Lauren E Johns1, Glinda S Cooper2, Audrey Galizia3, John D Meeker4. 1. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA. Electronic address: laujohns@umich.edu. 2. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460, USA. Electronic address: Cooper.Glinda@epa.gov. 3. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Edison, NJ 08837, USA. Electronic address: Galizia.Audrey@epa.gov. 4. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA. Electronic address: meekerj@umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to review exposure assessment issues that need to be addressed in designing and interpreting epidemiology studies of phthalates, a class of chemicals commonly used in consumer and personal care products. Specific issues include population trends in exposure, temporal reliability of a urinary metabolite measurement, and how well a single urine sample may represent longer-term exposure. The focus of this review is on seven specific phthalates: diethyl phthalate (DEP); di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP); diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP); butyl benzyl phthalate (BBzP); di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); diisononyl phthalate (DiNP); and diisodecyl phthalate (DiDP). METHODS: Comprehensive literature search using multiple search strategies. RESULTS: Since 2001, declines in population exposure to DEP, BBzP, DBP, and DEHP have been reported in the United States and Germany, but DEHP exposure has increased in China. Although the half-lives of various phthalate metabolites are relatively short (3 to 18h), the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for phthalate metabolites, based on spot and first morning urine samples collected over a week to several months, range from weak to moderate, with a tendency toward higher ICCs (greater temporal stability) for metabolites of the shorter-chained (DEP, DBP, DiBP and BBzP, ICCs generally 0.3 to 0.6) compared with those of the longer-chained (DEHP, DiNP, DiDP, ICCs generally 0.1 to 0.3) phthalates. Additional research on optimal approaches to addressing the issue of urine dilution in studies of associations between biomarkers and different type of health effects is needed. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the measurement of urinary metabolite concentrations in urine could serve as a valuable approach to estimating exposure to phthalates in environmental epidemiology studies. Careful consideration of the strengths and limitations of this approach when interpreting study results is required.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to review exposure assessment issues that need to be addressed in designing and interpreting epidemiology studies of phthalates, a class of chemicals commonly used in consumer and personal care products. Specific issues include population trends in exposure, temporal reliability of a urinary metabolite measurement, and how well a single urine sample may represent longer-term exposure. The focus of this review is on seven specific phthalates: diethyl phthalate (DEP); di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP); diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP); butyl benzyl phthalate (BBzP); di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); diisononyl phthalate (DiNP); and diisodecyl phthalate (DiDP). METHODS: Comprehensive literature search using multiple search strategies. RESULTS: Since 2001, declines in population exposure to DEP, BBzP, DBP, and DEHP have been reported in the United States and Germany, but DEHP exposure has increased in China. Although the half-lives of various phthalate metabolites are relatively short (3 to 18h), the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for phthalate metabolites, based on spot and first morning urine samples collected over a week to several months, range from weak to moderate, with a tendency toward higher ICCs (greater temporal stability) for metabolites of the shorter-chained (DEP, DBP, DiBP and BBzP, ICCs generally 0.3 to 0.6) compared with those of the longer-chained (DEHP, DiNP, DiDP, ICCs generally 0.1 to 0.3) phthalates. Additional research on optimal approaches to addressing the issue of urine dilution in studies of associations between biomarkers and different type of health effects is needed. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the measurement of urinary metabolite concentrations in urine could serve as a valuable approach to estimating exposure to phthalates in environmental epidemiology studies. Careful consideration of the strengths and limitations of this approach when interpreting study results is required.
Authors: Hermann Fromme; Gabriele Bolte; Holger M Koch; Jürgen Angerer; Sigrun Boehmer; Hans Drexler; Richard Mayer; Bernhard Liebl Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: James L Preau; Lee-Yang Wong; Manori J Silva; Larry L Needham; Antonia M Calafat Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Judy S LaKind; Jon R Sobus; Michael Goodman; Dana Boyd Barr; Peter Fürst; Richard J Albertini; Tye E Arbuckle; Greet Schoeters; Yu-Mei Tan; Justin Teeguarden; Rogelio Tornero-Velez; Clifford P Weisel Journal: Environ Int Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: John D Meeker; Howard Hu; David E Cantonwine; Hector Lamadrid-Figueroa; Antonia M Calafat; Adrienne S Ettinger; Mauricio Hernandez-Avila; Rita Loch-Caruso; Martha María Téllez-Rojo Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Mary S Wolff; Stephanie M Engel; Gertrud S Berkowitz; Xiaoyun Ye; Manori J Silva; Chenbo Zhu; James Wetmur; Antonia M Calafat Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: James A McCubrey; Kvin Lertpiriyapong; Linda S Steelman; Steve L Abrams; Li V Yang; Ramiro M Murata; Pedro L Rosalen; Aurora Scalisi; Luca M Neri; Lucio Cocco; Stefano Ratti; Alberto M Martelli; Piotr Laidler; Joanna Dulińska-Litewka; Dariusz Rakus; Agnieszka Gizak; Paolo Lombardi; Ferdinando Nicoletti; Saverio Candido; Massimo Libra; Giuseppe Montalto; Melchiorre Cervello Journal: Aging (Albany NY) Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 5.682
Authors: Kim G Harley; Kimberly Berger; Stephen Rauch; Katherine Kogut; Birgit Claus Henn; Antonia M Calafat; Karen Huen; Brenda Eskenazi; Nina Holland Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: David C Dorman; Weihsueh Chiu; Barbara F Hales; Russ Hauser; Kamin J Johnson; Ellen Mantus; Susan Martel; Karen A Robinson; Andrew A Rooney; Ruthann Rudel; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Susan L Schantz; Katrina M Waters Journal: J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 6.393