4.7 Article

Development of a questionnaire-based insecticide exposure assessment method and comparison with urinary insecticide biomarkers in young Australian children

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 178, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108613

Keywords

Biomonitoring; Pesticides; Human exposure; Organophosphate insecticides; Pyrethroid insecticides

Funding

  1. University of Queensland Research Scholarships

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Environmental and behavioural factors assessed via an online questionnaire were compared to insecticide metabolite concentrations in urine collected from 61 children from South East Queensland, Australia. Metabolite concentrations (mu g/L urine) were transformed using the natural logarithm prior to regression analysis and adjusted for age and creatinine. A significant dietary association was reported for vegetable intake and 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA) (beta: 1.47 for top quartile of intake versus bottom quartile of intake 95% CI: 0.36, 2.57). Intake of vegetables and fruit were also positively associated with sum non-specific organophosphate metabolites (Sigma nsOP). Sigma nsOP concentrations were lower when fruits and vegetables were always or almost always washed prior to cooking or eating (beta: -0.69 95% CI: -1.25, -0.12). In multivariable modelling 3-PBA concentrations were also associated with hand-washing frequency (beta: 1.69 95% CI: 0.76, 2.61 for <1 day versus?>?3 day), presence of a dog in the home (beta: 0.73 95% CI: 0.07, 1.38), frequency of pest-spray use in the summer months (beta: 0.88 95% CI: 0.22, 1.54 weekly versus less than weekly) and season (beta: 0.88 95% CI: 0.32, 1.44 for spring/summer versus winter/autumn). This is the first study in Australia to report dietary, behavioural and environmental factors associated with biomarkers of insecticide exposure in young children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available