4.6 Article

Exposure to herbicides in house dust and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jes.2012.115

关键词

childhood leukemia; herbicides; pesticides; dust

资金

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [R01 ES09137, P42-ES04705]
  2. National Cancer Institute [7590-S-04, 7590-S-01, N02-CP-11015]
  3. National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the association between exposure to herbicides and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Dust samples were collected from homes of 269 ALL cases and 333 healthy controls (<8 years of age at diagnosis/reference date and residing in same home since diagnosis/reference date) in California, using a high-volume surface sampler or household vacuum bags. Amounts of agricultural or professional herbicides (alachlor, metolachlor, bromoxynil, bromoxynil octanoate, pebulate, butylate, prometryn, simazine, ethalfluralin, and pendimethalin) and residential herbicides (cyanazine, trifluralin, 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA), mecoprop, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), chlorthal, and dicamba) were measured. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by logistic regression. Models included the herbicide of interest, age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, year and season of dust sampling, neighborhood type, and residence type. The risk of childhood ALL was associated with dust levels of chlorthal; compared to homes with no detections, ORs for the first, second, and third tertiles were 1.49 (95% CI: 0.82-2.72), 1.49 (95% CI: 0.83-2.67), and 1.57 (95% CI: 0.90-2.73), respectively (P-value for linear trend = 0.05). The magnitude of this association appeared to be higher in the presence of alachlor. No other herbicides were identified as risk factors of childhood ALL. The data suggest that home dust levels of chlorthal, and possibly alachlor, are associated with increased risks of childhood ALL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据