4.6 Article

The Association of Ambient Air Pollution and Traffic Exposures With Selected Congenital Anomalies in the San Joaquin Valley of California

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 177, 期 10, 页码 1074-1085

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws367

关键词

air pollution; birth outcomes; congenital anomalies; traffic

资金

  1. National Institute for Environmental Health Science [P20 ES018173]
  2. US Environmental Protection Agency [RD834596]
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Center of Excellence Award [U50/CCU913241]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Congenital anomalies are a leading cause of infant mortality and are important contributors to subsequent morbidity. Studies suggest associations between environmental contaminants and some anomalies, although evidence is limited. We aimed to investigate whether ambient air pollutant and traffic exposures in early gestation contribute to the risk of selected congenital anomalies in the San Joaquin Valley of California, 19972006. Seven exposures and 5 outcomes were included for a total of 35 investigated associations. We observed increased odds of neural tube defects when comparing the highest with the lowest quartile of exposure for several pollutants after adjusting for maternal race/ethnicity, education, and multivitamin use. The adjusted odds ratio for neural tube defects among those with the highest carbon monoxide exposure was 1.9 (95 confidence interval: 1.1, 3.2) compared with those with the lowest exposure, and there was a monotonic exposure-response across quartiles. The highest quartile of nitrogen oxide exposure was associated with neural tube defects (adjusted odds ratio 1.8, 95 confidence interval: 1.1, 2.8). The adjusted odds ratio for the highest quartile of nitrogen dioxide exposure was 1.7 (95 confidence interval: 1.1, 2.7). Ozone was associated with decreased odds of neural tube defects. Our results extend the limited body of evidence regarding air pollution exposure and adverse birth outcomes.

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