Search

Returning results to participants of environmental exposure studies has become more common in recent years. Despite evidence of benefits for study participants, there are challenges in communicating results to people with limited resources or capacity to mitigate chemical exposures. We interviewed N = 54 participants and compared exposure report-back conducted in 2010-2013 across three susceptible study populations: 1) low-income pregnant individuals in the Chemicals in Our Bodies (CIOB) study; 2) the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) cohort; and 3) early childhood educators (ECE). Report-back differed between the cross-sectional studies (CIOB and ECE), which offered an opportunity to consult with research staff by phone or email, and the prospective cohort study (CHAMACOS), which allowed for participants to discuss individual and group-level results directly with researchers at a community meeting. Participants in all three studies were motivated to participate by children's health and wanted more information about health implications and exposure reduction strategies, with cost and limited resources cited as common barriers to change. We observed overall positive experiences with report-back across studies, with improved environmental health literacy and constructive learning experiences that were most evident in CHAMACOS. While many noted individual actions they had made or intended to make to reduce exposures, CHAMACOS participants were more likely to mention systems-level changes achieved through actions such as contacting decision-makers and raising community awareness. Our findings suggest that researchers may have a unique opportunity to support environmental health literacy and informed action at both the individual and community or policy levels through long-term study engagement, various forms of direct consultation with study participants, and thoughtful report-back methods that leverage existing tools and are sensitive to barriers faced by specific study populations. This work informs best practices for communicating chemical exposure results among sensitive or highly exposed communities., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Participants in biomonitoring studies who receive personal exposure reports seek information to reduce exposures. Many chemical exposures are driven by systems-level policies rather than individual actions; therefore, change requires engagement in collective action. Participants' perceptions of collective action and use of report-back to support engagement remain unclear. We conducted virtual focus groups during summer 2020 in a diverse group of peripartum people from cohorts in the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program (N = 18). We assessed baseline exposure and collective action experience, and report-back preferences. Participants were motivated to protect the health of their families and communities despite significant time and cognitive burdens. They requested time-conscious tactics and accessible information to enable action to reduce individual and collective exposures. Participant input informed the design of digital report-back in the cohorts. This study highlights opportunities to shift responsibility from individuals to policymakers to reduce chemical exposures at the systems level., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Personal care products are a source of exposure to endocrine disrupting and asthma-associated chemicals. Because use of hair products differs by race/ethnicity, these products may contribute to exposure and disease disparities., Objective: This preliminary study investigates the endocrine disrupting and asthma-associated chemical content of hair products used by U.S. Black women., Methods: We used gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to test 18 hair products in 6 categories used by Black women: hot oil treatment, anti-frizz/polish, leave-in conditioner, root stimulator, hair lotion, and relaxer. We tested for 66 chemicals belonging to 10 chemical classes: ultraviolet (UV) filters, cyclosiloxanes, glycol ethers, fragrances, alkylphenols, ethanolamines, antimicrobials, bisphenol A, phthalates, and parabens., Results: The hair products tested contained 45 endocrine disrupting or asthma-associated chemicals, including every targeted chemical class. We found cyclosiloxanes, parabens, and the fragrance marker diethyl phthalate (DEP) at the highest levels, and DEP most frequently. Root stimulators, hair lotions, and relaxers frequently contained nonylphenols, parabens, and fragrances; anti-frizz products contained cyclosiloxanes. Hair relaxers for children contained five chemicals regulated by California's Proposition 65 or prohibited by EU cosmetics regulation. Targeted chemicals were generally not listed on the product label., Conclusions: Hair products used by Black women and children contained multiple chemicals associated with endocrine disruption and asthma. The prevalence of parabens and DEP is consistent with higher levels of these compounds in biomonitoring samples from Black women compared with White women. These results indicate the need for more information about the contribution of consumer products to exposure disparities. A precautionary approach would reduce the use of endocrine disrupting chemicals in personal care products and improve labeling so women can select products consistent with their values., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many common environmental chemicals are mammary gland carcinogens in animal studies, activate relevant hormonal pathways, or enhance mammary gland susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Breast cancer's long latency and multifactorial etiology make evaluation of these chemicals in humans challenging., Objective: For chemicals previously identified as mammary gland toxicants, we evaluated epidemiologic studies published since our 2007 review. We assessed whether study designs captured relevant exposures and disease features suggested by toxicological and biological evidence of genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, tumor promotion, or disruption of mammary gland development., Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed database for articles with breast cancer outcomes published in 2006-2016 using terms for 134 environmental chemicals, sources, or biomarkers of exposure. We critically reviewed the articles., Results: We identified 158 articles. Consistent with experimental evidence, a few key studies suggested higher risk for exposures during breast development to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dioxins, perfluorooctane-sulfonamide (PFOSA), and air pollution (risk estimates ranged from 2.14 to 5.0), and for occupational exposure to solvents and other mammary carcinogens, such as gasoline components (risk estimates ranged from 1.42 to 3.31). Notably, one 50-year cohort study captured exposure to DDT during several critical windows for breast development (in utero, adolescence, pregnancy) and when this chemical was still in use. Most other studies did not assess exposure during a biologically relevant window or specify the timing of exposure. Few studies considered genetic variation, but the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project reported higher breast cancer risk for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in women with certain genetic variations, especially in DNA repair genes., Conclusions: New studies that targeted toxicologically relevant chemicals and captured biological hypotheses about genetic variants or windows of breast susceptibility added to evidence of links between environmental chemicals and breast cancer. However, many biologically relevant chemicals, including current-use consumer product chemicals, have not been adequately studied in humans. Studies are challenged to reconstruct exposures that occurred decades before diagnosis or access biological samples stored that long. Other problems include measuring rapidly metabolized chemicals and evaluating exposure to mixtures., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As the number of personal exposure studies expands and trends favor greater openness and transparency in the health sciences, ethical issues arise around reporting back individual results for contaminants without clear health guidelines. Past research demonstrates that research participants want their results even when the health implications are not known. The experiences of researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) in studies that have reported personal chemical exposures can provide insights about ethical and practical approaches while also revealing areas of continued uncertainty. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and nine IRB members from seven personal exposure studies across the United States to investigate their experiences and attitudes about the report-back process. Researchers reported multiple benefits of report-back, including increasing retention and recruitment, advancing environmental health literacy, empowering study participants to take actions to reduce exposures, encouraging shifts in government and industry practices, and helping researchers discover sources of exposure through participant consultation. Researchers also reported challenges, including maintaining ongoing contact with participants, adopting protocols for notification of high exposures to chemicals without health guidelines, developing meaningful report-back materials, and resource limitations. IRB members reported concern for potential harm to participants, such as anxiety about personal results and counterproductive behavior changes. In contrast, researchers who have conducted personal report-back in their studies said that participants did not appear overly alarmed and noted that worry can be a positive outcome to motivate action to reduce harmful exposures. While key concerns raised during the early days of report-back have been substantially resolved for scientists with report-back experience, areas of uncertainty remain. These include ethical tensions surrounding the responsibility of researchers to leverage study results and resources to assist participants in policy or community-level actions to reduce chemical exposures, and how to navigate report-back to vulnerable populations., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Biomonitoring is a critical tool to assess the effects of chemicals on health, as scientists seek to better characterize life-course exposures from diverse environments. This trend, coupled with increased institutional support for community-engaged environmental health research, challenge established ethical norms related to biomonitoring results communication and data sharing between scientists, study participants, and their wider communities., Methods: Through a literature review, participant observation at workshops, and interviews, we examine ethical tensions related to reporting individual data from chemical biomonitoring studies by drawing relevant lessons from the genetics and neuroimaging fields., Results: In all three fields ethical debates about whether/how to report-back results to study participants are precipitated by two trends. First, changes in analytical methods have made more data accessible to stakeholders. For biomonitoring, improved techniques enable detection of more chemicals at lower levels, and diverse groups of scientists and health advocates now conduct exposure studies. Similarly, innovations in genetics have catalyzed large-scale projects and broadened the scope of who has access to genetic information. Second, increasing public interest in personal medical information has compelled imaging researchers to address demands by participants to know their personal data, despite uncertainties about their clinical significance. Four ethical arenas relevant to biomonitoring results communication emerged from our review: tensions between participants' right-to-know their personal results versus their ability or right-to-act to protect their health; whether and how to report incidental findings; informed consent in biobanking; and open-access data sharing., Conclusion: Ethically engaging participants in biomonitoring studies requires consideration of several issues, including scientific uncertainty about health implications and exposure sources, the ability of participants to follow up on potentially problematic results, tensions between individual and community research protections, governance and consent regarding secondary use of tissue samples, and privacy challenges in open access data sharing., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)