Persistent environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals in ovarian follicular fluid and in vitro fertilization treatment outcome in women REVIEW ARTICLE Persistent environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals in ovarian follicular fluid and in vitro fertilization treatment outcome in women Richelle D. Bj€orvang and Pauliina Damdimopoulou Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden ABSTRACT Several international organizations have recently highlighted endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) as factors of concern in human reproduction. Since successful reproduction is dependent on timely and appropriate action of hormones, disruption of the endocrine system could lead to difficulties in con- ceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term. EDCs are chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system by acti- vating or inhibiting receptors of the endocrine system, and/or altering hormone receptor expression; signal transduction; epigenetic marks; hormone synthesis, transport, distribution, and metabolism; and the fate of hormone-producing cells. Due to the increasing production of industrial chemicals over the past century and their lenient control, EDCs are now common contaminants in the environment. Consequently, everyone faces a life-long exposure to mixtures of chemicals, some of which have been identified as EDCs. As birth rates in humans are declining and the use of assisted reproductive tech- nologies increasing, it is timely to consider possible effects of EDCs on human reproduction and fertil- ity. In this review, we focus on persistent EDCs, their occurrence in ovarian follicular fluid, and associations to treatment outcomes in assisted reproduction. Our summary shows that despite being banned decades ago, mixtures of persistent EDCs are still detected in the ovarian follicular fluid, dem- onstrating direct exposure of oocytes to these chemicals. In addition, there are several reported associ- ations between exposure and worse outcome in in vitro fertilization. Further research is therefore warranted to prove causality, which will lead towards better regulation and exposure reduction. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 21 November 2019 Revised 27 January 2020 Accepted 4 February 2020 KEYWORDS Assisted reproduction; endocrine disrupting chemical; follicular fluid; persistent organic pollutant 1. Introduction The phenomenon of endocrine disruption started gaining attention in the 1990s after a group of experts concluded that many compounds introduced into the environment by human activity are capable of disrupting the endocrine sys- tem of animals and humans with possibly profound conse- quences (1). The concept of endocrine disruption was popularized by Theo Colborn’s book, Our Stolen Future, that proposed that chemical pollution is threatening the intelli- gence, fertility, and survival of the human race (2). Today, 25 years after the term endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) was coined, endocrine disruption remains a highly relevant area of research and debate in society, and the methods to identify and regulate these chemicals are still under development. There are no international registries of numbers of chemi- cals in the market. The US Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) inventory contains over 86,000 existing chemicals. In the European Union, over 22,000 unique substances are reg- istered under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Control (REACH) regulation. These databases only have chemicals produced or imported over 10,000 kg/year (TSCA) or 1000 kg/year (REACH), so it is safe to assume the actual number of different chemicals that are or have been in the market is higher1. The chemical industry is one of the most profitable businesses in the world with a revenue of US$5.7 trillion in 2019. The biggest chemical producers being China, Europe, and the United States (4,5). Unfortunately, the speed of production of new chemicals has far exceeded the speed of development of chemical health risk assessment. The side effects of uncontrolled chemical use were first discovered in 1950s when wildlife populations of birds, reptiles and mammals started drastically declining due to uncontrolled use of organochlorine pesti- cides like DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), lindane (gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane), and chlordane (octachloro- 4,7-methanohydroindane). In the Baltic Sea region, organo- chlorine chemicals nearly caused the extinction of the Baltic grey seal and the white-tailed sea eagle (6,7). In the United States, populations of bald eagles and alligators declined in polluted areas (8,9). These alarming occurrences among others led little by little to the establishment of international agreements for the restriction of chemicals, such as � 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. CONTACT Pauliina Damdimopoulou pauliina.damdimopoulou@ki.se Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, 141 86, Sweden 1A new estimate of chemicals in global commerce was published after this review was accepted, suggesting that there are 330,000 chemicals that are or have been in the market (3). UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 2020, VOL. 125, NO. 2, 85–94 https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2020.1727073 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/03009734.2020.1727073&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-05-21 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3619-2257 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8458-0855 https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2020.1727073 http://www.tandfonline.com the Stockholm Convention (ratified in 2004) as well as to the development of tests for chemical risk assessment. By the time the first validated OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals were in place in the 1980s, thousands of chemicals were already in the market. Although organochlorine chemicals were regulated start- ing from the 1970s, and later internationally restricted by the Stockholm Convention, they still persist in the environment due to their extremely long half-lives. Sadly, they also still threaten the reproductive success and survival of long-lived species like killer whales (10). In addition, they are now accompanied by a plethora of newer chemicals. Current requirements for chemical safety testing in the European Union (and elsewhere) are imperfect, in particular for endo- crine-disruptive activity (11). The required regulatory struc- ture having a clear definition of EDCs, guidance documents, suitable tests, test requirements, and risk management is not in place for any sector of chemical legislation (11). In prac- tice, this means that no regulatory risk assessment concern- ing endocrine-disruptive activity has been carried out for the chemicals currently in the market. According to estimates by the United Nations Environment Programme and World Health Organization (UNEP/WHO), there are at least 800 chemicals with known endocrine-disruptive activity (12). The European Union has formally recognised 13 chemicals as EDCs (11). Several international organisations in the field of public and reproductive health have recently expressed their con- cerns about EDCs and human reproduction. UNEP/WHO pre- pared an extensive summary of EDCs in 2012 and concluded that there are many gaps in our knowledge of endocrine dis- ruption of the female reproductive system and that test methods for screening of chemicals for endocrine disruption on female reproduction are missing (12). A few years later, the Endocrine Society released their second scientific sum- mary on EDCs stating that several classes of chemicals rang- ing from pesticides to plasticisers can impair ovarian development and function, suggesting that exposure to EDCs may be associated, for example, with reduced fertility, infertility, polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, and fibroids (13). Following this, Trasande and colleagues esti- mated that the uncontrolled use of EDCs in Europe is associ- ated with increased incidence of uterine fibroids and endometriosis, with an estimated annual cost of 1.4 billion euros to the taxpayers (14). In 2013, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG) published a com- mittee opinion on exposure to toxic environmental agents stating that ‘the evidence that links exposure to toxic envir- onmental agents and adverse reproductive and developmen- tal health outcomes is sufficiently robust’ to call for timely action to identify and reduce exposure while addressing the consequences (15). The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) joined this view in their 2015 opinion (16). Both ACOG and FIGO also acknowledge that while the exposure to chemicals is ubiquitous, it dispro- portionally affects people with low income. Hence, actions taken to prevent harm of EDC exposure in women is not only a question of gender equality, but also a matter of equality in society at large. With this review, we wish to bring the attention of the clinicians working with reproductive-age patients to environ- mental chemicals as factors affecting fertility and reproduct- ive health in women. We will first briefly outline some central concepts of endocrine disruption, and then focus on three topics: the extensive mixture exposure of all popula- tions to industrial chemicals; the occurrence of persistent environmental chemicals with endocrine-disruptive activities in patients seeking assisted reproduction; and the potential implications of this exposure. 2. Central concepts of endocrine disruption 2.1. Definitions and mechanism of action An EDC is defined as an ‘exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and conse- quently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations’ (17). This definition is complex as it needs both an endocrine activity and a dem- onstration of adverse effects as its consequence in living organisms. Adversity in the context of endocrine disruption is defined as ‘a change in morphology, physiology, growth, reproduction, development or lifespan of an organism which results in impairment of functional capacity or impairment of capacity to compensate for additional stress or increased sus- ceptibility to the harmful effects of other environmental influences’ (18). There is a wide range of mechanisms by which EDCs can interfere with the endocrine system and cause adverse effects. Classically, EDCs are thought to act via receptor- mediated disruption where they mimic actions of endogen- ous hormones such as oestrogen and androgen (agonists) or blocking interaction of the ligand with the receptor (antago- nists) (19). Recently, ten key characteristics for the identifica- tion of EDCs have been proposed (19). In addition to activation or inhibition of receptors of the endocrine system, alteration of hormone receptor expression, signal transduction, epigenetic marks, hormone synthesis, transport, distribution and metabolism, and/or the fate of hormone- producing cells are listed as mechanisms of action of EDCs (19). In the classical mechanism of action, EDCs bind to nuclear hormone receptors, which then bind to specific response ele- ments and influence transcription of their target genes (18). By contrast, they can also act as antagonists by binding to the receptor but not triggering the normal response (18). For example, oestrogen-disruptive activity could result from the EDC binding to the oestrogen receptor and subsequently activating (agonist) or repressing (antagonist) its downstream activity in the cell. In addition, many EDCs also bind to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which like the hormone receptors is a ligand-activated transcription factor. AhR is evolutionary conserved, widely expressed, and activated by a variety of xenobiotics. In response, it triggers the expression of genes involved in xenobiotic and hormone metabolism, such as CYP enzymes (e.g. CYP1A1) and UDPGT1A, by binding 86 R. D. BJÖRVANG AND P. DAMDIMOPOULOU to specific response elements on DNA in the promoters of these genes (18). Moreover, AhR can also cross-talk with other nuclear receptors, implying that it can indirectly inter- fere with hormonal signalling pathways at large (18). 2.2. Features of endocrine disrupting chemicals EDCs have diversified the field of toxicology by challenging traditional toxicological dogmas. It was originally thought that substances cause toxicity in a monotonic dose–response with consequences seen at high doses, that is, dose makes the poison. However, this is not the case with EDCs. Similar to natural hormones, EDCs can produce non-monotonic dos- e–response curves, where the slope of the curve changes from positive to negative or vice versa, thereby having a U- or inverted U-shape. Some of the mechanisms behind this response are receptor selectivity, receptor competition, feed- back loops, and receptor number (20). This can lead to sig- nificant effects even at low doses, implying that biological effects can be observed at exposure levels typical to human exposure or lower. The endocrine system responds to very low concentrations of endogenous hormones due to high affinity of hormones to their receptors, among others. Similarly, as EDCs mimic natural hormones, they can also trigger a response at low levels (21). For example, the plastic additive bisphenol A leaching from plastic mouse cages caused disruption of meiotic spindles in mouse oocytes at exposure levels corresponding to 1 lg/day per mouse (22). For comparison, the estimated human intake of bisphenol A varies between 10–60 ng/kg per day, suggesting exposure of 0.6–3.6 lg/day for a person weighing 60 kg (23). It has also been shown that there can be a long lag time from exposure until the adverse effect is seen. For example, exposure to EDCs during organogenesis is associated with increased risk of development of diseases later in life (24). Moreover, this also suggests that chemicals can cause more damage when exposure takes place during certain windows of susceptibility such as the prenatal and early postnatal period because they disrupt essential organ development (25,26). An example of this is diethylstilbestrol (DES), a syn- thetic non-steroidal oestrogen prescribed from 1930s to 1970s to prevent miscarriages as well as decrease risk of pregnancy complications and premature delivery. As DES interfered with the reproductive tract development in utero, DES-exposed daughters had higher primary infertility, were less likely to have full-term births, and had higher likelihood of premature births, spontaneous miscarriages, and ectopic pregnancies compared with unexposed women (27–29). The DES incidence has also illustrated the multigenerational effects of EDCs as the grandchildren of DES-exposed women have increased risk of irregular menstrual cycles, amenor- rhoea, ectopic pregnancy, and preterm delivery (30). Since EDCs are ubiquitous and can be found in various consumer products, we are not exposed to a single chemical but to multiple chemicals at the same time. Common routes of exposure to EDCs are oral, respiratory, and dermal. They can also enter the body through intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous routes for example during medical treatments such as IVF procedures. Developing foetuses can be exposed through placental transfer of chemicals from the mother, and neonates via breastmilk (12,31). The extensive exposure to EDCs can be seen in various biomonitoring pro- grammes in different countries where pesticides, phthalates, bisphenols, aromatic hydrocarbons, benzophenones, perfluor- oalkyl substances (PFAS), chlorinated chemicals, and metals are commonly detected in the general population (32,33). This mixture exposure can lead to combinatory effects of chemicals called cocktail effects. As chemicals are usually assessed individually, the hazards and risks could be under- estimated because possible additive (1 þ 1 ¼ 2), synergistic (1 þ 1 > 2), or antagonistic (1 þ 1 < 2) properties are not accounted for. There is continuous effort on designing and optimising statistical approaches to quantifying the effect of mixtures. Various statistical approaches have been proposed from machine learning to classical linear regression, but there is no single best approach that outperforms the others (34). 3. Exposures and outcomes in IVF patients 3.1. Persistent organic pollutants There are various different groups of EDCs, but for the pur- pose of this review we focus on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs are halogenated organic chemical substances that are toxic to both human and wildlife, bioaccumulative, and resistant to environmental degradation because of their stability. While most POPs are lipophilic in nature and accu- mulate to fatty tissues, PFAS are amphiphilic and bind to proteins. In general, POPs are also volatile at certain temper- atures and may travel long distances in the atmosphere. Hence, they can be found even in areas where they were never used (12,35). For humans, the largest source of POP exposure is diet. Contaminated Baltic Sea fish remains a sig- nificant source of POPs in Scandinavian countries. A list of the POPs in focus of this review, their uses, and regulations are given in Table 1. We choose to focus on POPs since organochlorine chemi- cals, which form a large part of the group, are historically the chemicals that are associated with disruption of repro- ductive activities in wildlife. They accumulate in humans with increasing age due to their long half-lives, and the levels therefore reflect the life-history of exposure. Currently, women postpone childbearing. The average age of first-time mothers in Sweden is 27.3 years for the whole country, and 30.3 years for its capital Stockholm (51). Delaying starting of a family means longer cumulative exposure to environmental factors, including POPs. Particularly for older women, whose oocyte quality is already declining (52), the increasing cumu- lative exposure to chemicals could further worsen the chan- ces of pregnancy. In contrast to other EDCs that are easily metabolised such as phthalates, it is difficult to reduce the body burden of POPs only through lifestyle modification. For women, the body burden of lipophilic POPs is reduced when bearing a child because these chemicals cross the placenta and deposit to the foetus (53). In addition, they are also transferred to the neonate via breast milk (54). UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 87 3.2. POPs in follicular fluid and associations to outcomes With the advent of assisted reproductive technologies, fol- licular fluid has become accessible for evaluating the direct exposure of oocytes to EDCs. Several studies have measured concentrations of POPs in follicular fluid, and some also ana- lysed the associations to treatment outcomes. We summarise the literature on POPs in follicular fluid in Table 2. The lipo- philic POPs have been adjusted for sample lipid content in some studies. Although the exposure levels were reported in different units (e.g. ng/mL or ng/g wet weight or ng/g lipids), which made direct comparisons between studies challenging, the summary shows direct exposure of oocytes to mixtures of POPs, which could lead to cocktail effects. Only three studies (57,61,65) gave account of this mixture exposure with the use of principal component analysis. As these cohorts were composed of women undergoing IVF treatment, information on ovarian reserve, endometrial thickness, oocyte quality, fertilization rate, embryo quality, and live birth were readily available to further investigate the impact of POPs on human reproduction, specifically on IVF endpoints. Approximately half of the studies analysed associ- ation between exposure and outcome. Common outcomes evaluated were oocyte quality, implantation rate, and live birth as well as endometrial thickness. While some studies did not find any association between chemicals and IVF out- comes, others found that in particular the lipophilic POPs were associated with lower fertilisation rates and poorer embryo quality after adjusting for covariates such as age, body mass index, and oestradiol. For example, dichlorodiphe- nyldichloroethylene (DDE), a metabolite of DDT, was found to be associated with lower oocyte quality in three studies (43,57,60), while two failed to find associations (56,59). The indicator PCBs (PCBs 28, 52, 101, 138, 153, and 180) were associated with lower oestradiol, thinner endometrium, and lower fertilization rates in most studies (57,60,62). The PFAS compounds were evaluated in two studies and found to be associated with higher androgen levels and higher embryo quality (65,66). It is clear that more studies are warranted, both experimental and epidemiological, to interpret these associations. It should also be noted that the reported cohort studies are relatively small, most having fewer than 100 par- ticipants, which clearly limits the statistical power. 3.3. A way forward Studying the effects of POPs on fertility in women is chal- lenging, as fertility and fecundability depend on multiple fac- tors. In addition, women (and couples) are exposed to multiple POPs, which makes statistical analyses challenging. Ideally, similar chemicals are grouped together, allowing comparison of toxic equivalency values which is currently done for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Alternatively, statistical methods that can handle highly correlated expo- sures and non-linear relationships that are typical for these chemicals should be further developed. Effects seen only in some quantiles of exposure should not be disregarded but rather explored further. Lastly, human folliculogenesis lasts for months, and during this time cytoplasmic and nuclear maturation take place including epigenetic changes and germline imprinting. Exposure assessment during preconcep- tion could help identify chemicals with adverse effects on oocyte quality. Population studies give a good starting point for gauging associations between exposures and reproductive outcomes. However, for proving causality, experimental models will be needed. Better understanding of mechanisms underlying Table 1. Use, source, and regulation of POPs and their suggested reproductive health effects in women. Chemical Use/sources Regulationa Associated health effects in women References PeCB and HCB Fungicide; unintentional production during industrial processes Annex A and C Failed implantation, increased spontaneous abortion Mahalingaiah et al. (36); Younglai et al. (37) HCH (lindane) Agricultural insecticide and treatment for lice and scabies Annex A Increased spontaneous abortion, premature delivery, endometriosis Upson et al. (38); US Department of Health and Human Services (39) Chlordane Termite treatment in food crops (e.g. corn and citrus) Annex A Altered cycle length Chen et al. (40) DDT and DDE Disease vector control (e.g. malaria) Annex B Impaired fertilization, impaired lactation, infertility, reduced parity, longer time-to-pregnancy, uterine fibroids Gesink Law et al. (41); Trabert et al. (42); Younglai et al. (37) (43) PCBs Electrical insulation, heat transfers, hydraulic systems and capacitors, paints, plasticizers, dyes for carbonless duplicating paper Annex A and C Impaired response to ovulation induction, impaired lactation, reduced parity and fecundability, longer time to pregnancy, uterine fibroids Gennings et al. (44); Gesink Law et al. (41); Trabert et al. (42); Younglai et al. (37) PBDEs Flame retardants added to fabrics, textiles, plastics, carpets, and electronical appliances Annex A Failed implantation, decreased fecundability, endometriosis Johnson et al. (45); Harley et al. (46); Ploteau et al. (47) PFASs Consumer products that are water-, oil-, and stain-resistant (e.g. Scotchgard, Teflon) Annex B Longer time-to-pregnancy, infertility, endometriosis Buck Louis et al. (48); Campbell et al. (49); Fei et al. (50) aRegulation under the Stockholm Convention: Annex A, elimination of production and use; Annex B, restrict production and use; Annex C, reduce uninten- tional releases. DDE: dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene; DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; HCB:hexachlorobenzene; HCH: hexachlorocyclohexane; PBDE: polybrominated diphenyl ether; PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl; PeCB: pentachlorobenzene; PFAS: perfluoroalkyl substance. 88 R. D. BJÖRVANG AND P. DAMDIMOPOULOU Ta b le 2. Le ve ls of PO Ps in fo lli cu la r flu id an d th e as so ci at io n s to IV F ou tc om e. C h em ic al Sa m p lin g p er io d n A g e (y ea rs ) Lo ca ti on Le ve l in fo lli cu la r flu id : M ea n {G eo m et ri c m ea n } [M ed ia n ] (S D or ra n g e) a A ss oc ia ti on to IV F ou tc om es b Re fe re n ce s H C B 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U SA [0 .0 35 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 73 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 32 (1 9) p g /m L Lo w er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; fe w er h ig h -q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (5 7) D D E 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U SA [0 .3 63 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 63 0 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 02 – 20 03 61 9 19 – 50 Sa ud i A ra b ia 0. 40 7 l g /L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es A l- Sa le h et al . (5 8) 20 03 – 20 04 99 25 – 41 C ze ch Re p ub lic 33 03 .3 (4 20 5. 2) n g /g lip id s N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Ji rs ov � a et al . (5 9) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 68 (0 .9 2) n g /m L H ig h er p ea k oe st ra d io l le ve l; lo w er lik el ih oo d fo r re tr ie va l of m at ur e oo cy te Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 39 2 (3 48 ) p g /m L Lo w er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; fe w er h ig h -q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 84 .3 (3 4. 2) n g /g lip id s – Zh u et al . (6 1) N R 21 28 – 38 C an ad a 26 77 (1 58 4) p g /m L N eg at iv el y co rr el at ed w it h fe rt ili za ti on Yo un g la i et al . (4 3) D D D 20 02 – 20 03 61 9 19 – 50 Sa ud i A ra b ia 0. 00 04 l g /L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es A l- Sa le h et al . (5 8) 20 03 – 20 04 99 25 – 41 C ze ch Re p ub lic 13 .1 (1 5. 6) n g /g lip id s N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Ji rs ov � a et al . (5 9) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 5. 8 (1 6. 8) n g /g lip id s – Zh u et al . (6 1) D D T 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U SA [0 .0 14 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 02 – 20 03 61 9 19 – 50 Sa ud i A ra b ia 0. 00 44 l g /L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es A l- Sa le h et al . (5 8) 20 03 – 20 04 99 25 – 41 C ze ch Re p ub lic 98 .1 (7 5. 9) n g /g lip id s N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Ji rs ov � a et al . (5 9) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 01 (0 .0 3) n g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 35 (5 ) p g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 10 – 20 13 94 20 – 38 Eg yp t 21 .1 (3 .8 ) l g /L Th in n er en d om et ri um , lo w er n um b er of sa cs A l- H us sa in i et al . (6 3) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 8. 39 (4 .1 6) n g /g lip id s – Zh u et al . (6 1) a- H C H 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 29 .3 (1 5. 1) n g /g lip id s – Zh u et al . (6 1) b -H C H 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 34 (3 5) p g /m L Lo w er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; fe w er h ig h -q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 27 .3 (2 6. 1) n g /g lip id s – Zh u et al . (6 1) g -H C H 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 34 (1 ) p g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 18 .5 (6 .7 4) n g /g lip id s – Zh u et al . (6 1) d -H C H 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 72 .7 (4 9. 7) n g /g lip id s – Zh u et al . (6 1) O xy ch lo rd an e 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U SA [0 .0 12 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 08 – 20 09 20 25 – 43 Be lg iu m N D N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) Tr an sn on ac h lo r 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U SA [0 .0 20 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 08 – 20 09 20 25 – 43 Be lg iu m N D N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) PC B 28 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 13 (0 .0 3) n g /m L Lo w er lik el ih oo d fo r im p la n ta ti on Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 10 – 20 13 94 20 – 38 Eg yp t 45 .5 (9 .4 ) l g /L Th ic ke r en d om et ri um , h ig h er n um b er of eg g s re tr ie ve d A l- H us sa in i et al . (6 2) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 25 (3 9) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PC B 44 20 03 – 20 04 99 25 – 41 C ze ch Re p ub lic 1. 8 (2 .5 ) n g /g lip id s N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Ji rs ov � a et al . (5 9) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 09 (0 .0 3) n g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 47 20 03 – 20 04 99 25 – 41 C ze ch Re p ub lic 13 .1 (3 4. 0) n g /g lip id s N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Ji rs ov � a et al . (5 9) PC B 49 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 07 (0 .0 3) n g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) N R 21 28 – 38 C an ad a 62 .4 (6 .8 ) p g /m L O ut co m e re su lt n ot sh ow n Yo un g la i et al . (4 3) PC B 52 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 16 (0 .0 4) n g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 10 – 20 13 94 20 – 38 Eg yp t 37 0. 6 (5 4. 1) l g /L Th in n er en d om et ri um , h ig h er n um b er of sa cs A l- H us sa in i et al . (6 2) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 43 (3 7) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PC B 66 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 09 (0 .0 4) n g /m L Lo w er lik el ih oo d fo r im p la n ta ti on an d liv e b ir th Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 74 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 06 (0 .0 2) n g /m L Lo w er lik el ih oo d fo r liv e b ir th Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 87 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 05 (0 .0 2) n g /m L Th in n er en d om et ri um ; lo w er em b ry o q ua lit y Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 99 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 20 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 04 (0 .0 2) n g /m L Th in n er en d om et ri um Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 10 1 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 40 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 03 – 20 04 99 25 – 41 C ze ch Re p ub lic 8. 1 (9 .1 ) n g /g lip id s N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Ji rs ov � a et al . (5 9) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 11 (0 .0 4) n g /m L Lo w er lik el ih oo d fo r liv e b ir th Bl oo m et al . (6 0) (c on ti nu ed ) UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 89 Ta b le 2. C on ti n ue d . C h em ic al Sa m p lin g p er io d n A g e (y ea rs ) Lo ca ti on Le ve l in fo lli cu la r flu id : M ea n {G eo m et ri c m ea n } [M ed ia n ] (S D or ra n g e) a A ss oc ia ti on to IV F ou tc om es b Re fe re n ce s 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a N D – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PC B 10 5 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 02 (0 .0 2) n g /m L Lo w er lik el ih oo d fo r re tr ie va l of m at ur e oo cy te ; h ig h er lik el ih oo d fo r oo cy te fe rt ili sa ti on Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m N D N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) PC B 11 0 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 09 (0 .0 4) n g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 11 8 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U SA [0 .0 32 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 77 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 06 (0 .0 4) n g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 15 (8 ) p g /m L Lo w er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; fe w er h ig h -q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 9 (1 9) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) N R 8 29 – 44 Be lg iu m 60 (2 8� 87 ) p g /g w et w ei g h t – Pa uw el s et al . (6 4) PC B 13 8 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U SA [0 .0 47 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 33 0 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 05 (0 .0 3) n g /m L Lo w er p ea k oe st ra d io l le ve l Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 49 (3 2) p g /m L Lo w er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; fe w er h ig h -q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 10 – 20 13 94 20 – 38 Eg yp t 14 6. 2 (2 1. 3) l g /L Th ic ke r en d om et ri um A l- H us sa in i et al . (6 2) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a N D – H ua n g et al . (6 3) N R 8 29 – 44 Be lg iu m 16 1 (6 3� 39 6) p g /g w et w ei g h t – Pa uw el s et al . (6 4) PC B 14 6 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0 (0 .0 1) n g /m L H ig h er lik el ih oo d fo r im p la n ta ti on Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 14 9 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 05 (0 .0 3) n g /m L Th in n er en d om et ri um ; lo w er em b ry o q ua lit y Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 15 1 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 01 (0 .0 1) n g /m L Fe w er b as el in e an tr al fo lli cl es , fe w er oo cy te s re tr ie ve d , an d th in n er en d om et ri um Bl oo m et al . (6 0) PC B 15 3 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 50 0 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U S [0 .0 72 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 07 (0 .0 4) n g /m L Lo w er p ea k oe st ra d io l le ve l Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 72 (4 4) p g /m L Lo w er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; fe w er h ig h -q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 0. 04 (0 .2 8) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) N R 8 29 – 44 Be lg iu m 17 1 (9 3� 41 1) p g /g w et w ei g h t – Pa uw el s et al . (6 4) N R 21 28 �3 8 ye ar s C an ad a 73 .3 (7 .0 ) p g /m L O ut co m e re su lt n ot sh ow n Yo un g la i et al . (4 3) PC B 15 6 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 30 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) PC B 15 7 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 6. 7 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) PC B 15 8 20 03 – 20 04 99 25 – 41 C ze ch Re p ub lic 10 .2 (1 0. 9) n g /g lip id s N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Ji rs ov � a et al . (5 9) PC B 16 7 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 25 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) PC B 17 0 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 10 0 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 01 (0 .0 1) n g /m L Fe w er b as el in e an tr al fo lli cl es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 21 (1 3) p g /m L Lo w er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; fe w er h ig h -q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (5 7) PC B 18 0 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 40 0 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 19 94 – 20 03 72 25 – 44 U S [0 .0 45 ] n g /g w et w ei g h t – M ee ke r et al . (5 5) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 04 (0 .0 2) n g /m L Fe w er b as el in e an tr al fo lli cl es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 51 (3 3) p g /m L Lo w er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; fe w er h ig h -q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 10 – 20 13 94 20 – 38 Eg yp t 10 1. 5 (1 9. 2) l g /L Th in n er en d om et ri um , lo w er n um b er of fe rt ili se d oo cy te s, lo w er n um b er of cl ea ve d em b ry os A l- H us sa in i et al . (6 2) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 0. 03 (0 .3 1) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) N R 21 28 �3 8 ye ar s C an ad a 62 .2 (5 .2 ) p g /m L O ut co m e re su lt n ot sh ow n Yo un g la i et al . (4 3) N R 8 29 – 44 Be lg iu m 16 1 (6 4� 37 2) p g /g w et w ei g h t – Pa uw el s et al . (6 4) PC B 18 3 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 50 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0 (0 .0 1) n g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 13 (3 ) p g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) PC B 18 7 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 63 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) 20 07 – 20 08 32 28 – 42 U SA 0. 02 (0 .0 2) n g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Bl oo m et al . (6 0) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 18 (1 0) p g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) (c on ti nu ed ) 90 R. D. BJÖRVANG AND P. DAMDIMOPOULOU Ta b le 2. C on ti n ue d . C h em ic al Sa m p lin g p er io d n A g e (y ea rs ) Lo ca ti on Le ve l in fo lli cu la r flu id : M ea n {G eo m et ri c m ea n } [M ed ia n ] (S D or ra n g e) a A ss oc ia ti on to IV F ou tc om es b Re fe re n ce s PC B 18 9 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 90 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) PC B 19 4 20 00 12 28 – 32 It al y 23 n g /g lip id s – D e Fe lip et al . (5 6) PB D E 28 19 94 – 20 03 65 27 – 44 U S 0. 00 1 n g /g w et w ei g h t N o as so ci at io n w it h fa ile d im p la n ta ti on Jo h n so n et al . (4 5) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a N D – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PB D E 47 19 94 – 20 03 65 27 – 44 U S 0. 02 6 n g /g w et w ei g h t N o as so ci at io n w it h fa ile d im p la n ta ti on Jo h n so n et al . (4 5) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 12 p g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 0. 32 (0 .9 1) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PB D E 99 19 94 – 20 03 65 27 – 44 U S 0. 01 4 n g /g w et w ei g h t N o as so ci at io n w it h fa ile d im p la n ta ti on Jo h n so n et al . (4 5) 20 08 – 20 09 40 25 – 43 Be lg iu m 14 p g /m L N o as so ci at io n w it h IV F ou tc om es Pe tr o et al . (5 7) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 13 (1 3) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PB D E 10 0 19 94 – 20 03 65 27 – 44 U S 0. 00 6 n g /g w et w ei g h t N o as so ci at io n w it h fa ile d im p la n ta ti on Jo h n so n et al . (4 5) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 35 (2 1) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PB D E 15 3 19 94 – 20 03 65 27 – 44 U S 0. 00 7 n g /g w et w ei g h t In cr ea se d od d s fo r fa ile d im p la n ta ti on Jo h n so n et al . (4 5) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 1. 1 (3 .3 ) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PB D E 15 4 19 94 – 20 03 65 27 – 44 U S 0. 00 3 n g /g w et w ei g h t N o as so ci at io n w it h fa ile d im p la n ta ti on Jo h n so n et al . (4 5) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 0. 43 (2 .1 ) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PB D E 18 3 19 94 – 20 03 65 27 – 44 U S 0. 00 0 n g /g w et w ei g h t N o as so ci at io n w it h fa ile d im p la n ta ti on Jo h n so n et al . (4 5) 20 13 12 7 20 – 35 C h in a 0. 24 (1 .1 ) n g /g lip id s – H ua n g et al . (6 3) PF O S 20 08 – 20 09 38 25 – 43 Be lg iu m [7 .5 ] (3 0. 3) n g /m L H ig h er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; h ig h er p ro p or ti on of h ig h - q ua lit y em b ry o Pe tr o et al . (6 5) 20 15 59 20 – 45 U K {2 } (3 .6 9) n g /m L Ir re g ul ar m en st ru al cy cl es ; lo w er fr ee an d ro st en ed io n e in d ex H ef fe rn an et al . (6 6) PF O A 20 08 – 20 09 38 25 – 43 Be lg iu m [1 .8 ] (3 ) n g /m L H ig h er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; h ig h er p ro p or ti on of h ig h - q ua lit y em b ry o Pe tr o et al . (6 6) 20 15 59 20 – 45 U K {1 .8 2} (6 .2 1) n g /m L H ig h er te st os te ro n e le ve ls H ef fe rn an et al . (6 6) PF N A 20 08 – 20 09 38 25 – 43 Be lg iu m [0 .4 ] (1 .9 ) n g /m L H ig h er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; h ig h er p ro p or ti on of h ig h - q ua lit y em b ry o Pe tr o et al . (6 5) 20 15 59 20 – 45 U K {0 .4 1} (1 .4 2) n g /m L H ig h er te st os te ro n e an d an d ro st en ed io n e le ve ls H ef fe rn an et al . (6 6) PF H xS 20 08 – 20 09 38 25 – 43 Be lg iu m [0 .3 ] (1 .3 ) n g /m L H ig h er fe rt ili za ti on ra te ; h ig h er p ro p or ti on of h ig h - q ua lit y em b ry os Pe tr o et al . (6 5) 20 15 59 20 – 45 U K {0 .8 8} (1 0) n g /m L H ig h er te st os te ro n e le ve ls H ef fe rn an et al . (6 6) a U n it s us ed as re p or te d in th e st ud y. b A n ex p os ur e st ud y is in d ic at ed b y – . D D E: d ic h lo ro d ip h en yl d ic h lo ro et h yl en e; D D T: d ic h lo ro d ip h en yl tr ic h lo ro et h an e; H C B: h ex ac h lo ro b en ze n e; H C H : h ex ac h lo ro cy cl oh ex an e; N R: n ot re p or te d ; PB D E: p ol yb ro m in at ed d ip h en yl et h er ; PC B: p ol yc h lo ri n at ed b ip h en yl ; PO Ps : p er si st en t or g an ic p ol lu ta n ts . UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 91 folliculogenesis, oocyte quality, ovarian aging, and endomet- rial receptivity will be needed in order to tailor better assays for chemical safety testing. 4. Conclusions Multiple studies have identified cocktails of POPs in ovarian follicular fluid of reproductive-aged women across the world, although the use of most of the chemicals in focus in this review was restricted decades ago (Tables 1 and 2). Specifically, lipophilic organochlorine chemicals such as DDE and PCBs were associated with worse outcomes in IVF treat- ments (Table 2). In addition, these compounds have also been linked to other adverse reproductive outcomes in women (Table 1). Originally, organochlorine chemicals were found to be toxic for reproduction in wildlife animal popula- tions. Our review suggests that they may also worsen the chances of successful fertility treatments in humans. Although cohort studies give information about significant associations between exposures and outcomes, they cannot demonstrate causality or inform about associated mecha- nisms. Therefore, experimental models will be needed for proving endocrine mechanisms of action as well as causality. Because EDCs affect not only reproductive function of women but also the health of the offspring, it is of utmost importance that all action should be taken to reduce expos- ure. Advising women and families on the use of consumer products, healthy diets, and home supplies represents a good start and raises awareness. However, populations can only truly be protected with better chemical regulations that prevent harmful chemicals from entering the market. Therefore, research proving causal effects between EDC exposures and adverse effects in humans is urgently needed. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This work was supported by Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, Swedish Research Council FORMAS, and European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement [No 825100; FREIA]. Notes on contributors Richelle D. Bj€orvang, MD, is a PhD student at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Pauliina Damdimopoulou, PhD, is an associate professor and a senior researcher at Karolinska Institutet. Her research group focuses on chemi- cals and fertility in women. ORCID Richelle D. Bj€orvang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3619-2257 Pauliina Damdimopoulou http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8458-0855 References 1. Colborn T, Clement C. Chemically-induced alterations in sexual and functional development: the wildlife/human connection. In: Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Scientific Publishing Co.; 1992. 2. Colborn T, Dumanoski D, Peterson Myers J. Our stolen future. New York: Dutton; 1996. 3. Wang Z, Walker GW, Muir DCG, Nagatani-Yoshida K. Toward a glo- bal understanding of chemical pollution: A first comprehensive analysis of national and regional chemical inventories. Environ Sci Technol. 2020. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06379 4. Cefic. Facts and figures of the European chemical industry [Internet]. 2018. [cited 2019 Nov 21]. Available at: https://cefic.org. 5. Oxford Economics. The Global chemical industry: catalyzing growth and addressing our world’s sustainability challenges. Washington, DC: ICCA; 2019. 6. Jenssen BM. An overview of exposure to, and effects of, petrol- eum oil and organochlorine pollution in grey seals (Halichoerus grypus). Sci Total Environ. 1996;186:109–18. 7. Helander B, Olsson A, Bignert A, Asplund L, Litz�en K. The role of DDE, PCB, coplanar PCB and eggshell parameters for reproduction in the white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Sweden. Ambio. 2002;3:386–403. 8. Colborn T. Epidemiology of great lakes bald eagles. J Toxicol Environ Heal. 1991;33:395–453. 9. Guillette LJ Jr, Gross TS, Masson GR, Matter JM, Percival FH, Woodward AR. Developmental abnormalities of the gonad and abnormal sex hormone concentrations in juvenile alligators from contaminated and control lakes in Florida. Environ Health Perspect. 1994;102:680–8. 10. Desforges JP, Hall A, Mcconnell B, Rosing-Asvid A, Barber JL, Brownlow A, et al. Predicting global killer whale population col- lapse from PCB pollution. Science. 2018;361:1373–6. 11. Demeneix B, Slama R. Endocrine disruptors: from scientific evi- dence to human health protection. Brussels: Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs; 2019. 12. Bergman Å, Heindel J, Jobling S, Kidd K, Zoeller RT. State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals. United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization; 2013. 13. Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, Flaws JA, Nadal A, Prins GS, et al. EDC-2: The Endocrine Society’s second scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Endocr Rev. 2015;36:E1–150. 14. Hunt PA, Sathyanarayana S, Fowler PA, Trasande L. Female repro- ductive disorders, diseases, and costs of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101:1562–70. 15. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women; American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee; University of California SFP on RH and the E. Exposure to Toxic Environmental Agents [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2019 Nov 20]. Available at: http:// prhe.ucsf. 16. Di Renzo GC, Conry JA, Blake J, Defrancesco MS, Denicola N, Martin JN, et al. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) opinion on reproductive health impacts of exposure to toxic environmental chemicals. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;131:219–25. 17. Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Faust M, Evans R, Mckinlay R, Orton F, et al. State of the art assessment of endocrine disrupters [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2019 Aug 8]. Available at: https://ec.europa. eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota_edc_final_report. pdf. 18. R€uegg J, Penttinen-Damdimopoulou P, M€akel€a S, Pongratz I, Gustafsson JÅ, Receptors mediating toxicity and their involvement in endocrine disruption. In: Luch A, editor. Molecular, clinical and environmental toxicology. Volume 1: Molecular toxicology. Switzerland: Birkh€auser Verlag; 2009. p. 289–323. 92 R. D. BJÖRVANG AND P. DAMDIMOPOULOU https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06379 https://cefic.org http://prhe.ucsf http://prhe.ucsf https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota_edc_final_report.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota_edc_final_report.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota_edc_final_report.pdf 19. La Merrill MA, Vandenberg LN, Smith MT, Goodson W, Browne P, Patisaul HB, et al. Consensus on the key characteristics of endo- crine-disrupting chemicals as a basis for hazard identification. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2020;16:45–57. 20. Vandenberg LN. Non-monotonic dose responses in studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals: bisphenol A as a case study. Dose Response. 2014;12:259–76. 21. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR, Lee D-H, et al. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low- dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocr Rev. 2012;33:378–455. 22. Hunt PA, Koehler KE, Susiarjo M, Hodges CA, Ilagan A, Voigt RC, et al. Bisphenol A exposure causes meiotic aneuploidy in the female mouse. Curr Biol. 2003;13:546–53. 23. Huang RP, Liu ZH, Yuan SF, Yin H, Dang Z, Wu PX. Worldwide human daily intakes of bisphenol A (BPA) estimated from global urinary concentration data (2000–2016) and its risk analysis. Environ Pollut. 2017;230:143–52. 24. Birnbaum LS, Miller MF. Prenatal programming and toxicity (PPTOX) introduction. Endocrinology 2015;156:3405–7. 25. Schug TT, Janesick A, Blumberg B, Heindel JJ. Endocrine disrupting chemicals and disease susceptibility. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2011;127:204–15. 26. Barouki R. Endocrine disruptors: revisiting concepts and dogma in toxicology. C R Biol. 2017;340:410–3. 27. Kaufman RH, Adam E, Hatch EE, Noller K, Herbst AL, Palmer JR, et al. Continued follow-up of pregnancy outcomes in diethylstil- bestrol-exposed offspring. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:483–9. 28. Reed CE, Fenton SE. Exposure to diethylstilbestrol during sensitive life stages: a legacy of heritable health effects. Birth Defect Res C. 2013;99:134–46. 29. Milhan D. DES exposure: implications for childbearing. Int J Childbirth Educ. 1992;7:21–8. 30. Titus L, Hatch EE, Drake KM, Parker SE, Hyer M, Palmer JR, et al. Reproductive and hormone-related outcomes in women whose mothers were exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol (DES): A report from the US National Cancer Institute DES Third Generation Study. Reprod Toxicol. 2019;84:32–8. 31. Mamsen LS, Bj€orvang RD, Mucs D, Vinnars M-T, Papadogiannakis N, Lindh CH, et al. Concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in human embryonic and fetal organs from first, second, and third trimester pregnancies. Environ Int. 2019;124:482–92. 32. Porta M, Puigdom�enech E, Ballester F, Selva J, Ribas-Fit�o N, Llop S, et al. Monitoring concentrations of persistent organic pollutants in the general population: the international experience. Environ Int. 2008;34:546–61. 33. Crinnion WJ. The CDC fourth national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals: what it tells us about our toxic bur- den and how it assists environmental medicine physicians. Altern Med Rev 2010;15:101–8. 34. Taylor KW, Joubert BR, Braun JM, Dilworth C, Gennings C, Hauser R, et al. Statistical approaches for assessing health effects of envir- onmental chemical mixtures in epidemiology: lessons from an innovative workshop. Env Heal Perspect 2016;124:A227–9. 35. Stockholm Convention. Listing of POPs in the Stockholm Convention [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2019 Aug 15]. Available at: http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/AllPOPs/tabid/2509/ Default.aspx. 36. Mahalingaiah S, Missmer SA, Maity A, Williams PL, Meeker JD, Berry K, et al. Association of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), dichlorodi- phenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethy- lene (DDE) with in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:316–20. 37. Younglai EV, Holloway AC, Foster WG. Environmental and occupa- tional factors affecting fertility and IVF success. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11:43–57. 38. Upson K, De Roos AJ, Thompson ML, Sathyanarayana S, Scholes D, Boyd Barr D, et al. Organochlorine pesticides and risk of endomet- riosis: findings from a population-based case-control study. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:1319–24. 39. US Department of Health and Human Services. Toxicological pro- file for alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta-hexachlorocyclohexane [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2019 Aug 16]. Available at: https://www. atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp43.pdf. 40. Chen MW, Santos HM, Que DE, Gou YY, Tayo LL, Hsu YC, et al. Association between organochlorine pesticide levels in breast milk and their effects on female reproduction in a Taiwanese popula- tion. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:931. 41. Gesink Law DC, Klebanoff MA, Brock JW, Dunson DB, Longnecker MP. Maternal serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and 1,1- dichloro-2,2- bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE) and time to preg- nancy. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162:523–32. 42. Trabert B, Chen Z, Kannan K, Matthew Peterson C, Pollack AZ, Sun L, et al. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and fibroids: results from the ENDO study. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2015;25: 278–85. 43. Younglai EV, Foster WG, Hughes EG, Trim K, Jarrell JF. Levels of environmental contaminants in human follicular fluid, serum, and seminal plasma of couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2002;43:121–6. 44. Gennings C, Carrico C, Factor-Litvak P, Krigbaum N, Cirillo PM, Cohn BA. A cohort study evaluation of maternal PCB exposure related to time to pregnancy in daughters. Environ Health. 2013; 12:66. 45. Johnson PI, Altshul L, Cramer DW, Missmer SA, Hauser R, Meeker JD. Serum and follicular fluid concentrations of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and in-vitro fertilization outcome. Environ Int. 2012;45:9–14. 46. Harley KG, Marks AR, Chevrier J, Bradman A, Sj€odin A, Eskenazi B. PBDE concentrations in women’s serum and fecundability. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118:699–704. 47. Ploteau S, Cano-Sancho G, Volteau C, Legrand A, V�enisseau A, Vacher V, et al. Associations between internal exposure levels of persistent organic pollutants in adipose tissue and deep infiltrat- ing endometriosis with or without concurrent ovarian endome- trioma. Environ Int. 2017;108:195–203. 48. Buck Louis GM, Sundaram R, Schisterman EF, Sweeney AM, Lynch CD, Gore-Langton RE, et al. Persistent environmental pollutants and couple fecundity: the LIFE study. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:231–6. 49. Campbell S, Raza M, Pollack AZ. Perfluoroalkyl substances and endometriosis in US women in NHANES 2003–2006. Reprod Toxicol. 2016; 65:230–5. 50. Fei C, Mclaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Olsen J. Maternal levels of per- fluorinated chemicals and subfecundity. Hum Reprod. 2009;24: 1200–5. 51. National Board of Health and Welfare. Statistics and data [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 20]. Available at: https://www. socialstyrelsen.se/statistik-och-data/statistik/. 52. Silber SJ, Kato K, Aoyama N, Yabuuchi A, Skaletsky H, Fan Y, et al. Intrinsic fertility of human oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1232–7. 53. Curley A, Copeland F, Kimbrough R. Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in organs of stillborn and blood of newborn babes. Arch Env Heal. 1969;19:628–32. 54. M€uller M, Polder A, Brynildsrud OB, Grønnestad R, Karimi M, Lie E, et al. Prenatal exposure to persistent organic pollutants in Northern Tanzania and their distribution between breast milk, maternal blood, placenta and cord blood. Environ Res. 2019;170: 433–42. 55. Meeker JD, Missmer SA, Altshul L, Vitonis AF, Ryan L, Cramer DW, et al. Serum and follicular fluid organochlorine concentrations among women undergoing assisted reproduction technologies. Environ Health. 2009;8:32. 56. De Felip E, Di Domenico A, Miniero R, Silvestroni L. Polychlorobiphenyls and other organochlorine compounds in human follicular fluid. Chemosphere. 2004;54:1445–9. 57. Petro EML, Leroy J, Covaci A, Fransen E, De Neubourg D, Dirtu AC, et al. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals in human follicular fluid impair in vitro oocyte developmental competence. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1025–33. UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 93 http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/AllPOPs/tabid/2509/Default.aspx http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/AllPOPs/tabid/2509/Default.aspx https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp43.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp43.pdf https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/statistik-och-data/statistik/ https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/statistik-och-data/statistik/ 58. Al-Saleh I, Coskun S, El-Doush I, Billedo G, Mashhour A, Jaroudi K, et al. Outcome of in-vitro fertilization treatment and DDT levels in serum and follicular fluid. Med Sci Monit 2009;15:320–33. 59. Jirsov�a S, Ma�sata J, Jech L, Zv�arov�a J. Effect of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2,-bis (4-chlorophenyl)-eth- ane (DDT) in follicular fluid on the results of in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer (IVF-ET) programs. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:1831–6. 60. Bloom MS, Fujimoto VY, Storm R, Zhang L, Butts CD, Sollohub D, et al. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in human follicular fluid and in vitro fertilization outcomes, a pilot study. Reprod Toxicol. 2017;67:165–73. 61. Zhu Y, Huang B, Li QX, Wang J. Organochlorine pesticides in fol- licular fluid of women undergoing assisted reproductive technolo- gies from central China. Environ Pollut. 2015;207:266–72. 62. Al-Hussaini TK, Abdelaleem AA, Elnashar I, Shabaan OM, Mostafa R, El-Baz MAH, et al. The effect of follicullar fluid pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls concentrations on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) embryological and clinical outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;220:39–43. 63. Huang Y, Yan M, Nie H, Wang W, Wang J. Persistent halogenated organic pollutants in follicular fluid of women undergoing in vitro fertilization from China: Occurrence, congener profiles, and pos- sible sources. Environ Pollut. 2019;244:1–8. 64. Pauwels A, Covaci A, Delbek L, Punjabi U, Schepens PJ. The rela- tion between levels of selected PCB congeners in human serum and follicular fluid. Chemosphere. 1999;39:2433–41. 65. Petro EML, D’Hollander W, Covaci A, Bervoets L, Fransen E, De Neubourg D, et al. Perfluoroalkyl acid contamination of follicular fluid and its consequence for in vitro oocyte developmental com- petence. Sci Total Environ. 2014;496:282–8. 66. Heffernan AL, Cunningham TK, Drage DS, Aylward LL, Thompson K, Vijayasarathy S, et al. Perfluorinated alkyl acids in the serum and follicular fluid of UK women with and without polycystic ovarian syn- drome undergoing fertility treatment and associations with hormonal and metabolic parameters. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018;221:1068–75. 94 R. D. BJÖRVANG AND P. DAMDIMOPOULOU Abstract Introduction Central concepts of endocrine disruption Definitions and mechanism of action Features of endocrine disrupting chemicals Exposures and outcomes in IVF patients Persistent organic pollutants POPs in follicular fluid and associations to outcomes A way forward Conclusions Disclosure statement References