Ying Zhou1, Suzanne M Gilboa2, Michele L Herdt3, Philip J Lupo4, W Dana Flanders5, Yang Liu6, Mikyong Shin7, Mark A Canfield8, Russell S Kirby9. 1. Environmental Health Tracking Branch, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: yzhou2@cdc.gov. 2. Birth Defects Branch, Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health, Albany, NY, USA; State University of New York at Albany, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Rensselaer, NY, USA. 4. Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology-Oncology, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 7. Environmental Health Tracking Branch, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 8. Birth Defects Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX, USA. 9. Department of Community and Family Health, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there is some evidence that maternal exposure to ambient air pollution is associated with orofacial clefts in offspring, the epidemiologic studies have been largely equivocal. We evaluated whether maternal exposure to elevated county-level ambient fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5µm (PM2.5) and ozone during early gestation was associated with a higher prevalence of orofacial clefts. METHODS: Birth data consisting of 4.7 million births from 2001 to 2007 were obtained from National Birth Defects Prevention Network for four states - Arizona, Florida, New York (excluding New York City), and Texas. The air pollution exposure assessment for gestational weeks 5-10 was based on county-level average concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone data generated using a Bayesian fusion model available through CDC's Environmental Public Health Tracking Network. Two outcomes were analyzed separately: cleft lip with or without cleft palate, cleft palate alone. In logistic regression analyses, we adjusted for factors that were suspected confounders or modifiers of the association between the prevalence of orofacial clefts and air pollution, i.e., infant sex, race-ethnicity, maternal education, smoking status during pregnancy, whether this was mother's first baby, maternal age. RESULTS: Each 10µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentration was significantly associated with cleft palate alone (OR =1.43, 95% CI: 1.11-1.86). There was no significant association between PM2.5 concentration and cleft lip with or without cleft palate. No associations were observed between ozone exposure and the two outcomes of orofacial clefts. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that PM2.5 significantly increased the risk of cleft palate alone, but did not change the incidence of cleft lip with or without palate. Ozone levels did not correlate with incidence of orofacial clefts. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: While there is some evidence that maternal exposure to ambient air pollution is associated with orofacial clefts in offspring, the epidemiologic studies have been largely equivocal. We evaluated whether maternal exposure to elevated county-level ambient fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5µm (PM2.5) and ozone during early gestation was associated with a higher prevalence of orofacial clefts. METHODS: Birth data consisting of 4.7 million births from 2001 to 2007 were obtained from National Birth Defects Prevention Network for four states - Arizona, Florida, New York (excluding New York City), and Texas. The air pollution exposure assessment for gestational weeks 5-10 was based on county-level average concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone data generated using a Bayesian fusion model available through CDC's Environmental Public Health Tracking Network. Two outcomes were analyzed separately: cleft lip with or without cleft palate, cleft palate alone. In logistic regression analyses, we adjusted for factors that were suspected confounders or modifiers of the association between the prevalence of orofacial clefts and air pollution, i.e., infant sex, race-ethnicity, maternal education, smoking status during pregnancy, whether this was mother's first baby, maternal age. RESULTS: Each 10µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentration was significantly associated with cleft palate alone (OR =1.43, 95% CI: 1.11-1.86). There was no significant association between PM2.5 concentration and cleft lip with or without cleft palate. No associations were observed between ozone exposure and the two outcomes of orofacial clefts. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that PM2.5 significantly increased the risk of cleft palate alone, but did not change the incidence of cleft lip with or without palate. Ozone levels did not correlate with incidence of orofacial clefts. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Air pollution; Cleft lip; Cleft palate; Ozone; PM(2.5)
Authors: Philip J Lupo; Elaine Symanski; Wenyaw Chan; Laura E Mitchell; D Kim Waller; Mark A Canfield; Peter H Langlois Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Jean Paul Tanner; Jason L Salemi; Amy L Stuart; Haofei Yu; Melissa M Jordan; Chris DuClos; Philip Cavicchia; Jane A Correia; Sharon M Watkins; Russell S Kirby Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-07-18 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: W Dana Flanders; Mitchel Klein; Lyndsey A Darrow; Matthew J Strickland; Stefanie E Sarnat; Jeremy A Sarnat; Lance A Waller; Andrea Winquist; Paige E Tolbert Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Nelly D Saenen; Michelle Plusquin; Esmée Bijnens; Bram G Janssen; Wilfried Gyselaers; Bianca Cox; Frans Fierens; Geert Molenberghs; Joris Penders; Karen Vrijens; Patrick De Boever; Tim S Nawrot Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Francisco Manuel Gasca-Sanchez; Jesus Santos-Guzman; Ricardo Elizondo-Dueñaz; Gerardo Manuel Mejia-Velazquez; Cecilia Ruiz-Pacheco; Deborah Reyes-Rodriguez; Elsie Vazquez-Camacho; José Ascencion Hernandez-Hernandez; Rosa Del Carmen Lopez-Sanchez; Rocio Ortiz-Lopez; Daniel Olvera-Posada; Augusto Rojas-Martinez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jo Evans; Amita Bansal; Danielle A J M Schoenaker; Nicolas Cherbuin; Michael J Peek; Deborah L Davis Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 11.035
Authors: Alison K Krajewski; Kristen M Rappazzo; Peter H Langlois; Lynne C Messer; Danelle T Lobdell Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 2.661