Data Clothing and BigBarChart: Designing Physical Data Reports on Indoor Pollutants for Individuals and Communities.

In response to participant preferences and new ethics guidelines, researchers are increasingly sharing data with health study participants, including data on their own household chemical exposures. Data physicalization may be a useful tool for these communications, because it is thought to be accessible to a general audience and emotionally engaged. However, there are limited studies of data physicalization in the wild with diverse communities. Our application of this method in the Green Housing Study is an early example of using data physicalization in environmental health report-back. We gathered feedback through community meetings, prototype testing, and semistructured interviews, leading to the development of data t-shirts and other garments and person-sized bar charts. We found that participants were enthusiastic about data physicalizations, it connected them to their previous experience, and they had varying desires to share their data. Our findings suggest that researchers can enhance environmental communications by further developing the human experience of physicalizations and engaging diverse communities.

Chemicals in the Creek: designing a situated data physicalization of open government data with the community.

Over the last decade growing amounts of government data have been made available in an attempt to increase transparency and civic participation, but it is unclear if this data serves non-expert communities due to gaps in access and the technical knowledge needed to interpret this "open" data. We conducted a two-year design study focused on the creation of a community-based data display using the United States Environmental Protection Agency data on water permit violations by oil storage facilities on the Chelsea Creek in Massachusetts to explore whether situated data physicalization and Participatory Action Research could support meaningful engagement with open data. We selected this data as it is of interest to local groups and available online, yet remains largely invisible and inaccessible to the Chelsea community. The resulting installation, Chemicals in the Creek, responds to the call for community-engaged visualization processes and provides an application of situated methods of data representation. It proposes event-centered and power-aware modes of engagement using contextual and embodied data representations. The design of Chemicals in the Creek is grounded in interactive workshops and we analyze it through event observation, interviews, and community outcomes. We reflect on the role of community engaged research in the Information Visualization community relative to recent conversations on new approaches to design studies and evaluation.

Perceived Risks, Benefits, and Interest in Participating in Environmental Health Studies That Share Personal Exposure Data: A U.S. Survey of Prospective Participants.

Little is known about the willingness of prospective study participants to share environmental health data. To fill this gap, we conducted a hypothetical vignette survey among 1,575 women who have volunteered to be contacted about breast cancer studies. Eighty-three percent were interested in participating in the environmental studies, with little difference whether data were restricted to the research team, shared with approved researchers, or publicly accessible. However, participants somewhat preferred controlled access for children's data. Respondents were more interested in studies with environmental rather than biological samples and more interested when researchers would return personal results, a practice of increasing importance. They were more reluctant to share location or to participate if studies involved electronic medical records. Many expressed concerns about privacy, particularly security breaches, but reidentification risks were mentioned infrequently, indicating that this topic should be discussed during informed consent.

Privacy Risks of Sharing Data from Environmental Health Studies.

BACKGROUND: Sharing research data uses resources effectively; enables large, diverse data sets; and supports rigor and reproducibility. However, sharing such data increases privacy risks for participants who may be re-identified by linking study data to outside data sets. These risks have been investigated for genetic and medical records but rarely for environmental data. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated how data in environmental health (EH) studies may be vulnerable to linkage and we investigated, in a case study, whether environmental measurements could contribute to inferring latent categories (e.g., geographic location), which increases privacy risks. METHODS: We identified 12 prominent EH studies, reviewed the data types collected, and evaluated the availability of outside data sets that overlap with study data. With data from the Household Exposure Study in California and Massachusetts and the Green Housing Study in Boston, Massachusetts, and Cincinnati, Ohio, we used k-means clustering and principal component analysis to investigate whether participants' region of residence could be inferred from measurements of chemicals in household air and dust. RESULTS: All 12 studies included at least two of five data types that overlap with outside data sets: geographic location (9 studies), medical data (9 studies), occupation (10 studies), housing characteristics (10 studies), and genetic data (7 studies). In our cluster analysis, participants' region of residence could be inferred with 80%-98% accuracy using environmental measurements with original laboratory reporting limits. DISCUSSION: EH studies frequently include data that are vulnerable to linkage with voter lists, tax and real estate data, professional licensing lists, and ancestry websites, and exposure measurements may be used to identify subgroup membership, increasing likelihood of linkage. Thus, unsupervised sharing of EH research data potentially raises substantial privacy risks. Empirical research can help characterize risks and evaluate technical solutions. Our findings reinforce the need for legal and policy protections to shield participants from potential harms of re-identification from data sharing. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4817.

Wrangling environmental exposure data: guidance for getting the best information from your laboratory measurements.

BACKGROUND: Environmental health and exposure researchers can improve the quality and interpretation of their chemical measurement data, avoid spurious results, and improve analytical protocols for new chemicals by closely examining lab and field quality control (QC) data. Reporting QC data along with chemical measurements in biological and environmental samples allows readers to evaluate data quality and appropriate uses of the data (e.g., for comparison to other exposure studies, association with health outcomes, use in regulatory decision-making). However many studies do not adequately describe or interpret QC assessments in publications, leaving readers uncertain about the level of confidence in the reported data. One potential barrier to both QC implementation and reporting is that guidance on how to integrate and interpret QC assessments is often fragmented and difficult to find, with no centralized repository or summary. In addition, existing documents are typically written for regulatory scientists rather than environmental health researchers, who may have little or no experience in analytical chemistry. OBJECTIVES: We discuss approaches for implementing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) in environmental exposure measurement projects and describe our process for interpreting QC results and drawing conclusions about data validity. DISCUSSION: Our methods build upon existing guidance and years of practical experience collecting exposure data and analyzing it in collaboration with contract and university laboratories, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. With real examples from our data, we demonstrate problems that would not have come to light had we not engaged with our QC data and incorporated field QC samples in our study design. Our approach focuses on descriptive analyses and data visualizations that have been compatible with diverse exposure studies with sample sizes ranging from tens to hundreds of samples. Future work could incorporate additional statistically grounded methods for larger datasets with more QC samples. CONCLUSIONS: This guidance, along with example table shells, graphics, and some sample R code, provides a useful set of tools for getting the best information from valuable environmental exposure datasets and enabling valid comparison and synthesis of exposure data across studies.

Reporting to parents on children's exposures to asthma triggers in low-income and public housing, an interview-based case study of ethics, environmental literacy, individual action, and public health benefits.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence about the effects of endocrine disruptors on asthma symptoms suggests new opportunities to reduce asthma by changing personal environments. Right-to-know ethics supports returning personal results for these chemicals to participants, so they can make decisions to reduce exposures. Yet researchers and institutional review boards have been reluctant to approve results reports in low-income communities, which are disproportionately affected by asthma. Concerns include limited literacy, lack of resources to reduce exposures, co-occurring stressors, and lack of models for effective reporting. To better understand the ethical and public health implications of returning personal results in low-income communities, we investigated parents' experiences of learning their children's environmental chemical and biomonitoring results in the Green Housing Study of asthma. METHODS: The Green Housing Study measured indoor chemical exposures, allergens, and children's asthma symptoms in "green"-renovated public housing and control sites in metro-Boston and Cincinnati in 2011-2013. We developed reports for parents of children in the study, including results for their child and community. We observed community meetings where results were reported, and metro-Boston residents participated in semi-structured interviews in 2015 about their report-back experience. Interviews were systematically coded and analyzed. RESULTS: Report-back was positively received, contributed to greater understanding, built trust between researchers and participants, and facilitated action to improve health. Sampling visits and community meetings also contributed to creating a positive study experience for participants. Participants were able to make changes in their homes, such as altering product use and habits that may reduce asthma symptoms, though some faced roadblocks from family members. Participants also gained access to medical resources, though some felt that clinicians were not responsive. Participants wanted larger scale change from government or industry and wanted researchers to leverage study results to achieve change. CONCLUSIONS: Report-back on environmental chemical exposures in low-income communities can enhance research benefits by engaging residents with personally relevant information that informs and motivates actions to reduce exposure to asthma triggers. Ethical practices in research should support deliberative report-back in vulnerable communities.

Urinary biomonitoring of phosphate flame retardants: levels in California adults and recommendations for future studies.

Phosphate flame retardants (PFRs) are abundant and found at the highest concentrations relative to other flame retardant chemicals in house dust; however, little is known about the biological levels of PFRs and their relationship with house dust concentrations. These relationships provide insight into major exposure pathways and potential health risks. We analyzed urine samples from 16 California residents in 2011 for 6 chlorinated and nonchlorinated dialkyl or diaryl phosphates (DAPs), the expected major metabolites of the most prominent PFRs, and qualitatively screened for 18 other metabolites predicted from in vitro studies. We detected all 6 DAPs within the range of previously reported levels, although very few comparisons are available. We found weakly positive nonsignificant correlations between urine and dust concentrations and maxima urine corresponding to maxima dust for the pairs bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (BDCIPP)-tris(1,3-dichloro-isopropyl) phosphate (TDCIPP) and bis(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (BCEP)-tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP). Metabolite levels of PFRs were correlated for many PFR combinations, suggesting they commonly co-occur. As far as we know, this is the first study to measure these 6 DAP metabolites simultaneously and to detect other PFR metabolites in US urine samples. We recommend biomonitoring studies include these 6 DAPs as well as several additional compounds detected through qualitative screening and previous ADME studies. PFRs represent a class of poorly studied commercial chemicals with widespread exposure and raise concerns for health effects including carcinogenicity and neurotoxicity.

After the PBDE phase-out: a broad suite of flame retardants in repeat house dust samples from California.

Higher house dust levels of PBDE flame retardants (FRs) have been reported in California than other parts of the world, due to the state's furniture flammability standard. However, changing levels of these and other FRs have not been evaluated following the 2004 U.S. phase-out of PentaBDE and OctaBDE. We analyzed dust collected in 16 California homes in 2006 and again in 2011 for 62 FRs and organohalogens, which represents the broadest investigation of FRs in homes. Fifty-five compounds were detected in at least one sample; 41 in at least 50% of samples. Concentrations of chlorinated OPFRs, including two (TCEP and TDCIPP) listed as carcinogens under California's Proposition 65, were found up to 0.01% in dust, higher than previously reported in the U.S. In 75% of the homes, we detected TDBPP, or brominated "Tris," which was banned in children's sleepwear because of carcinogenicity. To our knowledge, this is the first report on TDBPP in house dust. Concentrations of Firemaster 550 components (EH-TBB, BEH-TEBP, and TPHP) were higher in 2011 than 2006, consistent with its use as a PentaBDE replacement. Results highlight the evolving nature of FR exposures and suggest that manufacturers continue to use hazardous chemicals and replace chemicals of concern with chemicals with uncharacterized toxicity.

Endocrine disruptors and asthma-associated chemicals in consumer products.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory and human studies raise concerns about endocrine disruption and asthma resulting from exposure to chemicals in consumer products. Limited labeling or testing information is available to evaluate products as exposure sources. OBJECTIVES: We analytically quantified endocrine disruptors and asthma-related chemicals in a range of cosmetics, personal care products, cleaners, sunscreens, and vinyl products. We also evaluated whether product labels provide information that can be used to select products without these chemicals. METHODS: We selected 213 commercial products representing 50 product types. We tested 42 composited samples of high-market-share products, and we tested 43 alternative products identified using criteria expected to minimize target compounds. Analytes included parabens, phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), triclosan, ethanolamines, alkylphenols, fragrances, glycol ethers, cyclosiloxanes, and ultraviolet (UV) filters. RESULTS: We detected 55 compounds, indicating a wide range of exposures from common products. Vinyl products contained > 10% bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and could be an important source of DEHP in homes. In other products, the highest concentrations and numbers of detects were in the fragranced products (e.g., perfume, air fresheners, and dryer sheets) and in sunscreens. Some products that did not contain the well-known endocrine-disrupting phthalates contained other less-studied phthalates (dicyclohexyl phthalate, diisononyl phthalate, and di-n-propyl phthalate; also endocrine-disrupting compounds), suggesting a substitution. Many detected chemicals were not listed on product labels. CONCLUSIONS: Common products contain complex mixtures of EDCs and asthma-related compounds. Toxicological studies of these mixtures are needed to understand their biological activity. Regarding epidemiology, our findings raise concern about potential confounding from co-occurring chemicals and misclassification due to variability in product composition. Consumers should be able to avoid some target chemicals-synthetic fragrances, BPA, and regulated active ingredients-using purchasing criteria. More complete product labeling would enable consumers to avoid the rest of the target chemicals.

Semivolatile endocrine-disrupting compounds in paired indoor and outdoor air in two northern California communities.

Interest in the health effects of potential endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) that are high production volume chemicals used in consumer products has made exposure assessment and source identification a priority. We collected paired indoor and outdoor air samples in 40 nonsmoking homes in urban, industrial Richmond, CA, and 10 in rural Bolinas, CA. Samples were analyzed by GC-MS for 104 analytes, including phthalates (11), alkylphenols (3), parabens (3), polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants (3), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (3), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (24), pesticides (38), and phenolic compounds (19). We detected 39 analytes in outdoor air and 63 in indoor air. For many of the phenolic compounds, alkylphenols, phthalates, and PBDEs, these represent some of the first outdoor measures and the first analysis of the relative importance of indoor and outdoor sources in paired samples. Data demonstrate higher indoor concentrations for 32 analytes, suggesting primarily indoor sources, as compared with only 2 that were higher outdoors. Outdoor air concentrations were higher in Richmond than Bolinas for 3 phthalates, 10 PAHs, and o-phenylphenol, while indoor air levels were more similar between communities, except that differences observed outdoors were also seen indoors. Indoor concentrations of the most ubiquitous chemicals were generally correlated with each other (4-t-butylphenol, o-phenylphenol, nonylphenol, several phthalates, and methyl phenanthrenes; Kendall correlation coefficients 0.2-0.6, p<0.05), indicating possible shared sources and highlighting the importance of considering mixtures in health studies.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals in indoor and outdoor air.

The past 50 years have seen rapid development of new building materials, furnishings, and consumer products and a corresponding explosion in new chemicals in the built environment. While exposure levels are largely undocumented, they are likely to have increased as a wider variety of chemicals came into use, people began spending more time indoors, and air exchange rates decreased to improve energy efficiency. As a result of weak regulatory requirements for chemical safety testing, only limited toxicity data are available for these chemicals. Over the past 15 years, some chemical classes commonly used in building materials, furnishings, and consumer products have been shown to be endocrine disrupting chemicals-that is they interfere with the action of endogenous hormones. These include PCBs, used in electrical equipment, caulking, paints and surface coatings; chlorinated and brominated flame retardants, used in electronics, furniture, and textiles; pesticides, used to control insects, weeds, and other pests in agriculture, lawn maintenance, and the built environment; phthalates, used in vinyl, plastics, fragrances, and other products; alkylphenols, used in detergents, pesticide formulations, and polystyrene plastics; and parabens, used to preserve products like lotions and sunscreens. This paper summarizes reported indoor and outdoor air concentrations, chemical use and sources, and toxicity data for each of these chemical classes. While industrial and transportation-related pollutants have been shown to migrate indoors from outdoor sources, it is expected that indoor sources predominate for these consumer product chemicals; and some studies have identified indoor sources as the predominant factor influencing outdoor ambient air concentrations in densely populated areas. Mechanisms of action, adverse effects, and dose-response relationships for many of these chemicals are poorly understood and no systematic screening of common chemicals for endocrine disrupting effects is currently underway, so questions remain as to the health impacts of these exposures.