Lauren A Wise1, Amelia K Wesselink2, Samantha Schildroth3, Antonia M Calafat4, Traci N Bethea5, Ruth J Geller2, Chad M Coleman2, Victoria Fruh3, Birgit Claus Henn3, Julianne C Botelho4, Quaker E Harmon6, Maya Thirkill2, Ganesa R Wegienka7, Donna D Baird6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: lwise@bu.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Division of Laboratory Sciences, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Office of Minority Health & Health Disparities Research, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 7. Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals used in commercial and consumer goods. Black women are underrepresented in studies of PFAS exposure. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of correlates of plasma PFAS concentrations among 1499 Black women aged 23-35 participating in the Study of Environment, Lifestyle, and Fibroids (SELF), a Detroit-based cohort study. At baseline (2010-2012), participants provided questionnaire data on socio-demographics; behaviors; diet; and menstrual, contraceptive, and reproductive histories. Using mass spectrometry in non-fasting plasma samples collected at enrollment, we quantified several PFAS, including perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), perfluorononanoate (PFNA), perfluorodecanoate (PFDA), perfluoroundecanoate (PFUnDA), and 2-N-methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetate (MeFOSAA). We used linear regression to calculate percentage differences (%D) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between selected correlates and PFAS concentrations, adjusting for all other correlates. RESULTS: PFHxS, PFOS, PFOA, and PFNA were detected in ≥97 % of women; PFDA in 86 %; MeFOSAA in 70 %; and PFUnDA in 52 %. Age, income, education, and intakes of water, alcohol, and seafood were positively associated with several PFAS. Current smoking was positively associated with MeFOSAA. Body mass index was inversely associated with most PFAS, except PFHxS. Strong inverse associations (%D; 95 % CI) were observed between parity (≥3 vs. 0 births) and PFHxS (-34.7; -43.0, -25.1) and PFOA (-33.1; -39.2, -26.3); breastfeeding duration (≥6 months vs. nulliparous) and PFOA (-31.1; -37.8, -23.7), PFHxS (-24.2; -34.5, -12.3), and PFOS (-18.4; -28.3, -7.1); recent birth (<2 years ago vs. nulliparous) and PFOA (-33.1; -39.6, -25.8), PFHxS (-29.3; -39.0, -18.1), PFNA (-25.2; -32.7, -16.8), and PFOS (-18.3; -28.3, -6.9); and intensity of menstrual bleed (heavy vs. light) and PFHxS (-18.8; -28.3, -8.2), PFOS (-16.4; -24.9, -7.1), PFNA (-10.5; -17.8, -2.6), and PFOA (-10.0; -17.2, -2.1). Current use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) was positively associated with PFOS (20.2; 1.4, 42.5), PFOA (16.2; 1.5, 33.0), and PFNA (15.3; 0.4, 32.4). CONCLUSIONS: Reproductive factors that influence PFAS elimination showed strong associations with several PFAS (reduced concentrations with parity, recent birth, lactation, heavy menstrual bleeding; increased concentrations with DMPA use).
BACKGROUND: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals used in commercial and consumer goods. Black women are underrepresented in studies of PFAS exposure. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of correlates of plasma PFAS concentrations among 1499 Black women aged 23-35 participating in the Study of Environment, Lifestyle, and Fibroids (SELF), a Detroit-based cohort study. At baseline (2010-2012), participants provided questionnaire data on socio-demographics; behaviors; diet; and menstrual, contraceptive, and reproductive histories. Using mass spectrometry in non-fasting plasma samples collected at enrollment, we quantified several PFAS, including perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), perfluorononanoate (PFNA), perfluorodecanoate (PFDA), perfluoroundecanoate (PFUnDA), and 2-N-methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetate (MeFOSAA). We used linear regression to calculate percentage differences (%D) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between selected correlates and PFAS concentrations, adjusting for all other correlates. RESULTS: PFHxS, PFOS, PFOA, and PFNA were detected in ≥97 % of women; PFDA in 86 %; MeFOSAA in 70 %; and PFUnDA in 52 %. Age, income, education, and intakes of water, alcohol, and seafood were positively associated with several PFAS. Current smoking was positively associated with MeFOSAA. Body mass index was inversely associated with most PFAS, except PFHxS. Strong inverse associations (%D; 95 % CI) were observed between parity (≥3 vs. 0 births) and PFHxS (-34.7; -43.0, -25.1) and PFOA (-33.1; -39.2, -26.3); breastfeeding duration (≥6 months vs. nulliparous) and PFOA (-31.1; -37.8, -23.7), PFHxS (-24.2; -34.5, -12.3), and PFOS (-18.4; -28.3, -7.1); recent birth (<2 years ago vs. nulliparous) and PFOA (-33.1; -39.6, -25.8), PFHxS (-29.3; -39.0, -18.1), PFNA (-25.2; -32.7, -16.8), and PFOS (-18.3; -28.3, -6.9); and intensity of menstrual bleed (heavy vs. light) and PFHxS (-18.8; -28.3, -8.2), PFOS (-16.4; -24.9, -7.1), PFNA (-10.5; -17.8, -2.6), and PFOA (-10.0; -17.2, -2.1). Current use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) was positively associated with PFOS (20.2; 1.4, 42.5), PFOA (16.2; 1.5, 33.0), and PFNA (15.3; 0.4, 32.4). CONCLUSIONS: Reproductive factors that influence PFAS elimination showed strong associations with several PFAS (reduced concentrations with parity, recent birth, lactation, heavy menstrual bleeding; increased concentrations with DMPA use).
Authors: Robert L Herrick; Jeanette Buckholz; Frank M Biro; Antonia M Calafat; Xiaoyun Ye; Changchun Xie; Susan M Pinney Journal: Environ Pollut Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 8.071
Authors: Amelia K Wesselink; Traci N Bethea; Michael McClean; Jennifer Weuve; Paige L Williams; Russ Hauser; Andreas Sjödin; Theodore M Brasky; Donna D Baird; Lauren A Wise Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Sharon K Sagiv; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Thomas F Webster; Ana Maria Mora; Maria H Harris; Antonia M Calafat; Xiaoyun Ye; Matthew W Gillman; Emily Oken Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Ann Colles; Liesbeth Bruckers; Elly Den Hond; Eva Govarts; Bert Morrens; Thomas Schettgen; Jurgen Buekers; Dries Coertjens; Tim Nawrot; Ilse Loots; Vera Nelen; Stefaan De Henauw; Greet Schoeters; Willy Baeyens; Nicolas van Larebeke Journal: Chemosphere Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 7.086
Authors: Katherine E Boronow; Julia Green Brody; Laurel A Schaider; Graham F Peaslee; Laurie Havas; Barbara A Cohn Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Jennifer E Kay; Bethsaida Cardona; Ruthann A Rudel; Laura N Vandenberg; Ana M Soto; Sofie Christiansen; Linda S Birnbaum; Suzanne E Fenton Journal: Curr Environ Health Rep Date: 2022-08-19
Authors: Andrea B Kirk; Kelsey Marie Plasse; Karli C Kirk; Clyde F Martin; Gamze Ozsoy Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 4.614