matched controls. These were retained for the final analyses. We have combined this paragraph with that above it and added “retained for the final analyses” to clarify (p. 6; line 131).

3. Table 3 and Table 4: Labelling sample size as "Cases" is confusing as it include both "cases" and "controls". "Samples" would be better.

AU: Well spotted! We have changed cases to simply “n” in both tables.

Reviewer #2:

I am interested to know if you plan to follow-up with this same study population as the children age to record/monitor their BMI status through puberty and into young adulthood.

AU: No, we are not following this specific population. However, we are planning similar studies in Ronneby municipality in southern Sweden where the population has been heavily exposed to contaminated drinking water after decades of leakage of firefighting foams from an airport into the ground water. We are currently establishing a mother-child cohort of 300 dyads where we collect maternal serum from early pregnancy and onwards, as well as breastmilk and serum from the child. We consider this a more relevant setting because of the small exposure contrasts in the general population. In parallel, register-based studies utilizing growth charts from the child health care in Ronneby are ongoing. The first results are expected towards the end of the year.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Feb 2020

Intrauterine exposure to perfluorinated compounds and overweight at age 4: A case-control study

PONE-D-19-31602R1

Dear Dr. Nielsen,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

2 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-31602R1

Intrauterine exposure to perfluorinated compounds and overweight at age 4: A case-control study

Dear Dr. Nielsen:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Linglin Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE