Skip to main content
Environmental Epidemiology logoLink to Environmental Epidemiology
. 2021 Apr 2;5(2):e149. doi: 10.1097/EE9.0000000000000149

Drinking water contaminants in California and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy

Amy M Padula a,*, Chen Ma b, Hongtai Huang a, Rachel Morello-Frosch c, Tracey J Woodruff a, Suzan L Carmichael b
PMCID: PMC8043732  PMID: 33870020

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Keywords: Pollution, Water contaminant, Preterm birth, Environmental justice, Health disparities

Background:

Environmental pollutants have been associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy including gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia, though few have focused on drinking water contamination. Water pollution can be an important source of exposures that may contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Methods:

We linked water quality data on 13 contaminants and two violations from the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool to birth records from vital statistics and hospital discharge records (2007–2012) to examine the relationship between drinking water contamination and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. We examined contaminants in single- and multipollutant models. Additionally, we examined if the relationship between water contamination and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy differed by neighborhood poverty, individual socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity.

Results:

Arsenic, nitrate, trihalomethane, hexavalent chromium, and uranium were detected in a majority of water systems. Increased risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was modestly associated with exposure to cadmium, lead, trihalomethane, and hexavalent chromium in drinking water after adjusting for covariates in single pollutant models with odds ratios ranging from 1.01 to 1.08. In multipollutant models, cadmium was consistent, lead and trihalomethane were stronger, and additional contaminants were associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy including trichloroethylene, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, nitrate, and tetrachloroethylene. Other contaminants either showed null results or modest inverse associations. The relationship between water contaminants and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy did not differ by neighborhood poverty.

Conclusions:

We found increased risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy associated with exposure to several contaminants in drinking water in California. Results for cadmium, lead, trihalomethane, and hexavalent chromium were robust in multipollutant models.


What this study adds.

This is the first study to examine widespread environmental contaminants in drinking water and their impact on hypertensive disorders in pregnancy across California from 2007 to 2012. The few previous have focused on salinity, bacteria, and perfluoroalkyl substances. We found increased risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy associated with exposure to several contaminants in drinking water in California, with most robust associations for cadmium, lead, trihalomethane, and hexavalent chromium. These findings add to growing evidence that drinking water contamination remains a potential threat to public health and requires further monitoring and research.

Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy are a common medical problem, complicating 8–10% of pregnancies. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy include chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, and preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension.1 Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy are detrimental to short-term and long-term health of the mother and child.2

The causes of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy remain incompletely understood; risk factors include maternal age, prepregnancy chronic hypertension, body mass index (BMI), gestational diabetes, multiple pregnancy, anemia, and family history of hypertension.3 Environmental contaminants have been associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy,38 specifically gestational hypertension,2,9 and preeclampsia.10,11 The majority of these studies have examined air pollution,57,1217 though others have examined exposures such as lead,9 cadmium,18,19 and pesticides.20,21 A few studies have found gestational hypertension and preeclampsia associated with several contaminants in drinking water, including salinity in Bangladesh,22 bacteria in Canada,23 and perfluoroalkyl substances in Ohio.24 Additionally, arsenic and fluoride in drinking water have been associated with hypertension among nonpregnant adults in Chile25 and Iran,26 respectively. Our previous work has examined the relationship between drinking water contaminants and preterm birth.27,28 Water contaminants may affect hypertensive disorders in pregnancy via biological mechanisms such as oxidative stress, epigenetic changes, endocrine disruption, and abnormal placental vascularization.

California has been battling against unsafe drinking water, which has triggered major public health concerns, especially for vulnerable and susceptible populations such as pregnant women. Despite substantial public investment in drinking water infrastructure, roughly 10% of California’s public drinking water systems are out of compliance with state water quality standards, and an estimated 6 million Californians are served by systems that have been in violation at some point since 2012.29,30 In 2012, the Governor of California signed Assembly Bill 685, which recognizes that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water, and specifically focuses on disadvantaged communities in rural and urban areas. Unsafe drinking water is an environmental justice concern as poor, mostly rural communities of color are disproportionately exposed to contamination threats in California.29,3138

Challenges to studying health effects of drinking water include inconsistent or lack of testing for many chemicals in drinking water and lack of a central repository of accessible data. Recently, data on existing testing of water contaminants have been incorporated into the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 3.0) and summarized at the census tract level. To examine the relationship between drinking water contaminants and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy in California, we linked the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 water quality data (over one compliance cycle, 2005–2013) to vital records and hospital discharge records from 2007 to 2012 for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Additionally, we examined the role of social vulnerability in relation to water contaminant exposure and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. To our knowledge, no studies of the relationship between drinking water quality and maternal health outcomes have examined the extent to which social vulnerability factors may amplify observed associations between drinking water contamination and risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. For this study, we hypothesized that associations between drinking water contaminants and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy may be higher in lower socioeconomic areas.

Methods

Study population

We used linked data from California birth certificates and maternal and infant hospital discharge records from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (https://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/) from 2007 to 2012. We restricted our study population to singleton, live births between 2007 and 2012 in California with gestational ages between 22 and 44 weeks, and complete information on key covariates including maternal age, race, education, and payment source of birth costs. Births to those with prepregnancy hypertensive disorders, including preeclampsia/eclampsia superimposed on prepregnancy hypertension, were excluded from the main analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Study population flow diagram for hypertensive disorders during pregnancy in California.

Based on the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ definition of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy,39 we defined our case group as gestational hypertension (code 642.3), mild preeclampsia (code 642.4), or severe preeclampsia or eclampsia (codes 642.5 and 642.6). We examined cases overall and also severe preeclampsia and eclampsia as a separate, presumably more severely affected case group. To focus on pregnancy-related conditions, we excluded women with preexisting hypertension (codes 401–405, 642.0, 642.1, 642.2, 642.9 or “prepregnancy/chronic hypertension” on birth certificate) and preeclampsia or eclampsia superimposed on preexisting hypertension (code 642.7), though the latter was added to the case groups in a sensitivity analysis.

Protocols for the study were approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects within the Health and Human Services Agency of the State of California, Stanford University, and the University of California, San Francisco.

Exposure assessment

We merged the data with the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 water quality data,40 at the census tract level based on the maternal residence at birth as recorded on the birth certificate. The CalEnviroScreen was developed by CA’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to evaluate the cumulative existence of multiple pollutants and stressors in communities.40,41 CalEnviroScreen is used to identify communities disproportionately burdened by cumulative exposures to multiple environmental hazards and to identify disadvantaged communities for allocation of cap and trade funds generated under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The CalEnviroScreen identifies drinking water systems using the Water Boundary Tool (http://cehtp.org/water/) for 2443 water systems that serve 94% of the California population. An additional 471 water systems were either approximated or were estimated with a 6 × 6 mile grid to summarize groundwater concentrations (https://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/a_plss.html). Data on groundwater, where available, were used for the remaining 5% of the California population and less than 1% were without any data on water quality. The CalEnviroScreen indicator on drinking water includes 13 contaminants and two violations (Table 1). Drinking water contaminant concentration and violation data were associated with each water system for a select group of contaminants and violations. The average concentration of each contaminant and violations by system were population-weighted to the census tract scale. Drinking water contaminant scores were assigned to each census tract by summing the percentile scores of the tract for all contaminants and violations. Further details are described elsewhere.28,42

Table 1.

Description of the drinking water contaminants in CES 3.0 database.

Population weighted averages (units)
Arsenic Arsenic (μg/L)
Cadmium Cadmium (μg/L)
DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (μg/L)
Hex Chrom Hexavalent Chromium (μg/L)
Lead Lead (μg/L)
Nitrate Nitrate (as NO3) (μg/L)
Perchlorate Perchlorate (μg/L)
PCE Tetrachloroethylene (μg/L)
Radium Combined Radium 226 and Radium 228 (pCi/l)
TCE Trichloroethylene (μg/L)
TCP 1,2,3-trichloropropane (μg/L)
THM Trihalomethane (μg/L)
Uranium Uranium (pCi/l)
Violations
 MCL-V MCL—number of times a system had an unacceptably high level of a specific contaminant
 TCR-V TCR—number of times a system had a positive test in more than 5% of samples

Given the skewed distribution of most contaminants, our first approach was to dichotomize each of them, comparing the lowest three quartiles of exposure with the highest quartile (referred to for simplicity as “high” vs. “low” exposure). For contaminants with concentrations less than the maximum detection limit and violations (maximum contaminant level [MCL] and total coliform rule [TCR]) with values of zero for more than 25% of the individuals (cadmium, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, hexavalent chromium, lead, perchlorate, tetrachloroethylene, radium 226 and radium 228, trichloroethylene, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, and MCL and TCR violations), we considered those with any versus no exposure as high and low. Five contaminants had sufficiently normal distributions to examine as continuous variables (arsenic, hexavalent chromium, nitrate, trihalomethane, and uranium).

Statistical analyses

We used logistic regression models to evaluate associations between drinking water contaminants and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc). We considered both single pollutant (i.e., contaminant or violation) models with each one separately and multipollutant models with all contaminants in a single model (without violations, as it was considered potentially redundant). For contaminants with sufficient distributions, we performed linear regression with exposures specified as continuous including a quadratic form to detect nonlinearity. Estimates were calculated for a SD in the exposure.

Outcomes were examined as all hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (including gestational hypertension, mild preeclampsia, severe preeclampsia, and eclampsia) and severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia separately. Adjusted models included the following covariates derived from birth certificates and hospital discharge records: maternal age (years), race/ethnicity, payment source of birth costs, education, smoking during pregnancy, parity, preexisting diabetes, and census tract poverty from CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (percent of the population living below two times the federal poverty level based on the 5-year estimate, 2011–2015), based on their potential association with exposure to environmental contaminants and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.

We examined census tract poverty rate as a potential modifier of the relationship between each contaminant with any hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and severe preeclampsia/eclampsia. The population was dichotomized at the 15th percentile of neighborhood poverty. We performed two additional post hoc analyses to examine payer status for birth costs (private vs. public insurance) and race/ethnicity (white non-Hispanic, US-born Hispanic, and foreign-born Hispanic) as potential effect modifiers. P values of interaction terms were examined for statistical significance.

We conducted two sensitivity analyses: (1) we included preeclampsia/eclampsia superimposed on preexisting hypertension (code 642.7) in the case group of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy; and (2) we adjusted for prepregnancy BMI (calculated from maternal weight divided by height-squared); because an additional 7% of women had missing BMI data, we did not include it in the primary analysis.

Results

Of the 2.7 million births in our study, 5.3% were to women with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (Table 2). This ethnically diverse California population was majority Hispanic (52%, with 46% of whom were US-born), 28% non-Hispanic White, 13% Asian or Pacific Islander, 5% Black, and less than 1% “other” (Table 2). Black and US-born Hispanics were over-represented among those with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (7.6% and 6.0%, respectively, compared to overall 5.3%). Close to 80% of the population were between 18 and 34 years old at delivery and almost half had more than 12 years of education. Approximately 42% were overweight or obese and almost half had private health insurance. Reported cigarette smoking during pregnancy was rare (2%).

Table 2.

Study population characteristics, 2007–2012 (N = 2,788,600).

Characteristics Total study population Hypertensive disorders in pregnancya
2,788,600 147,146 (5.28%)
Race/ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic White 787,148 (28.23) 42,366 (28.79)
 Non-Hispanic Black 152,862 (5.48) 11,570 (7.86)
 Asian/Pacifica Islander 375,617 (13.47) 14,847 (10.09)
 Hispanic (US-born) 671,857 (24.09) 40,556 (27.56)
 Hispanic (Foreign-born) 786,924 (28.22) 36,866 (25.05)
Other 14,192 (0.51) 941 (0.64)
Maternal age at delivery (years)
 <18 79,126 (2.84) 5898 (4.01)
 18–34 2,228,850 (79.93) 114,677 (77.93)
 >34 480,624 (17.24) 26,571 (18.06)
Prepregnancy BMI
 <18.5 (underweight) 107,962 (3.87) 3298 (2.24)
 18.5–25 (normal) 1,309,183 (46.95) 50,346 (34.22)
 25–30 (overweight) 670,325 (24.04) 38,372 (26.08)
 ≥30 (obese) 513,017 (18.40) 44,662 (30.35)
 Missing 188,113 (6.75) 10,468 (7.11)
Maternal education (years)
 <High school 681,936 (24.45) 34,599 (23.51)
 Completed high school 736,516 (26.41) 41,571 (28.25)
 >High school 1,370,148 (49.13) 70,976 (48.24)
Payer for delivery costs
 Private insurance 1,294,280 (46.41) 68,658 (46.66)
 Public insurance 1,494,320 (53.59) 78,488 (53.34)
Cigarette use during pregnancy
 Yes 62,794 (2.25) 3421 (2.32)
 No 2,725,806 (97.75) 143,725 (97.68)
Prepregnancy diabetes
 Yes 31,200 (1.12) 4,624 (3.14)
 No 2,757,400 (98.88) 142,522 (96.86)
Parity
 Nulliparous 1,106,982 (39.70) 84,527 (57.44)
 Parous (1+) 1,681,618 (60.30) 62,619 (42.56)

aThose with preexisting hypertension were excluded.

Arsenic, nitrate, trihalomethane, hexavalent chromium, and uranium were detected in drinking water for a majority of individuals (Table 3). The remainder of the contaminants had a majority of values below the maximum detection limit (Table 3). The water contaminants were not strongly correlated with each other (Table S1; http://links.lww.com/EE/A133). Few contaminants had moderate (Pearson coefficient >0.4) correlations including tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene (0.45), arsenic and TCR violations (0.43), and MCL and TCR violations (0.58).

Table 3.

Distribution of water contaminants.

Pollutants Total study population Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy MCLa
N = 2,788,600 N = 147,146 (5.28%)
Min 25th 50th 75th Max Mean (SD) Min 25th 50th 75th Max Mean (SD)
Arsenic <MDL 0.20 0.79 1.66 32.09 1.29 (2.06) <MDL 0.16 0.79 1.66 32.09 1.27 (2.03) 10
Cadmium <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 4.17 0.01 (0.08) <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 4.17 0.01 (0.08) 5
DBCP <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 1.29 0.02 (0.07) <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 1.29 0.02 (0.08) 0.2
Hex Chrom <MDL <MDL 0.49 1.57 362.60 2.77 (19.80) <MDL 0.75 0.56 1.62 362.60 2.77 (18.35) NA
Lead <MDL <MDL <MDL 0.02 205.13 0.19 (3.60) <MDL <MDL <MDL 0.03 205.13 0.18 (3.02) 15
Nitrate 1.41 1.75 5.71 10.82 85.48 7.70 (7.29) 1.41 1.75 5.71 10.39 85.48 7.62 (7.20) 10
Perchlorate <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 5.35 0.17 (0.64) <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 5.35 0.16 (0.61) 6
PCE <MDL <MDL <MDL 0.09 16.43 0.16 (0.86) <MDL <MDL <MDL 0.09 16.43 0.16 (0.85) 5
Radium <MDL <MDL <MDL 0.16 10.96 0.15 (0.44) <MDL 0.75 <MDL 0.13 10.96 0.15 (0.53) 5 pCi/L
TCE <MDL <MDL <MDL 0.07 21.49 0.30 (1.44) <MDL <MDL <MDL 0.08 21.49 0.30 (1.29) 5
TCP <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 1.41 0.00 (0.02) <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 1.41 0.00 (0.02) 0.005
THM <MDL 7.07 27.91 44.86 96.80 27.35 (19.82) <MDL 6.15 25.96 45.23 96.80 26.94 (19.87) 80
Uranium 0.71 0.87 1.89 3.10 137.65 2.69 (3.65) 0.71 0.75 1.84 3.02 137.65 2.60 (3.61) 20 pCi/L
MCL-V <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 30.00 0.19 (0.74) <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 30.00 0.18 (0.69) NA
TCR-V <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 32.52 0.47 (2.41) <MDL <MDL <MDL <MDL 32.52 0.45 (2.35) 5%

aμg/L unless otherwise noted.

DBCP indicates 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; Hex Chrom, hexavalent chromium; MDL, maximum detection limit; NA, not applicable; PCE, tetrachloroethylene; TCE, Trichloroethylene; TCP, 1,2,3-trichloropropane; THM, trihalomethane.

We found increased risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy associated with exposure to cadmium, lead, trihalomethane, and hexavalent chromium in drinking water after adjusting for covariates, based on 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that excluded 1.0 (Table 4). For cadmium, results were consistent in multipollutant models and among the group of women with severe preeclampsia or eclampsia, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.011 to 1.15 for high versus low contaminant levels. For lead, associations were stronger in multipollutant models both for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.19) and severe preeclampsia or eclampsia (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.16, 1.24). In the multipollutant models, additional contaminants (trichloroethylene, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, nitrate, and tetrachloroethylene) were associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and/or preeclampsia or eclampsia.

Table 4.

Adjusted ORs and 95% CIs of single and multipollutant models for HPD and severe preeclampsia/eclampsia.

Single pollutant model Multipollutant model
Pollutant (dichotomized) HDP adjusteda OR (95% CI) Severe PE/eclampsia adjusteda OR (95% CI) HDP adjusteda OR (95% CI) Severe PE/eclampsia adjusteda OR (95% CI)
Arsenic (1.66 μg/L) 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) 1.00 (0.97, 1.03) 0.99 (0.95, 1.04)
Cadmium 1.15 (1.12, 1.17) 1.12 (1.09, 1.16) 1.11 (1.06, 1.17) 1.11 (1.04, 1.18)
DBCP 1.06 (1.05, 1.08) 1.07 (1.05, 1.09) 1.03 (0.99, 1.06) 1.10 (1.06, 1.15)
Hex Chrom (1.57 μg/L) 1.08 (1.07, 1.10) 1.07 (1.05, 1.09) 1.08 (1.05, 1.11) 1.00 (0.96, 1.04)
Lead (0.02 μg/L) 1.08 (1.06, 1.09) 1.09 (1.07, 1.11) 1.16 (1.13, 1.19) 1.20 (1.16, 1.24)
Nitrate (10.82 μg/L) 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) 1.01 (0.99, 1.03) 1.03 (1.00, 1.05) 1.11 (1.07, 1.15)
Perchlorate 0.93 (0.92, 0.94) 0.91 (0.90, 0.93) 0.91 (0.89, 0.93) 0.87 (0.84, 0.89)
PCE (0.09 μg/L) 0.96 (0.95, 0.97) 0.98 (0.96, 0.99) 0.97 (0.94, 1.00) 1.07 (1.03, 1.12)
Radium (0.16 pCi/L) 0.98 (0.97, 1.00) 1.03 (1.01, 1.05) 1.00 (0.98, 1.03) 1.02 (0.99, 1.06)
TCE (0.07 μg/L) 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) 0.97 (0.95, 0.98) 1.03 (1.00, 1.06) 0.95 (0.91, 1.00)
TCP 0.96 (0.95, 0.98) 0.98 (0.96, 1.00) 1.01 (0.99, 1.04) 0.96 (0.93, 1.00)
THM (44.86 μg/L) 0.97 (0.96, 0.98) 0.97 (0.96, 0.99) 1.05 (1.02, 1.07) 1.09 (1.05, 1.13)
Uranium (3.10 pCi/L) 0.95 (0.94, 0.96) 0.95 (0.93, 0.97) 0.95 (0.92, 0.97) 0.92 (0.89, 0.95)
MCL violationsb 1.00 (0.99, 1.02) 0.99 (0.97, 1.01)
TCR violationsb 1.03 (1.02, 1.05) 1.03 (1.01, 1.05)

aModels were adjusted for maternal age (years), race/ethnicity, payment source of birth costs, education, smoking during pregnancy, parity and preexisting diabetes.

bTCR and MCL violations were not included in the multipollutant model since these are not measured levels of contaminants

DBCP indicates 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; HDP, hypertensive disorders in pregnancy; Hex Chrom, hexavalent chromium; PCE, tetrachloroethylene; PE, preeclampsia; TCE, trichloroethylene; TCP, 1,2,3-trichloropropane; THM, trihalomethane.

Other contaminants either showed null results or modest inverse associations (perchlorate, tetrachloroethylene, uranium, and MCL and TCR violations). The unadjusted results (Table S2; http://links.lww.com/EE/A133) showed generally similar results with more of the CIs excluding 1.0 (including arsenic and severe preeclampsia or eclampsia in a single pollutant model). Results of the continuous models with quadratic forms of the exposure (for contaminants that had sufficient distributions: arsenic, hexavalent chromium, nitrate, trihalomethane, and uranium) revealed similar results. A SD change in hexavalent chromium (19.73 μg/L) was associated with an increased odds of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.20, 1.28) and severe preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.23, 1.34) after adjustment for maternal age (years), race/ethnicity, payment source of birth costs, education, smoking during pregnancy, parity, preexisting diabetes, and census tract poverty. Results of nitrate were null and arsenic, trihalomethane, and uranium showed small, but inverse associations with ORs ranging from 0.95 to 0.97.

In stratified analyses, we found that the relationship between water contaminants and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was elevated among women living in neighborhoods with <15% of the population living below two times the federal poverty level (Table 5). This pattern was apparent for cadmium, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, hexavalent chromium, lead, and MCL and TCR violations. When stratified by payer status for delivery costs, risk of HDP was higher among those with private insurance, particularly for cadmium, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, and MCL and TCR violations (Table S3; http://links.lww.com/EE/A133). Differences were more apparent for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy than severe preeclampsia/eclampsia. Similar results were observed when stratified by race/ethnicity (Table S4; http://links.lww.com/EE/A133). Stronger associations were observed among White, non-Hispanic mothers between cadmium, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, lead, and nitrate. One pollutant, trihalomethane, was associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy among Hispanic mothers, but not White mothers.

Table 5.

Stratification by neighborhood poverty.

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy Severe preeclampsia/eclampsia
Pollutant (dichotomized) Low poverty High poverty Low poverty adjusteda High poverty
Adjusteda OR (95% CI) Adjusteda OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) Adjusteda OR (95% CI)
Arsenic (1.66 μg/L) 0.97 (0.96, 0.99) 1.01 (0.99, 1.03) 0.98 (0.95, 1.00) 1.03 (1.00, 1.05)
Cadmium 1.18 (1.15, 1.21) 1.05 (1.01, 1.09) 1.15 (1.10, 1.19) 1.03 (0.98, 1.09)
DBCP 1.13 (1.11, 1.15) 0.98 (0.96, 1.00) 1.14 (1.11, 1.16) 1.00 (0.97, 1.02)
Hex Chrom (1.57 μg/L) 1.12 (1.10, 1.14) 1.03 (1.01, 1.06) 1.12 (1.09, 1.14) 1.02 (0.99, 1.04)
Lead (0.02 μg/L) 1.10 (1.08, 1.11) 1.03 (1.02, 1.05) 1.13 (1.10, 1.15) 1.02 (1.00, 1.05)
Nitrate (10.82 μg/L) 1.02 (1.01, 1.04) 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) 1.02 (0.99, 1.04) 1.01 (0.98, 1.03)
Perchlorate 0.93 (0.92, 0.95) 0.90 (0.89, 0.92) 0.92 (0.89, 0.94) 0.89 (0.87, 0.91)
PCE (0.09 μg/L) 0.93 (0.91, 0.95) 1.00 (0.98, 1.01) 0.94 (0.92, 0.97) 1.02 (1.00, 1.05)
Radium (0.16 pCi/L) 1.01 (0.99, 1.03) 0.93 (0.91, 0.96) 1.07 (1.04, 1.10) 0.95 (0.92, 0.99)
TCE (0.07 μg/L) 0.92 (0.90, 0.93) 1.01 (0.99, 1.02) 0.91 (0.89, 0.94) 1.04 (1.02, 1.06)
TCP 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) 0.94 (0.92, 0.96) 0.99 (0.96, 1.01) 0.98 (0.96, 1.01)
THM (44.86 μg/L) 0.90 (0.89, 0.92) 1.06 (1.05, 1.08) 0.90 (0.88, 0.92) 1.08 (1.05, 1.10)
Uranium (3.10 pCi/L) 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) 0.96 (0.94, 0.98) 0.93 (0.90, 0.95) 0.98 (0.96, 1.01)
MCL violations 1.04 (1.02, 1.06) 0.96 (0.94, 0.98) 1.03 (1.00, 1.06) 0.95 (0.92, 0.97)
TCR violations 1.08 (1.05, 1.10) 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) 1.07 (1.05, 1.10) 1.00 (0.98, 1.03)

aModels were adjusted for maternal age (years), race/ethnicity, payment source of birth costs, education, smoking during pregnancy, parity, preexisting diabetes, and census tract poverty.

DBCP indicates 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; Hex Chrom, hexavalent chromium; PCE, tetrachloroethylene; TCE, trichloroethylene; TCP, 1,2,3-trichloropropane; THM, trihalomethane.

Sensitivity analyses including those with preeclampsia or eclampsia superimposed on preexisting hypertension (code 642.7) resulted in an additional 9921 cases, though the results did not change substantially (Table S5; http://links.lww.com/EE/A133). Additionally, when adjusting for BMI, which excluded an extra 6.7% of the sample, results were similar (Table S6; http://links.lww.com/EE/A133).

Discussion

We found increased risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy associated with exposure to cadmium, lead, trihalomethane, and hexavalent chromium in drinking water in California. Results for cadmium and lead were robust in multipollutant models and stronger associations were found with the more severe types of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, preeclampsia, and eclampsia. Multipollutant models also suggested additional contaminants should be examined further including trichloroethylene, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, nitrate, and tetrachloroethylene.

Our results support previous findings of associations between hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and cadmium, lead, and hexavalent chromium, though previous studies were not sourced to water specifically. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis reported that an increase of 1 μg/dL blood lead level was associated with a 1.6% increase in the likelihood of preeclampsia, making lead exposure one of the strongest known risk factors for preeclampsia.43 In a study of almost three million pregnant women in the United States, ambient lead levels were associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. They observed a 4% increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy per 0.05 mg/m3 increase in seasonal average lead level at conception and birth.9 Similarly, these findings are consistent with long-established evidence that lead is associated with risk of hypertension in nonpregnant individuals.44 Potential mechanisms by which elevated lead may affect hypertensive disorders in pregnancy include its positive association with the vasoconstrictors endothelin,45 adrenaline, and noradrenaline,46 and its negative association with nitric oxide46 and adenosine triphosphatase,47 which are vasodilators.22

Previous studies have shown associations between cadmium and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Studies have found associations between urinary cadmium and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy in the United States,48 China,19,49 Yugoslavia,18 and Democratic Republic of Congo,50 though not in South Africa.51 Additionally, Liu et al. found a significant interaction between cadmium exposure and maternal socioeconomic status.19 Cadmium accumulates in the placenta52 and may affect placental function as a source of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress53 and pro-inflammatory cytokines, which may damage placental blood vessels and increase maternal blood pressure.18,22

Chromium was found to be higher among those with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy in two studies50,51,54; however, the measurements were limited by the inability to distinguish between benign chromium and toxic hexavalent chromium. These studies also examined urinary levels of arsenic in women with and without hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, but produced inconsistent results in Democratic Republic of Congo and South Africa.50,51 An additional study in Mexico was similarly inconclusive.54 To our knowledge this is the first study to find associations between risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and additional contaminants such as trihalomethane, trichloroethylene, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, nitrate and tetrachloroethylene.

It is unclear why several contaminants were inversely associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (perchlorate, tetrachloroethylene, uranium). Similarly, the results of the violations (MCL and TCR) were in the unexpected direction. Our results should be interpreted with caution, both positive and negative, given the novelty of results and limitations of exposure assessment. Our study serves as a first step to examine multiple water contaminants over a large geography and study population, to seek areas for further research in a more targeted approach.

Our study is limited by its lack of measurement in biospecimens and unknown consumption of drinking water or water from nonresidential sources. The cross-sectional design precludes assessment of the timing of exposure in relation to the outcomes assessed. The lack of temporal data did not allow for examination of trimester specific effects or critical windows, and in some cases the data on water contaminants may have not aligned with the pregnancy period. The frequency of the measurements is not regular nor uniform across different water systems. Additionally, sparse data are currently available from smaller, unregulated wells, though an estimated 98% of Californians received their water from public sources in 2013,55 and the quantity of consumption by individuals in this study is unknown. Resulting exposure measurement error would likely lead to attenuation of our estimates; however, there is a possibility the measurement error could be related to conditions which are related to hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and thereby biasing our estimates.

Despite these limitations, this study provides a first examination of an area with minimal current knowledge and important health implications. This study has several strengths including a large study population of pregnant women. It covers a wide geography of the entire state of California over several years and thorough outcome ascertainment with ICD-9 codes from hospital discharge records with reduced selection bias. Additionally, the CalEnviroScreen drinking water contamination data allowed us to examine multiple contaminants separately and in combination.

This study identifies contaminants that could be explored further for more time-sensitive exposure periods during pregnancy that may be critical for hypertensive disorders. In areas with high contamination or more unregulated wells, further water sampling is needed. Additionally, exploration of variation by water system size (as a proxy for water treatment) may provide additional insight to areas of concern. Finally, future studies may benefit from information about the quantity of consumption of drinking water consumption (as opposed to bottled water) or regular measurement of contamination at the home.

The differences observed in the association between drinking water contaminants and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy by neighborhood poverty were not in the hypothesized direction. The associations between water contamination and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy are driven by the populations living in neighborhoods with lower poverty. Additional post-hoc analyses revealed this stratified results were similar with individual socioeconomic status, and stronger in White, non-Hispanic mothers. Further explorations of socioeconomic inequality and/or racial segregation in relation to health disparities is needed.

In conclusion, drinking water contamination continues to pose a threat to public health, particularly to vulnerable populations such as pregnant women. Additional sampling both in water and in people is warranted as is further research on health effects.

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with regard to the content of this report.

Supplementary Material

ee9-5-e149-s001.docx (38.2KB, docx)

Footnotes

Published online 2 April 2021

Editors’ note: Related articles appear on pages XXX and XXX.

Supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R03ES028368 and R01ES031261) and Superfund Research Program (P42ES004705).

The environmental exposure data are publicly available online (https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30). The health outcome data are not publicly available and were obtained from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development in California (https://oshpd.ca.gov/data-and-reports). Statistical code for analyses is available upon request.

Supplemental digital content is available through direct URL citations in the HTML and PDF versions of this article (www.environepidem.com).

References

  • 1.Roberts CL, Ford JB, Algert CS, et al. Population-based trends in pregnancy hypertension and pre-eclampsia: an international comparative study. BMJ Open. 2011; 1:e000101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vinikoor-Imler LC, Gray SC, Edwards SE, Miranda ML. The effects of exposure to particulate matter and neighbourhood deprivation on gestational hypertension. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012; 26:91–100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Umesawa M, Kobashi G. Epidemiology of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: prevalence, risk factors, predictors and prognosis. Hypertens Res. 2017; 40:213–220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mammaro A, Carrara S, Cavaliere A, et al. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. J Prenat Med. 2009; 3:1–5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mobasher Z, Salam MT, Goodwin TM, Lurmann F, Ingles SA, Wilson ML. Associations between ambient air pollution and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Environ Res. 2013; 123:9–16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pedersen M, Stayner L, Slama R, et al. Ambient air pollution and pregnancy-induced hypertensive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension. 2014; 64:494–500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Xu X, Hu H, Ha S, Roth J. Ambient air pollution and hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014; 68:13–20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Varshavsky J, Smith A, Wang A, et al. Heightened susceptibility: a review of how pregnancy and chemical exposures influence maternal health. Reprod Toxicol. 2020; 92:14–56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chen XK, Yang Q, Smith G, Krewski D, Walker M, Wen SW. Environmental lead level and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Environ Res. 2006; 100:424–430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dadvand P, Figueras F, Basagaña X, et al. Ambient air pollution and preeclampsia: a spatiotemporal analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2013; 121:1365–1371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Malmqvist E, Jakobsson K, Tinnerberg H, Rignell-Hydbom A, Rylander L. Gestational diabetes and preeclampsia in association with air pollution at levels below current air quality guidelines. Environ Health Perspect. 2013; 121:488–493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Choe SA, Jun YB, Kim SY. Exposure to air pollution during preconceptional and prenatal periods and risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study in Seoul, Korea. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18:340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hu H, Ha S, Roth J, Kearney G, Talbott EO, Xu X. Ambient air pollution and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Atmos Environ (1994). 2014; 97:336–345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Koman PD, Hogan KA, Sampson N, et al. Examining joint effects of air pollution exposure and social determinants of health in defining “at-risk” populations under the clean air act: susceptibility of pregnant women to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. World Med Health Policy. 2018; 10:7–54 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sears CG, Braun JM, Ryan PH, et al. The association of traffic-related air and noise pollution with maternal blood pressure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the HOME study cohort. Environ Int. 2018; 121Pt 1574–581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Weber KA, Yang W, Lurmann F, et al. Air pollution, maternal hypertensive disorders, and preterm birth. Environ Epidemiol. 2019; 3:e062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Program NT. NTP Monograph on the Systematic Review of Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. 2019, Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program. Vol. Monograph 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kosanovic M, Jokanovic M, Jevremovic M, Dobric S, Bokonjic D. Maternal and fetal cadmium and selenium status in normotensive and hypertensive pregnancy. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2002; 89:97–103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu H, Xia W, Xu S, et al. Cadmium body burden and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018; 221:246–251 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ledda C, Fiore M, Santarelli L, et al. Gestational hypertension and organophosphorus pesticide exposure: a cross-sectional study. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015:280891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Saldana TM, Basso O, Baird DD, et al. Pesticide exposure and hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. Environ Health Perspect. 2009; 117:1393–1396 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Khan AE, Scheelbeek PF, Shilpi AB, et al. Salinity in drinking water and the risk of (pre)eclampsia and gestational hypertension in coastal Bangladesh: a case-control study. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e108715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Moist L, Sontrop JM, Garg AX, et al. Risk of pregnancy-related hypertension within 5 years of exposure to drinking water contaminated with Escherichia coli O157:H7. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010; 12:613–620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Savitz DA, Stein CR, Elston B, et al. Relationship of perfluorooctanoic acid exposure to pregnancy outcome based on birth records in the mid-Ohio Valley. Environ Health Perspect. 2012; 120:1201–1207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hall EM, Acevedo J, López FG, et al. Hypertension among adults exposed to drinking water arsenic in Northern Chile. Environ Res. 2017; 153:99–105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yousefi M, Yaseri M, Nabizadeh R, et al. Association of hypertension, body mass index, and waist circumference with fluoride intake; water drinking in residents of fluoride endemic areas, Iran. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2018; 185:282–288 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Padula AM, Huang H, Baer RJ, et al. Environmental pollution and social factors as contributors to preterm birth in Fresno County. Environ Health. 2018; 17:70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Huang H, Woodruff TJ, Baer RJ, et al. Investigation of association between environmental and socioeconomic factors and preterm birth in California. Environ Int. 2018; 121Pt 21066–1078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Balazs C, Faust J, Goddard J, Bangia K,, Fons E,, Starke M. A framework and tool for evaluating California's progress in achieving the human right to water. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2019. Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/report/hr2wframeworkpublicreviewdraft010319.pdf
  • 30.Reese P. Does your water district fail to comply with drinking water standards? Sacramento Bee. 2018. Available at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/water-and-drought/article212304694.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Almberg KS, Turyk ME, Jones RM, et al. Atrazine contamination of drinking water and adverse birth outcomes in community water systems with elevated Atrazine in Ohio, 2006(-)2008. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15:1889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Blaisdell J, Turyk ME, Almberg KS, Jones RM, Stayner LT. Prenatal exposure to nitrate in drinking water and the risk of congenital anomalies. Environ Res. 2019; 176:108553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bloom MS, Neamtiu IA, Surdu S, et al. Low level arsenic contaminated water consumption and birth outcomes in Romania-An exploratory study. Reprod Toxicol. 2016; 59:8–16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ruckart PZ, Bove FJ, Maslia M. Evaluation of contaminated drinking water and preterm birth, small for gestational age, and birth weight at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina: a cross-sectional study. Environ Health. 2014; 13:99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stayner LT, Almberg K, Jones R, Graber J, Pedersen M, Turyk M. Atrazine and nitrate in drinking water and the risk of preterm delivery and low birth weight in four Midwestern states. Environ Res. 2017; 152:294–303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Balazs C, Morello-Frosch R, Hubbard A, Ray I. Social disparities in nitrate-contaminated drinking water in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Environ Health Perspect. 2011; 119:1272–1278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Balazs CL, Morello-Frosch R, Hubbard AE, Ray I. Environmental justice implications of arsenic contamination in California’s San Joaquin Valley: a cross-sectional, cluster-design examining exposure and compliance in community drinking water systems. Environ Health. 2012; 11:84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Balazs CL, Ray I. The drinking water disparities framework: on the origins and persistence of inequities in exposure. Am J Public Health. 2014; 104:603–611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hypertension in pregnancy . Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122:1122–1131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Faust J, Laura A, Komal B, et al. Update to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool CalEnviroScreen 3.0. CalEPA. 2017 [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cushing L, Faust J, August LM, Cendak R, Wieland W,, Alexeeff G. Racial/ethnic disparities in cumulative environmental health impacts in California: evidence from a statewide environmental justice screening tool (CalEnviroScreen 1.1). Am J Public Health. 2015; 105:2341–2348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Methodology for Statewide Drinking Water Contaminant Indicator CalEnviroScreen 3.0. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2017. Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/ces3dwmethodology.pdf.
  • 43.Poropat AE, Laidlaw MAS, Lanphear B, Ball A, Mielke HW. Blood lead and preeclampsia: a meta-analysis and review of implications. Environ Res. 2018; 160:12–19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hu H, Aro A, Payton M, et al. The relationship of bone and blood lead to hypertension. The Normative Aging Study. JAMA. 1996; 275:1171–1176 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ikechukwu IC, Ojareva OI, Ibhagbemien AJ, et al. Blood lead, calcium, and phosphorus in women with preeclampsia in Edo State, Nigeria. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2012; 67:163–169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Carmignani M, Volpe AR, Boscolo P, et al. Catcholamine and nitric oxide systems as targets of chronic lead exposure in inducing selective functional impairment. Life Sci. 2000; 68:401–415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Moreau T, Hannaert P, Orssaud G, et al. Influence of membrane sodium transport upon the relation between blood lead and blood pressure in a general male population. Environ Health Perspect. 1988; 78:47–51 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Laine JE, Ray P, Bodnar W, et al. Placental cadmium levels are associated with increased preeclampsia risk. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0139341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Wang F, Fan F, Wang L, Ye W, Zhang Q, Xie S. Maternal cadmium levels during pregnancy and the relationship with preeclampsia and fetal biometric parameters. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2018; 186:322–329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Elongi Moyene JP, Scheers H, Tandu-Umba B, et al. Preeclampsia and toxic metals: a case-control study in Kinshasa, DR Congo. Environ Health. 2016; 15:48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Maduray K, Moodley J, Soobramoney C, Moodley R, Naicker T. Elemental analysis of serum and hair from pre-eclamptic South African women. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2017; 43:180–186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kippler M, Hoque AM, Raqib R, Ohrvik H, Ekström EC, Vahter M. Accumulation of cadmium in human placenta interacts with the transport of micronutrients to the fetus. Toxicol Lett. 2010; 192:162–168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Joseph P. Mechanisms of cadmium carcinogenesis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009; 238:272–279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sandoval-Carrillo A, Méndez-Hernández EM, Antuna-Salcido EI, et al. Arsenic exposure and risk of preeclampsia in a Mexican mestizo population. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16:153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.The Water We Drink, Part I: What is California Doing to Ensure Its Water is Safe?. SOR, California Senate Office of Research. 2015. Available at: https://sor.senate.ca.gov/sites/sor.senate.ca.gov/files/FINAL%20draft%20Part%201%20Drinking%20Water.pdf.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ee9-5-e149-s001.docx (38.2KB, docx)

Articles from Environmental Epidemiology are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES