Search

Abstract Background Household cleaning and pesticide products may contribute to breast cancer because many contain endocrine disrupting chemicals or mammary gland carcinogens. This population-based case-control study investigated whether use of household cleaners and pesticides increases breast cancer risk. Methods Participants were 787 Cape Cod, Massachusetts, women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1988 and 1995 and 721 controls. Telephone interviews asked about product use, beliefs about breast cancer etiology, and established and suspected breast cancer risk factors. To evaluate potential recall bias, we stratified product-use odds ratios by beliefs about whether chemicals and pollutants contribute to breast cancer; we compared these results with odds ratios for family history (which are less subject to recall bias) stratified by beliefs about heredity. Results Breast cancer risk increased two-fold in the highest compared with lowest quartile of self-reported combined cleaning product use (Adjusted OR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4, 3.3) and combined air freshener use (Adjusted OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.0). Little association was observed with pesticide use. In stratified analyses, cleaning products odds ratios were more elevated among participants who believed pollutants contribute "a lot" to breast cancer and moved towards the null among the other participants. In comparison, the odds ratio for breast cancer and family history was markedly higher among women who believed that heredity contributes "a lot" (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.9, 3.6) and not elevated among others (OR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5, 1.1). Conclusions Results of this study suggest that cleaning product use contributes to increased breast cancer risk. However, results also highlight the difficulty of distinguishing in retrospective self-report studies between valid associations and the influence of recall bias. Recall bias may influence higher odds ratios for product use among participants who believed that chemicals and pollutants contribute to breast cancer. Alternatively, the influence of experience on beliefs is another explanation, illustrated by the protective odds ratio for family history among women who do not believe heredity contributes "a lot." Because exposure to chemicals from household cleaning products is a biologically plausible cause of breast cancer and avoidable, associations reported here should be further examined prospectively.

BackgroundBisphenol A (BPA) is a ubiquitous, endocrine-disrupting environmental contaminant that increases risk of some adverse developmental effects. Thus, it is important to characterize BPA levels, metabolic fate and sources of exposure in pregnant women.MethodsWe used an improved liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analytic method to directly and simultaneously measure unconjugated BPA (uBPA), BPA glucuronide and BPA sulfate in the urine of a population of ethnically and racially diverse, and predominately low-income pregnant women (n = 112) in their second trimester. We also administered a questionnaire on dietary and non-dietary sources of exposure to BPA.ResultsWe found universal and high exposure to uBPA and its metabolites: median concentrations were 0.25, 4.67, and 0.31 μg/g creatinine for uBPA, BPA glucuronide, and BPA sulfate, respectively. The median Total BPA (uBPA + BPA in glucuronide and sulfate forms) level was more than twice that measured in U.S. pregnant women in NHANES 2005-2006, while 30 % of the women had Total BPA levels above the 95th percentile. On average, Total BPA consisted of 71 % BPA in glucuronide form, 15 % BPA in sulfate form and 14 % uBPA, however the proportion of BPA in sulfate form increased and the proportion of uBPA decreased with Total BPA levels. Occupational and non-occupational contact with paper receipts was positively associated with BPA in conjugated (glucuronidated + sulfated) form after adjustment for demographic characteristics. Recent consumption of foods and beverages likely to be contaminated with BPA was infrequent among participants and we did not observe any positive associations with BPA analyte levels.ConclusionThe high levels of BPA analytes found in our study population may be attributable to the low-income status of the majority of participants and/or our direct analytic method, which yields a more complete evaluation of BPA exposure. We observed near-universal exposure to BPA among pregnant women, as well as substantial variability in BPA metabolic clearance, raising additional concerns for effects on fetal development. Our results are consistent with studies showing thermal paper receipts to be an important source of exposure, point to the difficulty pregnant women have avoiding BPA exposure on an individual level, and therefore underscore the need for changes in BPA regulation and commerce.

BackgroundDiethyl phthalate (DEP) and di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP) are industrial chemicals found in consumer products that may increase risk of adverse health effects. Although use of personal care/beauty products is known to contribute to phthalate exposure, no prior study has examined feminine hygiene products as a potential phthalate source. In this study, we evaluate whether vaginal douching and other feminine hygiene products increase exposure to phthalates among US reproductive-aged women.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study on 739 women (aged 20-49) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2004 to examine the association between self-reported use of feminine hygiene products (tampons, sanitary napkins, vaginal douches, feminine spray, feminine powder, and feminine wipes/towelettes) with urinary concentrations of monoethyl phthalate (MEP) and mono-n-butyl phthalate (MnBP), metabolites of DEP and DnBP, respectively.ResultsA greater proportion of black women than white and Mexican American women reported use of vaginal douches, feminine spray, feminine powder, and wipes/towelettes in the past month whereas white women were more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to report use of tampons (p

Abstract Background Numerous methods exist to analyze complex environmental mixtures in health studies. As an illustration of the different uses of mixture methods, we employed methods geared toward distinct research questions concerning persistent organic chemicals (POPs) as a mixture and leukocyte telomere length (LTL) as an outcome. Methods With information on 18 POPs and LTL among 1,003 U.S. adults (NHANES, 2001–2002), we used unsupervised methods including clustering to identify profiles of similarly exposed participants, and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify common exposure patterns. We also employed supervised learning techniques, including penalized, weighted quantile sum (WQS), and Bayesian kernel machine (BKMR) regressions, to identify potentially toxic agents, and characterize nonlinear associations, interactions, and the overall mixture effect. Results Clustering separated participants into high, medium, and low POP exposure groups; longer log-LTL was found among those with high exposure. The first PCA component represented overall POP exposure and was positively associated with log-LTL. Two EFA factors, one representing furans and the other PCBs 126 and 118, were positively associated with log-LTL. Penalized regression methods selected three congeners in common (PCB 126, PCB 118, and furan 2,3,4,7,8-pncdf) as potentially toxic agents. WQS found a positive overall effect of the POP mixture and identified six POPs as potentially toxic agents (furans 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-hxcdf, 2,3,4,7,8-pncdf, and 1,2,3,6,7,8-hxcdf, and PCBs 99, 126, 169). BKMR found a positive linear association with furan 2,3,4,7,8-pncdf, suggestive evidence of linear associations with PCBs 126 and 169, and a positive overall effect of the mixture, but no interactions among congeners. Conclusions Using different methods, we identified patterns of POP exposure, potentially toxic agents, the absence of interaction, and estimated the overall mixture effect. These applications and results may serve as a guide for mixture method selection based on specific research questions.

Abstract Background Scientists and regulators have sought to understand whether and how physiologic dysregulation due to chronic stress exposure may enhance vulnerability to the adverse health effects of toxicant exposures. We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine whether allostatic load (AL), a composite measure of physiologic response to chronic exposure to stress, amplifies the effect of lead exposure on blood pressure among middle-aged adults. Methods We analyzed associations between blood lead levels and blood pressure in a nationally representative sample of 8,194 U.S. adults (aged 40-65 years) participating in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, 1999--2008. Outcomes were elevated systolic (≥ 140 mm Hg) and diastolic (≥ 90 mm Hg) blood pressure. AL was defined as the aggregate score of seven components, reflecting dysregulation of the cardiovascular, inflammatory, and endocrine systems. Results Logistic regression models showed a linear dose-response relationship for quintiles of blood lead and elevated systolic blood pressure in the high AL group (p = 0.03) but not the low AL group (p = 0.24). Similarly, the relationship between lead exposure and elevated diastolic blood pressure was stronger among the high AL group than the low AL group. Within the high AL group, the fourth and fifth quintiles had significantly elevated odds of elevated blood pressure compared to lowest quintile [OR = 1.92, (95% CI, 1.07, 3.47) and OR =2.28 (95% CI, 1.33, 3.91), respectively]. In the low AL group, none of the quintile effects were significantly different than the referent group although there was evidence of a linear trend (p =0.03). The lead by AL interaction term was not statistically significant for either systolic or diastolic blood pressure models. Conclusions Results suggest that higher AL may amplify the adverse effects of lead on blood pressure. Future research should assess the implications of cumulative exposures to environmental and social stressors for regulatory decision-making.

Abstract Background Household cleaning and pesticide products may contribute to breast cancer because many contain endocrine disrupting chemicals or mammary gland carcinogens. This population-based case-control study investigated whether use of household cleaners and pesticides increases breast cancer risk. Methods Participants were 787 Cape Cod, Massachusetts, women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1988 and 1995 and 721 controls. Telephone interviews asked about product use, beliefs about breast cancer etiology, and established and suspected breast cancer risk factors. To evaluate potential recall bias, we stratified product-use odds ratios by beliefs about whether chemicals and pollutants contribute to breast cancer; we compared these results with odds ratios for family history (which are less subject to recall bias) stratified by beliefs about heredity. Results Breast cancer risk increased two-fold in the highest compared with lowest quartile of self-reported combined cleaning product use (Adjusted OR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4, 3.3) and combined air freshener use (Adjusted OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.0). Little association was observed with pesticide use. In stratified analyses, cleaning products odds ratios were more elevated among participants who believed pollutants contribute "a lot" to breast cancer and moved towards the null among the other participants. In comparison, the odds ratio for breast cancer and family history was markedly higher among women who believed that heredity contributes "a lot" (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.9, 3.6) and not elevated among others (OR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5, 1.1). Conclusions Results of this study suggest that cleaning product use contributes to increased breast cancer risk. However, results also highlight the difficulty of distinguishing in retrospective self-report studies between valid associations and the influence of recall bias. Recall bias may influence higher odds ratios for product use among participants who believed that chemicals and pollutants contribute to breast cancer. Alternatively, the influence of experience on beliefs is another explanation, illustrated by the protective odds ratio for family history among women who do not believe heredity contributes "a lot." Because exposure to chemicals from household cleaning products is a biologically plausible cause of breast cancer and avoidable, associations reported here should be further examined prospectively.