Colt Joanne S, Lubin Jay, Camann David, Davis Scott, Cerhan James, Severson Richard K, Cozen Wendy, Hartge Patricia
Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH/DHHS, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 8112, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2004 Jan;14(1):74-83. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500307.
Epidemiologic studies have used both questionnaires and carpet dust sampling to assess residential exposure to pesticides. The consistency of the information provided by these two approaches has not been explored. In a population-based case-control study of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, carpet dust samples were collected from the homes of 513 control subjects in Detroit, Iowa, Los Angeles, and Seattle. The samples were taken from used vacuum cleaner bags and analyzed for 30 pesticides. Interviewers queried subjects about the types of pests treated in their home using a detailed questionnaire accompanied by visual aids. Geographic variations in pesticide levels were generally consistent with geographic differences in pest treatment practices. Los Angeles residents reported the most treatment for crawling insects, fleas/ticks, and termites, and Los Angeles dust samples had the highest levels of propoxur, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, permethrin, and chlordane. Iowa had the most treatment for lawn/garden weeds, and also the highest levels of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and dicamba. Although Seattle had the highest proportion of subjects treating for lawn/garden insects, the lawn/garden insecticides were higher in other sites. Multivariate linear regression revealed several significant associations between the type of pest treated and dust levels of specific pesticides. The strongest associations were between termite treatment and chlordane, and flea/tick treatment and permethrin. Most of the significant associations were consistent with known uses of the pesticides; few expected associations were absent. The consistency between the questionnaire data and pesticide residues measured in dust lends credibility to both methods for assessing residential exposure to pesticides. The combined techniques appear promising for epidemiologic studies. Interviewing is the only way to assess pesticide exposures before current carpets were in place. Dust sampling provides an objective measure of specific compounds to which a person may have been exposed through personal use of a pesticide or by drift-in or track-in from outside, and avoids recall bias.
流行病学研究使用问卷和地毯灰尘采样两种方法来评估居民对杀虫剂的接触情况。这两种方法所提供信息的一致性尚未得到探究。在一项基于人群的非霍奇金淋巴瘤病例对照研究中,从爱荷华州底特律市、洛杉矶和西雅图的513名对照对象家中采集了地毯灰尘样本。样本取自用过的吸尘器袋子,并对30种杀虫剂进行了分析。访员使用一份配有视觉辅助工具的详细问卷询问对象家中所处理害虫的种类。杀虫剂水平的地理差异总体上与害虫处理方式的地理差异一致。洛杉矶居民报告对爬虫、跳蚤/蜱虫和白蚁的处理最多,洛杉矶的灰尘样本中残杀威、毒死蜱、二嗪农、氯菊酯和氯丹的含量最高。爱荷华州对草坪/花园杂草的处理最多,2,4 - 二氯苯氧乙酸和麦草畏的含量也最高。尽管西雅图处理草坪/花园昆虫的对象比例最高,但其他地区草坪/花园杀虫剂的含量更高。多变量线性回归揭示了所处理害虫类型与特定杀虫剂灰尘水平之间的几种显著关联。最强的关联是白蚁处理与氯丹之间,以及跳蚤/蜱虫处理与氯菊酯之间。大多数显著关联与这些杀虫剂的已知用途一致;几乎没有预期的关联不存在。问卷数据与灰尘中测得的农药残留之间的一致性为评估居民对杀虫剂的接触情况的两种方法都提供了可信度。这些综合技术在流行病学研究中似乎很有前景。访谈是评估在现有地毯铺设之前的杀虫剂接触情况的唯一方法。灰尘采样提供了一种客观的测量方法,可测量一个人可能通过个人使用杀虫剂或通过从外部漂移或带入而接触到的特定化合物,并避免了回忆偏倚。