Results from the Results from the Agricultural Health Study Agricultural Health Study Pesticide Exposure Study Pesticide Exposure Study Linda Sheldon a , Kent Thomas a , Guadalupe Chapa a , Sydney Gordon b Martin Jones c , James Raymer d , Dale Sandler e , Jane Hoppin e Mustafa Dosemeci f , Aaron Blair f , and Michael Alavanja f a National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency b Battelle Memorial Institute, c University of Iowa, d RTI International; e National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, f National Cancer Institute
44
Embed
Results from the Agricultural Health Study Pesticide Exposure Study
Results from the Agricultural Health Study Pesticide Exposure Study. Linda Sheldon a , Kent Thomas a , Guadalupe Chapa a , Sydney Gordon b Martin Jones c , James Raymer d , Dale Sandler e , Jane Hoppin e Mustafa Dosemeci f , Aaron Blair f , and Michael Alavanja f - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Results from theResults from theAgricultural Health StudyAgricultural Health StudyPesticide Exposure StudyPesticide Exposure Study
Linda Sheldona, Kent Thomasa, Guadalupe Chapaa, Sydney Gordonb Martin Jonesc, James Raymerd, Dale Sandlere, Jane Hoppine
Mustafa Dosemecif, Aaron Blairf, and Michael Alavanjaf
aNational Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency bBattelle Memorial Institute, cUniversity of Iowa, dRTI International; eNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, fNational Cancer Institute
2
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
Background of the Agricultural Health Study
Purpose of the Pesticide Exposure Study
Exposure Study Procedures
Applicator Exposure Measurement Results
Spouse and Child Measurement Results
3
AGRICULTURAL HEALTH STUDY RESEARCHERS• NCI and NIEHS are leading the epidemiological study and investigations of cancer and non-cancer health outcomes
• University of Iowa Department of Epidemiology operates the Iowa AHS Field Station
• Battelle Center for Public Health Research and Evaluation operates the North Carolina AHS Field Station
• Westat operates the AHS Coordinating Center
• EPA and NIOSH are leading AHS exposure sub-studies
• Battelle, University of Iowa, and RTI International conducted the AHS Pesticide Exposure Study
4
AHS BACKGROUNDAHS BACKGROUND
The epidemiological study is designed to:
• Measure cancer and non-cancer health risks in the agricultural community
• Examine associations between use of agricultural chemicals, other exposures, and disease
• Determine factors that promote good health
5
AHS PHASE I (1993 – 1997)AHS PHASE I (1993 – 1997)
Prospective cohort enrolled in Iowa and North Carolina:
• 52,395 private licensed pesticide applicators
• 32,347 spouses of private pesticide applicators
• 4,916 commercial applicators (IA only)
Questionnaires collected information about pesticide use, work practices, other exposures, lifestyle factors, and health.
6
AHS PHASE II (1998 – 2004)
Follow-up through cancer registries and vital records linkage
5-year follow-up questionnaire via computer assisted telephone interview (CATI)
Update health status, exposures, and lifestyle
Buccal Cell Collection and Dietary Health Questionnaire
Nested studies of exposure and specific health outcomes
AHS PHASE III (2005 - 2008)
Continued cancer and mortality follow-upFollow-up telephone interviewCross sectional and panel studies, nested case-control studies
7
AHS RESULTS DISSEMINATION
AHS Web Site
• www.aghealth.org
Direct communication to study participants
Fact sheets and other information distributed to and through Iowa and North Carolina Cooperative Extension Services
Scientific and Informational Presentations
Journal Publications
8
The AHS is examining possible links between pesticide use and health risks
Information on use of up to 50 common insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fumigants obtained from AHS enrollment and take-home questionnaires – current and historical uses
Information on work practices collected from questionnaires
Measurement of urinary biomarkers for participating applicator family members
Relationships between spouse and applicator urinary biomarkers
Relationship between spouse 2,4-D urine levels and applicator work practices or household factors
34
SPOUSE AND CHILD URINARY BIOMARKER MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Geometric Means Ranges
N
Pre-App.
Urine
ug/L
Post-App.
Urine
ug/L
Post-App.
Urine
ug/L
2,4-D
Spouse 39 - 41 1.3 1.8 < QL – 59a
Child 9 1.6 2.0 < QL – 5.9
Chlorpyrifos (TCP)
Spouse 6 - 8 7.6 4.3 1.1 – 8.3
Child 3 5.5 3.1 1.3 – 5.3
aSpouse with highest measurement reported handling 2,4-D on monitoring day.
Preliminary Results
35
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Applicator Urine (ug/L)
Sp
ou
se U
rin
e (u
g/L
)Spearman Correlation is 0.64, p < 0.0001
SPOUSE AND APPLICATOR POST-APPLICATION URINE 2,4-D CONCENTRATIONS
Preliminary Results
36
Observed Applicator Work N
Median Spouse Urine
2,4-D ug/L p-valuea
Glove use during HML No 10 3.2 0.03
Yes 31 1.0
Minor spills, splashes, leaks, drips
Yes 8 3.9 0.01
No 33 1.2
Adjust nozzles during application
Yes 10 3.8 0.01
No 29 1.0
a Mann-Whitney U Non parametric comparison test
Spouse’s Post-Application 2,4-D Levels based on Selected Applicator’s Work Practices
Preliminary Results
37
Reported Household Activities N
Median Spouse Urine
2,4-D ug/L p-valuea
Applicator’s removal of boots/shoes before entering home
Yes 23 2.1 0.11
No 18 0.9
Spouse washed the applicator’s clothing in past week
Yes 29 1.7 0.56
No 7 1.8
2,4-D use in the lawn or garden during past year
Yes 5 2.4 0.50
No 36 1.7
a Mann-Whitney U Non parametric comparison test
Spouse’s Post-Application 2,4-D Levels Based on Selected Household Activities
Preliminary Results
38
Home Distance From N
Median Spouse Urine
2,4-D ug/L p-valuea
Area where 2,4-D was mixed/loaded today
<200 ft 21 2.4 0.61
>200 ft 18 1.7
Nearest area where 2,4-D was applied today
<200 ft 8 1.8 0.96
>200 ft 32 1.9
Nearest area where 2,4-D was ever applied
<200 ft 32 1.9 0.73
>200 ft 8 1.9
a Mann-Whitney U Non parametric comparison test
Spouse’s Post-Application 2,4-D Levels Based on Home’s Distance from Pesticide Use
Preliminary Results
39
APPLICATOR MEASUREMENTS PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Large range in exposures for spray 2,4-D applicators in this study
Lower exposures and range of exposures for chlorpyrifos applicators in this study
Chlorpyrifos exposures for users of liquid products were much higher than those for users of granular products
Significant differences in exposure were found between many exposure strata
40
APPLICATOR MEASUREMENTSPRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Differences in exposure for different application methods (hand spray > broadcast > in-furrow)
Glove use was an important factor – wearing protective gloves reduced urine levels ~70%
Role of enclosed tractor cabs in reducing exposures is less clear for mixer/loader/applicators
Significant associations between urine and dermal or air measures – strongest for hand loading
Several other factors appear to be important in increasing or decreasing exposures to 2,4-D
41
SPOUSE AND CHILD PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Urinary 2,4-D levels were low but measurable for a majority of the spouses and children of 2,4-D applicators (geometric means 2 ug/L)
One spouse reported directly handling a product containing 2,4-D and had the highest urine level (59 ug/L)
Urinary TCP levels were measurable for the spouses and children of chlorpyrifos applicators – but these levels were similar to those found in non-farm populations
42
SPOUSE AND CHILD PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Spouse and applicator post-application urine 2,4-D levels were significantly associated
Some pesticide applicator work practices were significantly associated with spouse urine 2,4-D levels
Some hygiene and household (laundering work clothing, removal of work boots, distance to fields) were not associated with significantly higher exposures to family members in this study
Further study is needed with more people and for different chemicals
43
COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS
Journal articles in preparation
Plan for development of AHS/PES outreach materials (brochure and slide sets)
Audience
• AHS participants
• Pesticide safety educators
• Cooperative Extension Services
• Pesticide users
44
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Researchers at several organizations provided key contributions to the AHS Pesticide Exposure Study design and implementation:
EPA: Ruth Allen (OPP), Carry Croghan, Paul Jones
AHS Federal Investigators: Cynthia Hines (NIOSH)
NC AHS Field Station: Charles Knott and Joy Pierce (Battelle CPHRE)
IA AHS Field Station: Charles Lynch and Ellen Heywood (University of Iowa)
Field Study: Steven Reynolds (Colorado St. University), Gerald Akland (RTI International), Craig Hayes (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Statistical Services)
Sample Analysis: Marcia Nishioka (Battelle Columbus), Robin Helburn (RTI International), and David Camann (Southwest Research Institute)
DISCLAIMER
Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy.