52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Opportunities for evaluating chemical exposures and child health in the United States: the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program

      research-article
      , PhD 1 , 2 , , PhD 2 , , PhD 3 , , PhD 4 , , PhD 5 , , PhD 6 , , PhD 7 , , PhD 8 , , PhD 9 , , PhD 10 , , PhD 11 , 12 , , PhD 8 , , PhD 13 , , ScD 14 , , PhD 11 , 12 , , PhD 15 , , PhD 13 , , PhD 16 , , PhD 17 , , PhD 18 , , MHS 9 , , PhD 17 *
      Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology
      environmental exposures, chemicals, children’s health, Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program will evaluate environmental factors affecting children’s health (perinatal, neurodevelopmental, obesity, respiratory, and positive health outcomes) by pooling cohorts composed of >50,000 children in the largest US study of its kind. Our objective was to identify opportunities for studying chemicals and child health using existing or future ECHO chemical exposure data. We described chemical-related information collected by ECHO cohorts and reviewed ECHO-relevant literature on exposure routes, sources, and environmental and human monitoring. Fifty-six ECHO cohorts have existing or planned chemical biomonitoring data for mothers or children. Environmental phenols/parabens, phthalates, metals/metalloids, and tobacco biomarkers are each being measured by ≥15 cohorts, predominantly during pregnancy and childhood, indicating ample opportunities to study child health outcomes. Cohorts are collecting questionnaire data on multiple exposure sources and conducting environmental monitoring including air, dust, and water sample collection that could be used for exposure assessment studies. To supplement existing chemical data, we recommend biomonitoring of emerging chemicals, non-targeted analysis to identify novel chemicals, and expanded measurement of chemicals in alternative biological matrices and dust samples. ECHO’s rich data and samples represent an unprecedented opportunity to accelerate environmental chemical research to improve the health of US children.

          Related collections

          Most cited references199

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Exposure of the U.S. Population to Bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-Octylphenol: 2003–2004

          Background Bisphenol A (BPA) and 4-tertiary-octylphenol (tOP) are industrial chemicals used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins (BPA) and nonionic surfactants (tOP). These products are in widespread use in the United States. Objectives We aimed to assess exposure to BPA and tOP in the U.S. general population. Methods We measured the total (free plus conjugated) urinary concentrations of BPA and tOP in 2,517 participants ≥ 6 years of age in the 2003–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey using automated solid-phase extraction coupled to isotope dilution–high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Results BPA and tOP were detected in 92.6% and 57.4% of the persons, respectively. Least square geometric mean (LSGM) concentrations of BPA were significantly lower in Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic blacks (p = 0.006) and non-Hispanic whites (p = 0.007); LSGM concentrations for non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites were not statistically different (p = 0.21). Females had statistically higher BPA LSGM concentrations than males (p = 0.043). Children had higher concentrations than adolescents (p $45,000/year). Conclusions Urine concentrations of total BPA differed by race/ethnicity, age, sex, and household income. These first U.S. population representative concentration data for urinary BPA and tOP should help guide public health research priorities, including studies of exposure pathways, potential health effects, and risk assessment.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Phosphorus flame retardants: properties, production, environmental occurrence, toxicity and analysis.

            Since the ban on some brominated flame retardants (BFRs), phosphorus flame retardants (PFRs), which were responsible for 20% of the flame retardant (FR) consumption in 2006 in Europe, are often proposed as alternatives for BFRs. PFRs can be divided in three main groups, inorganic, organic and halogen containing PFRs. Most of the PFRs have a mechanism of action in the solid phase of burning materials (char formation), but some may also be active in the gas phase. Some PFRs are reactive FRs, which means they are chemically bound to a polymer, whereas others are additive and mixed into the polymer. The focus of this report is limited to the PFRs mentioned in the literature as potential substitutes for BFRs. The physico-chemical properties, applications and production volumes of PFRs are given. Non-halogenated PFRs are often used as plasticisers as well. Limited information is available on the occurrence of PFRs in the environment. For triphenyl phosphate (TPhP), tricresylphosphate (TCP), tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP), tris(chloropropyl)phosphate (TCPP), tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP), and tetrekis(2-chlorethyl)dichloroisopentyldiphosphate (V6) a number of studies have been performed on their occurrence in air, water and sediment, but limited data were found on their occurrence in biota. Concentrations found for these PFRs in air were up to 47 μg m(-3), in sediment levels up to 24 mg kg(-1) were found, and in surface water concentrations up to 379 ng L(-1). In all these matrices TCPP was dominant. Concentrations found in dust were up to 67 mg kg(-1), with TDCPP being the dominant PFR. PFR concentrations reported were often higher than polybrominated diphenylether (PBDE) concentrations, and the human exposure due to PFR concentrations in indoor air appears to be higher than exposure due to PBDE concentrations in indoor air. Only the Cl-containing PFRs are carcinogenic. Other negative human health effects were found for Cl-containing PFRs as well as for TCP, which suggest that those PFRs would not be suitable alternatives for BFRs. TPhP, diphenylcresylphosphate (DCP) and TCP would not be suitable alternatives either, because they are considered to be toxic to (aquatic) organisms. Diethylphosphinic acid is, just like TCEP, considered to be very persistent. From an environmental perspective, resorcinol-bis(diphenylphosphate) (RDP), bisphenol-A diphenyl phosphate (BADP) and melamine polyphosphate, may be suitable good substitutes for BFRs. Information on PFR analysis in air, water and sediment is limited to TCEP, TCPP, TPhP, TCP and some other organophosphate esters. For air sampling passive samplers have been used as well as solid phase extraction (SPE) membranes, SPE cartridges, and solid phase micro-extraction (SPME). For extraction of PFRs from water SPE is recommended, because this method gives good recoveries (67-105%) and acceptable relative standard deviations (RSDs) (<20%), and offers the option of on-line coupling with a detection system. For the extraction of PFRs from sediment microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) is recommended. The recoveries (78-105%) and RSDs (3-8%) are good and the method is faster and requires less solvent compared to other methods. For the final instrumental analysis of PFRs, gas chromatography-flame photometric detection (GC-FPD), GC-nitrogen-phosphorus detection (NPD), GC-atomic emission detection (AED), GC-mass spectrometry (MS) as well as liquid chromatography (LC)-MS/MS and GC-Inductively-coupled plasma-MS (ICP-MS) are used. GC-ICP-MS is a promising method, because it provides much less complex chromatograms while offering the same recoveries and limits of detection (LOD) (instrumental LOD is 5-10 ng mL(-1)) compared to GC-NPD and GC-MS, which are frequently used methods for PFR analysis. GC-MS offers a higher selectivity than GC-NPD and the possibility of using isotopically labeled compounds for quantification. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Detection of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in U.S. Drinking Water Linked to Industrial Sites, Military Fire Training Areas, and Wastewater Treatment Plants

              Drinking water contamination with poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) poses risks to the developmental, immune, metabolic, and endocrine health of consumers. We present a spatial analysis of 2013–2015 national drinking water PFAS concentrations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA) third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3) program. The number of industrial sites that manufacture or use these compounds, the number of military fire training areas, and the number of wastewater treatment plants are all significant predictors of PFAS detection frequencies and concentrations in public water supplies. Among samples with detectable PFAS levels, each additional military site within a watershed’s eight-digit hydrologic unit is associated with a 20% increase in PFHxS, a 10% increase in both PFHpA and PFOA, and a 35% increase in PFOS. The number of civilian airports with personnel trained in the use of aqueous film-forming foams is significantly associated with the detection of PFASs above the minimal reporting level. We find drinking water supplies for 6 million U.S. residents exceed US EPA’s lifetime health advisory (70 ng/L) for PFOS and PFOA. Lower analytical reporting limits and additional sampling of smaller utilities serving <10000 individuals and private wells would greatly assist in further identifying PFAS contamination sources.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101262796
                32819
                J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol
                J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol
                Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology
                1559-0631
                1559-064X
                9 February 2020
                17 February 2020
                May 2020
                17 August 2020
                : 30
                : 3
                : 397-419
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
                [2 ]Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ
                [3 ]Department of Community, Environment and Policy, Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
                [4 ]Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA
                [5 ]Departments of Environmental Health Sciences and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY
                [6 ]Discovery Sciences, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC
                [7 ]Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
                [8 ]Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago,IL
                [9 ]Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
                [10 ]Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
                [11 ]Division of Environmental Health Sciences, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY
                [12 ]Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY
                [13 ]Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
                [14 ]A.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA
                [15 ]Fellows Program, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC
                [16 ]Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
                [17 ]Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA
                [18 ]Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI
                Author notes
                Correspondence Jessie P. Buckley, Departments of Environmental Health & Engineering and Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Room W7513A, Baltimore, MD 21205. (410) 502-6150. jessie.buckley@ 123456jhu.edu
                Article
                NIHMS1554468
                10.1038/s41370-020-0211-9
                7183426
                32066883
                66cd0d9a-c0a6-491d-a64b-f187ae3f2f30

                Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Occupational & Environmental medicine
                environmental exposures,chemicals,children’s health,environmental influences on child health outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log