UC study of Fernald data links environmental phenols to heart toxicities
Environmental phenols are present in numerous everyday consumer products, serving as preservatives in packaged foods, parabens in shampoos, and bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic dishware. Consequently, people are consistently exposed to these chemicals on a daily basis.
Some of these environmental phenols are known to have cardiac toxicities. Now, an interdisciplinary study involving four University of Cincinnati College of Medicine professors is revealing their adverse impact on the heart’s electrical properties, and the research has been published in the journal Environmental Health.
“This is the first study to look at the impact of phenol exposure on cardiac electrical activity in humans,” said Hong-Sheng Wang, PhD, professor in the Department of Pharmacology, Physiology and Neurobiology and the study’s lead author.
Researchers used data from the Fernald Community Cohort, which includes nearly 10,000 people who lived near the former U.S. Department of Energy uranium processing site at Fernald, outside Cincinnati, and participated in the Fernald Medical Monitoring Program between 1990 and 2008.
Much of the cohort did not experience exposure to uranium beyond the radiation received by the general population. Wang and his team used their data, including biological samples and medical records, in the study so uranium exposure would not be a factor in the findings — making them relevant to the general population. Because urine samples and electrocardiograms, or EKGs, were collected on the same day, the results were significant for analyzing exposure to environmental phenols.
The EKGs, which measure cardiac electrical activities, were read by board-certified physicians, and the urine samples were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for exposure analysis.
Findings on the Heart’s Electrical Activity
One goal of the study was to identify any changes in EKG parameters associated with environmental phenol exposure.
The heart is driven by electrical activity, so anything affecting its electrical properties can have a detrimental impact and possibly result in arrhythmias.
The research concluded higher exposure to some environmental phenols is associated with altered cardiac electrical activity.
Researchers found higher exposure to BPA, BPF, and BPA+F in women is associated with a longer PR interval, a delay in the time it takes for electrical signals to move from the atria at the top of the heart to the ventricles.
“Our findings were highly sex-specific,” said Wang. In women, researchers identified an association with longer QRS duration, or contraction of the ventricles, and dysfunction of the electrical impulses of the heart.
“It was particularly pronounced in women with higher body mass indexes,” said Wang.
In men, researchers found higher exposure to triclocarban (TCC), an antimicrobial agent, led to longer QT intervals in the heart — meaning the heart’s electrical system is taking too long to recharge, a situation that can contribute to heart rhythm dysfunction. TCC has since been banned in the United States.
Implications for Heart Health
Wang also pointed out that typical exposure levels alone are unlikely to cause clinically significant heart disease in healthy people.
“These were not dramatic changes that we observed, but moderate changes to cardiac electrical activity,” he said. “However, they were particularly pronounced in certain subpopulations.”
He said the altered cardiac activity could exacerbate existing heart disease or arrhythmias in a patient, especially older adults or those with other risk factors.
“Now there are new chemicals out there, so the next step would be to examine these newer environmental chemicals and to focus on their impact on an individual level in those who are predisposed to heart disease,” said Wang.
Reference: “Association of same-day urinary phenol levels and cardiac electrical alterations: analysis of the Fernald Community Cohort” by Jack Rubinstein, Susan M. Pinney, Changchun Xie and Hong-Sheng Wang, 19 September 2024, Environmental Health.
DOI: 10.1186/s12940-024-01114-x
Other contributors in this study included Susan Pinney, PhD, FACE, professor of epidemiology in the Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences; Jack Rubinstein, MD, FACC, professor of clinical cardiology in the Department of Internal Medicine; and Changchun Xie, PhD, professor in the Department of Biostatistics, Health Informatics and Data Sciences.
This study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health and the University of Cincinnati Center for Environmental Genetics.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
11 Comments
What about the 2 pots of coffee and red bulls I drink every day, do you think that does anything?
Takes all yer money.
Caffeine is already well known for affecting people’s hearts.
I do the same, Dave. But I slap on 3 energy patches and drink 2 5-hour energy shots,followed by a Sudafed, non drowsy.
👍 affirmative.
It ain’t good.
Science will come up with any other reasons and ways to not blame it on the shots.
As someone in the subpopulation, who almost died from an airborn phenol exposure in 2021– I’m grateful for scientific studies, like this one, that help push science forward us.
Chemical sensitive people are largely misunderstood because the studies are lacking. This study even stated it was a first of its kind.
Primary Care doctors are generally the first and only lined of defense after an ER visit, and many of us feel gaslit by our surgeons because PC doctors are NOT specialty doctors, so we are in generally poor health, and do not get the attentive care we need to have good quality health outcomes or lives.
I did not get the Covid shot, or subsequent boosters, so I can speak to the fact that I was not impacted by whatever might be a disrupting side effect for long haul Covid cohorts. And my heart goes out to those individuals because I get their distress.
I’m thankful there are scientists who show up trying to figure out diseasing processes for people like myself who would like for science to confirm how chemicals are disruptive to the body, and if those populations, living around factories, cropland, treatment plants– like water waste, or near pesticides companies, gas station or congested heavily traffic freeways,highways, nursery crops, or coal mines, lithium, and basalt mines, are in fact AT RISK to being overwhelmed by chemical exposure overload that is above the recommended daily exposure, that these types of spaces are not allowed to be near living quarters, or people working at these places in understand the risks they are taking because of their daily exposure levels.
Nah, should be fine Dave
@Joe Bacarella😆😅😂🤣🤣👍🫶 !!
The science is called vectors so one chemical gas has a certain vector cumulatively dizens of vectors add upp to toxic loading where death occurs with no one vector the cause so not until a cumulative assesment is done exposure rates and doses have to be re-evaluated to account for the loading cumulative effect.