Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39432449›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2024

Trends in NHANES Biomonitored Exposures in California and the United States following Enactment of California's Proposition 65.

Kristin E Knox, Megan R Schwarzman, Ruthann A Rudel, Claudia Polsky, Robin E Dodson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kristin E KnoxSilent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6425-8914
Megan R SchwarzmanSchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Ruthann A RudelSilent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Claudia PolskySchool of Law, University of California, Berkeley, California USA.ORCID 0009-0002-4110-3164
Robin E DodsonSilent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of toxic chemicals in US commerce has prompted some states to adopt laws to reduce exposure. One with broad reach is California's Proposition 65 (Prop 65), which established a list of chemicals that cause cancer, developmental harm, or reproductive toxicity. The law is intended to discourage businesses from using these chemicals and to minimize consumer exposure. However, a key question remains unanswered: Has Prop 65 reduced population-level exposure to the listed chemicals?

objectiveWe used national biomonitoring data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to evaluate the impact of Prop 65 on population-level exposures.

methodsWe evaluated changes in blood and urine concentrations of 37 chemicals (including phthalates, phenols, VOCs, metals, PAHs, and PFAS), among US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) participants in relation to the time of chemicals' Prop 65 listing. Of these, 11 were listed prior to, 11 during, and 4 after the biomonitoring period. The remaining 11 were not listed but were closely related to a Prop 65-listed chemical. Where biomonitoring data were available from before and after the date of Prop 65 listing, we estimated the change in concentrations over time for Californians compared with non-Californians, using a difference-in-differences model. We used quantile regression to estimate changes in exposure over time, as well as differences between Californians and non-Californians at the 25th, 75th, and 95th percentiles.

resultsWe found that concentrations of biomonitored chemicals generally declined nationwide over time irrespective of their inclusion on the Prop 65 list. Median bisphenol A (BPA) concentrations decreased 15% after BPA's listing on Prop 65, whereas concentrations of the nonlisted but closely related bisphenol S (BPS) increased 20% over this same period, suggesting chemical substitution. Californians generally had lower levels of biomonitored chemicals than the rest of the US population. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that increased scientific and regulatory attention, as well as public awareness of the harms of Prop 65-listed chemicals, prompted changes in product formulations that reduced exposure to those chemicals nationwide. Trends in bisphenols and several phthalates suggest that manufacturers replaced some listed chemicals with closely related but unlisted chemicals, increasing exposure to the substitutes. Our findings have implications for the design of policies to reduce toxic exposures, biomonitoring programs to inform policy interventions, and future research into the regulatory and market forces that affect chemical exposure. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13956.

Indexed as

Biological MonitoringEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental PollutantsNutrition SurveysAdultCaliforniaFemaleHazardous SubstancesHumansMalePhthalic AcidsUnited StatesEnvironmental PollutantsHazardous SubstancesPhthalic Acids

Identifiers

PMID39432449
PMCPMC11493239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.