Dataset Information

Evaluating consumer exposure to disinfecting chemicals against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated health risks.

ABSTRACT: Disinfection of surfaces has been recommended as one of the most effective ways to combat the spread of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, overexposure to disinfecting chemicals may lead to unintended human health risks. Here, using an indoor fate and chemical exposure model, we estimate human exposure to 22 disinfecting chemicals on the lists recommended by various governmental agencies against COVID-19, resulting from contact with disinfected surfaces and handwashing. Three near-field exposure routes, i.e., mouthing-mediated oral ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption, are considered to calculate the whole-body uptake doses and blood concentrations caused by single use per day for three age groups (3, 14, and 24-year-old). We also assess the health risks by comparing the predicted whole-body uptake doses with in vivo toxicological data and the predicted blood concentrations with in vitro bioactivity data. Our results indicate that both the total exposure and relative contribution of each exposure route vary considerably among the disinfecting chemicals due to their diverse physicochemical properties. 3-year-old children have consistent higher exposure than other age groups, especially in the scenario of contact with disinfected surfaces, due to their more frequent hand contact and mouthing activities. Due to the short duration of handwashing, we do not expect any health risk from the use of disinfecting chemicals in handwashing. In contrast, exposure from contact with disinfected surfaces may result in health risks for certain age groups especially children, even the surfaces are disinfected once a day. Interestingly, risk assessments based on whole-body uptake doses and in vivo toxicological data tend to give higher risk estimates than do those based on blood concentrations and in vitro bioactivity data. Our results reveal the most important exposure routes for disinfecting chemicals used in the indoor environment; they also highlight the need for more accurate data for both chemical properties and toxicity to better understand the risks associated with the increased use of disinfecting chemicals in the pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Li D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7470762 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating consumer exposure to disinfecting chemicals against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated health risks.

Li Dingsheng D Sangion Alessandro A Li Li L

Environment international 20200903

Disinfection of surfaces has been recommended as one of the most effective ways to combat the spread of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, overexposure to disinfecting chemicals may lead to unintended human health risks. Here, using an indoor fate and chemical exposure model, we estimate human exposure to 22 disinfecting chemicals on the lists recommended by various governmental agencies against COVID-19, resulting from contact with disinfect ...[more]

PMID: 32927283

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExposure to non-persistent chemicals in consumer products is ubiquitous and associated with endocrine-disrupting effects. These effects have been linked to infertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in some studies and could affect couple fecundability, i.e. the capacity to conceive a pregnancy, quantified as time to pregnancy (TTP).Objective and rationaleFew epidemiologic studies have examined the impact of non-persistent chemicals specifically on TTP, and the results of these studies have not been synthesized. We undertook a systematic review to summarize the strength of evidence for associations of common non-persistent chemicals with couple fecundability and to identify gaps and limitations in the literature, with the aim of informing policy decisions and future research.Search methodsWe performed an electronic search of English language literature published between 1 January 2007 and 25 August 2017 in MEDLINE, EMBASE.com, Global Health, DART/TOXLINE, POPLINE and DESTAF. We included human retrospective and prospective cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies that examined phthalates, bisphenol A, triclosan, triclocarban, benzophenones, parabens and glycol ethers in consumer products, and considered TTP or fecundability as an outcome among women, men and couples conceiving without medical assistance. We excluded editorials, opinion pieces, introductions to special sections, articles that described only lifestyle (e.g. caffeine, stress) or clinical factors (e.g. semen parameters, IVF success). Standardized forms for screening, data extraction and study quality were developed using DistillerSR software and completed in duplicate. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias and devised additional quality metrics based on specific methodological features of fecundability studies.OutcomesThe search returned 3456 articles. There were 15 papers from 12 studies which met inclusion criteria, of which eight included biomarkers of chemical exposure. Studies varied widely in terms of exposure characterization, precluding a meta-analytic approach. Among the studies that measured exposure using biospecimens, results were equivocal for associations between either male or female phthalate exposure and TTP. There was preliminary support for associations of female exposure to some parabens and glycol ethers and of male exposure to benzophenone with longer TTP, but further research and replication of these results are needed. The results provided little to no indication that bisphenol A, triclocarban or triclosan exposure was associated with TTP.Wider implicationsDespite a growing literature on couple exposure to non-persistent endocrine-disrupting chemicals and fecundability, evidence for associations between biologically measured exposures and TTP is limited. Equivocal results with different non-persistent chemical compounds and metabolites complicate the interpretation of our findings with respect to TTP, but do not preclude action, given the documented endocrine disrupting effects on other reproductive outcomes as well as fetal development. We therefore advocate for common-sense lifestyle changes in which both females and males seeking to conceive minimize their exposure to non-persistent chemicals.Systematic review registration numberCRD42018084304.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of data regarding how the Delta variant of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines at preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 hospitalization.MethodsWe compared the effectiveness of the three vaccines during the pre- and post-Delta variant period (before and after 1 July 2021) in a large cohort of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in the Michigan Medicine healthcare system. We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) using 2 analyses: an inverse propensity weighted (IPW) Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis based on time from vaccination, and a Cox model based on calendar time with vaccination as a time-varying covariate.ResultsCompared to Ad26.COV2.S recipients, the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the post-Delta variant period was lower for BNT162b2 recipients (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [.14-.98]; P = .05) and mRNA-1273 recipients (HR = 0.21; 95% CI: [.07-.64]; P = .006). Recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than Ad26.COV2.S recipients (HR = 0.6; 95% CI: [.43-.83]; P = .003) and BNT162b2 recipients (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: [.54-.76]; P < .001). After 1 July, efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection declined for Ad26.COV2.S recipients (VE = 76% before; VE = 49% after; P = .02), BNT162b2 recipients (VE = 87% before; VE = 52% after; P < .001), and mRNA-1273 recipients (VE = 92% before; VE = 70% after; P < .001). Waning immunity and the Delta variant contributed independently and significantly to this decline.ConclusionsAlthough there is a substantial decline in effectiveness, the approved COVID-19 vaccines remain effective against infection and hospitalization due to the Delta variant. The mRNA-based vaccines are more effective than the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has taken the world by storm, especially the health care system. Medical practitioners of all specialties are being assigned to treat patients of COVID-19. In this article, two authors (T.V. and N.G.) from the Department of Neurosurgery who were deployed in the COVID-19 testing ward between April 25 and May 31, 2020 share their experience.MethodsA prospective observational study was conducted including all those who were admitted in this ward. The patients were studied according to their demographic profiles, diagnoses, admitting departments, travel history, and presence/absence of COVID-19-related symptoms. Relevant history regarding occupation, contact with patient with known COVID-19, and comorbid illness was noted. Those who tested positive for COVID-19 were studied further. The data from the institute's official record were updated until August 14, 2020.ResultsDuring the study period, there were 256 admissions in the ward, of whom 148 (92 male, 56 female) were patients and 108 were patients' attendants/relatives. Most patients were admitted under the departments of internal medicine (33, 22.3%) and general surgery (19, 12.8%). Of 148 patients, 46 (31.1%) were admitted as they were planned for a surgery/intervention. Among 148 patients, 29 (19.6%) had history of travel to or were residents of a red zone, 4 (2.7%) had history of contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19, whereas 6 (4.1%) were health care workers. One hundred four patients (70.2%) showed no COVID-19-related symptoms. Thirty-four patients (22.9%) had associated comorbid conditions. Eight patients (5 male, 3 female) with mean age of 37.6 years (range 4-69 years) tested positive for COVID-19.ConclusionsThe authors share their experience and their institute's protocol in various facets during this war against COVID-19 pandemic. Preadmission and presurgical testing of patients is important in preventing the spread of the disease amongst health care workers.

Dataset Information

Evaluating consumer exposure to disinfecting chemicals against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated health risks.

Publications

Evaluating consumer exposure to disinfecting chemicals against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated health risks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets