Search

Residents in rural Kentucky (KY) and suburban Ohio (OH) expressed concerns about radon exposure and lung cancer. Although 85% of lung cancer cases are caused by tobacco smoke, radon exposure accounts for 10-15% of lung cancer cases. Academic and community members from the University of KY and the University of Cincinnati developed and pilot-tested a family-centered, youth-engaged home radon testing toolkit. The radon toolkit included radon information, and how to test, interpret, and report back findings. We educated youth as citizen scientists and their teachers in human subjects protection and home radon testing using the toolkit in the classroom. Youth citizen scientists explained the study to their parents and obtained informed consent. One hundred students were trained in human subjects protection, 27 had parental permission to be citizen scientists, and 18 homeowners completed surveys. Radon values ranged from < 14.8 Bq/m 3 to 277.5 Bq/m 3 . Youth were interested and engaged in citizen science and this family-centered, school-based project provided a unique opportunity to further the healthy housing and quality education components of the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Further research is needed to test the impact of student-led, family-centered citizen science projects in environmental health as part of school curricula.

Background: Measurement of environmental biomarkers in biomedia is increasingly used as a method of exposure characterization in human population studies. Reporting the results of biomarker measurements back to study participants has been controversial, including questions of ethics and whether the study participants would want to receive and would understand the results., Methods: Recently we mailed individual measurements of two serum biomarkers, perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to participants in three exposure studies of persons living in the Ohio River Valley, of whom 60 were parents of children who had been sampled. Many had serum concentrations of PFOA above the US population 95th percentile value. Reporting forms used in the three studies were somewhat different (either tables or charts for comparison to US population values) and varied in complexity. With all reports, we included information about concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in the general population, and a survey designed to ascertain the opinions of the study participants about the information they received., Results: Approximately 33% (273/821) returned the survey, and of those, 96% reported that they were pleased that we had sent them the report. Most (86%) responded that the results were easy to understand and the enclosed fact sheet was helpful in answering questions (87%). Regarding the amount of information, most felt that we provided the "right amount" (78%) but some "too much" (7%) and some "too little" (15%). The majority (53%) were surprised at their serum concentrations. Of those with serum values > 13.0 ng/mL, 74% responded that they thought their serum concentration was "high", but only 22% of those with serum concentrations ≤5.6 responded that their concentration was "low". Surprisingly, many talked to no one about their levels; those who did were most likely to discuss the report with family members., Conclusions: Reporting back individual environmental biomarker results is generally well received by study participants, and those with high concentrations perceived them to be high. Questions remain as to why study participants did not discuss their results with others., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)