Search

Introduction: Organophosphate esters (OPEs) are increasing in use as flame retardants and plasticizers and concerns have been raised given their endocrine-disrupting activities and possible obesogenic consequences. However, longitudinal studies on gestational OPE exposure and childhood obesity are scarce. This study examined whether OPE levels in maternal urine during pregnancy were associated with the risk of childhood obesity. Methods: OPEs were analyzed in pregnancy urine samples of 5,087 individuals from 14 studies contributing to the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort. BDCPP, DBUP/DIBP, and DPHP, detected in > 80 % of the samples, were modeled continuously and by tertiles; whereas BCPP, BBOEP, and BCETP, detected in 50–80 % of samples, were modeled categorically (not-detected, low, and high). Childhood obesity was defined by BMI z-score ≥ 95th percentile according to WHO (

Background: Exposure to per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) remains an important public health issue due to widespread detection and persistence in environmental media, slow metabolism in humans, and influences on physiological processes such as neurological signaling. Maternal depression is highly prevalent during pregnancy and postpartum and is potentially sensitive to PFAS. The health risks associated with PFAS may be further amplified in historically marginalized communities, including immigrants. Objective: Evaluate maternal concentrations of PFAS in association with depression scores during pregnancy and whether effects differ between US born and immigrant women. Methods: Our study sample included 282 US born and 235 immigrant pregnant women enrolled in the Chemicals in Our Bodies prospective birth cohort based in San Francisco, CA. We measured 12 PFAS in serum samples collected in the second trimester and depressive symptom scores were assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Associations were estimated using linear regression, adjusting for maternal age, education, pre-pregnancy body mass index, and parity. Associations with a PFAS mixture were estimated using quantile g-computation. Results: In adjusted linear regression models, a twofold increase in two PFAS was associated with higher depression scores in the overall sample, and this association persisted only among immigrant women (β [95 % confidence interval]: perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (2.7 [0.7–4.7]) and methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamide acetic acid (2.9 [1.2–4.7]). Quantile g-computation indicated that simultaneously increasing all PFAS in the mixture by one quartile was associated with increased depressive symptoms among immigrant women (mean change per quartile increase = 1.12 [0.002, 2.3]), and associations were stronger compared to US born women (mean change per quartile increase = 0.09 [-1.0, 0.8]). Conclusions: Findings provide new evidence that PFAS are associated with higher depression symptoms among immigrant women during pregnancy. Results can inform efforts to address environmental factors that may affect depression among US immigrants.

Background: Oxidative stress from excess reactive oxygen species (ROS) is a hypothesized contributor to preterm birth. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure is reported to generate ROS in laboratory settings, and is linked to adverse birth outcomes globally. However, to our knowledge, the relationship between PFAS and oxidative stress has not been examined in the context of human pregnancy. Objective: To investigate the associations between prenatal PFAS exposure and oxidative stress biomarkers among pregnant people. Methods: Our analytic sample included 428 participants enrolled in the Illinois Kids Development Study and Chemicals In Our Bodies prospective birth cohorts between 2014 and 2019. Twelve PFAS were measured in second trimester serum. We focused on seven PFAS that were detected in >65 % of participants. Urinary levels of 8-isoprostane-prostaglandin-F2α, prostaglandin-F2α, 2,3-dinor-8-iso-PGF2α, and 2,3-dinor-5,6-dihydro-8-iso-PGF2α were measured in the second and third trimesters as biomarkers of oxidative stress. We fit linear mixed-effects models to estimate individual associations between PFAS and oxidative stress biomarkers. We used quantile g-computation and Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR) to assess associations between the PFAS mixture and averaged oxidative stress biomarkers. Results: Linear mixed-effects models showed that an interquartile range increase in perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) was associated with an increase in 8-isoprostane-prostaglandin-F2α (β = 0.10, 95 % confidence interval = 0, 0.20). In both quantile g-computation and BKMR, and across all oxidative stress biomarkers, PFOS contributed the most to the overall mixture effect. The six remaining PFAS were not significantly associated with changes in oxidative stress biomarkers. Conclusions: Our study is the first to investigate the relationship between PFAS exposure and biomarkers of oxidative stress during human pregnancy. We found that PFOS was associated with elevated levels of oxidative stress, which is consistent with prior work in animal models and cell lines. Future research is needed to understand how prenatal PFAS exposure and maternal oxidative stress may affect fetal development.

Background: Widespread environmental contamination can directly interact with human immune system functions. Environmental effects on the immune system may influence human susceptibility to respiratory infections as well as the severity of infectious diseases, such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Furthermore, the efficacy of vaccines to respiratory diseases may be impacted by environmental exposures through immune perturbations. Given the quick pace of research about COVID-19 and associated risk factors, it is critical to identify and curate the streams of evidence quickly and effectively. Objective: We developed this systematic evidence map protocol to identify and organize existing human and animal literature on high-priority environmental chemical classes (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, pesticides, phthalates, quaternary ammonium compounds, and air pollutants) and their potential to influence three key outcomes: (1) susceptibility to respiratory infection, including SARS-CoV-2 (2) severity of the resultant disease progression, and (3) impact on vaccine efficacy. The result of this project will be an online, interactive database which will show what evidence is currently available between involuntary exposures to select environmental chemicals and immune health effects, data gaps that require further research, and data rich areas that may support further analysis. Search and study eligibility: We will search PubMed for epidemiological or toxicological literature on select toxicants from each of the chemical classes and each of the three outcomes listed above. Study appraisal and synthesis of methods: For each study, two independent reviewers will conduct title and abstract screening as well as full text review for data extraction of study characteristics. Study quality will not be evaluated in this evidence mapping. The main findings from the systematic evidence map will be visualized using a publicly available and interactive database hosted on Tableau Public.

Background: Prenatal exposure to individual per‑ and poly‑fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and psychosocial stressors have been associated with reductions in fetal growth. Studies suggest cumulative or joint effects of chemical and non-chemical stressors on fetal growth. However, few studies have examined PFAS and non-chemical stressors together as a mixture, which better reflects real life exposure patterns. We examined joint associations between PFAS, perceived stress, and depression, and fetal growth using two approaches developed for exposure mixtures. Methods: Pregnant participants were enrolled in the Chemicals in Our Bodies cohort and Illinois Kids Development Study, which together make up the ECHO.CA.IL cohort. Seven PFAS were previously measured in 2nd trimester maternal serum samples and were natural log transformed for analyses. Perceived stress and depression were assessed using self-reported validated questionnaires, which were converted to t-scores using validated methods. Quantile g-computation and Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR) were used to assess joint associations between PFAS, perceived stress and depression t-scores and birthweight z-scores (N = 876). Results: Individual PFAS, depression and perceived stress t-scores were negatively correlated with birthweight z-scores. Using quantile g-computation, a simultaneous one quartile increase in all PFAS, perceived stress and depression t-scores was associated with a slight reduction in birthweight z-scores (mean change per quartile increase = -0.09, 95% confidence interval = -0.21, 0.03). BKMR similarly indicated that cumulative PFAS and stress t-scores were modestly associated with lower birthweight z-scores. Across both methods, the joint association appeared to be distributed across multiple exposures rather than due to a single exposure. Conclusions: Our study is one of the first to examine the joint effects of chemical and non-chemical stressors on fetal growth using mixture methods. We found that PFAS, perceived stress, and depression in combination were modestly associated were lower birthweight z-scores, which supports prior studies indicating that chemical and non-chemical stressors are jointly associated with adverse health outcomes.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO’s development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further. Methods: Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (Pi) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. Pi ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO’s use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews. Results: We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO’s ratings are “very low”, “low”, “moderate”, and “high”. To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at “high” quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range Pi: 0.36–1.00) and rater teams (0.20–1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings. Conclusions: We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.

Background: World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) systematic reviews reported sufficient evidence for higher risks of ischemic heart disease and stroke amongst people working long hours (≥55 hours/week), compared with people working standard hours (35–40 hours/week). This article presents WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of global, regional, and national exposure to long working hours, for 194 countries, and the attributable burdens of ischemic heart disease and stroke, for 183 countries, by sex and age, for 2000, 2010, and 2016. Methods and Findings: We calculated population-attributable fractions from estimates of the population exposed to long working hours and relative risks of exposure on the diseases from the systematic reviews. The exposed population was modelled using data from 2324 cross-sectional surveys and 1742 quarterly survey datasets. Attributable disease burdens were estimated by applying the population-attributable fractions to WHO’s Global Health Estimates of total disease burdens. Results: In 2016, 488 million people (95% uncertainty range: 472–503 million), or 8.9% (8.6–9.1) of the global population, were exposed to working long hours (≥55 hours/week). An estimated 745,194 deaths (705,786–784,601) and 23.3 million disability-adjusted life years (22.2–24.4) from ischemic heart disease and stroke combined were attributable to this exposure. The population-attributable fractions for deaths were 3.7% (3.4–4.0) for ischemic heart disease and 6.9% for stroke (6.4–7.5); for disability-adjusted life years they were 5.3% (4.9–5.6) for ischemic heart disease and 9.3% (8.7–9.9) for stroke. Conclusions: WHO and ILO estimate exposure to long working hours (≥55 hours/week) is common and causes large attributable burdens of ischemic heart disease and stroke. Protecting and promoting occupational and workers’ safety and health requires interventions to reduce hazardous long working hours.

Background: Synthesizing environmental health science is crucial to taking action to protect public health. Procedures for evidence evaluation and integration are transitioning from “expert-based narrative” to “systematic” review methods. However, little is known about the methodology being utilized for either type of review. Objectives: To appraise the methodological strengths and weaknesses of a sample of “expert-based narrative” and “systematic” reviews in environmental health. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases and identified relevant reviews using pre-specified eligibility criteria. We applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to three environmental health topics that assessed the utility, validity and transparency of reviews. Results: We identified 29 reviews published between 2003 and 2019, of which 13 (45%) were self-identified as systematic reviews. Across every LRAT domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of “satisfactory” ratings compared to non-systematic reviews. In eight of these domains, there was a statistically significant difference observed between the two types of reviews and “satisfactory” ratings. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly with the majority receiving an “unsatisfactory” or “unclear” rating in 11 of the 12 domains. Systematic reviews performed poorly in six of the 12 domains; 10 (77%) did not state the reviews objectives or develop a protocol; eight (62%) did not state the roles and contribution of the authors, or evaluate the internal validity of the included evidence consistently using a valid method; and only seven (54%) stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar on which their conclusions were based, or had an author disclosure of interest statement. Discussion: Systematic reviews produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews, but poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent. Ongoing development and implementation of empirically based systematic review methods are required in environmental health to ensure transparent and timely decision making to protect the public’s health.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing Joint Estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause ischaemic heart disease (IHD). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from IHD that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41–48, 49–54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35–40 h/week), on IHD (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). Data sources: We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. Methods: Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. Results: Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51–0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested. Conclusions: We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

Background: Preterm birth (PTB),22 PTB: preterm birth defined as birth at gestational age

Background: There are reports of developmental and reproductive health effects associated with the widely used biocide triclosan. Objective: Apply the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to answer the question: Does exposure to triclosan have adverse effects on human development or reproduction? Methods: We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology: 1) Specify a study question, 2) Select the evidence, and 3) Rate quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using pre-specified criteria. We assessed the number and type of all relevant studies. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and rated the quality and strength of the evidence for the selected outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis on a subset of suitable data. Results: We found 4282 potentially relevant records, and 81 records met our inclusion criteria. Of the more than 100 endpoints identified by our search, we focused our evaluation on hormone concentration outcomes, which had the largest human and non-human mammalian data set. Three human studies and 8 studies conducted in rats reported thyroxine levels as outcomes. The rat data were amenable to meta-analysis. Because only one of the human thyroxine studies quantified exposure, we did not conduct a meta-analysis of the human data. Through meta-analysis of the data for rats, we estimated for prenatal exposure a 0.09% (95% CI: −0.20, 0.02) reduction in thyroxine concentration per mg triclosan/kg-bw in fetal and young rats compared to control. For postnatal exposure we estimated a 0.31% (95% CI: −0.38, −0.23) reduction in thyroxine per mg triclosan/kg-bw, also compared to control. Overall, we found low to moderate risk of bias across the human studies and moderate to high risk of bias across the non-human studies, and assigned a “moderate/low” quality rating to the body of evidence for human thyroid hormone alterations and a “moderate” quality rating to the body of evidence for non-human thyroid hormone alterations. Conclusion: Based on this application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there was “sufficient” non-human evidence and “inadequate” human evidence of an association between triclosan exposure and thyroxine concentrations, and consequently, triclosan is “possibly toxic” to reproductive and developmental health. Thyroid hormone disruption is an upstream indicator of developmental toxicity. Additional endpoints may be identified as being of equal or greater concern as other data are developed or evaluated. Keywords: Soap, Personal care, Antibacterial, Thyroid, Policy, Risk assessment