Table 5.
Negative binomial regression analyses of semen characteristics in relation to aggregated PCP usage among the 1046 men in the FEPOS cohort.
| Characteristics | Model 1 | N | Overall PCP Usage | ||
| Low | Medium | High | |||
| (≤3 PCPs) | (4–6 PCPs) | (≥7 PCPs) | |||
| Reference | % Difference (95% CI) | % Difference (95% CI) | |||
| Sperm concentration (106/mL) | Crude | 1046 | 0 | 2 (−11, 18) | −8 (−22, 8) |
| Adjusted | 1037 | 0 | 9 (−5, 26) | −2 (−17, 15) | |
| Total sperm count (106) | Crude | 867 | 0 | −3 (−18, 15) | −4 (−21, 17) |
| Adjusted | 858 | 0 | −4 (−18, 13) | −3 (−20, 16) | |
| Semen volume (mL) | Crude | 866 | 0 | −8 (−17, 2) | −3 (−14, 9) |
| Adjusted | 857 | 0 | −4 (−14, 7) | 0 (−12, 13) | |
| Motility, 100-progressive (%) | Crude | 1031 | 0 | 0 (−4, 7) | 0 (−7, 8) |
| Adjusted | 1016 | 0 | 2 (−5, 8) | 3 (−4, 11) | |
| Morphology, normal (%) | Crude | 1026 | 0 | −8 (−19, 4) | −8 (−20, 6) |
| Adjusted | 1017 | 0 | −7 (−18, 5) | −8 (−20, 7) | |
| Characteristics Model 1 N | Fragranced PCP Usage | ||||
| Low | Medium | High | |||
| (≤2 PCPs) | (3–4 PCPs) | (≥5 PCPs) | |||
| Reference | % Difference (95% CI) | % Difference (95% CI) | |||
| Sperm concentration (106/mL) | Crude | 1046 | 0 | −5 (−16, 8) | −6 (−18, 9) |
| Adjusted | 1037 | 0 | 0 (−12, 14) | 6 (−9, 24) | |
| Total sperm count (106) | Crude | 867 | 0 | 1 (−13, 17) | −6 (−20, 11) |
| Adjusted | 858 | 0 | 5 (−10, 22) | 7 (−11, 28) | |
| Semen volume (mL) | Crude | 866 | 0 | 1 (−8, 10) | −4 (−14, 6) |
| Adjusted | 857 | 0 | 5 (−5, 15) | 1 (−10, 14) | |
| Motility, 100-progressive (%) | Crude | 1031 | 0 | 0 (−6, 5) | −4 (−10, 2) |
| Adjusted | 1016 | 0 | 0 (−6, 6) | −4 (−11, 3) | |
| Morphology, normal (%) | Crude | 1026 | 0 | −4 (−14, 7) | −3 (−14, 9) |
| Adjusted | 1017 | 0 | −1 (−12, 11) | 3 (−11, 18) | |
PCP, personal care product. 1 In analyses of total sperm count and semen volume, men reporting spillage were excluded (n = 179). Similarly, azoospermic men were excluded from analyses of motility and morphology (n = 15). Men with unavailable morphology data were excluded from morphology analyses (n = 5).