Sheng Ren1, Erin Haynes2, Eric Hall3, Monir Hossain4, Aimin Chen2, Louis Muglia5, Long Lu6, Emily DeFranco5. 1. Department of Mathematics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; Division of Biomedical Informatics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 2. Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 3. Perinatal Institute, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 5. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH; Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 6. Division of Biomedical Informatics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between increased exposure to airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5) during the periconception period with risk of congenital anomalies. STUDY DESIGN: Using birth certificate data from the Ohio Department of Health (2006-2010) and PM2.5 data from the US Environmental Protection Agency's 57 monitoring stations located throughout Ohio, the geographic coordinates of the mother's residence for each birth were linked to the nearest PM2.5 monitoring station and monthly exposure averages were calculated. The association between congenital anomalies and increased PM2.5 levels was estimated, with adjustment for coexistent risk factors. RESULTS: After adjustment for coexisting risk factors, exposure to increased levels of PM2.5 in the air during the periconception period was modestly associated with risk of congenital anomalies. Compared with other periconception exposure windows, increased exposure during the 1 month before conception was associated with the highest risk increase at lesser distances from monitoring stations. The strongest influences of PM2.5 on individual malformations were found with abdominal wall defects and hypospadias, especially during the 1-month preconception. CONCLUSIONS: Increased exposure to PM2.5 in the periconception period is associated with some modest risk increases for congenital malformations. The most susceptible time of exposure appears to be the 1 month before and after conception. Although the increased risk with PM2.5 exposure is modest, the potential impact on a population basis is noteworthy because all pregnant women have some degree of exposure.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between increased exposure to airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5) during the periconception period with risk of congenital anomalies. STUDY DESIGN: Using birth certificate data from the Ohio Department of Health (2006-2010) and PM2.5 data from the US Environmental Protection Agency's 57 monitoring stations located throughout Ohio, the geographic coordinates of the mother's residence for each birth were linked to the nearest PM2.5 monitoring station and monthly exposure averages were calculated. The association between congenital anomalies and increased PM2.5 levels was estimated, with adjustment for coexistent risk factors. RESULTS: After adjustment for coexisting risk factors, exposure to increased levels of PM2.5 in the air during the periconception period was modestly associated with risk of congenital anomalies. Compared with other periconception exposure windows, increased exposure during the 1 month before conception was associated with the highest risk increase at lesser distances from monitoring stations. The strongest influences of PM2.5 on individual malformations were found with abdominal wall defects and hypospadias, especially during the 1-month preconception. CONCLUSIONS: Increased exposure to PM2.5 in the periconception period is associated with some modest risk increases for congenital malformations. The most susceptible time of exposure appears to be the 1 month before and after conception. Although the increased risk with PM2.5 exposure is modest, the potential impact on a population basis is noteworthy because all pregnant women have some degree of exposure.
Authors: Elissa H Wilker; Petter L Ljungman; Mary B Rice; Itai Kloog; Joel Schwartz; Diane R Gold; Petros Koutrakis; Joseph A Vita; Gary F Mitchell; Ramachandran S Vasan; Emelia J Benjamin; Naomi M Hamburg; Murray A Mittleman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 2.778
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: Gretchen T Goldman; James A Mulholland; Armistead G Russell; Matthew J Strickland; Mitchel Klein; Lance A Waller; Paige E Tolbert Journal: Environ Health Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Anna Schembari; Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen; Joaquin Salvador; Audrey de Nazelle; Marta Cirach; Payam Dadvand; Rob Beelen; Gerard Hoek; Xavier Basagaña; Martine Vrijheid Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Jeanette A Stingone; Thomas J Luben; Julie L Daniels; Montserrat Fuentes; David B Richardson; Arthur S Aylsworth; Amy H Herring; Marlene Anderka; Lorenzo Botto; Adolfo Correa; Suzanne M Gilboa; Peter H Langlois; Bridget Mosley; Gary M Shaw; Csaba Siffel; Andrew F Olshan Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Kunj R Sheth; Erin Kovar; Jeffrey T White; Tiffany M Chambers; Erin C Peckham-Gregory; Marisol O'Neill; Peter H Langlois; Abhishek Seth; Michael E Scheurer; Philip J Lupo; Carolina J Jorgez Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Shuk-Mei Ho; James D Lewis; Emeran A Mayer; Scott E Plevy; Emil Chuang; Stephen M Rappaport; Kenneth Croitoru; Joshua R Korzenik; Jeffrey Krischer; Jeffrey S Hyams; Richard Judson; Manolis Kellis; Michael Jerrett; Gary W Miller; Melanie L Grant; Nataly Shtraizent; Gerard Honig; Andrés Hurtado-Lorenzo; Gary D Wu Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Zana Percy; Emily DeFranco; Fan Xu; Eric S Hall; Erin N Haynes; David Jones; Louis J Muglia; Aimin Chen Journal: Environ Res Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Jeffrey T White; Erin Kovar; Tiffany M Chambers; Kunj R Sheth; Erin C Peckham-Gregory; Marisol O'Neill; Peter H Langlois; Carolina J Jorgez; Philip J Lupo; Abhishek Seth Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 3.390