Temporal variation of residential pesticide use and comparison of two survey platforms: a longitudinal study among households with young children in Northern California

Abstract

BackgroundPesticide use patterns are essential inputs into human pesticide exposure models. Currently, data included for modeling purposes have mostly been collected in cross-sectional surveys. However, it is questionable whether responses to one-time surveys are representative of pesticide use over longer periods, which is needed for assessment of health impact. This study was designed to evaluate population-wide temporal variations and within-household variations in reported residential pesticide use patterns and to compare alternative pesticide data collection methods – web surveys versus telephone interviews.MethodA total of 481 households in Northern California provided up to 3 annual telephone interviews on residential pesticide use; 182 of these households provided up to 6 quarterly web surveys that covered the same topics for some of the same time periods. Information on frequency and areas of application were collected for outdoor and indoor sprays, indoor foggers, professional applications, and behind-the-neck treatments for pets. Population-wide temporal variation and within-household consistency were examined both within telephone surveys and within web surveys, and quantified using Generalized Estimating Equations and Mixed Effect Modeling. Reporting between the two methods, the telephone survey and the web survey, was also compared.ResultsUse prevalence of outdoor sprays across the population reported in both the annual telephone surveys and the quarterly web surveys decreased over time, as did behind-the-neck treatment of pets reported in the quarterly web survey. Similarly, frequencies of use of these products decreased in the quarterly web surveys. Indoor sprays showed no statistically significant population-wide temporal variation in either survey. Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated consistent use within a household for behind-the-neck treatment on pets and outdoor sprays but great variability for the use of indoor sprays. Indoor sprays were most consistently applied in the bathroom and kitchen. Outdoor sprays were consistently more often applied by male household members, while indoor sprays were not. The two survey approaches obtained fairly similar results on the prevalence of using pesticides, but found discrepancies in use frequencies. In addition, the number of products purchased was positively correlated with application frequency for outdoor sprays (R = 0.51, p = 0.0005) but not for indoor sprays.ConclusionsIn this population, repeated surveys are necessary either to obtain a reliable estimate of the average household use of pesticides or to project potential temporal changes of pesticide use. Web surveys could collect comparable data to traditional telephone surveys for some information. However, researchers need to consider the internet acceptability among the target population and balance lower participant burden against the need for sufficiently accurate time-varying measurement, to improve subject retention in longitudinal surveys.

Quantification of non-persistent pesticides in small volumes of human breast milk with ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass-spectrometry

“…dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, aldrin/dieldrin, lindane, toxaphene) in the 1970s and 1980s led to massively increased use of non-persistent organophosphate, pyrethroid and carbamate pesticides in agricultural farms, and in and around homes. 1-2 Although originally considered safer, long-term exposure to non-persistent pesticides has been associated with multiple health problems including neurological defects, cancer and infertility. 3-6 Exposure during pregnancy has been linked to poor intellectual development, increased risk of atypical neurodevelopment including cognitive impairments that persist throughout childhood, and autism spectrum disorders.…”

Home Use of a Pyrethroid-Containing Pesticide and Facial Paresthesia in a Toddler: A Case Report

“…Children have been identified as particularly vulnerable to uptake of pesticides from their environment due to frequent hand-to-mouth behavior, ingestion of soil and dust, mouthing of nonfood items, increased contact with soil, floors and carpets where spray residues settle, and higher concentrations of pesticide residues close to the floor in their breathing zone [3,4,5]. In the U.S., residential applications have been identified as the most important contributor to children’s exposure to pyrethroid insecticides [6]. …”

Assessing exposure of young children to common endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the home environment: a review and commentary of the questionnaire-based approach

“…Additional methods like visual aids accompanying each question have been used to help minimise recall error and improve comprehension (134). In addition, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess average use of some products through questionnaires, particularly when their use is intermittent, and when the questionnaire is not answered by all adult residents in the home (135,136). Alternative monitoring approaches (e.g., using bar-code scanners and taking an inventory) have been shown to be acceptable by participants in longitudinal studies, but require more resources and may be more intrusive (136,137 Use of proxy-respondents, which is necessary when assessing young children's exposure, may introduce error into the questionnaire-based approach.…”