C Espinosa da Silva1, S Gahagan2, J Suarez-Torres3, D Lopez-Paredes3, H Checkoway4, J R Suarez-Lopez5. 1. Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego. 9500 Gilman Drive #0725, La Jolla, CA, 92024-0725, USA. 2. Division of Academic General Pediatrics, Child Development and Community Health, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego. 9500 Gilman Drive #0832, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0832, USA. 3. Fundación Cimas del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador. De los Olivos E15-18 y las Minas, Quito, Ecuador. 4. Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego. 9500 Gilman Drive #0725, La Jolla, CA, 92024-0725, USA; University of California, San Diego, Department of Neurosciences, 9500 Gilman Drive, #0949, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0949, USA. 5. Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego. 9500 Gilman Drive #0725, La Jolla, CA, 92024-0725, USA. Electronic address: jrsuarez@health.ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding transient neurobehavioral alterations associated with episodic pesticide exposures or agricultural pesticide spray periods. We previously observed that children examined soon after a pesticide spray period (the Mother's Day flower harvest [MDH]) had lower neurobehavioral performance than children examined later. The present study builds on our previous work by incorporating longitudinal analyses from childhood through adolescence. METHODS: We examined participants in agricultural communities in Ecuador (ESPINA study) during three periods: July-August 2008 (N = 313, 4-9-year-olds); April 2016 (N = 330, 11-17-year-olds); July-October 2016 (N = 535, 11-17-year-olds). Participants were examined primarily during a period of low floricultural production. Neurobehavior was assessed using the NEPSY-II (domains: Attention/Inhibitory Control, Language, Memory/Learning, Visuospatial Processing, and Social Perception). Linear regression and generalized linear mixed models were used to examine cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between examination date (days) after the MDH and neurobehavioral outcomes, adjusting for demographic, anthropometric, and socio-economic variables. RESULTS: Participants were examined between 63 and 171 days after the MDH. Mean neurobehavioral domain scores ranged from 1.0 to 17.0 (SDrange = 2.1-3.1) in 2008 and 1.0 to 15.5 (SDrange = 2.0-2.3) in 2016. In cross-sectional analyses (2016 only; N = 523), we found significant or borderline positive associations between time after the MDH and Attention/Inhibitory Control (difference/10 days [β] = 0.22 points [95% CI = 0.03, 0.41]) and Language (β = 0.16 points [95% CI = -0.03, 0.34]). We also observed positive, longitudinal associations (2008-2016) with Attention/Inhibitory Control (β = 0.19 points [95% CI = 0.04, 0.34]) through 112 days after the harvest and Visuospatial Processing (β = 3.56, β-quadratic = -0.19 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.09]) through 92 days. CONCLUSIONS: Children examined sooner after the harvest had lower neurobehavioral performance compared to children examined later, suggesting that peak pesticide spray seasons may transiently affect neurobehavior followed by recovery during low pesticide-use periods. Reduction of pesticide exposure potential for children during peak pesticide-use periods is advised.
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding transient neurobehavioral alterations associated with episodic pesticide exposures or agricultural pesticide spray periods. We previously observed that children examined soon after a pesticide spray period (the Mother's Day flower harvest [MDH]) had lower neurobehavioral performance than children examined later. The present study builds on our previous work by incorporating longitudinal analyses from childhood through adolescence. METHODS: We examined participants in agricultural communities in Ecuador (ESPINA study) during three periods: July-August 2008 (N = 313, 4-9-year-olds); April 2016 (N = 330, 11-17-year-olds); July-October 2016 (N = 535, 11-17-year-olds). Participants were examined primarily during a period of low floricultural production. Neurobehavior was assessed using the NEPSY-II (domains: Attention/Inhibitory Control, Language, Memory/Learning, Visuospatial Processing, and Social Perception). Linear regression and generalized linear mixed models were used to examine cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between examination date (days) after the MDH and neurobehavioral outcomes, adjusting for demographic, anthropometric, and socio-economic variables. RESULTS: Participants were examined between 63 and 171 days after the MDH. Mean neurobehavioral domain scores ranged from 1.0 to 17.0 (SDrange = 2.1-3.1) in 2008 and 1.0 to 15.5 (SDrange = 2.0-2.3) in 2016. In cross-sectional analyses (2016 only; N = 523), we found significant or borderline positive associations between time after the MDH and Attention/Inhibitory Control (difference/10 days [β] = 0.22 points [95% CI = 0.03, 0.41]) and Language (β = 0.16 points [95% CI = -0.03, 0.34]). We also observed positive, longitudinal associations (2008-2016) with Attention/Inhibitory Control (β = 0.19 points [95% CI = 0.04, 0.34]) through 112 days after the harvest and Visuospatial Processing (β = 3.56, β-quadratic = -0.19 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.09]) through 92 days. CONCLUSIONS: Children examined sooner after the harvest had lower neurobehavioral performance compared to children examined later, suggesting that peak pesticide spray seasons may transiently affect neurobehavior followed by recovery during low pesticide-use periods. Reduction of pesticide exposure potential for children during peak pesticide-use periods is advised.
Authors: Jose R Suarez-Lopez; Naomi Hood; José Suárez-Torres; Sheila Gahagan; Megan R Gunnar; Dolores López-Paredes Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Elizabeth Friedman; Marnie F Hazlehurst; Christine Loftus; Catherine Karr; Kelsey N McDonald; Jose Ricardo Suarez-Lopez Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Steven T Singleton; Pamela J Lein; Oswald A Dadson; Barbara P McGarrigle; Fayssal M Farahat; Taghreed Farahat; Matthew R Bonner; Richard A Fenske; Kit Galvin; Michael R Lasarev; W Kent Anger; Diane S Rohlman; James R Olson Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Alice L Crane; Gaafar Abdel Rasoul; Ahmed A Ismail; Olfat Hendy; Matthew R Bonner; Michael R Lasarev; Manal Al-Batanony; Steven T Singleton; Khalid Khan; James R Olson; Diane S Rohlman Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Amy R Marks; Kim Harley; Asa Bradman; Katherine Kogut; Dana Boyd Barr; Caroline Johnson; Norma Calderon; Brenda Eskenazi Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Karen S Galea; Laura MacCalman; Kate Jones; John Cocker; Paul Teedon; John W Cherrie; Martie van Tongeren Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 5.563