No abstract

In pesticide biomonitoring studies, researchers typically collect either single voids or daily (24-h) urine samples. Collection of 24-h urine samples is considered the "gold-standard", but this method places a high burden on study volunteers, requires greater resources, and may result in misclassification of exposure or underestimation of dose due to noncompliance with urine collection protocols. To evaluate the potential measurement error introduced by single void samples, we present an analysis of exposure and dose for two commonly used pesticides based on single morning void (MV) and 24-h urine collections in farmers and farm children. The agreement between the MV concentration and its corresponding 24-h concentration was analyzed using simple graphical and statistical techniques and risk assessment methodology. A consistent bias towards overprediction of pesticide concentration was found among the MVs, likely in large part due to the pharmacokinetic time course of the analytes in urine. These results suggest that the use of single voids can either over- or under-estimate daily exposure if recent pesticide applications have occurred. This held true for both farmers as well as farm children, who were not directly exposed to the applications. As a result, single void samples influenced the number of children exposed to chlorpyrifos whose daily dose estimates were above levels of toxicologic significance. In populations where fluctuations in pesticide exposure are expected (e.g., farm families), the pharmacokinetics of the pesticide and the timing of exposure events and urine collection must be understood when relying on single voids as a surrogate for longer time-frames of exposure.

No abstract

Background: High oral exposure and biological vulnerabilities may put formula-fed infants at risk for manganese-induced neurotoxicity. Objectives: We sought to characterize manganese concentrations in public drinking water and prepared infant formulas commonly purchased in the United States, integrate information from these sources into a health risk assessment specific to formula-fed infants, and examine whether households that receive water with elevated manganese concentrations avoid or treat the water, which has implications for formula preparation. Methods: Manganese was measured in 27 infant formulas and nearly all Minnesota community public water systems (CPWS). The risk assessment produced central tendency and upper-end exposure estimates that were compared to a neonatal animal-based health reference dose (RfD) and considered possible differences in bioavailability. A survey study assessed esthetic concerns, treatment, and use of water in a Twin Cities community with various levels of manganese in drinking water. Results: Ten percent of CPWSs were estimated to exceed the EPA health advisory level of . Manganese concentrations in formula ranged from 69.8 to , with amino formula concentrations. Central tendency estimates of soy and amino acid formula reconstituted with water at the CPWS 95th percentile manganese concentration exceeded the neonatal-based RfD. Upper-end estimates of manganese intake from formula alone, independent of any water contribution, equaled or exceeded the neonatal-based RfD. In the survey study, we observed increased awareness of esthetic issues and water avoidance at higher manganese concentrations, but these concentrations were not a reliable consumption deterrent, as the majority of households with inside tap drinking water results above reported drinking the water. Discussion: Excessive exposure to manganese early in life can have long-lasting neurological impacts. This assessment underscores the potential for manganese overexposure in formula-fed infants. U.S. agencies that regulate formula and drinking water must work collaboratively to assess and mitigate potential risks. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7901

No abstract