Emily W Harville1, Arti Shankar2, Pierre Buekens3, Jeffrey K Wickliffe4, Maureen Y Lichtveld4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. Electronic address: eharvill@tulane.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. 4. Department of Global Environmental Health Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The chemical, physical, economic, and social effects of a major oil spill might adversely affect pregnancy health. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between oil spill exposure and birth outcomes in a cohort of women living near the Gulf of Mexico at the time of the 2010 oil spill. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2016, 1375 women reported their exposure to the oil spill, and at least one livebirth. Five hundred and three had births both before and after the oil spill. Indicators of oil spill exposure included self-reported financial consequences, direct contact with oil, traumatic experiences, loss of use of the coast, and involvement in litigation. Birth outcomes were low birthweight (LBW; birthweight <2500 g) and preterm birth (PTB; >3 weeks early). Women who were not pregnant at the time of the interview (n = 1001) self-reported outcomes, while women who were pregnant (n = 374) primarily had them abstracted from medical records (n = 374). All pregnancies prior to the oil spill were considered unexposed; those after the oil spill were considered exposed or unexposed depending on interview responses. Generalized estimating equations were used to control for clustering within women, with control for confounders. RESULTS: The most common type of exposure was economic (49%), but 302 women (22.0%) reported some degree of direct contact with the oil. Associations between most indicators of oil spill exposure and pregnancy outcomes were null, although when all pregnancies were examined, associations were seen with high levels of contact with oil for LBW (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 2.19, 95% CI, 1.29-3.71) and PTB (aOR 2.27, 1.34-3.87). DISCUSSION: In this community-based cohort, we did not find associations between report of exposure to the oil spill, with the possible exception of high oil contact in some analyses, and birth outcomes. Research incorporating specific biomarkers of oil spill exposure and stress biomarkers would be valuable, to allow for assessing both perceived and actual exposure, especially when direct toxicant exposure is minimal.
BACKGROUND: The chemical, physical, economic, and social effects of a major oil spill might adversely affect pregnancy health. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between oil spill exposure and birth outcomes in a cohort of women living near the Gulf of Mexico at the time of the 2010 oil spill. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2016, 1375 women reported their exposure to the oil spill, and at least one livebirth. Five hundred and three had births both before and after the oil spill. Indicators of oil spill exposure included self-reported financial consequences, direct contact with oil, traumatic experiences, loss of use of the coast, and involvement in litigation. Birth outcomes were low birthweight (LBW; birthweight <2500 g) and preterm birth (PTB; >3 weeks early). Women who were not pregnant at the time of the interview (n = 1001) self-reported outcomes, while women who were pregnant (n = 374) primarily had them abstracted from medical records (n = 374). All pregnancies prior to the oil spill were considered unexposed; those after the oil spill were considered exposed or unexposed depending on interview responses. Generalized estimating equations were used to control for clustering within women, with control for confounders. RESULTS: The most common type of exposure was economic (49%), but 302 women (22.0%) reported some degree of direct contact with the oil. Associations between most indicators of oil spill exposure and pregnancy outcomes were null, although when all pregnancies were examined, associations were seen with high levels of contact with oil for LBW (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 2.19, 95% CI, 1.29-3.71) and PTB (aOR 2.27, 1.34-3.87). DISCUSSION: In this community-based cohort, we did not find associations between report of exposure to the oil spill, with the possible exception of high oil contact in some analyses, and birth outcomes. Research incorporating specific biomarkers of oil spill exposure and stress biomarkers would be valuable, to allow for assessing both perceived and actual exposure, especially when direct toxicant exposure is minimal.
Authors: Ann M Middlebrook; Daniel M Murphy; Ravan Ahmadov; Elliot L Atlas; Roya Bahreini; Donald R Blake; Jerome Brioude; Joost A de Gouw; Fred C Fehsenfeld; Gregory J Frost; John S Holloway; Daniel A Lack; Justin M Langridge; Rich A Lueb; Stuart A McKeen; James F Meagher; Simone Meinardi; J Andrew Neuman; John B Nowak; David D Parrish; Jeff Peischl; Anne E Perring; Ilana B Pollack; James M Roberts; Thomas B Ryerson; Joshua P Schwarz; J Ryan Spackman; Carsten Warneke; A R Ravishankara Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jeffrey K Wickliffe; Bridget Simon-Friedt; Jessi L Howard; Ericka Frahm; Buffy Meyer; Mark J Wilson; Deepa Pangeni; Edward B Overton Journal: Risk Anal Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Bridget R Simon-Friedt; Jessi L Howard; Mark J Wilson; David Gauthe; Donald Bogen; Daniel Nguyen; Ericka Frahm; Jeffrey K Wickliffe Journal: J Environ Manage Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 6.789