Haotian Wu1, Alexandra Olmsted1, David E Cantonwine2, Shahin Shahsavari1, Tayyab Rahil3, Cynthia Sites3, J Richard Pilsner4. 1. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 686 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01003, United States. 2. Department of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, United States. 3. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut Street, Springfield, MA 01199, United States. 4. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 686 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01003, United States. Electronic address: rpilsner@umass.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data suggest associations between phthalate exposures to a variety of adverse reproductive outcomes including reduced sperm quality and reproductive success. While mechanisms of these associations are not fully elucidated, oxidative stress has been implicated as a potential mediator. We examined associations of urinary metabolites of phthalates and phthalate alternative plasticizers with oxidative stress among couples seeking fertility treatment. METHODS: Seventeen urinary plasticizer metabolites and 15-F2t isoprostane, a biomarker of oxidative stress, were quantified in spot samples from 50 couples seeking fertility treatment who enrolled in the Sperm Environmental Epigenetics and Development Study during 2014-2015. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, percent change in isoprostane was positively associated with interquartile range increases for the oxidative metabolites of di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, [mono-2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl phthalate (MEHHP; 20.0%, p=0.02), mono-2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl phthalate (MEOHP; 24.1%, p=0.01), and mono-2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl phthalate (MECPP; 24.1%, p=0.004)], mono-isobutyl phthalate (MiBP; 17.8%, p=0.02), mono-hydroxyisobutyl phthalate (MHiBP; 27.5%, p=0.003), and cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid mono-hydroxy-isononyl ester (MHINCH; 32.3%, p=0.002). Stratification of participants by sex revealed that isoprostane was positively associated with MHiBP (41.4%, p=0.01) and monocarboxy-isononyl phthalate (MCNP; 26.0%, p=0.02) among females and MEOHP (35.8%, p=0.03), MiBP (29.2%, p=0.01), MHiBP (34.7%, p=0.007) and MHINCH (49.0%, p=0.002) among males. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that exposure to phthalates and phthalate replacements are associated with higher levels of oxidative stress in a sex-specific manner. Additional studies are needed to replicate our findings and to examine the potential health implications of the use of phthalates and alternative phthalates in consumer end products.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data suggest associations between phthalate exposures to a variety of adverse reproductive outcomes including reduced sperm quality and reproductive success. While mechanisms of these associations are not fully elucidated, oxidative stress has been implicated as a potential mediator. We examined associations of urinary metabolites of phthalates and phthalate alternative plasticizers with oxidative stress among couples seeking fertility treatment. METHODS: Seventeen urinary plasticizer metabolites and 15-F2t isoprostane, a biomarker of oxidative stress, were quantified in spot samples from 50 couples seeking fertility treatment who enrolled in the Sperm Environmental Epigenetics and Development Study during 2014-2015. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, percent change in isoprostane was positively associated with interquartile range increases for the oxidative metabolites of di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, [mono-2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl phthalate (MEHHP; 20.0%, p=0.02), mono-2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl phthalate (MEOHP; 24.1%, p=0.01), and mono-2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl phthalate (MECPP; 24.1%, p=0.004)], mono-isobutyl phthalate (MiBP; 17.8%, p=0.02), mono-hydroxyisobutyl phthalate (MHiBP; 27.5%, p=0.003), and cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid mono-hydroxy-isononyl ester (MHINCH; 32.3%, p=0.002). Stratification of participants by sex revealed that isoprostane was positively associated with MHiBP (41.4%, p=0.01) and monocarboxy-isononyl phthalate (MCNP; 26.0%, p=0.02) among females and MEOHP (35.8%, p=0.03), MiBP (29.2%, p=0.01), MHiBP (34.7%, p=0.007) and MHINCH (49.0%, p=0.002) among males. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that exposure to phthalates and phthalate replacements are associated with higher levels of oxidative stress in a sex-specific manner. Additional studies are needed to replicate our findings and to examine the potential health implications of the use of phthalates and alternative phthalates in consumer end products.
Authors: Patricia A Hunt; Kara E Koehler; Martha Susiarjo; Craig A Hodges; Arlene Ilagan; Robert C Voigt; Sally Thomas; Brian F Thomas; Terry J Hassold Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Michael S Bloom; Germaine M Buck Louis; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Jose M Maisog; Amy J Steuerwald; Patrick J Parsons Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Trevor G Cooper; Elizabeth Noonan; Sigrid von Eckardstein; Jacques Auger; H W Gordon Baker; Hermann M Behre; Trine B Haugen; Thinus Kruger; Christina Wang; Michael T Mbizvo; Kirsten M Vogelsong Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Susan M Duty; Manori J Silva; Dana B Barr; John W Brock; Louise Ryan; Zuying Chen; Robert F Herrick; David C Christiani; Russ Hauser Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Robert E Chapin; Wendie A Robbins; Laura A Schieve; Anne M Sweeney; Sonia A Tabacova; Kay M Tomashek Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Alexandra M Huffman; Haotian Wu; Allyson Rosati; Tayyab Rahil; Cynthia K Sites; Brian W Whitcomb; J Richard Pilsner Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Thomas J van T Erve; Emma M Rosen; Emily S Barrett; Ruby H N Nguyen; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Ginger L Milne; Antonia M Calafat; Shanna H Swan; Kelly K Ferguson Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Angel D Davalos; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Thomas J van T' Erve; Alexander P Keil; Paige L Williams; John D Meeker; Ginger L Milne; Shanshan Zhao; Russ Hauser; Kelly K Ferguson Journal: Environ Res Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 8.431
Authors: Lydia M Louis; Lucy K Kavi; Meleah Boyle; Walkiria Pool; Deepak Bhandari; Víctor R De Jesús; Stephen Thomas; Anna Z Pollack; Angela Sun; Seyrona McLean; Ana M Rule; Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 13.352
Authors: Lariah Edwards; Nathan L McCray; Brianna N VanNoy; Alice Yau; Ruth J Geller; Gary Adamkiewicz; Ami R Zota Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 6.371
Authors: Feiby L Nassan; Paige L Williams; Audrey J Gaskins; Joseph M Braun; Jennifer B Ford; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Haotian Wu; Allison Kupsco; Allan Just; Antonia M Calafat; Emily Oken; Joseph M Braun; Alison P Sanders; Adriana Mercado-Garcia; Alejandra Cantoral; Ivan Pantic; Martha M Téllez-Rojo; Robert O Wright; Andrea A Baccarelli; Andrea L Deierlein Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 9.031