Volume 8 Supplement 1

Proceedings of the Joint Environment and Human Health Programme: Annual Science Day Conference and Workshop

Open Access

Tap water use amongst pregnant women in a multi-ethnic cohort

  • Rachel B Smith1Email author,
  • Mireille B Toledano1,
  • John Wright2,
  • Pauline Raynor2 and
  • Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen1, 3
Environmental Health20098(Suppl 1):S7

https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-8-S1-S7

Published: 21 December 2009

Abstract

Background

Studies of disinfection by-products in drinking water and measures of adverse fetal growth have often been limited by exposure assessment lacking data on individual water use, and therefore failing to reflect individual variation in DBP exposure.

Methods

Pregnant women recruited to the Born in Bradford cohort study completed a questionnaire which covers water exposure. Information was collected on water consumption, showering, bathing and swimming. Water exposure data from a subset of 39 women of the cohort are described here.

Results

Mean total tap water intake was 1.8 l/day, and women on average spent 146 minutes per week showering and bathing. Most tap water intake occurred at home (100% for unemployed, 71.8% for employed). Differences between age groups were observed for total tap water intake overall (p = 0.02) and at home (p = 0.01), and for bottled water intake (p = 0.05). There were differences between ethnic groups for tap water intake at home (p = 0.02) and total tap water intake at work (p = 0.02). Total tap water intake at work differed by income category (p = 0.001). Duration per shower was inversely correlated with age (Spearman's correlation -0.39, p = 0.02), and differed according to employment status (p = 0.04), ethnicity (p = 0.02) and income (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

This study provides estimates of water exposure in pregnant women in a multi-ethnic population in the north of England and suggests differences related to age, employment, income and ethnicity. The findings are valuable to inform exposure assessment in studies assessing the relationship between DBPs and adverse birth outcomes.

Background

Disinfection by-products (DBPs) are formed, when the added chlorine reacts with natural organic matter and/or bromide ions in the water [1]. Humans can be exposed to DBPs in drinking water by ingestion, or by inhalation and dermal absorption during activities such as showering [2]. There is some evidence to suggest that exposure to DBPs during pregnancy may be related to measures of compromised fetal growth, e.g. term low birth weight, or intra-uterine growth retardation [3, 4], however findings are inconsistent and the evidence remains inconclusive. A major limitation in previous studies has been crude or incomplete exposure assessment; in particular, studies have often ignored individual variation in water use, therefore ignoring a potential source of variation in DBP exposure.

We are investigating the relationship between DBPs and measures of fetal growth in the Born in Bradford birth cohort [5]. We aim to improve on previous exposure assessment, by generating personalised DBP exposure estimates for each woman in the cohort during her pregnancy. At the area level, we have routinely collected information on trihalomethane concentrations in tap water supplied by the local water company, and as part of the HiWATE project [6] we have also conducted extra tap water sampling in the study area for non-trihalomethane DBPs. At the individual level, our exposure assessment involves evaluating exposure to water amongst pregnant women in the cohort. In this paper we describe patterns of water exposure within a subset of the cohort.

Methods

Born in Bradford is a prospective multi-ethnic birth cohort in the north of England which is recruiting 10,000 mother and baby couplets between 2007-2010. Pregnant women are recruited to the cohort at approximately 28 weeks gestation. At recruitment detailed questionnaires are administered by bilingual researchers collecting data on the mothers' lifestyle, environment, ethnicity and health. Questions include water exposures: consumption of tap water, bottled water, tea, coffee, and squash at home, work/college, or elsewhere, water filtering habits at home and work, and showering, bathing and swimming habits. As part of a nested validation study 56 women were recruited from the main cohort during March and May 2008. The aim of the nested study was to collect detailed information which could be used to validation exposure estimates to DBPs and air pollution for the main cohort. To be eligible for the nested study women had to be able to speak and read English. Out of 166 eligible women, 56 (33.7%) agreed to take part. 12 women withdrew and 5 failed to complete the study, leaving 39 women. As part of this nested study we were provided with an extract of baseline questionnaire data for these 39 women by the Born in Bradford study, in advance of completion of the dataset for the main cohort for which recruitment is still ongoing. We analysed the baseline questionnaire data on this subset to provide descriptive statistics of water use, which are reported in this paper. Analysis was performed using R 2.4.1 [7]. Consumption was reported in cups or glasses per day (cup/glass assumed to be 200 ml), and converted into litres for analysis. Total tap water intake was calculated by summing tap water, tea, coffee and squash intakes. Total fluid intake was calculated by also including bottled water. When analysing by ethnicity, categories were collapsed to give 3 subgroups: White (incorporating White British and White Other), South Asian (incorporating Pakistani and Indian), and Other (incorporating Black or Black British and All Other), because numbers were small, and for employment subgroups, subjects on maternity/sick leave were kept with the employed group. The Born in Bradford study and the nested study were approved by the Bradford Research Ethics Committee.

Results

Demographics

Mean age of subjects was 29.7 years with just over half of the women employed (Table 1). A sizeable proportion of the women were educated to degree level (35.9%). 48.7% were of White British origin and 38.5% were of Pakistani origin. Income levels varied and only 10.3% reported currently smoking.
Table 1

Demographic characteristics

  

Nested subset

Main cohort

Characteristics

 

n

%

n

%

All

 

39

100.0

4070

100.0

Age

<20

2

5.1

302

7.4

 

20-24

4

10.3

1088

26.7

 

25-29

13

33.3

1317

32.4

 

30-34

15

38.5

839

20.6

 

35-39

4

10.3

450

11.1

 

≥40

1

2.6

73

1.8

 

Missing data

  

1

0.02

Marital Status

Married

31

79.5

2864

70.4

 

Single

8

20.5

1198

29.4

 

Missing data

  

8

0.2

Highest Educational Qualification

None

4

10.3

698

17.1

 

O level/GCSE or A level

13

33.3

1389

34.1

 

Degree

14

35.9

827

20.3

 

Other (e.g. NVQ)

8

20.5

1094

26.9

 

Don't know

  

53

1.3

 

Missing data

  

9

0.2

Employment status

Employed

20

51.3

1624

39.9

 

Unemployed

18

46.2

2258

55.5

 

Maternity/Sick leave

1

2.6

184

4.5

 

Missing data

  

4

0.1

Parity

0

14

35.9

1587

39.0

 

1

15

38.5

1198

29.4

 

2

7

17.9

657

16.1

 

3+

3

7.7

528

13.0

 

Missing data

  

100

2.5

Household Income

<£20,000

15

38.5

1876

46.1

 

£20,000-40,000

14

35.9

953

23.4

 

>£40,000

7

17.9

332

8.2

 

Don't know

3

7.7

846

20.8

 

Not stated/missing

  

63

1.4

Ethnicity

White British

19

48.7

1573

38.6

 

White Other

1

2.6

96

2.4

 

Pakistani

15

38.5

1873

46.0

 

Indian

1

2.6

159

3.9

 

Bangladeshi

0

0.0

94

2.3

 

Any other Asian origin

0

0.0

40

1.0

 

Black or Black British

1

2.6

105

2.6

 

Mixed

0

0.0

67

1.6

 

All Other

2

5.1

59

1.4

 

Not stated/missing

  

4

0.1

Smoking

Current smoker

4

10.3

562

13.8

 

Past smoker

8

20.5

612

15.0

 

Never smoker

27

69.2

2896

71.2

Water consumption

Overall

Mean total tap water intake across all locations was 1.8 l/day, whilst total fluid intake was 2.1 l/day (Table 2(a)). Tap water consumption (cold tap water and tap water based beverages) represented 84.3% of all fluid intake. For unemployed women, 100% of tap water intake occurred at home. For employed women 71.8% of tap water intake occurred at home, and 28.2% at work.
Table 2

Summary of water exposures

 

2a: Water Consumption

Mean

Min

Percentile Distribution

Max

Consumed

 

Variable

  

0.25

0.50

0.75

 

n

%

HOME

Tap water (filtered and unfiltered) (l/day)

0.7

0.0

0.2

0.6

0.8

2.6

32

82.1

 

Filtered tap water (l/day)

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

8

20.5

 

Unfiltered tap water (l/day)

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

2.6

24

61.5

 

Tea (l/day)

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

2.4

22

56.4

 

Coffee (l/day)

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

7

17.9

 

Squash/cordial (l/day)

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

21

53.8

 

Total tap water intake (l/day)

1.5

0.0

0.7

1.4

2.2

4.2

36

92.3

 

Bottled water (l/day)

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.0

7

17.9

 

Total fluid intake (l/day)

1.6

0.2

0.8

1.4

2.4

4.2

39

100.0

WORK

Tap water (filtered and unfiltered) (l/day) *

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

2.0

6

28.6

 

Filtered tap water (l/day) *

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

 

Unfiltered tap water (l/day) *

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

2.0

6

28.6

 

Tea (l/day) *

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

1.0

6

28.6

 

Coffee (l/day) *

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

5

23.8

 

Squash/cordial (l/day) *

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

2

9.5

 

Total tap water intake (l/day) *

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

2.8

15

71.4

 

Bottled water (l/day) *

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

2.0

8

38.1

 

Total fluid intake (l/day) *

0.9

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.0

2.8

18

85.7

ELSEWHERE

Tap water (l/day)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

 

Tea (l/day)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

 

Coffee (l/day)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

 

Squash/cordial (l/day)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

 

Total tap water intake (l/day)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

 

Bottled water (l/day)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

1

2.6

 

Total fluid intake (l/day)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

1

2.6

ALL

Total tap water intake (l/day)

1.8

0.0

1.0

1.4

2.4

5.8

37

94.9

 

Total fluid intake (l/day)

2.1

0.4

1.2

1.8

2.7

5.8

39

100.0

 

2b: Showering, Bathing, Swimming

Mean

Min

Percentile Distribution

Max

Activity carried out

 

Variable

  

0.25

0.50

0.75

 

n

%

SHOWERING & BATHING

No. showers per week

5

0

3

5

7

14

34

87.2

 

Duration per shower (min) †

16

5

10

15

20

60

  
 

Showering (min/week)

74

0

35

60

100

300

34

87.2

 

No. baths per week

2

0

0

2

3

7

26

66.7

 

Duration per bath (min) ‡

40

10

26

30

38

120

  
 

Bathing (min/week)

72

0

0

60

120

360

26

66.7

 

Total time showering/bathing (min/week)

146

35

73

110

185

540

39

100.0

SWIM

No. swimming sessions per week

1

0

0

0

0

2

6

15.4

 

Duration per swim (min) §

53

10

26

53

60

120

  
 

Swimming (min/week)

10

0

0

0

0

120

6

15.4

* amongst those who were employed (n = 21), † amongst those who reported at least one shower per week (n = 34), ‡ amongst those who reported at least one bath per week (n = 26), §amongst those who reported going swimming at least once per week (n = 6)

Home

Total tap water intake at home averaged 1.5 l/day. The largest component of total tap water intake at home came from cold tap water (50.7%), followed by tea (23.1%) and then squash (18.9%). The majority of cold tap water intake was unfiltered (73.1%). 7.7% of women reported no tap water intake from any source at home.

Work

Amongst employed women, total tap water intake at work averaged 0.6 l/day. All tap water consumed at work was unfiltered. The largest component of total tap water intake at work came from cold tap water (43.1%), followed by tea (29.3%) and then coffee (17.2%). Women consumed similar quantities of cold tap water and bottled water at work. 28.6% of employed women reported no tap water intake from any source at work.

Showering & bathing

Showering was reported by 87.2%, and bathing by 66.7%, of women (Table 2(b) ). Amongst those women who reported showering mean duration per shower was 16 minutes. Mean duration of bath was 40 minutes, amongst those reporting bathing. Bath duration tended to be longer than shower duration, but overall time spent showering or bathing per week was similar for both activities.

Swimming

Only 6 women (15.4%) actually reported going swimming at least once a week. Amongst these women, average duration of swimming session was 53 minutes.

Water use stratified by demographic characteristics

Age

No clear monotonic trends were observed for water consumption across age groups, although there were differences between groups for intakes of total tap water at home (p = 0.01), total tap water overall (p = 0.02) and bottled water (p = 0.05) (see Additional file 1). Duration per shower and total time spent showering and bathing per week were inversely correlated with age (Spearman's correlation: -0.39 (p = 0.02) and -0.36 (p = 0.03) respectively).

Employment status

There were no differences in tap water consumption overall, or at home, according to employment status. Duration per shower was significantly longer for unemployed than for employed women (p = 0.04).

Income

No clear monotonic trends were observed across income categories, although differences were observed for total tap water intake at work (p = 0.001) and duration per shower (p = 0.02).

Ethnicity

When stratifying by ethnicity, the results suggest women of South Asian origin may consume more tap water than women in other ethnic groups, and may spend longer showering and bathing, however differences between groups only reached statistical significance for tap water intake at home (p = 0.02), total tap water intake at work (p = 0.02), and duration per shower (p = 0.02).

Differences between the subgroups may exist for other water use variables, but they did not reach statistical significance.

Discussion

These results show that cold tap water and tap water based beverages constitute a major part of daily fluid intake for pregnant women, and that the majority of tap water intake occurs at home for both unemployed and employed women. However, for employed women some tap water ingestion occurs at work and this should be considered in DBP exposure assessment. Many previous studies on DBPs and adverse birth outcomes have assessed exposure only at the mother's home, e.g. by using trihalomethane concentrations in the water supply of the mother's residence at time of birth. If, as our study suggests, the majority of tap water intake occurs at home, potential exposure misclassification from excluding exposures at other locations should be relatively small.

Water exposures in our study were higher than reported by the only other UK study on water use by pregnant women. Kaur et al. [8] found overall total tap water intake to be 1.31 l/day (calculated from their reported consumption per week), and that women spent 54.3 min/week showering and 54.7 min/week bathing. Barbone et al. [9] report total tap water intake of 0.6 l/day in Italy, whilst in the US, Shimokura et al. [10] report 0.78 l/day and Zender et al. [11] 3.4 l/day. Forssén et al. [12] report 120 min/week showering amongst pregnant women in the US, which is greater than we found, but bathing was less at 50 min/week.

Our results suggest that there may be some differences for tap water intake and showering/bathing behaviour according to age, employment status, income and ethnicity. Tap water intake has previously been shown to differ by ethnicity [12] and showering and bathing by ethnicity [13] and socioeconomic status [12]. However, as we found no clear-cut patterns, these factors need further investigation in a larger group of women from the birth cohort. It is important to understand these differences in water behaviour, because maternal age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity are associated with fetal growth and low birth weight [1416], and may act as confounders if they are also independently associated with exposure to water. In studies using individual-level data these factors tend to be adjusted for. However, many studies on DBPs and adverse birth outcomes have relied upon exposure assessment and confounding data at an ecological level [17, 18] or, due to their retrospective design, information on confounders of interest has been incomplete [19, 20]. Consequently, a number of epidemiological studies to date in this field of research have been unable to fully adjust for potential confounding. Interpretation of results from these studies is, therefore, limited by the possibility of residual confounding. The prospective cohort design and comprehensive data collection of Born in Bradford will address these methodological weaknesses and in time help to inform the evidence base about the potential effects of DBPs on birth outcomes.

This study has a number of limitations. The results in this study are based on small numbers of women in one city and may not therefore be generalisable to the wider population of pregnant women. Nonetheless, given that there is very little information available on water use by pregnant women in the UK, we believe that these results are useful as approximate estimates of water use in pregnancy and indicate issues that should be considered in epidemiological studies of DBPs, e.g. potential differences in water use in relation to ethnicity.

There is potential for selection bias in this subset. Due to the prohibitive cost of translation, recruitment to the subset excluded the 12-15% of women who spoke no English. This may explain the greater proportion of women of White British origin and lower proportion of women of Pakistani origin compared to the main cohort. With regards to age, marital status, parity and smoking the nested subset was similar to the main cohort. However, the nested subset appeared better educated and had a greater proportion of women in higher income brackets than the main cohort. Thus it is possible that our results may not fully reflect water use in women with lower levels of educational attainment or income.

Conclusion

This study provides estimates of water exposure in pregnant women in a multi-ethnic population in the north of England. The findings are valuable to inform exposure assessment in studies assessing the relationship between DBPs and adverse birth outcomes. Future work will involve further investigation of potential differences between demographic subgroups on a larger dataset, using regression-type analyses, and validation of questionnaire responses for water exposures. This will be undertaken by comparing questionnaire responses with records of water use kept by the 39 women in a 7-day exposure diary.

Note

The peer review of this article can be found in Additional file 2.

List of abbreviations used

DBPs: 

Disinfection By-Products

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the families who took part in this study, to the midwives for their help in recruiting them, the paediatricians and health visitors and to the Born in Bradford team which included interviewers, data managers, laboratory staff, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers and managers.

This research was supported by The Joint Environment & Human Health Programme, supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), Environment Agency (EA), Ministry of Defence (MOD), Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC), Medical Research Council (MRC), Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Health Protection Agency (HPA), and administered via NERC grant NE/E008844/1.

This work was supported in part by an ESRC studentship [award number PTA-031-2006-00544].

This article has been published as part of Environmental Health Volume 8 Supplement 1, 2009: Proceedings of the Joint Environment and Human Health Programme: Annual Science Day Conference and Workshop. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.ehjournal.net/supplements/8/S1.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College London
(2)
Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary
(3)
Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), IMIM, CIBERESP

References

  1. IPCS: Environmental Health Criteria 216: Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-Products. Geneva. 2000Google Scholar
  2. Nieuwenhuijsen M, Toledano MB, Elliott P: Uptake of chlorination disinfection by-products; a review and a discussion of its implications for exposure assessment in epidemiological studies. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2000, 10: 586-599. 10.1038/sj.jea.7500139.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Toledano MB, Eaton NE, Fawell J, Elliott P: Chlorination disinfection byproducts in water and their association with adverse reproductive outcomes: a review. Occup Environ Med. 2000, 57 (2): 73-85. 10.1136/oem.57.2.73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Tardiff RG, Carson ML, Ginevan ME: Updated weight of evidence for an association between adverse reproductive and developmental effects and exposure to disinfection by-products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006, 45: 185-205. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.03.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Raynor P, Born in Bradford Collaborative Group: Born in Bradford, a cohort study of babies born in Bradford, and their parents: protocol for the recruitment phase. BMC Public Health. 2008, 8: 327-10.1186/1471-2458-8-327.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Smith R, Golfinopoulos S, Best N, Bennett J, Aggazzotti G, et al: Health impacts of long-term exposure to disinfection by-products in drinking water in Europe: HIWATE. J Water Health. 2009, 7: 185-207. 10.2166/wh.2009.073.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. R Development Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2008, Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Ref Type: Computer ProgramGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaur S, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Ferrier H, Steer P: Exposure of pregnant women to tap water related activities. Occup Environ Med. 2004, 61: 454-460. 10.1136/oem.2003.007351.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbone F, Valent F, Brussi V, Tomasella L, Triassi M, Di LA, et al: Assessing the exposure of pregnant women to drinking water disinfection byproducts. Epidemiology. 2002, 13: 540-544. 10.1097/00001648-200209000-00009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Shimokura GH, Savitz DA, Symanski E: Assessment of water use for estimating exposure to tap water contaminants. Environ Health Perspect. 1998, 106: 55-59. 10.2307/3433778.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Zender R, Bachand AM, Reif JS: Exposure to tap water during pregnancy. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2001, 11: 224-230. 10.1038/sj.jea.7500163.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Forssen UM, Herring AH, Savitz DA, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Murphy PA, Singer PC, et al: Predictors of use and consumption of public drinking water among pregnant women. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2007, 17: 159-169. 10.1038/sj.jes.7500488.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams BL, Florez Y, Pettygrove S: Inter- and intra-ethnic variation in water intake, contact, and source estimates among Tucson residents: Implications for exposure analysis. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2001, 11: 510-521. 10.1038/sj.jea.7500192.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Breeze ACG, Lees CC: Prediction and perinatal outcomes of fetal growth restriction. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007, 12: 383-397. 10.1016/j.siny.2007.07.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Mastrobattista JM, Pschirrer ER, Hamrick MA, Glaser AM, Schumacher V, Shirkey BA, et al: Humerus Length Evaluation in Different Ethnic Groups. J Ultrasound Med. 2004, 23: 227-231.Google Scholar
  16. Kramer MS, Seguin L, Lydon J, Goulet L: Socio-economic disparities in pregnancy outcome: why do the poor fare so poorly?. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2000, 14: 194-210. 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2000.00266.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Toledano MB, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Best N, Whitaker H, Hambly P, de Hoogh C, et al: Relation of trihalomethane concentrations in public water supplies to stillbirth and birth weight in three water regions in England. Environ Health Perspect. 2005, 113: 225-232. 10.1289/ehp.7111.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaakkola JJK, Magnus P, Skrondal A, Hwang BF, Becher G, Dybing E: Foetal growth and duration of gestation relative to water chlorination. Occup Environ Med. 2001, 58: 437-442. 10.1136/oem.58.7.437.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Bove FJ, Fulcomer MC, Klotz JB, Esmart J, Dufficy EM, Savrin JE: Public drinking water contamination and birth outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1995, 141: 850-862.Google Scholar
  20. Yang CY, Cheng BH, Tsai SS, Wu TN, Lin MC, Lin KC: Association between chlorination of drinking water and adverse pregnancy outcome in Taiwan. Environ Health Perspect. 2000, 108: 765-768. 10.2307/3434730.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Smith et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement