↓ Skip to main content

Associations between self-reported pest treatments and pesticide concentrations in carpet dust

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Associations between self-reported pest treatments and pesticide concentrations in carpet dust
Published in
Environmental Health, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12940-015-0015-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole C Deziel, Joanne S Colt, Erin E Kent, Robert B Gunier, Peggy Reynolds, Benjamin Booth, Catherine Metayer, Mary H Ward

Abstract

Recent meta-analyses demonstrate an association between self-reported residential pesticide use and childhood leukemia risk. Self-reports may suffer from recall bias and provide information only on broad pesticide categories. We compared parental self-reported home and garden pest treatments to pesticides measured in carpet dust. Parents of 277 children with leukemia and 306 controls in Northern and Central California (2001-2007) were asked about insect and weed treatments during the previous year. Carpet dust samples were analyzed for 47 pesticides. We present results for the 7 insecticides (carbaryl, propoxur, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, permethrin), 5 herbicides (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4-D], chlorthal, dicamba, mecoprop, simazine), and 1 synergist (piperonyl butoxide) that were present in home and garden products during the study period and were detected in ≥25% of carpet dust samples. We constructed linear regression models for the relative change in pesticide concentrations associated with self-reported treatment of pest types in cases and controls separately and combined, adjusting for demographics, housing characteristics, and nearby agricultural pesticide applications. Several self-reported treatments were associated with pesticide concentrations in dust. For example, households with flea/tick treatments had 2.3 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.4, 3.7) times higher permethrin concentrations than households not reporting this treatment. Households reporting treatment for ants/cockroaches had 2.5 (95% CI: 1.5, 4.2) times higher cypermethrin levels than households not reporting this treatment. Weed treatment by a household member was associated with 1.9 (1.4, 2.6), 2.2 (1.6, 3.1), and 2.8 (2.1, 3.7) times higher dust concentrations of dicamba, mecoprop, and 2,4-D, respectively. Weed treatments by professional applicators were null/inversely associated with herbicide concentrations in dust. Associations were generally similar between cases and controls and were consistent with pesticide active ingredients in these products during the study time period. Consistency between self-reported pest treatments, concentrations in dust, and pesticides in products lends credibility to the exposure assessment methods and suggests that differential recall by case-control status is minimal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 23 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,336,775
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#434
of 1,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,011
of 263,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#11
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.