Comparison of Trihalomethane exposure assessment metrics in epidemiologic analyses of reproductive and developmental outcomes.

Thomas J Luben, Rachel M Shaffer, Elaina Kenyon, Wendy N Nembhard, Kari A Weber, John Nuckols, J Michael Wright
Author Information
  1. Thomas J Luben: Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RTP, NC, Washington, DC, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Luben.tom@epa.gov.
  2. Rachel M Shaffer: Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RTP, NC, Washington, DC, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
  3. Elaina Kenyon: Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, RTP, NC, USA.
  4. Wendy N Nembhard: Arkansas Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Department of Epidemiology, Fay. W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
  5. Kari A Weber: Arkansas Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Department of Epidemiology, Fay. W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
  6. John Nuckols: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA; JRN Environmental Health Sciences, LTD, North Bethesda, MD, USA.
  7. J Michael Wright: Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RTP, NC, Washington, DC, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Researchers have developed exposure assessment metrics for disinfection by-products (DBPs) utilizing drinking water monitoring data and accounting for spatial and temporal variability, water consumption, and showering and bathing time with an expectation of decreasing exposure misclassification compared to the use of measured concentrations at public water supply (PWS) monitoring locations alone.
OBJECTIVE: We used exposure data collected for a previous study of DBPs to evaluate how different sources of information impact trihalomethane (THM) exposure estimates.
METHODS: We compared gestational exposure estimates to THMs based on water utility monitoring data alone, statistical imputation of daily concentrations to incorporate temporal variability, and personal water consumption and use (bathing and showering). We used Spearman correlation coefficients and ranked kappa statistics to compare exposure classifications.
RESULTS: Exposure estimates based on measured or imputed daily THM concentrations, self-reported consumption, or bathing and showering differed substantially from estimates based solely on concentrations from PWS quarterly monitoring reports. Ranked exposure classifications, high to low quartiles or deciles, were generally consistent across each exposure metric (i.e., a subject with "high" exposure based on measured or imputed THM concentrations generally remained in the "high" category across exposure metrics.) The measured concentrations and imputed daily (i.e., spline regression) concentrations were highly correlated (r���=���0.98). The weighted kappa statistics comparing exposure estimates using different exposure metrics ranged from 0.27 to 0.89, with the highest values for the ingestion + bathing/showering metrics compared to metrics for bathing/showering only (0.76 and 0.89). Bathing and showering contributed the most to "total" THM exposure estimates.
IMPACT STATEMENT: We compare exposure metrics capturing temporal variability and multiple estimates of personal THM exposure with THM concentrations from PWS monitoring data. Our results show exposure estimates based on imputed daily concentrations accounting for temporal variability were very similar to the measured THM concentrations. We observed low agreement between imputed daily concentrations and ingestion-based estimates. Considering additional routes of exposure (e.g., inhalation and dermal) slightly increased agreement with the measured PWS exposure estimate in this population. Overall, the comparison of exposure assessment metrics allows researchers to understand the added value of additional data collection for future epidemiologic analyses of DBPs.

Keywords

References

  1. Environ Res. 2012 Apr;114:1-11 [PMID: 22436294]
  2. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jul;113(7):863-70 [PMID: 16002374]
  3. Water Res. 2001 Oct;35(15):3545-50 [PMID: 11561613]
  4. Epidemiology. 1999 May;10(3):233-7 [PMID: 10230830]
  5. Environ Res. 2021 May;196:110280 [PMID: 33035558]
  6. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 21;17(24): [PMID: 33371304]
  7. Birth Defects Res. 2018 Jul 17;110(12):1027-1042 [PMID: 30133956]
  8. J Clin Pathol. 2008 Aug;61(8):975-6 [PMID: 18663061]
  9. Environ Health Perspect. 2001 Jun;109(6):597-604 [PMID: 11445514]
  10. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;14(6):466-72 [PMID: 15026776]
  11. Environ Res. 2011 May;111(4):499-509 [PMID: 21316653]
  12. Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Oct;117(10):1486-93 [PMID: 20019896]
  13. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Dec;113(12):1808-13 [PMID: 16330369]
  14. Sci Total Environ. 2006 Jul 31;366(1):65-73 [PMID: 16126253]
  15. Epidemiology. 1998 Sep;9(5):484-9 [PMID: 9730025]
  16. Environ Res. 2007 Feb;103(2):211-20 [PMID: 17189628]
  17. Occup Environ Med. 2001 Jul;58(7):443-6 [PMID: 11404448]
  18. Water Res. 2013 Oct 15;47(16):6130-40 [PMID: 23993731]
  19. J Appl Toxicol. 2016 Sep;36(9):1095-111 [PMID: 26649444]
  20. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 May;111(5):688-94 [PMID: 12727595]
  21. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2003 Jan;13(1):17-23 [PMID: 12595880]
  22. Environ Health Perspect. 1996 Oct;104(10):1056-61 [PMID: 8930546]
  23. Chemosphere. 2002 Jun;47(9):1007-18 [PMID: 12108692]
  24. Occup Environ Med. 2005 Jul;62(7):494-9 [PMID: 15961627]
  25. Environ Epidemiol. 2022 Mar 31;6(2):e207 [PMID: 35434460]
  26. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2005 Mar;15(2):138-46 [PMID: 15150535]
  27. Risk Anal. 2000 Oct;20(5):637-51 [PMID: 11110211]
  28. Sci Total Environ. 1997 Dec 3;208(1-2):41-7 [PMID: 9496647]
  29. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Feb;110 Suppl 1:61-74 [PMID: 11834464]
  30. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2005 May;15(3):212-6 [PMID: 15226753]
  31. Water Res X. 2021 Jan 22;11:100089 [PMID: 33554102]
  32. Sci Total Environ. 2015 Jun 15;518-519:280-9 [PMID: 25770450]
  33. Sci Total Environ. 2010 Jan 1;408(3):456-72 [PMID: 19910022]
  34. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(1):770-80 [PMID: 24266582]
  35. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Feb;110 Suppl 1:53-60 [PMID: 11834463]
  36. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2011 Jul 15;254(2):100-26 [PMID: 21296098]
  37. Environ Sci Technol. 2019 Oct 15;53(20):12026-12034 [PMID: 31525872]
  38. Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Feb 15;175(4):276-8 [PMID: 22156021]
  39. Environ Health. 2010 Oct 07;9:59 [PMID: 20929560]
  40. Water Res. 2001 Apr;35(6):1572-86 [PMID: 11317905]
  41. Environ Pollut. 2018 Dec;243(Pt B):1126-1133 [PMID: 30253304]
  42. Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Apr;114(4):514-21 [PMID: 16581538]
  43. Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Feb;125(2):269-277 [PMID: 27518881]
  44. Occup Environ Med. 2001 Jul;58(7):447-52 [PMID: 11404449]
  45. J Clin Pathol. 2009 Feb;62(2):192 [PMID: 19181640]
  46. Pediatrics. 2011 Feb;127(2):e389-97 [PMID: 21220402]
  47. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 Jan;31(1):59-65 [PMID: 20850520]
  48. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2000 Jul-Aug;10(4):321-6 [PMID: 10981726]
  49. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2009 May;19(4):405-13 [PMID: 18506206]
  50. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Dec 1;164(11):1043-51 [PMID: 16957027]
  51. Environ Int. 2012 Sep 15;45:59-67 [PMID: 22572118]
  52. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2006 May 26;3:6 [PMID: 16729887]
  53. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2000 Nov-Dec;10(6 Pt 1):586-99 [PMID: 11140442]
  54. Pain Rep. 2019 Aug 07;4(4):e732 [PMID: 31579844]
  55. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2001 Nov-Dec;11(6):522-31 [PMID: 11791168]
  56. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015 Aug;103(8):656-69 [PMID: 26033852]
  57. Occup Environ Med. 2008 Jun;65(6):420-9 [PMID: 18032532]
  58. Occup Environ Med. 2004 Jan;61(1):65-72 [PMID: 14691275]
  59. Environ Health Perspect. 1994 Dec;102(12):1082-7 [PMID: 7713021]
  60. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Dec;119(12):1824-30 [PMID: 21810554]
  61. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2006 Dec;69(23):2095-136 [PMID: 17060096]
  62. Environ Health Perspect. 2021 Sep;129(9):97012 [PMID: 34585603]

Grants

  1. EPA999999/Intramural EPA
  2. U01 DD001229/NCBDD CDC HHS
  3. U01 DD001285/NCBDD CDC HHS
  4. U01 DD001306/NCBDD CDC HHS

MeSH Term

Humans
Data Collection
Household Products

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0exposureconcentrationsestimatesmetricsTHMmeasuredwatermonitoringdatabaseddailyimputedtemporalvariabilityshoweringPWS0assessmentDBPsconsumptionbathingcomparedeaccountingusealoneuseddifferentpersonalkappastatisticscompareclassificationsExposurelowgenerallyacrossi"high"89bathing/showeringagreementadditionalepidemiologicanalysesBACKGROUND:Researchersdevelopeddisinfectionby-productsutilizingdrinkingspatialtimeexpectationdecreasingmisclassificationpublicsupplylocationsOBJECTIVE:collectedpreviousstudyevaluatesourcesinformationimpacttrihalomethaneMETHODS:gestationalTHMsutilitystatisticalimputationincorporateSpearmancorrelationcoefficientsrankedRESULTS:self-reporteddifferedsubstantiallysolelyquarterlyreportsRankedhighquartilesdecilesconsistentmetricsubjectremainedcategorysplineregressionhighlycorrelatedr���=���098weightedcomparingusingranged27highestvaluesingestion+76Bathingcontributed"total"IMPACTSTATEMENT:capturingmultipleresultsshowsimilarobservedingestion-basedConsideringroutesginhalationdermalslightlyincreasedestimatepopulationOverallcomparisonallowsresearchersunderstandaddedvaluecollectionfutureComparisonTrihalomethanereproductivedevelopmentaloutcomesDisinfectionBy-ProductsAssessmentTemporalVariationTrihalomethanesWaterUtilityMonitoringData

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.