Search

Improving indoor air quality is one potential strategy to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in any setting, including nursing homes, where staff and residents have been disproportionately and negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Single group interrupted time series. A total of 81 nursing homes in a multifacility corporation in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina that installed ultraviolet air purification in their existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems between July 27, 2020,k and September 10, 2020. We linked data on the date ultraviolet air purification systems were installed with the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public Health File (weekly data reported by nursing homes on the number of residents with COVID-19 and COVID-19 deaths), public data on data on nursing home characteristics, county-level COVID-19 cases/deaths, and outside air temperature. We used an interrupted time series design and ordinary least squares regression to compare trends in weekly COVID-19 cases and deaths before and after installation of ultraviolet air purification systems. We controlled for county-level COVID-19 cases, death, and heat index. Compared with pre-installation, weekly COVID-19 cases per 1000 residents (−1.69; 95% CI, −4.32 to 0.95) and the weekly probability of reporting any COVID-19 case (−0.02; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.00) declined in the post-installation period. We did not find any difference pre- and post-installation in COVID-19–related mortality (0.00; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.02). Our findings from this small number of nursing homes in the southern United States demonstrate the potential benefits of air purification in nursing homes on COVID-19 outcomes. Intervening on air quality may have a wide impact without placing significant burden on individuals to modify their behavior. We recommend a stronger, experimental design to estimate the causal effect of installing air purification devices on improving COVID-19 outcomes in nursing homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine if firearm ownership is positively related to elevated child lead levels at a state-level, even when accounting for other sources of lead., Study Design: For this cross-sectional ecological study, we investigated whether household firearm ownership rates (a proxy for firearm-related lead exposure) was associated with the prevalence of elevated child blood lead levels in 44 US States between 2012 and 2018. To account for potential confounding, we adjusted for other known lead exposures, poverty rate, population density, race, and calendar year. To address missing data, we used multiple imputation by chained equations., Results: Prevalence of elevated child blood lead positively correlated with household firearm ownership and established predictors of lead exposure. In fully adjusted negative binomial regression models, child blood lead was positively associated with household firearm ownership and older housing; each IQR (14%) increase in household firearm ownership rate was associated with a 41% higher prevalence of childhood elevated blood lead (prevalence ratio: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.11-1.79)., Conclusion: These data provide state-level evidence that firearms may be an important source of child lead exposure. More research is needed to substantiate this relationship and identify modifiable pathways of exposure at the individual level., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest JMB has been compensated for serving as an expert witness for plaintiffs involved in PFAS-contaminated drinking water and has NIH funding: R21 ES034187. MR has grants from the CDC and NIH related to firearm injury, and has unpaid roles as Senior Strategic Advisor to AFFIRM at the Aspen Institute and as a Board Member for the NonViolence Institute. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Quantifying a person's cumulative exposure burden to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mixtures is important for risk assessment, biomonitoring, and reporting of results to participants. However, different people may be exposed to different sets of PFASs due to heterogeneity in the exposure sources and patterns. Applying a single measurement model for the entire population (e.g., by summing concentrations of all PFAS analytes) assumes that each PFAS analyte is equally informative to PFAS exposure burden for all individuals. This assumption may not hold if PFAS exposure sources systematically differ within the population. However, the sociodemographic, dietary, and behavioral characteristics that underlie systematic exposure differences may not be known, or may be due to a combination of these factors. Therefore, we used mixture item response theory, an unsupervised psychometrics and data science method, to develop a customized PFAS exposure burden scoring algorithm. This scoring algorithm ensures that PFAS burden scores can be equitably compared across population subgroups. We applied our methods to PFAS biomonitoring data from the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2018). Using mixture item response theory, we found that participants with higher household incomes had higher PFAS burden scores. Asian Americans had significantly higher PFAS burden compared with non-Hispanic Whites and other race/ethnicity groups. However, some disparities were masked when using summed PFAS concentrations as the exposure metric. This work demonstrates that our summary PFAS burden metric, accounting for sources of exposure variation, may be a more fair and informative estimate of PFAS exposure.

Background: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently lowered residential floor and windowsill dust lead hazard standards, but maintained previous post-abatement clearance standards. We examined whether the discrepancy in these regulations places children at higher risk of lead poisoning., Methods: In 250 children from Cincinnati, Ohio (2004-2008) living in homes built before 1978, we measured residential floor and windowsill dust lead loadings and blood lead concentrations at ages 1 and 2 years. Using linear regression with generalized estimating equations, we estimated covariate-adjusted associations of dust lead levels with blood lead concentrations and risk of lead poisoning., Results: An increase in floor dust lead from 10 (revised dust lead hazard standard) to 40 μg/ft 2 (post-abatement clearance standard) was associated with 26% higher (95% confidence interval (CI):15, 38) blood lead concentrations and 2.1 times the risk of blood lead concentrations ≥5 μg/dL (95% CI: 1.44, 3.06). Extrapolating our findings to US children age 1-5 years, we estimated that 6.9% (95% CI: 1.5, 17.2) of cases of blood lead concentrations ≥5 μg/dL are attributable to floor dust lead loadings between 10 and ≤40 μg/ft 2 ., Conclusions: The EPA's residential dust lead regulations place children at increased risk of lead poisoning. We recommend adopting more protective dust lead standards., Impact: We determined whether children are at increased risk of lead poisoning with the 2019 EPA residential post-abatement lead clearance standards being higher than dust lead hazard standards. In this observational study, 2019 EPA dust lead clearance standards were associated with increased risk of lead poisoning compared to the revised dust lead hazard standard. Both EPA standards were associated with increased risk of lead poisoning compared to more stringent standards employed in our study. Extrapolating our findings to US children, the 2019 EPA dust lead clearance standards could place up to 36,700 children at risk of lead poisoning., (© 2020. International Pediatric Research Foundation, Inc.)