The Healthy Men Study: An Evaluation of Exposure to Disinfection By-Products in Tap Water and Sperm Quality

BackgroundChlorination of drinking water generates disinfection by-products (DBPs), which have been shown to disrupt spermatogenesis in rodents at high doses, suggesting that DBPs could pose a reproductive risk to men. In this study we assessed DBP exposure and testicular toxicity, as evidenced by altered semen quality.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study to evaluate semen quality in men with well-characterized exposures to DBPs. Participants were 228 presumed fertile men with different DBP profiles. They completed a telephone interview about demographics, health history, water consumption, and other exposures and provided a semen sample. Semen outcomes included sperm concentration and morphology, as well as DNA integrity and chromatin maturity. Exposures to DBPs were evaluated by incorporating data on water consumption and bathing and showering with concentrations measured in tap water. We used multivariable linear regression to assess the relationship between exposure to DBPs and adverse sperm outcomes.ResultsThe mean (median) sperm concentration and sperm count were 114.2 (90.5) million/mL and 362 (265) million, respectively. The mean (median) of the four trihalomethane species (THM4) exposure was 45.7 (65.3) μg/L, and the mean (median) of the nine haloacetic acid species (HAA9) exposure was 30.7 (44.2) μg/L. These sperm parameters were not associated with exposure to these classes of DBPs. For other sperm outcomes, we found no consistent pattern of increased abnormal semen quality with elevated exposure to trihalomethanes (THMs) or haloacetic acids (HAAs). The use of alternate methods for assessing exposure to DBPs and site-specific analyses did not change these results.ConclusionsThe results of this study do not support an association between exposure to levels of DBPs near or below regulatory limits and adverse sperm outcomes in humans

Prevalence of high frequency hearing loss consistent with noise exposure among people working with sound systems and general population in Brazil: A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Music is ever present in our daily lives, establishing a link between humans and the arts through the senses and pleasure. Sound technicians are the link between musicians and audiences or consumers. Recently, general concern has arisen regarding occurrences of hearing loss induced by noise from excessively amplified sound-producing activities within leisure and professional environments. Sound technicians' activities expose them to the risk of hearing loss, and consequently put at risk their quality of life, the quality of the musical product and consumers' hearing. The aim of this study was to measure the prevalence of high frequency hearing loss consistent with noise exposure among sound technicians in Brazil and compare this with a control group without occupational noise exposure.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a cross-sectional study comparing 177 participants in two groups: 82 sound technicians and 95 controls (non-sound technicians). A questionnaire on music listening habits and associated complaints was applied, and data were gathered regarding the professionals' numbers of working hours per day and both groups' hearing complaint and presence of tinnitus. The participants' ear canals were visually inspected using an otoscope. Hearing assessments were performed (tonal and speech audiometry) using a portable digital AD 229 E audiometer funded by FAPESP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no statistically significant difference between the sound technicians and controls regarding age and gender. Thus, the study sample was homogenous and would be unlikely to lead to bias in the results. A statistically significant difference in hearing loss was observed between the groups: 50% among the sound technicians and 10.5% among the controls. The difference could be addressed to high sound levels.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The sound technicians presented a higher prevalence of high frequency hearing loss consistent with noise exposure than did the general population, although the possibility of residual confounding due to unmeasured factors such as socioeconomic status cannot be ruled out.</p