Table 11.
Summary of epidemiological studies on HBCDDs
| Reference | Recruitment year Country | Study design Follow‐up (years) | N Population group (age) (years) Gender (% males) | Compound Tissue analysed Method (LOD/LOQ) | Levels of Exposure (ng/g lipid)a | Endpoint health category | Effect estimate (95% CI), p‐value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ongono et al. (2019) | 1990 France | Cohort 19 | 71,415 Adults (52.87 ± 6.66) 0% | ΣHBCDDs Food samples LC‐MS/MS | 0.22 ng/kg bw per dayb | Diabetes type 2 | 1.18 (1.06–1.30) NS; 1.28 (1.15–1.42 NS; 1.35 (1.20–1.51) NS; 1.47 (1.29–1.67) NSc |
| Meijer et al. (2012) | 2001–2002 The Netherlands | Birth cohort 0.25, 1.5 | 34 Infants (0.25, 1.5) 100% | ΣHBCDDs Maternal serum LC‐MS/MS (NR) | 0.7 (ND–7.4) | Free testosterone | –0.31 (NR) NSd |
| Ruel et al. (2019) | 2001–2002 The Netherlands | Birth cohort 1.5 | 59 Children (1.5) 63% | ΣHBCDDs Maternal serum LC‐MS/MS (NR) | 0.82 (0.47–1.26) | BSID‐II‐NL | −0.133 (NR) NSd |
| MDI | 0.004 (NR) NSd | ||||||
| Roze et al. (2009) | 2001–2002 The Netherlands | Birth cohort 5–6 | 62 Toddlers (5–6) 61% | ΣHBCDDs Maternal serum LC‐MS/MS (NR) | 0.8 (0.3–7.5) | Coordination | 0.29 (NR) NSd |
| Total intelligence (WISC‐III‐NL) | 0.39 (NR) < 0.05d | ||||||
| Verbal intelligence (WISC‐III‐NL) | 0.48 (NR) < 0.01d | ||||||
| Motor performance and behavioure | NR (NR) NSd | ||||||
| Berghuis et al. (2018) | 2001–2002 The Netherlands | Birth cohort 13–15 | 31 Adolescents (13–15) 100% | ΣHBCDDs Maternal serum LC‐MS/MS (NR) | 0.79 (0.46–1.31) | Performance intelligence (WISC‐III‐NL) | −0.352d (−6.525, 0.029) 0.052f |
| Total intelligence (WISC‐III‐NL) | −0.355d (−5.854, −0.001) 0.050f | ||||||
| Sustained auditory attention (‘Score!’, TEA‐Ch‐NL) | −0.301d (−13.739, 0.913) 0.084f | ||||||
| Neurodevelopmentf | NR (NR) NSd | ||||||
| Reproductive developmentg | NR (NR) NR | ||||||
| Koual et al. (2019) | 2013–2017 France | Cross‐sectional NA | 91 Adults (64.0, 51.0–73.0) 0% | α‐HBCDDh Adipose tissue LC‐MS/MS (NR) | 1.62 (0.97–1.95) | Breast cancer metastasis | NR (NR) 0.18 |
| Ploteau et al. (2017), Matta et al. (2020) | 2013–2015 France | Cross‐sectional NA | 99 Adults (18‐45) 0% | α‐HBCDD Adipose tissue LC‐MS/MS (NR) | Controls; 0.70, IQR (0.43–1.39) | Severe endometriosisi | NR (NR) NSj |
| 74 Adults (18‐45) 0% | α‐HBCDD Serum LC‐MS/MS (NR) | NA | Severe endometriosis i | NR (NR) NSj | |||
| den Hond et al. (2015) | NR Belgium | Cross‐sectional NA | 120 Adults (34.1, 30.0‐–38.5) 100% | Total HBCDDs Serum GC‐ECNI‐MS (NR) | %> LOQ, cases 10 (11.8%), controls 5 (5.3%) | Subfertility | 0.65 (0.14–2.92) 0.57j |
| Kim and Oh (2014) | NR South Korea | Cross‐sectional NA | 38 Infants (23–37) NR | α‐HBCDD β‐HBCDD γ‐HBCDD Serum (Children) LC‐MS/MS (0.036) | 1.84 (< MDL–16.6); 0.46 (< MDL–1.3); 14.05 (< MDL–147.8) | Congenital Hypothyroidism (children) | NR (NR) NS |
| β‐HBCDD γ‐HBCDD Maternal Serum LC‐MS/MS (0.036) | 0.46 (< MDL–1.88); 8.86 (< MDL–91.1) | Congenital Hypothyroidism (mothers) | NR (NR) NS | ||||
| α‐HBCDD Maternal Serum LC‐MS/MS (0.036) | 2.57 (< MDL–13.8) | Congenital Hypothyroidism (mothers) | NR (NR) 0.004 | ||||
| Li et al. (2014) | 2009 China | Cross‐sectional NA | 80 Adults (42, 30–50) 40% | α‐HBCDD β‐HBCDD γ‐HBCDD ΣHBCDD Serum LC‐MS (20, 20, 10) | 5.9 (ND–2,702.5) | Thyroid hormones | NR (NR) NSd |
| Johnson et al. (2013) | 2002–2003 USA | Cross‐sectional NA | 62 Adults (18–54) 100% | Total HBCDDs Dust GC‐ECNI‐MS | 197 (IQR, 107–391) | Free androgen index | 0.46 (NR) 0.004d |
| Sex hormone binding globulin | –0.35 (NR) 0.03d | ||||||
| Hormonesk | NR (NR) NSd | ||||||
| Kicinski et al. (2012) | 2008–2011 Belgium | Cross‐sectional NA | 515 Adolescents (14.9 (0.7)) 53% | Total HBCDDs Serum GC‐MS (30 ng/L) | < LOQ, (ND–234) | NES‐CPT, Reaction Timen | −3.53 (−18.72–11.67) NSj |
| NES‐CPT, Errors of Omissionn | 27.80% (−17.5%–97.9%) NSl | ||||||
| NES‐CPT, Errors of Commissionn | 21.80% (−2.5% to 52.2%) NSl | ||||||
| NES, System, Digit‐Symbol testn | −0.44 (−6.59 to 5.72) NSj | ||||||
| NES, Digit Span testn | 0.13 (−0.22 to 0.49) NSj | ||||||
| Eggesbø et al. (2011) | 2003 Norway | Cross‐sectional NA | 193 Neonates (3 days) 46% | Total HBCDDs Breast milk GC–ECNI‐MS (NR) | 0.54 (0.10–31) | TSH | 0.00 (‐0.02, 0.02) NSj |
| Weiss et al. (2006) | 2000 Sweden | Cross‐sectional NA | 50 (25)m Adults (62, 52–81) 0% | ΣHBCDD α‐HBCDD β‐HBCDD γ‐HBCDD Serum LC‐MS/MS (0.12 pg/g; diastereomers 0.03, 0.06, 0.03) | 0.46 (< 0.24–3.4) | Bone mineral density | NR (NR) NS |
| Stapleton et al. (2011) | 2008–2010 USA | Cross‐sectional NA | 140 Adults (< 20: 23%)0% | ΣHBCDD α‐HBCDD β‐HBCDD γ‐HBCDD Serum LC‐MS/MS (NR) | NA (no detected) | TSH, TT3, fT3, TT4, fT4 | NA (NA) NA |
| Müller et al. (2016) | 2012 Tanzania | Cross‐sectional NA | 150 Neonates (0) 0% | Total HBCDDs Breast milk GC‐ECNI‐MS (NR) | NA (1 sample above LOQ) | Birth weight Birth length | NA (NA) NA |
BSID: Bayley Scales of Infant Development; CI: confidence interval. FU: follow‐up; GC‐ECNI‐MS: Gas chromatography‐electron capture negative ion‐mass spectrometry; HBCDD: hexabromocyclododecane; IQR: interquartile range; LC‐MS‐MS: liquid chromatography‐random mass spectrometry; LOD: limit of detection; LOQ: limit of quantification; MDI: mental development index; NA: not applicable; ND: not detected; NES‐CPT: Neurobehavioral Evaluation System‐Continuous Performance test; NS: not statistically significant.
Median (range).
Calculated as: Σ[food consumption (g/day) × food contamination (ng/g of food)]/bw (kg); food consumption over the previous year estimated through a validated 208‐item semi‐quantitative dietary questionnaire sent in 1993; food contamination data extracted from the 2nd Anses French Total Diet Study (TDS2) in 2011.
HR for Quintile 2 vs. Quintile 1, Quintile 3 vs. Quintile 1, Quintile 4 vs. Quintile 1, Quintile 5 vs. Quintile 1, respectively.
rho.
Including motor performance (coordination, fine motor skills), cognition (intelligence, visual perception, visuomotor integration, inhibitory control, verbal memory and attention) and behaviour.
Including verbal intelligence (WISC‐III‐NL); auditory‐verbal memory (AVLT); selective visual attention (‘Sky Search’,TEA‐Ch‐NL); motor outcome (Movement‐ABC).
Including testosterone, sex hormone‐binding globulin (SHBG); LH, FSH, estradiol (E2), free E2 (FE2) and inhibin B (InhB)], testes volume, penile length were also assessed.
β‐HBCDD and γ‐HBCDD detection rates were lower than 75% and were excluded by the authors from the statistical analysis.
Ovarian Endometrioma.
OR or beta.
Including follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), serum luteinising hormone (LH), estradiol, prolactin, free T4, total T3 and thyrotropin (TSH), inhibin B, testosterone; sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), free androgen index (FAI), free unbound testosterone.
% change.
The PBDE/HBCDD extracts were later pooled (n = 25, 125 mL/pool) for stereoisomer determination.
The Neurobehavioral Evaluation System (NES) is a computerised battery of tests developed to study neurobehavioural effects in humans. The Neurobehavioral Evaluation System‐Continuous Performance Test (NES‐CPT) evaluates sustained attention. The Neurobehavioral Evaluation System‐Digit‐Symbol Test evaluates a range of cognitive operations. The Neurobehavioral Evaluation System‐Digit Span Test evaluates the working memory and the ability to hold and manipulate information. The Neurobehavioral Evaluation System‐Finger Tapping Test evaluates the motor speed and coordination.