Does short-term, airborne lead exposure during pregnancy affect birth outcomes? Quasi-experimental evidence from NASCAR's deleading policy.
Birth outcomes
Infant health
Lead exposure
Quasi-experiment
Journal
Environment international
ISSN: 1873-6750
Titre abrégé: Environ Int
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7807270
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
24
03
2022
revised:
02
06
2022
accepted:
13
06
2022
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
25
6
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is evidence of a weak placental-fetal barrier to lead, suggesting that maternal lead exposure could affect the fetus. The health consequences for newborns from in utero lead exposure are not well understood. We estimated the effects by trimester, of short-term (<1 week), airborne lead exposure during pregnancy on birth outcomes. We use quasi-experimental variation in airborne lead exposure during pregnancy, based on NASCAR's deleading of racing fuel in 2007, in a difference-in-differences model, to estimate the effect of deleading on the birth outcomes of all live births (n = 147,673) in the Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia Metropolitan Statistical Area between 2004 and 2009. After deleading, children born to mothers residing <4000 m of Charlotte Motor Speedway (relative to those residing >10,000 m) experienced an average increase in birthweight (BW) of 102.50 g [P < 0.001]. The probability of low birthweight (LBW) declined by 0.045 [P = 0.001], preterm (PRE) births by 0.03 [P = 0.04], and small for gestational age (SGA) by 0.04 [P = 0.002]. We find that benefits accrue primarily in preterm LBW and SGA babies, and from decreased lead exposure in the first trimester. Short-term exposure to airborne lead during pregnancy adversely affects birth outcomes. Reducing even very brief exposure to airborne lead during pregnancy may improve birth outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is evidence of a weak placental-fetal barrier to lead, suggesting that maternal lead exposure could affect the fetus. The health consequences for newborns from in utero lead exposure are not well understood.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
We estimated the effects by trimester, of short-term (<1 week), airborne lead exposure during pregnancy on birth outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
We use quasi-experimental variation in airborne lead exposure during pregnancy, based on NASCAR's deleading of racing fuel in 2007, in a difference-in-differences model, to estimate the effect of deleading on the birth outcomes of all live births (n = 147,673) in the Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia Metropolitan Statistical Area between 2004 and 2009.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After deleading, children born to mothers residing <4000 m of Charlotte Motor Speedway (relative to those residing >10,000 m) experienced an average increase in birthweight (BW) of 102.50 g [P < 0.001]. The probability of low birthweight (LBW) declined by 0.045 [P = 0.001], preterm (PRE) births by 0.03 [P = 0.04], and small for gestational age (SGA) by 0.04 [P = 0.002]. We find that benefits accrue primarily in preterm LBW and SGA babies, and from decreased lead exposure in the first trimester.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Short-term exposure to airborne lead during pregnancy adversely affects birth outcomes. Reducing even very brief exposure to airborne lead during pregnancy may improve birth outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35749996
pii: S0160-4120(22)00281-1
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107354
pmc: PMC9829110
mid: NIHMS1858999
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
107354Subventions
Organisme : Intramural EPA
ID : EPA999999
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
BJOG. 2015 Feb;122(3):322-8
pubmed: 24824048
Pediatrics. 1992 Dec;90(6):855-61
pubmed: 1437425
Environ Int. 2018 Dec;121(Pt 1):981-989
pubmed: 30213473
Am J Epidemiol. 2020 Jun 1;189(6):613-622
pubmed: 31845719
BMJ. 1999 Oct 23;319(7217):1093-7
pubmed: 10531097
J Perinatol. 2006 Mar;26(3):154-62
pubmed: 16453008
Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Nov;114(11):1730-5
pubmed: 17107860
J Environ Econ Manage. 2018;88:259-282
pubmed: 30996495
Am J Ind Med. 1994 Jul;26(1):13-32
pubmed: 8074121
Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Sep 15;150(6):590-7
pubmed: 10489998
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2006 Mar;209(2):123-32
pubmed: 16376613
Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:144-159
pubmed: 30014896
Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Oct;119(10):1513-6
pubmed: 21749964
Environ Health Perspect. 1990 Nov;89:101-5
pubmed: 2088735
Am J Ind Med. 2000 Sep;38(3):300-9
pubmed: 10940968
Occup Environ Med. 2011 Mar;68(3):231-4
pubmed: 20798002
Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Nov 1;152(9):829-37
pubmed: 11085394
BMC Pediatr. 2005 Nov 09;5:40
pubmed: 16280080
PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001175
pubmed: 22412353
Chemosphere. 2012 Jun;87(11):1201-7
pubmed: 22309709
Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2018 Jan;10(1):307-341
pubmed: 30867889
Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Oct;118(10):1471-5
pubmed: 20562053
Environ Health Perspect. 1994 Oct;102(10):876-80
pubmed: 9644197
JAMA. 2017 Mar 28;317(12):1244-1251
pubmed: 28350927
Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(1):739-46
pubmed: 24321041
Lancet. 2018 Feb 3;391(10119):462-512
pubmed: 29056410
Environ Health. 2011 Mar 30;10:24
pubmed: 21450073
N Engl J Med. 1990 Jan 11;322(2):83-8
pubmed: 2294437
Environ Pollut. 2017 Aug;227:484-489
pubmed: 28494400
Reprod Toxicol. 2014 Dec;50:138-44
pubmed: 25461912
Environ Res. 2018 Jan;160:12-19
pubmed: 28938191
Environ Res. 2019 Nov;178:108643
pubmed: 31473504
Environ Res. 2015 Feb;137:108-19
pubmed: 25531815
Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jul;113(7):894-9
pubmed: 16002379
Environ Health. 2015 Apr 07;14:21
pubmed: 25889033