Ibrahim Zaganjor1, Alexander P Keil1, Thomas J Luben1,2, Tania A Desrosiers1, Lawrence S Engel1, Jennita Reefhuis3, Adrian M Michalski4, Peter H Langlois5, Andrew F Olshan1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. Epidemiology Branch, Public Health and Environmental Systems Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 3. Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, Albany, New York. 5. Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, Texas.
Abstract
In population research, exposure to environmental contaminants is often indirectly assessed by linking residence to geocoded databases of environmental exposures. We explored the potential for misclassification of residence-based environmental exposure as a result of not accounting for the workplace environments of employed pregnant women using data from a National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) analysis of drinking water haloacetic acids and hypospadias. Methods: The original analysis used NBDPS data from women with haloacetic acid exposure information in eight states who delivered an infant with second- or third-degree hypospadias (cases) or a male infant without a birth defect (controls) between 2000 and 2005. In this bias analysis, we used a uniform distribution to randomly select 11%-14% of employed women that were assumed to change municipal water systems between home and work and imputed new contaminant exposures for tap water beverages consumed at work among the selected women using resampled values from the control population. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between hypospadias and haloacetic acid ingestion with the same covariates and exposure cut-points as the original study. We repeated this process across 10,000 iterations and then completed a sensitivity analysis of an additional 10,000 iterations where we expanded the uniform distribution (i.e., 0%, 28%). Results: In both simulations, the average results of the 10,000 iterations were nearly identical to those of the initial study. Conclusions: Our results suggest that household estimates may be sufficient proxies for worksite exposures to haloacetic acids in tap water.
In population research, exposure to environmental contaminants is often indirectly assessed by linking residence to geocoded databases of environmental exposures. We explored the potential for misclassification of residence-based environmental exposure as a result of not accounting for the workplace environments of employed pregnant women using data from a National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) analysis of drinking water haloacetic acids and hypospadias. Methods: The original analysis used NBDPS data from women with haloacetic acid exposure information in eight states who delivered an infant with second- or third-degree hypospadias (cases) or a male infant without a birth defect (controls) between 2000 and 2005. In this bias analysis, we used a uniform distribution to randomly select 11%-14% of employed women that were assumed to change municipal water systems between home and work and imputed new contaminant exposures for tap water beverages consumed at work among the selected women using resampled values from the control population. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between hypospadias and haloacetic acid ingestion with the same covariates and exposure cut-points as the original study. We repeated this process across 10,000 iterations and then completed a sensitivity analysis of an additional 10,000 iterations where we expanded the uniform distribution (i.e., 0%, 28%). Results: In both simulations, the average results of the 10,000 iterations were nearly identical to those of the initial study. Conclusions: Our results suggest that household estimates may be sufficient proxies for worksite exposures to haloacetic acids in tap water.
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: Jennita Reefhuis; Suzanne M Gilboa; Marlene Anderka; Marilyn L Browne; Marcia L Feldkamp; Charlotte A Hobbs; Mary M Jenkins; Peter H Langlois; Kimberly B Newsome; Andrew F Olshan; Paul A Romitti; Stuart K Shapira; Gary M Shaw; Sarah C Tinker; Margaret A Honein Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2015-06-02
Authors: David A Savitz; Philip C Singer; Amy H Herring; Katherine E Hartmann; Howard S Weinberg; Christina Makarushka Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Peter Weyer; Anthony Rhoads; Jonathan Suhl; Thomas J Luben; Kristin M Conway; Peter H Langlois; Dereck Shen; Dong Liang; Soman Puzhankara; Marlene Anderka; Erin Bell; Marcia L Feldkamp; Adrienne T Hoyt; Bridget Mosley; Jennita Reefhuis; Paul A Romitti Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Rachel B Smith; Susan C Edwards; Nicky Best; John Wright; Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen; Mireille B Toledano Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: J Michael Wright; Amanda Evans; John A Kaufman; Zorimar Rivera-Núñez; Michael G Narotsky Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 9.031