Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The relationship between water intake and foetal growth and preterm delivery in a prospective cohort study

  • J Michael Wright1Email author,
  • Caroline S Hoffman2 and
  • David A Savitz3
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth201010:48

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-10-48

Received: 8 March 2010

Accepted: 24 August 2010

Published: 24 August 2010

Abstract

Background

Interpretation of previous associations between water intake and adverse birth outcomes is challenging given that amount and type of water consumed can be non-specific markers of exposure or underlying behavioural characteristics. We examined the relationship between water intake measures and adverse birth outcomes in participants from three study sites in the United States.

Methods

Using a prospective cohort study, we examined daily intake of bottled, cold tap, total tap, and total water in relation to birth weight and risk of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) among term births and risk of preterm delivery.

Results

Based on water consumption data collected between 20-24 weeks of gestation, the adjusted mean birth weight was 27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -34, 87), 39 (95% CI: -22, 99), and 50 (95% CI: -11, 110) grams higher for the upper three total water intake quartiles (> 51-78, > 78-114, and > 114 ounces/day) compared to the lowest quartile (≤ 51 ounces/day). Adjusted birth weight results were similar for bottled water, cold tap water, and total tap water intake. An exposure-response gradient was not detected for either preterm delivery or SGA with increasing total water intake and total tap water intake, but adjusted relative risks for all three upper quartiles were below 1.0 (range: 0.6-0.9) for SGA.

Conclusion

These data suggest that high water intake may be associated with higher mean birth weight following adjustment for confounding.

Background

Water consumption is critical for metabolism, temperature regulation, transporting nutrients and wastes, and tissue maintenance. Water intake is also important for pregnant women with oligohydramnios and those at risk of developing uteroplacental insufficiency [1]. Few epidemiological studies have addressed the role of water intake on adverse reproductive outcomes with most of these focusing on the effect of specific contaminants such as disinfection by-products. Savitz et al [2] reported an inverse association between increased water intake and risk of preterm delivery (PTD) (ie, < 37 gestational weeks) and low birth weight infants. Compared to those reporting no daily water intake, odds ratios (ORs) were 0.5 and 0.6 for > 4 glasses/day for small for gestational age (SGA) and PTD, respectively. Relative to low intake (1-7 glasses/week), Aggazzotti et al [3] showed little evidence of an association between high intake of tap water (> 35 glasses/week) and risk of SGA or PTD (ORs = 1.0 and 1.1, respectively). Other studies have shown a decreased risk of spontaneous abortion [4] and cardiac anomalies [5] with increased bottled water intake. Given that water intake is a non-specific marker of exposure, it is not clear if these results are due to residual confounding or actual effects of water ingestion.

Using a prospective cohort study, we examined birth weight and risk of SGA among term births and risk of PTD in relation to daily bottled, cold tap, total tap and total water intake. The primary study hypothesis examined whether water intake is associated with measures of foetal growth and protective of adverse birth outcomes.

Methods

Study design and population

The study population included 2766 pregnant women enrolled in a prospective cohort study conducted from December 2000-May 2004 across three study sites in the United States. Participants were enrolled early in pregnancy (≤ 12 weeks' gestation) or while planning to become pregnant. Eligible subjects included those who were ≥18 years of age, who did not have any fertility treatment for the study pregnancy, and who intended to deliver in the study area. Additional details on study design and recruitment have been published elsewhere [6, 7]. The Institutional Review Boards at the University of North Carolina, University of Tennessee and the University of Texas approved the study protocols; participants gave informed consent.

The sample size for the PTD analysis was 2039 pregnancies after the following exclusions: 259 with a missing or incomplete baseline interview, 347 with a pregnancy loss, 90 that were lost to follow-up, 16 with repeat live births, eight with multiple births, and seven with missing information on date of birth or birth weight. 1854 live births were available for the birth weight analysis, and 1783 live term births were available for the SGA analysis due to missing information on maternal race/ethnicity, births with a reported maternal race of "Indian," "Asian/Pacific Islander," or "Other," and births delivered at < 25 or > 42 weeks' gestation.

Assessment of foetal growth and PTD

Infant date of birth, birth weight, and gender were obtained from medical records for 43% of live births, from vital records for 57%, and from participant self-report for < 1%. Self-reported last menstrual period (LMP) and an early ultrasound (scheduled between gestational weeks 6-7 and no later than 14 weeks), both obtained during the first trimester, were combined with infant date of birth to estimate gestational age at birth. Gestational age derived from LMP was used for the majority of subjects (81%) unless the LMP date was incomplete (1%) or differed by more than ±7 days from the ultrasound-based estimate of gestational age (18%), in which case the ultrasound estimate was used. SGA was defined as an infant with a birth weight below the tenth percentile for gestational age at birth, gender, maternal race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, or Hispanic), and parity based on United States population estimates [8, 9].

Assessment of exposures and confounding factors

Data on exposures and potential confounding factors were collected via telephone interviews before 16 weeks of gestation (baseline interview) and between 20-24 weeks of gestation (follow-up interview). The interviews included detailed questions about the pregnancy, maternal health, demographic information, behavioural characteristics, and water use practices. Maternal health characteristics included pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) defined as weight/height2 and categorized according to the Institute of Medicine's [10] guidelines: low (< 19.8 kg/m2), normal (19.8-26.0 kg/m2), overweight (26.1-29.0 kg/m2), and obese (> 29.0 kg/m2). Behavioural variables included recreational exercise, smoking, intake of caffeine, vitamins, alcohol, and illicit drugs. Caffeine intake from beverages (ie, coffee, tea, and soda) was estimated and then categorized using the cut points 150 mg/day and 300 mg/day [11].

At each interview, study participants were asked how many bottles of water and glasses/cups of cold tap water, hot tap water and tap water-based drinks (including juice, coffee, tea, and other beverages they made from tap water) they consumed each day during a typical week. Participants were asked to define their glass or cup sizes according to three options: small (0.1-0.3 L), medium (0.4-0.6 L), or large (0.7-1.0 L) for cold tap and bottled water and small (0.1-0.3 L), medium (0.3-0.5 L), or large (0.5-0.7 L) for hot water. The midpoint for each size range was used to estimate water consumption in ounces/day. Bottled water included spring water, mineral water, distilled water, sparkling water or any water purchased in bottles or plastic jugs or obtained from a water cooler. Bottled water intake was calculated as the average amount based on reported container sizes: small (8-12 ounces), medium (14-24 ounces), and large (26-34 ounces). Among the women working outside the study area (8%), the tap water ingestion question was asked separately for consumption at home and at work. This resulted in a higher average total amount for this group. We, therefore, deflated their cold tap water consumption totals by 15.3% and hot tap water consumption by 18.2% for those reporting work and home totals separately to make their mean values equal to those women who reported the aggregated amount.

Follow-up data and an average of the baseline and follow-up data were used to examine the following exposure measures: cold tap water intake, total tap water (cold and hot) intake, bottled water intake, and total water (tap and bottled) intake. Water use measures were divided into quartiles and analyzed using the lowest quartile as the referent. Based on self-reported data collected during the follow-up questionnaire, women were classified into the following quartiles for total water intake: 0-51 (referent), > 51-78, > 78-114, and > 114 ounces/day. Women were classified into the following quartiles for total tap water intake: 0-30 (referent), > 30-61, > 61-96, and > 96 ounces/day. Due to limited data on bottled water intake in the population, this variable was dichotomized to allow comparison of any versus no bottled water intake.

Statistical analysis

We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for SGA and preterm delivery based on various water consumption measures using Poisson regression with robust error variance. The association with term birth weight was examined using linear regression. We considered potential confounding variables that were associated with the outcomes and were independently associated with water use exposures, but were not intermediates in the causal pathway between exposure and disease: maternal age, race/ethnicity, education level, annual household income, employment status, marital status, pre-pregnancy BMI, parity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, caffeine intake, vitamin intake, recreational activity, swimming, infant gender, season of birth, and study site. Maternal education, race/ethnicity, income, infant gender, parity, pre-pregnancy BMI, smoking, vitamin intake, employment during pregnancy, and study site were retained in multivariate models as confounders using a change-in-estimate (10% change) backwards elimination approach. We examined the extent that confounding impacted the birth weight results among those variables retained in the backwards elimination model. Relative to the unadjusted models for total water intake from the follow-up data, we examined percent change-in-estimate for the linear regression models for the confounders that were retained in multivariate models.

Results

The mean birth weight in the total population (n = 2039) was 3382 grams, with 9% (n = 192) born preterm (Table 1). Among the 1854 term births, 5% (n = 85) were classified as SGA. Lower mean birth weights were found among infants born to mothers who were non-Hispanic black, of younger age, were not married, had lower BMI, were less educated, and had an annual household income < $30,000. Large differences in mean birth weight were also detected between Site 1 versus Site 3 (165 grams), non-smokers versus smokers (325 grams), and vitamin users versus non-users (159 grams). Several factors were associated with both higher mean birth weight and higher water intake. For example, mothers of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, higher BMI, and those who consumed vitamins tended to have larger infants and drink larger amounts of total water, so that adjustment for these factors attenuated the association between water intake and birth weight. Using a change-in estimate analysis, we examined the individual contribution of various confounders in the birth weight model for total water intake based on the follow-up data. Compared to the univariate results, the largest average change-in estimates across the highest three exposure quartiles were swimming (39%), maternal race/ethnicity (31%), annual household income (21%), education (20%), marital status (20%), and vitamin intake (17%).
Table 1

Characteristics of the study population recruited from three US cities during 2000-4

Population characteristics

  

PTD

SGAa

Birth weight (g)

 

n

%

%

%

Mean

SD

Total population

2039

100

9

5

3382

586

Maternal race/ethnicity

   Non-Hispanic white

1169

57

7

5

3486

596

   Non-Hispanic black

609

30

12

7

3167

545

   Hispanic

185

9

9

6

3427

632

   Other

73

4

7

--

3400

459

   Missing

3

     

Maternal age (years)

   < 25

599

29

11

7

3255

558

   25-29

657

32

8

6

3393

572

   30-34

564

28

7

4

3486

587

   ≥35

219

11

11

6

3425

642

Highest maternal education level

   High school or less

573

28

13

9

3235

616

   Some college

440

22

10

5

3340

600

   College degree or higher

1025

50

7

4

3482

544

Maternal smoking

   Yes

99

5

16

12

3073

578

   No

1940

95

9

5

3398

583

Maternal alcohol use

   Yes

32

2

9

6

3410

702

   No

2007

98

6

6

3381

585

Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)

   < 19.8

232

11

8

9

3291

535

   19.8-25.9

1016

50

8

5

3410

553

   26.0-29.9

333

16

7

6

3421

535

   > 29.9

407

20

14

5

3349

713

   Missing

51

3

10

16

3255

771

Vitamin use

   Yes

1027

50

7

5

3461

573

   No

1012

50

11

7

3302

590

Caffeine intake (mg/day)

   None

519

25

9

4

3410

613

   1-150

468

23

8

5

3385

557

   151-300

387

19

11

6

3344

617

   > 300

665

33

9

7

3380

567

Marital status

   Married

1390

68

7

5

3466

536

   Not married

648

32

13

8

3200

646

   Missing

1

     

Parity

   Nulliparous

991

49

10

6

3323

591

   Parous

1048

51

8

4

3438

577

Employed during past 4 months

   Yes

1430

70

9

5

3372

580

   No

608

30

9

7

3406

602

Annual household income ($)

   < 30,000

637

31

12

7

3245

629

   30,001-60,000

535

26

7

7

3437

545

   60,001-80,000

321

16

6

5

3460

498

   > 80,000

465

23

8

3

3504

571

   Missing

81

4

20

10

3078

614

Recreational activityb

   Yes

1109

54

9

6

3423

572

   No

930

46

10

5

3332

600

Vigorous recreational activityc

   Yes

401

20

8

7

3412

559

   No

1638

80

9

5

3374

593

Swimming

   Yes

651

58

6

6

3471

549

   No

1388

32

10

6

3340

599

Infant gender

   Male

1045

51

9

7

3419

585

   Female

994

49

9

5

3343

586

Study site

   Site 1

929

46

6

5

3459

581

   Site 2

761

37

11

6

3329

593

   Site 3

349

17

13

8

3294

562

aTerm births only

bAny recreational physical activity or exercise, such as brisk walking, jogging, swimming, biking, tennis, soccer, or dancing

cAny recreational physical activity or exercise, such as brisk walking, jogging, swimming, biking, tennis, soccer, or dancing that caused large increases in breathing and heart rate

SGA = small for gestational age; PTD = preterm delivery; SD = standard deviation; BMI = body mass index

Birth weight

Compared to the lowest quartile, the unadjusted mean birth weight in grams was higher for the upper three quartiles of total water intake, 60 (95% CI: -1, 122), 67 (95% CI: 5, 128), and 83 (95% CI: 21, 145) grams, respectively (Table 2). Following adjustment for confounding (by study site, household income, maternal education, maternal race/ethnicity, infant gender, parity, pre-pregnancy BMI, smoking, vitamin use, and employment during pregnancy), the respective adjusted differences in mean birth weight in grams were reduced to 27 (95% CI: -34, 87), 39 (95% CI: -22, 99), and 50 (95% CI: -11, 111) grams compared to the lowest quartile. When total water intake was examined as a continuous measure (per 20 ounce/day increased intake), the adjusted increase in mean birth weight was 7.3 (95% CI: -0.8, 15.5) grams. Adjusted results were similar in magnitude for the upper quartiles of cold tap water intake, total tap water intake, and total water intake for both the follow-up data and an average of the follow-up and baseline data. Compared to no bottled water intake, the adjusted mean birth weight for bottled water consumers was 31 grams (95% CI: -20, 82) based on follow-up data and 43 grams (95% CI: -27, 113) based on an average of the follow-up and baseline data.
Table 2

Birth weight results for daily bottled, cold tap, total tap, and total water intake

 

   Follow-up data

Average of baseline

and follow-up data

  

Unadjusted

Adjusteda

Adjusteda

Exposure

n (%)

ß

95% CI

ß

95% CI

ß

95% CI

Bottled water

   None

448 (25%)

Ref

 

Ref

 

Ref

 

   Any

1329 (75%)

12

(-38, 63)

31

(-20, 82)

43

(-27, 113)

Cold tap water (ounces)b

   0-27

424 (24%)

Ref

 

Ref

 

Ref

 

   > 27-53

455 (25%)

12

(-50, 74)

9

(-53, 72)

25

(-38, 88)

   > 53-91

444 (25%)

74

(11, 136)

52

(-11, 116)

44

(-19, 107)

   > 91

453 (26%)

77

(14, 139)

49

(-14, 111)

65

(2, 128)

Per 20 ounce

12.3

(3.9, 20.7)

8.5

(0.1, 16.9)

8.5

(-1.5, 18.5)

Total tap water (ounces)b

   0-30

443 (25%)

Ref

 

Ref

 

Ref

 

   > 30-61

445 (25%)

41

(-21, 103)

44

(-18, 106)

10

(-52, 73)

   > 61-96

496 (28%)

100

(40, 161)

78

(17, 139)

34

(-30, 97)

   > 96

392 (22%)

85

(21, 149)

43

(-21, 107)

46

(-17, 109)

Per 20 ounce

12.0

(4.0, 20.1)

6.8

(-1.3, 15.0)

5.3

(-4.3, 15.1)

Total water (ounces)b

   0-51

452 (25%)

Ref

 

Ref

 

Ref

 

   > 51-78

439 (25%)

60

(-1, 122)

27

(-34, 87)

10

(-50, 71)

   > 78-114

442 (25%)

67

(5, 128)

39

(-22, 99)

55

(-6, 116)

   > 114

441 (25%)

83

(21, 145)

50

(-11, 111)

37

(-25, 98)

Per 20 ounce

9.8

(1.6, 18.1)

7.3

(-0.8, 15.5)

5.2

(-4.7, 15.2)

aAdjusted for race, education level, annual household income, smoking, pre-pregnancy BMI, vitamin use, parity, employed during last 4 months, infant gender, and study site

bCategorical exposure cutpoints for average data results were slightly higher than the follow-up data

BMI= body mass index.

SGA

RRs and 95% CIs comparing women who reported drinking > 51-78, > 78-114, and > 114 versus 0-51 ounces of total water per day at follow-up were 0.7 (0.4, 1.2), 0.6 (0.3, 1.0), and 0.8 (0.5, 1.4), indicative of a decreased risk of SGA with increased water consumption above the first quartile but no gradient thereafter (Table 3). Results were similar following adjustment for confounding: 0.8 (0.4, 1.4), 0.6 (0.3, 1.0), and 0.9 (0.5, 1.6), respectively. Relative to the lowest quartile, adjusted RRs were slightly higher for cold tap and total tap water intake especially for the average follow-up and baseline data. Relative to women not drinking bottled water, the adjusted RR for SGA was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.5, 1.4) based on the follow-up data and 1.4 (0.6, 3.0) based on the average follow-up and baseline data.
Table 3

Small-for-gestational-age resultsa for daily bottled, cold tap, total tap, and total water intake

 

Follow-up data

Average of baseline

and follow-up data

Exposure

n (%)

Unadjusted RR (95% CI)

Adjusted RR (95% CI)b

Adjusted RR (95% CI)b

Bottled water

   

   None

448 (26%)

1

1

1

   Any

1258 (74%)

1.1 (0.7, 1.7)

0.9 (0.5, 1.4)

1.4 (0.6, 3.0)

Cold tap water (ounces)c

  

   0-27

403 (24%)

1

1

1

   > 27-53

439 (26%)

0.9 (0.5, 1.5)

1.2 (0.6, 2.3)

1.1 (0.6, 2.2)

   > 53-91

429 (25%)

0.9 (0.5, 1.6)

1.3 (0.7, 2.4)

1.4 (0.7, 2.6)

   > 91

439 (26%)

0.7 (0.4, 1.2)

0.9 (0.5, 1.9)

1.1 (0.5, 2.1)

Per 20 ounce

1.0 (0.9, 1.0)

1.0 (0.9, 1.1)

1.0 (0.9, 1.1)

Total tap water (ounces)c

  

   0-30

423 (25%)

1

1

1

   > 30-61

426 (25%)

0.7 (0.4, 1.3)

0.9 (0.5, 1.7)

1.2 (0.6, 2.2)

   > 61-96

476 (28%)

0.7 (0.4, 1.2)

0.8 (0.5, 1.6)

1.3 (0.7, 2.6)

   > 96

380 (22%)

0.7 (0.4, 1.2)

0.9 (0.5, 1.9)

1.1 (0.6, 2.2)

Per 20 ounce

1.0 (0.9, 1.1)

1.0 (0.9, 1.1)

1.0 (0.9, 1.1)

Total water (ounces) c

   

   0-51

434 (25%)

1

1

1

   > 51-78

418 (25%)

0.7 (0.4, 1.2)

0.8 (0.4, 1.4)

0.9 (0.5, 1.6)

   > 78-114

424 (25%)

0.6 (0.3, 1.0)

0.6 (0.3, 1.0)

0.5 (0.2, 1.0)

   > 114

427 (25%)

0.8 (0.5, 1.4)

0.9 (0.5, 1.6)

1.0 (0.6, 1.8)

Per 20 ounce

1.0 (0.9, 1.1)

1.0 (0.9, 1.1)

1.0 (0.9, 1.1)

aTerm SGA models restricted to infants born to non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, or Hispanic women

bAdjusted for race, education level, annual household income, smoking, pre-pregnancy BMI, vitamin use, parity, employed during last 4 months, infant gender, and study site

cCategorical exposure cutpoints for average data results were slightly higher than the follow-up data

BMI= body mass index; RR= risk ratio

PTD

As shown in Table 4, RRs and 95% CIs for PTD comparing women who reported drinking > 51-78, > 78-114, and > 114 versus 0-51 ounces of total water per day based on the follow-up data were 1.0 (0.7, 1.6), 1.0 (0.7, 1.6), and 1.2 (0.8, 1.8). RRs were slightly larger following adjustment for confounding: 1.2 (0.7, 1.9), 1.1 (0.7, 1.8), and 1.4 (0.9, 2.2), respectively. RRs and 95% CIs for PTD for the cold tap and total tap water quartiles were generally below 1.0 compared to the lowest quartile for follow-up data and average follow-up and baseline data. Relative to women not drinking bottled water, the adjusted RR for any bottled water intake was 1.2 (95% CI: 0.8, 1.8) for the follow-up data and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.5, 1.4) based on the average baseline and follow-up data.
Table 4

Preterm delivery results for daily bottled, cold tap, total tap, and total water intake

 

Follow-up data

Average of baseline

and follow-up data

Exposure

n (%)

Unadjusted RR (95% CI)

Adjusted RR (95% CI)a

Adjusted RR (95% CI)a

Bottled water

    

   None

483 (25%)

1

1

1

   Any

1458 (75%)

1.2 (0.9, 1.8)

1.2 (0.8, 1.8)

0.8 (0.5, 1.4)

Cold tap water (ounces)b

   

   0-27

472 (24%)

1

1

1

   > 27-53

494 (25%)

0.8 (0.5, 1.2)

0.8 (0.5, 1.3)

0.9 (0.6, 1.4)

   > 53-91

485 (25%)

0.9 (0.6, 1.3)

0.9 (0.6, 1.4)

0.9 (0.6, 1.4)

   > 91

490 (25%)

0.8 (0.5, 1.1)

0.8 (0.5, 1.3)

1.0 (0.6, 1.5)

Per 20 ounce

1.0 (0.9, 1.0)

0.9 (0.7, 1.3)

0.9 (0.6, 1.3)

Total tap water (ounces)b

   

   0-30

493 (25%)

1

1

1

   > 30-61

483 (25%)

0.8 (0.5, 1.2)

0.8 (0.5, 1.2)

1.0 (0.6, 1.5)

   > 61-96

535 (28%)

0.7 (0.5, 1.1)

0.8 (0.5, 1.2)

1.2 (0.8, 1.9)

   > 96

429 (22%)

0.9 (0.6, 1.3)

1.0 (0.6, 1.5)

0.9 (0.6, 1.4)

Per 20 ounce

1.0 (0.9, 1.0)

0.9 (0.7, 1.2)

0.9 (0.6, 1.3)

Total water (ounces)b

   

   0-51

491 (25%)

1.0

1.0

1.0

   > 51-78

478 (25%)

1.0 (0.7, 1.6)

1.2 (0.7, 1.9)

1.1 (0.7, 1.7)

   > 78-114

481 (25%)

1.0 (0.7, 1.6)

1.1 (0.7, 1.8)

1.0 (0.6, 1.5)

   > 114

478 (25%)

1.2 (0.8, 1.8)

1.4 (0.9, 2.2)

1.2 (0.8, 1.9)

Per 20 ounce

1.0 (1.0, 1.1)

1.1 (0.9, 1.4)

1.1 (0.8, 1.5)

aAdjusted for race, education level, annual household income, smoking, pre-pregnancy BMI, vitamin use, parity, employed during last 4 months, infant gender, and study site

bCategorical exposure cutpoints for average data results were slightly higher than the follow-up data

BMI= body mass index; RR= risk ratio

Discussion

Previous epidemiological studies of disinfection by-products in drinking water have shown a possible increased risk of impaired foetal growth with increasing exposure but a decreased risk of PTD [1216]. Hoffman et al [13] postulated that the decreased risk of PTD may be partially due to a protective effect of higher water intake on pregnancy outcomes, but this has rarely been examined. Overall, the adjusted SGA results in our study were largely null although the RRs for follow-up data on total tap water and total water intake were consistently below 1.0 (range 0.6-0.9) for the higher water exposure categories. The adjusted PTD findings were also largely null with most RRs below the null value of 1.0. For both the follow-up and average of follow-up and baseline data analyses, we observed a slight increased risk of PTD in the high total water intake group (RR's = 1.2 and 1.4) relative to those in the low intake category.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between water intake and birth weight in a prospective epidemiological study. We saw some evidence of an exposure-response relationship with mean birth weight differences ranging from 27-50 grams with increasing total water intake compared to the lowest quartile after adjustment. We found results similar in magnitude for the cold tap water and total tap water intake measures based on the follow-up data. Similar results were found for all three exposure measures based on an average of baseline and follow-up questionnaire data including suggestion of an exposure-response relationship for cold tap and total tap water intake.

One of the strengths of the study was the detailed individual-level information on water intake and potential confounding factors collected for this pregnancy cohort. Several of these confounders had considerable impact on the association between water intake and birth weight. For example, established risk factors for foetal growth measures such as maternal race, age, education, and household income attenuated the mean birth weight by 17-39% compared to the univariate total water intake model results. Although we did not find evidence that diabetes was a strong confounder in this analysis, results were slightly stronger when the birth weight data were restricted to non-diabetics (data not shown). We recognize that even after adjustment for confounding factors, there may be unmeasured aspects of maternal physiology or behaviour that affect both water intake and pregnancy outcome so that the water intake itself is not causally related to the outcomes. For example, previous research suggests that participants reporting no water intake also reported increased soft drink consumption and less fruit, vegetable and low- and medium-fat dairy product intake [17]. Although dietary information was not collected on this population, our detailed analysis of confounding likely led to indirect control of nutritional status to some degree through adjustment of confounders such as household income, education, and prenatal vitamin use. In addition, very few study participants (0.3%) in our study population reported no water intake which should minimize the potential for confounding due to unhealthy lifestyles during pregnancy.

An additional study strength was the collection of multiple measures of water use during pregnancy which allowed for examination of water intake measures. This is potentially important for exposure assessment as previous studies have indicated that water use changes may occur during pregnancy [18]. It is not entirely clear, however, whether these changes are due to behavioural decisions related to perceived health benefits, physiologic changes such as increased thirst, or variation due to measurement error. Since 95% of foetal growth occurs after the 20th gestational week, [19] we considered the follow-up data (collected during 20-24 gestational weeks) to be the most relevant data for examination of foetal growth measures and prematurity. However, we also examined water intake results based on a measure of the average follow-up/baseline data, but saw little difference in comparison to the follow-up data.

Although these data represent one of the most extensive water use data collective efforts to date in a reproductive epidemiological study, self-reported data are subject to recall error. Given the prospective nature of the data collection, differential error could not have occurred since the birth outcomes were unknown at the time the pregnant subjects reported the water consumption and information on confounding factors. Nonetheless, water intake is difficult to measure and may be subject to non-differential error. This may have reduced our statistical power and limited the ability to detect exposure-response relationships and effects small in magnitude (e.g., small changes in mean birth weight). Another limitation of the study was a narrow exposure gradient for bottled water intake which precluded examination of multiple exposure categories. In contrast, there was considerable variability in reported tap and total water intake across study subjects, but we did not have a truly unexposed (ie, those not consuming any water) reference group for the total tap and total water categories. The number of subjects (0.3%) reporting no water intake in this population is less than that from other studies (5-12%) [2, 17, 20].

Our study subjects were highly motivated, highly educated, and represented a low risk population, since they were actively seeking prenatal care during pregnancy and volunteered for this study. This may limit the generalizability of study findings and also raises the potential for bias among this highly motivated population if drinking water or other "healthful behaviours" are related to self-selection. The overall proportion of preterm births in the study population is lower than (9% vs. 13%) that reported in the United States in 2005 [21]. The prevalence of SGA (5%) in our population based on birth weight deciles from United States population estimates was also lower than would be expected for the general population. This low risk population, therefore, limited our statistical power to detect associations due to the decreased frequency of adverse health outcomes (e.g., SGA) being considered. SGA may also include small births that are both pathologically growth restricted and some that are constitutionally small due to a variety of factors such as maternal ethnicity, parity, weight, height, etc. Therefore, the examination of SGA births is a potential limitation that could limit our ability to detect associations that may be present if some of these births represent constitutionally small births that are not truly growth restricted.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we found limited evidence of an association between specific measures of water intake and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as SGA and PTD. This is in contrast to a previous study which reported an inverse association with water intake and risk of both SGA and PTD, [2] but is consistent with another study which found no association between water intake and risk of either PTD or low birth weight [3]. Despite limited statistical power, we did see some evidence of small increases in mean birth weight for higher levels of total water intake during pregnancy. This might warrant further examination in higher risk populations as this was the first study to examine this endpoint in relation to water intake.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank the obstetric practices and water utilities in the study areas for their help and cooperation, and we thank all of the women who participated in the Right from the Start study.

Funding: Supported jointly by the AWWA Research Foundation (AwwaRF: Project 2579) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Cooperative Agreement nos. CR825625-01, CR827268-01, and CR828216-01, the Center for Environmental Health and Susceptibility (CEHS) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (P30E510126), US EPA STAR award RD-83184301-0, the Biostatistics for Research in Environmental Health training award of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (5-T32-ES07018), and the NHEERL-DESE cooperative training grant in Environmental Sciences Research (EPA CT8229471 and CR83323601).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
National Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency
(2)
Division of Extramural Research and Training, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(3)
Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

References

  1. Fowles ER: Prenatal nutrition and birth outcomes. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2004, 33: 809-822. 10.1177/0884217504270599.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Savitz DA, Andrews KW, Pastore LM: Drinking water and pregnancy outcome in central North Carolina: source, amount, and trihalomethane levels. Environ Health Perspect. 1995, 103: 592-596. 10.2307/3432436.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Aggazzotti G, Righi E, Fantuzzi G, Biasotti B, Ravera G, Kanitz S, Barbone F, Sansebastiano G, Battaglia MA, Leoni V, et al: Chlorination by-products (CBPs) in drinking water and adverse pregnancy outcomes in Italy. J Water Health. 2004, 2: 233-247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Swan SH, Waller K, Hopkins B, Windham G, Fenster L, Schaefer C, Neutra RR: A prospective study of spontaneous abortion: relation to amount and source of drinking water consumed in early pregnancy. Epidemiology. 1998, 9: 126-133. 10.1097/00001648-199803000-00005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Shaw GM, Malcoe LH, Milea A, Swan SH: Chlorinated water exposures and congenital cardiac anomalies. Epidemiology. 1990, 1: 206-211. 10.1097/00001648-199005000-00005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Promislow JH, Makarushka CM, Gorman JR, Howards PP, Savitz DA, Hartmann KE: Recruitment for a community-based study of early pregnancy: the Right From The Start study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2004, 18: 143-152. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2003.00546.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Savitz DA, Singer PC, Herring AH, Hartmann KE, Weinberg HS, Makarushka C: Exposure to drinking water disinfection by-products and pregnancy loss. Am J Epidemiol. 2006, 164: 1043-1051. 10.1093/aje/kwj300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Overpeck MD, Hediger ML, Zhang J, Trumble AC, Klebanoff MA: Birth weight for gestational age of Mexican American infants born in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 1999, 93: 943-947. 10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00553-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Zhang J, Bowes WA: Birth-weight-for-gestational-age patterns by race, sex, and parity in the United States population. Obstet Gynecol. 1995, 86: 200-208. 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00142-E.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Committee on Nutritional Status During Pregnancy and Lactation, Institute of Medicine: Nutrition during Pregnancy: Part I: Weight Gain, Part II: Nutrients supplements. 1990, Washington, DC: Institute of MedicineGoogle Scholar
  11. Fenster L, Hubbard AE, Swan SH, Windham GC, Waller K, Hiatt RA, Benowitz N: Caffeinated beverages, decaffeinated coffee, and spontaneous abortion. Epidemiology. 1997, 8: 515-523. 10.1097/00001648-199709000-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffman CS, Mendola P, Savitz DA, Herring AH, Loomis D, Hartmann KE, Singer PC, Weinberg HS, Olshan AF: Drinking water disinfection by-product exposure and fetal growth. Epidemiology. 2008, 19: 729-737. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181812bd4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoffman CS, Mendola P, Savitz DA, Herring AH, Loomis D, Hartmann KE, Singer PC, Weinberg HS, Olshan AF: Drinking water disinfection by-product exposure and duration of gestation. Epidemiology. 2008, 19: 738-746. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181812beb.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis C, Suffet IH, Hoggatt K, Ritz B: Estimated effects of disinfection by-products on preterm birth in a population served by a single water utility. Environ Health Perspect. 2007, 115: 290-295. 10.1289/ehp.9394.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Wright JM, Schwartz J, Dockery DW: Effect of trihalomethane exposure on fetal development. Occup Environ Med. 2003, 60: 173-180. 10.1136/oem.60.3.173.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Wright JM, Schwartz J, Dockery DW: The effect of disinfection by-products and mutagenic activity on birth weight and gestational duration. Environ Health Perspect. 2004, 112: 920-925. 10.1289/ehp.6779.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Popkin BM, Barclay DV, Nielsen SJ: Water and food consumption patterns of U.S. adults from 1999 to 2001. Obes Res. 2005, 13: 2146-2152. 10.1038/oby.2005.266.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Forssen UM, Wright JM, Herring AH, Savitz DA, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Murphy PA: Variability and predictors of changes in water use during pregnancy. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2009, 19: 593-602. 10.1038/jes.2008.59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Vorherr H: Factors influencing fetal growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982, 142: 577-588.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ: Births: Preliminary data for 2008. National vital statistics reports; vol 58 no 16. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Released April 6, 2010Google Scholar
  22. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/10/48/prepub

Copyright

© Wright et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

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