Advertisement

BioSocieties

pp 1–25 | Cite as

Microbes, chemicals and the health of homes: integrating theories to account for more-than-human entanglements

  • Rachael Wakefield-RannEmail author
  • Dena Fam
  • Susan Stewart
Original Article

Abstract

In the post-war period, the health risks posed by indoor environments have both transformed and challenged notions of environmental health centred on pathogenic germs. The composition of home spaces, particularly in developed nations, has been fundamentally altered by the introduction of formerly industrial chemicals to everyday products and building materials. Further, the changing nature of building design, cleaning practices and urban life have altered the ‘microbiomes’ of homes, contributing to a rise in certain immune system conditions. This paper contends that to begin to address these concerns, the microscopic elements of ‘indoor ecosystems’, and how they are created and maintained, must become a focal point for research. It proposes an approach that integrates social practice theories and multispecies ethnography to investigate the cumulative composition of indoor spaces. Findings detail the application of this approach to research into the domestic hygiene practices of parents with young children in Sydney, Australia. This approach highlights crucial assumptions about the ways micro-scale agency is embedded in everyday domestic practices that are contributing to sub-optimal indoor environments.

Keywords

Multispecies ethnography Social practice theory Indoor environmental health Micro-species 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests—intellectual or financial—in the research detailed in the manuscript.

Ethical approval

The authors confirm that the manuscript is comprised of original material that is not under review elsewhere, and that the study on which the research is based has been subject to the University of Technology Sydney’s internal ethics review process.

References

  1. Abrahamsson, S., F. Bertoni, A. Mol, and R.I. Martín. 2015. Living with Omega-3: New materialism and enduring concerns. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33: 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bashford, A. 2003. Imperial hygiene: A critical history of colonialism, nationalism and public health. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Benn, S. 2004. Managing toxic chemicals in Australia: A regional analysis of the risk society. Journal of Risk Research 7: 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloomfield, S., R. Stanwell-Smith, R. Crevel, and J. Pickup. 2006. Too clean, or not too clean: The hygiene hypothesis and home hygiene. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 36: 402–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody, J.G., R. Morello-Frosch, A. Zota, P. Brown, C. Pérez, and R.A. Rudel. 2009. Linking exposure assessment science with policy objectives for environmental justice and breast cancer advocacy: The Northern California Household Exposure Study. American Journal of Public Health 99: S600–S609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, P.J. 1997. Popular epidemiology revisited. Current Sociology 45: 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bufford, J., C. Reardon, Z. Li, K. Roberg, D. Dasilva, P. Eggleston, A. Liu, D. Milton, U. Alwis, and R. Gangnon. 2008. Effects of dog ownership in early childhood on immune development and atopic diseases. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 38: 1635–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cass, N., and J. Faulconbridge. 2016. Commuting practices: New insights into modal shift from theories of social practice. Transport Policy 45: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crain, D.A., S.J. Janssen, T.M. Edwards, J. Heindel, S.-M. Ho, P. Hunt, T. Iguchi, A. Juul, J.A. Mclachlan, and J. Schwartz. 2008. Female reproductive disorders: The roles of endocrine-disrupting compounds and developmental timing. Fertility and Sterility 90: 911–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darling, K.W., S.L. Ackerman, R.H. Hiatt, S.S.-J. Lee, and J.K. Shim. 2016. Enacting the molecular imperative: How gene–environment interaction research links bodies and environments in the post-genomic age. Journal of Social Science & Medicine 155: 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davison, G., 2008. Down the gurgler: Historical influences on Australian domestic water consumption. In Troubled waters: Confronting the water crisis in Australia’s cities. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dunn, R.R., N. Fierer, J.B. Henley, J.W. Leff, and H.L. Menninger. 2013. Home life: Factors structuring the bacterial diversity found within and between homes. PLoS ONE 8: e64133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dupré, J. 1992. Species: Theoretical contexts. In Keywords in evolutionary biology, ed. E.F. Keller and E.A. Lloyd, 312–317. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Edelstein, M.R. 2004. Contaminated communities: Coping with residential toxic exposure. Boulder, CO: Westview Press/Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  15. Environmental Working Group, 2011. EWG’s skin deep cosmetics database. Washington, DC: Environmental Working Group. http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/site/about.
  16. Epstein, T.G., D.I. Bernstein, L. Levin, G.K.K. Hershey, P.H. Ryan, T. Reponen, M. Villareal, J.E. Lockey, and G.K. Lemasters. 2011. Opposing effects of cat and dog ownership and allergic sensitization on eczema in an atopic birth cohort. The Journal of Pediatrics 158: 265.e5–271.e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, E., R. Hitchings, R. Day, and S. Venn. 2017. Demanding distances in later life leisure travel. Geoforum 82: 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fujimura, K.E., C.C. Johnson, D.R. Ownby, M.J. Cox, E.L. Brodie, S.L. Havstad, E.M. Zoratti, K.J. Woodcroft, K.R. Bobbitt, and G. Wegienka. 2010. Man’s best friend? The effect of pet ownership on house dust microbial communities. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 126: 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gosens, I., C.J. Delmaar, W. Ter Burg, C. De Heer, and A.G. Schuur. 2014. Aggregate exposure approaches for parabens in personal care products: A case assessment for children between 0 and 3 years old. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 24: 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Granjou, C., and C. Phillips. 2018. Living and labouring soils: Metagenomic ecology and a new agricultural revolution? BioSocieties.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-018-0133-0.Google Scholar
  21. Greaves, M. 2018. A causal mechanism for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Nature Reviews Cancer 18 (8): 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Green, J.L. 2014. Can bioinformed design promote healthy indoor ecosystems? Indoor Air 24: 113–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenhough, B., A. Dwyer, R. Grenyer, T. Hodgetts, C. Mcleod, and J.J.P.C. Lorimer. 2018. Unsettling antibiosis: How might interdisciplinary researchers generate a feeling for the microbiome and to what effect? Palgrave Communications 4: 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. GSPI, 2016. Six Classes (Online). http://greensciencepolicy.org/topics/six-classes/. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  25. Haraway, D.J. 2008. When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hartmann, E.M., R. Hickey, T. Hsu, C.M. Betancourt Román, J. Chen, R. Schwager, J. Kline, G. Brown, R.U. Halden, and C. Huttenhower. 2016. Antimicrobial chemicals are associated with elevated antibiotic resistance genes in the indoor dust microbiome. Environmental Science and Technology 50: 9807–9815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heederik, D., and E. Von Mutius. 2012. Does diversity of environmental microbial exposure matter for the occurrence of allergy and asthma? Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 130: 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hird, M.J. 2010. Meeting with the microcosmos. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28: 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hui, A., T. Schatzki, and E. Shove. 2016. The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners. Abington: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jack, T. 2017. Cleanliness and consumption: Exploring material and social structuring of domestic cleaning practices. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41: 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jeon, Y.-S., J. Chun, and B.-S. Kim. 2013. Identification of household bacterial community and analysis of species shared with human microbiome. Current Microbiology 67: 557–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kessler, R. 2015. More than cosmetic changes: Taking stock of personal care product safety. Environmental Health Perspectives 123: A120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirksey, S.E., and S. Helmreich. 2010. The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology 25: 545–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lakind, J.S., and L.S. Birnbaum. 2010. Out of the frying pan and out of the fire: The indispensable role of exposure science in avoiding risks from replacement chemicals. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 20: 115–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landecker, H., and A. Panofsky. 2013. From social structure to gene regulation, and back: A critical introduction to environmental epigenetics for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 39: 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Landrigan, P.J., and L.R. Goldman. 2011. Children’s vulnerability to toxic chemicals: A challenge and opportunity to strengthen health and environmental policy. Health Affairs 30: 842–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lea, T., and P. Pholeros. 2010. This is not a pipe: The treacheries of Indigenous housing. Public Culture 22: 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levy, S.B. 2001. Antibacterial household products: Cause for concern. Emerging Infectious Diseases 7: 512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liboiron, M. 2015. Redefining pollution and action: The matter of plastics. Journal of Material Culture.  https://doi.org/10.1177/135918351562296.Google Scholar
  40. Loretz, L., A. Api, L. Babcock, L. Barraj, J. Burdick, K. Cater, G. Jarrett, S. Mann, Y. Pan, and T. Re. 2008. Exposure data for cosmetic products: Facial cleanser, hair conditioner, and eye shadow. Food and Chemical Toxicology 46: 1516–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lorimer, J. 2017. Probiotic environmentalities: Rewilding with wolves and worms. Theory, Culture, Society 34: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maizels, R.M. 2005. Infections and allergy—helminths, hygiene and host immune regulation. Current Opinion in Immunology 17: 656–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maller, C. 2016. Epigenetics, theories of social practice and lifestyle disease. In The Nexus of Practices, ed. A. Hui, T.R. Schatzki, and E. Shove. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Maller, C. 2018. Healthy urban environments: More-than-human theories. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maller, C., and Y. Strengers. 2013. The global migration of everyday life: Investigating the practice memories of Australian migrants. Geoforum 44: 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malterud, K., V.D. Siersma, and A.D. Guassora. 2016. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research 26: 1753–1760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mills, J.G., P. Weinstein, N.J. Gellie, L.S. Weyrich, A.J. Lowe, and M.F.J. Breed. 2017. Urban habitat restoration provides a human health benefit through microbiome rewilding: The Microbiome Rewilding Hypothesis. Restoration Ecology 25: 866–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morawska, L., P.K. Thai, X. Liu, A. Asumadu-Sakyi, G. Ayoko, A. Bartonova, A. Bedini, F. Chai, B. Christensen, and M.J. Dunbabin. 2018. Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone? Environmental International 116: 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Murphy, M. 2006. Sick building syndrome and the problem of uncertainty: Environmental politics, technoscience, and women workers. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murphy, M. 2008. Chemical regimes of living. Environmental History 13: 695–703.Google Scholar
  51. Murphy, M. 2015. Unsettling care: Troubling transnational itineraries of care in feminist health practices. Social Studies of Science 45: 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Myers, N. 2015. Rendering life molecular: Models, modelers, and excitable matter. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nazaroff, W.W., and C.J. Weschler. 2004. Cleaning products and air fresheners: Exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants. Atmospheric Environment 38: 2841–2865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nicolini, D. 2016. Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Malley, M.A., and J. Dupré. 2007. Size doesn’t matter: Towards a more inclusive philosophy of biology. Journal of Biology & Philosophy 22: 155–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. OED, 2019. Definition: Species Oxford English Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/species.
  57. Ott, W.R., A.C. Steinemann, and L.A. Wallace. 2006. Exposure analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Paxson, H.J.C.A. 2008. Post-Pasteurian cultures: The microbiopolitics of raw-milk cheese in the United States. Cultural Anthropology 23: 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paxson, H., and S.J.S. Helmreich. 2014. The perils and promises of microbial abundance: Novel natures and model ecosystems, from artisanal cheese to alien seas. Social Studies of Science 44: 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perzanowski, M.S., E. Rönmark, T.A. Platts-Mills, and B. Lundbäck. 2002. Effect of cat and dog ownership on sensitization and development of asthma among preteenage children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 166: 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Phillips, C. 2014. Following beekeeping: More-than-human practice in agrifood. Journal of Rural Studies 36: 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Povinelli, E.A. 2016. Geontologies: A requiem to late liberalism. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Quitzau, M.-B., and I.J. Røpke. 2009. Bathroom transformation: From hygiene to well-being? Home Cultures 6: 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Robinson, P.A. 2018. Performativity and a microbe: Exploring Mycobacterium bovis and the political ecologies of bovine tuberculosis. BioSocieties 172: 1–26.Google Scholar
  65. Rook, G.A. 2012. Hygiene hypothesis and autoimmune diseases. Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology 42: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rose, N. 2007. Molecular biopolitics, somatic ethics and the spirit of biocapital. Social Theory and Health 5: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rose, N., and C.J. Novas. 2005. Biological citizenship. In Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems, ed. A. Ong and S.J. Collier, 439–463. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  68. Ryghaug, M., and M. Toftaker. 2014. A transformative practice? Meaning, competence, and material aspects of driving electric cars in Norway. Nature and Culture 9: 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sahakian, M., and H.J. Wilhite. 2014. Making practice theory practicable: Towards more sustainable forms of consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture 14: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schatzki, T. 2016. Practice theory as flat ontology. In Practice theory and research: Exploring the practice theory and research, ed. G. Spaargaren, D. Weenink, and M. Lamers. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Schatzki, T.R., K. Knorr-Cetina, and E. Von Savigny. 2001. The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  72. Shapiro, N., and E. Kirksey. 2017. Chemo-ethnography: An introduction. Cultural Anthropology 32: 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of normality. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  74. Shove, E., M. Pantzar, and M. Watson. 2012. The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Smith, V. 2007. Clean: A history of personal hygiene and purity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  76. Spackman, C.C. 2018. Formulating citizenship: The microbiopolitics of the malfunctioning functional beverage. BioSocieties 13: 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Steinemann, A. 2015. Volatile emissions from common consumer products. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health 8: 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stoker, T.E., E.K. Gibson, and L.M. Zorrilla. 2010. Triclosan exposure modulates estrogen-dependent responses in the female wistar rat. Toxicological Sciences 117: 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thrift, N., 2016. Understanding the affective spaces of political performance. In Emotion, place and culture. Abington: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Vandenberg, L.N., T. Colborn, T.B. Hayes, J.J. Heindel, D.R. Jacobs Jr., D.-H. Lee, T. Shioda, A.M. Soto, F.S. Vom Saal, and W.V. Welshons. 2012. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrine Reviews 33: 378–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Weatherly, L.M., and J.A. Gosse. 2017. Triclosan exposure, transformation, and human health effects. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews 20: 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson, N.K., J.C. Chuang, C. Lyu, R. Menton, and M.K. Morgan. 2003. Aggregate exposures of nine preschool children to persistent organic pollutants at day care and at home. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 13: 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Sustainable FuturesUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Design Architecture and BuildingUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations