Maternal exposure to ozone and PM{sub 2.5} and the prevalence of orofacial clefts in four U.S. states

Journal Article · Wed Feb 15 04:00:00 EST 2017 · Environmental Research

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVRES.2016.11.007· OSTI ID:22689532

Zhou, Ying ^[1]; Gilboa, Suzanne M. ^[2]; Herdt, Michele L. ^[3]; Lupo, Philip J. ^[4]; Flanders, W. Dana ^[5]; Liu, Yang ^[6]; Shin, Mikyong ^[1]; Canfield, Mark A. ^[7]; Kirby, Russell S. ^[8]

---

1. Environmental Health Tracking Branch, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (United States)
2. Birth Defects Branch, Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (United States)
3. New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health, Albany, NY (United States)
4. Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology-Oncology, Houston, TX (United States)
5. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA (United States)
6. Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA (United States)
7. Birth Defects Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX (United States)
8. Department of Community and Family Health, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL (United States)

Background: While there is some evidence that maternal exposure to ambient air pollution is associated with orofacial clefts in offspring, the epidemiologic studies have been largely equivocal. We evaluated whether maternal exposure to elevated county-level ambient fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5 µm (PM{sub 2.5}) and ozone during early gestation was associated with a higher prevalence of orofacial clefts. Methods: Birth data consisting of 4.7 million births from 2001 to 2007 were obtained from National Birth Defects Prevention Network for four states — Arizona, Florida, New York (excluding New York City), and Texas. The air pollution exposure assessment for gestational weeks 5–10 was based on county-level average concentrations of PM{sub 2.5} and ozone data generated using a Bayesian fusion model available through CDC's Environmental Public Health Tracking Network. Two outcomes were analyzed separately: cleft lip with or without cleft palate, cleft palate alone. In logistic regression analyses, we adjusted for factors that were suspected confounders or modifiers of the association between the prevalence of orofacial clefts and air pollution, i.e., infant sex, race-ethnicity, maternal education, smoking status during pregnancy, whether this was mother's first baby, maternal age. Results: Each 10 µg/m{sup 3} increase in PM{sub 2.5} concentration was significantly associated with cleft palate alone (OR =1.43, 95% CI: 1.11–1.86). There was no significant association between PM{sub 2.5} concentration and cleft lip with or without cleft palate. No associations were observed between ozone exposure and the two outcomes of orofacial clefts. Conclusions: Our study suggests that PM{sub 2.5} significantly increased the risk of cleft palate alone, but did not change the incidence of cleft lip with or without palate. Ozone levels did not correlate with incidence of orofacial clefts. - Highlights: • This is a large study with about 4.7 million births and 7000 orofacial cleft cases. • PM{sub 2.5} significantly increased the risk of cleft palate alone. • PM{sub 2.5} did not change the incidence of cleft lip with or without palate. • Ozone levels did not correlate with incidence of orofacial clefts.

• OSTI ID: 22689532
• Journal Information: Environmental Research, Journal Name: Environmental Research Vol. 153; ISSN ENVRAL; ISSN 0013-9351
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
AIR POLLUTION
FINE PARTICLES
OZONE
PREGNANCY
REGRESSION ANALYSIS