The 2016 Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg TSCA) amended the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to mandate protection of susceptible and highly exposed populations. Program implementation entails a myriad of choices that can lead to different degrees of public health protections. Well-documented exposures to multiple industrial chemicals occur from air, soil, water, food, and products in our workplaces, schools, and homes. Many hazardous chemicals are associated with or known to cause health risks; for other industrial chemicals, no data exist to confirm their safety because of flaws in 1976 TSCA. Under the 2016 Lautenberg amendments, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must evaluate chemicals against risk-based safety standards under enforceable deadlines, with an explicit mandate to identify and assess risks to susceptible and highly exposed populations. Effective public health protection requires EPA to implement the Lautenberg TSCA requirements by incorporating intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect susceptibility, adequately assessing exposure among vulnerable groups, and accurately identifying highly exposed groups. We recommend key scientific and risk assessment principles to inform health-protective chemical policy such as consideration of aggregate exposures from all pathways and, when data are lacking, the use of health-protective defaults.
Citation: Koman PD, Singla V, Lam J, Woodruff TJ (2019) Population susceptibility: A vital consideration in chemical risk evaluation under the Lautenberg Toxic Substances Control Act. PLoS Biol 17(8): e3000372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000372
Academic Editor: Linda S. Birnbaum, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, United States of America
Published: August 29, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Koman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health from Michigan Lifestage Environmental Exposure and Disease Center (MLEED) NIEHS P30ES017885, JPB Foundation, Passport Foundation, Broadreach Foundation, and Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Abbreviations: CASRN, Chemical Abstracts Services registry number; EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency; HBCD, hexabromocyclododecane; HIPS, high-impact polystyrene; IRIS, Integrated Risk Information System; Lautenberg TSCA, 2016 Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act; NMP, N-Methyl-pyrrolidone; NTP, National Toxicology Program; TSCA, 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act
Provenance: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Hazardous industrially manufactured chemicals are ubiquitous in society despite the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (Public Law No. 114–182) [1–3]. Hazardous chemicals are found in products such as bedding, furniture, building materials, clothing, cleaning products, food containers, and toys [4,5]. Multiple industrial chemicals are also present in every person in the US, many at levels that can increase the risk of adverse health outcomes . Approximately 9.5 trillion pounds of over 40,000 industrial chemicals are currently in production [3, 6]. Exposures to chemicals such as asbestos, methylene chloride, organic solvents, toxic metals, and halogenated flame retardants can increase the risk of death, cancer, birth defects, and loss of cognitive capacity in children (e.g., see Table 1) [4,7–10]. The costs of environmental chemical exposures are in the billions of US dollars, with one limited study of children estimating $76.6 billion annually (2.7%–4.8% of US healthcare costs) for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities [11,12]. The estimated cost of cleaning up chemical waste at the 294,000 hazardous waste sites across the country is $250 billion, excluding the societal costs of potential health impacts and emerging contaminants [13,14].
Over the past half century, scientists and the public gained a more comprehensive understanding of exposures and health effects from industrial chemicals. Research evaluating exposure to environmental chemicals evolved from directly studying workers to examining consumers and vulnerable populations to assessing potential impacts on future generations (e.g., epigenetics). The understanding of the nature of harm from industrial chemical exposures expanded from one adverse endpoint to many, as well as from one chemical to cumulative exposures and vulnerable periods of exposure across the life course . Health-based regulatory limits have been lowered, not raised, as the science advances . Most importantly, exposures to industrial chemicals and their health consequences remain preventable . Consequently, leading scientists and medical societies have identified environmental pollutants as contributing to adverse health consequences and called for public policies to prevent harmful exposures, emphasizing the need to protect susceptible and highly exposed populations [18–21]. The National Research Council’s report Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment recommended improvements to chemical risk assessment to protect public health (referred to hereafter as “Science and Decisions”) .
In the US, Congress passes laws such as the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) that mandate the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implement the law through policies, rule makings, and regulations to limit toxic chemical exposures. The authorizing law sets bounds on EPA’s authority, and EPA also has some discretion in implementing the law.
The limitations of 1976 TSCA contributed to a notoriously ineffective implementation that did not protect public health [1–2,22–25]. For example, under 1976 TSCA, EPA did not have adequate authority to require chemical testing prior to chemicals entering commerce [1,2,20–22]. Health and safety testing is available for just 200 chemicals (about 2% of the total manufactured chemicals) [25,26]. Furthermore, EPA could not effectively regulate chemicals with documented adverse health effects, like asbestos and methylene chloride, partly because of the burden of demonstrating “unreasonable risk” along with consideration of the cost to regulate. As a result, hazardous chemicals remained in production and use [27–32]. Faced with mounting evidence of harms and pressure from public health groups, states and other jurisdictions issued their own requirements to fill gaps left by federal inaction. Chemical manufacturers found the variable local requirements to be onerous in a global market, which set the stage for the 2016 Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg TSCA) (Public Law No. 114–182) .
An important change is that Lautenberg TSCA directs EPA to identify and protect “potentially exposed or susceptible sub-populations,” defined as “a group of individuals within the general population identified by the [US EPA] Administrator who, due to either greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at greater risk than the general population of adverse health effects from exposure to a chemical substance or mixture, such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly” (15 USC §2602 ) . The law further requires that EPA decisions under Lautenberg TSCA must protect such populations (15 USC §2604 [a][A]; 15 USC §2605 [b][B][i], [b][A], and [h][B]) [35–38]. Finally, the amended law articulates scientific standards: “to the extent that the [U.S. EPA] Administrator makes a decision based on science, the Administrator shall use scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or models, employed in a manner consistent with the best available science” (15 USC §2625 [h]) . In this context, we discuss scientific risk assessment principles necessary to meet legal requirements to safeguard the health of susceptible and highly exposed populations under Lautenberg TSCA. These principles are articulated in Science and Decisions and other documents and based on current scientific understanding of chemical exposures and biological and health effects [15,40–42] (Table 2). These provisions are consistent with the significant agreement among the public health community that US chemical policy should reflect contemporary science and provide public health protection, especially for susceptible and highly exposed groups [43–45].
Although Lautenberg TSCA introduced some potential improvements, implementation of the law leaves critical decisions to EPA . Lautenberg TSCA requires that EPA determine to what extent chemicals pose an “unreasonable risk” to health based solely on scientific data and irrespective of compliance costs. It also requires that EPA ensures chemical uses do not pose an “unreasonable risk” to susceptible and highly exposed populations, such as pregnant women, children, workers, and the elderly. However, the amended law does not require chemical manufacturers to provide a minimum set of data on health risks and exposure for susceptible and highly exposed groups. Furthermore, Lautenberg TSCA did not fully define unreasonable risk, and EPA must develop an operational definition as well as its specific risk evaluation and decision-making processes. Thus, EPA must determine the details of how to collect and assess scientific evidence for determining risks and what information to require from manufacturers or its own research to meet statutory requirements. In implementing Lautenberg TSCA, EPA will set precedents for the type of scientific data necessary to collect and the assessment of susceptible populations and exposures across its current and future risk evaluation decisions. This process is occurring primarily through two steps: (1) general provisions in the final “framework rules” (Risk Prioritization: July 20, 2017 [FR 33753][FRL–9964–24], Risk Evaluation: July 20, 2017 [FR 33726][FRL–9964–38]) [53,54] and (2) each specific chemical risk evaluation.
Public health protection will be heavily dependent on these federal decisions because Lautenberg TSCA includes new state preemption provisions—meaning that states are precluded from taking further action once EPA determines that a chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk or when EPA takes final action in the risk management phase (Public Law No. 114–182) . New state action is paused during EPA’s risk evaluation of high-priority chemicals.
In Table 2, we recommend scientific principles EPA should incorporate to assure adequate assessments of susceptible and highly exposed populations to support health-protective chemical policy as required by law. In the next sections, we analyze EPA decisions to date (as of June 2019) with a focus on susceptibility and exposure considerations that are now required under Lautenberg TSCA. We acknowledge there are many other factors contributing to risk, including cumulative impacts, timing of exposures during sensitive periods of human development, and uncertainty in the data (see Table 2).
As shown in Fig 1, population variability in susceptibility and coexposures combine to determine biological response to chemical exposure . To accurately identify subpopulations at greater risk, EPA’s analysis must incorporate the current scientific understanding of factors that contribute to greater susceptibility and to greater or more impactful exposures. These include intrinsic factors (e.g., life stage, genetics, underlying disease status, nutrition), extrinsic factors (e.g., social and life circumstances such as poverty and life stress), and exposures to other chemicals (Fig 1) [15,56].
Figure reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives .
Unfortunately, in its assessment plans for the first 10 chemicals (as of June 2019), EPA has not yet incorporated these established, scientifically supported intrinsic and extrinsic factors that increase susceptibility or exposure . For eight of the first 10 evaluations (i.e., perchloroethylene; asbestos; trichloroethylene; N-Methyl-pyrrolidone [NMP]; methylene chloride; carbon tetrachloride; 1,4-dioxane; and pigment violet 29), EPA does not currently identify pregnant women, infants, children, families living near current and former industrial sites, or any other potentially highly exposed or susceptible subpopulation under the amended TSCA (as of June 2019) [58–66]. For example, the prenatal life stage can be the most sensitive to developmental and reproductive toxicants [8,21], and people of child-bearing age are a susceptible subpopulation for chemicals with such hazards , such as trichloroethylene. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of trichloroethylene concluded that toxicity to the developing fetus was one of the most sensitive observed adverse effects ; however, EPA’s TSCA risk evaluation omits this consideration.
For many industrial chemicals, there is ample evidence from the literature and IRIS assessments of increased susceptibility due to age, life stage, preexisting disease, genetic variation, and many other factors that should be incorporated into the TSCA evaluations [29–31,68–71]. In general, populations with these and other established factors should be considered a susceptible population for each chemical, unless there are chemical-specific data showing otherwise.
Science and Decisions recommends that risk assessments should quantitatively incorporate factors like susceptibility that influence the likelihood of disease and, when specific data are lacking, incorporate scientifically based default values in their assessments [15,49]. For example, the California EPA developed risk values for chemicals (e.g., atrazine, chlorpyrifos, lead, nickel, manganese) that address child-specific routes of exposure and differences in children’s susceptibility compared to adults . For cancer, Science and Decisions recommended 25 as a reasonable default value to include in the calculation of risk to account for the population variability in response to chemical exposure between the median individual and those with more extreme responses . Because the scientific basis for these defaults is already developed, EPA could easily integrate them into assessments. If EPA fails to incorporate established science to adequately identify and assess susceptible and highly exposed groups, the resulting risk determinations will underestimate risk of a chemical and fail to protect public health, as required by law.
Highly exposed populations
Established scientific principles for exposure assessment, including from EPA guidance documents, recognize the importance of including aggregate exposures to accurately detect highly exposed populations [43,50,56]. Aggregate exposure is defined as the combined exposures to an individual from a single chemical substance from all uses and across multiple pathways (such as air, water, food, dermal contact). However, EPA’s statements in the first 10 chemical problem formulations and framework rules indicate that it will not conduct full aggregate assessments; instead, EPA plans to consider exposure pathways in isolation and will separate and narrow which chemical uses will be included (called “conditions of use”) (see Table 1 references). These decisions systematically underestimate risk. Specifically, this approach could miss populations with greater exposures by excluding contemporary exposures from past common chemical uses (e.g., asbestos in buildings and flame-retardant chemicals in furniture, textiles, and electronics); reasonably foreseeable ongoing chemical uses contaminating land, air, and water; and uses for which a chemical is present unintentionally as a contaminant or by-product.
For instance, regarding previously common uses of the flame-retardant cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (hexabromocyclododecane, HBCD), EPA states, “There is no longer manufacture, processing or distribution of HBCD for [high-impact polystyrene] HIPS or textiles; and therefore, those uses are not included in the scope of the risk evaluation of HBCD” . HBCD was used as an additive flame retardant in HIPS casing for electronics such as TVs, DVD players, and computers. The number of home electronics has been correlated with the amount of HBCD on people’s hands (an exposure metric used to estimate dermal absorption and hand-to-mouth ingestion), indicating that flame retardant use in home electronics is a significant current source of exposure for the general population . An exposure calculation excluding this ongoing source would underestimate exposure to HBCD. Furthermore, because of increased hand-to-mouth activities, toddlers and young children, a potential susceptible subpopulation, can have greater exposures to environmental chemicals compared to adults because of their behaviors and physiological differences [48,74–77]. EPA’s draft risk evaluations systematically exclude previously common uses of chemicals (which EPA calls “legacy” uses) (see  and EPA Risk Evaluation final rule: July 20, 2017 [FR 33726][FRL–9964–38] ) despite ongoing exposures.
Accurate assessment of aggregate exposure is important because it can reveal risks to susceptible populations that would be missed if only a single exposure source was considered. This is illustrated by EPA’s 2005 risk assessment of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride (67 FR 5740, February 7, 2002, as amended at 69 FR 3257, January 23, 2004; 70 FR 40908, July 15, 2005, Title 40, Chapter I subpart E, Part 180 Subpart C, Sect. 180.575) [78–80]. With an aggregate exposure assessment, EPA concluded that most people in the US are not exposed to unsafe levels of fluoride, yet “aggregate fluoride exposure for infants and children under the age of 7 years old, where drinking water contains high levels of natural fluoride, exceeds the level that can cause severe dental fluorosis” . Had EPA only considered the risk from fluoride residues contributed by sulfuryl fluoride in isolation, its assessment would not have identified the existing risks to infants and children, a susceptible population (76 Federal Register 3421 [January 19, 2011]) . Thus, aggregate exposure assessment of all sources and pathways is critical for EPA to accurately identify the populations most at risk. Note that although pesticides are excluded from TSCA, this example demonstrates an appropriate evaluation of aggregate exposure that can be applied to any chemical.
Much is at stake for the public’s health and the role of science in decision-making with Lautenberg TSCA implementation. EPA’s decisions over the next several years will influence the level of toxic chemicals in our homes, communities, and bodies. Exposures to industrial chemicals and their harmful health consequences are preventable. If current levels of exposure to chemicals continue unabated, the consequences will be an even greater toxic legacy for future generations, especially for susceptible and highly exposed populations. For eight of the first 10 risk evaluations (as of June 2019), EPA does not identify pregnant women, infants, children, families living near current and former industrial sites, or any other potentially highly exposed or susceptible subpopulation. For all regulated chemicals, EPA must act quickly to identify susceptible and highly exposed populations, evaluate risks, and safeguard health through primary prevention. The challenge ahead for EPA is to incorporate current scientific principles and address the data deficits in the process of identifying, evaluating, and mitigating unreasonable risks. By adopting these recommendations regarding susceptibility and exposure, EPA will ensure that it is accounting for risks to the whole population and thus set the stage for risk management that yields widespread public health benefits.
- 1. Toxic Substances Control Act, Pub. L. No. 94–469, 90 Stat. 2003 (October 11, 1976).
- 2. Wilson MP, Schwarzman MR. Toward a New U.S. Chemicals Policy: Rebuilding the Foundation to Advance New Science, Green Chemistry, and Environmental Health. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2009;117(8):1202–9. pmid:19672398
- 3. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2016 Chemical Data Reporting Results [Internet]. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/2016-chemical-data-reporting-results
- 4. Woodruff TJ, Zota AR, Schwartz JM. Environmental Chemicals in Pregnant Women in the United States: NHANES 2003–2004. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2011;119(6):878–85. pmid:21233055
- 5. Crinnion WJ. The CDC fourth national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals: what it tells us about our toxic burden and how it assists environmental medicine physicians [Internet]. Alternative medicine review: a journal of clinical therapeutic. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2010 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20806995
- 6. US Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. Washington, DC; 2019.
- 7. Kyle AD, Woodruff TJ, Axelrad DA. Integrated Assessment of Environment and Health: America’s Children and the Environment. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006;114(3):447–52. pmid:16507470
- 8. Lanphear BP, Vorhees CV, Bellinger DC. Protecting Children from Environmental Toxins. PLoS Medicine. 2005;2(3).
- 9. Grandjean P, Landrigan P. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. The Lancet. 2006;368(9553):2167–78.
- 10. Wang A, Gerona RR, Schwartz JM, Lin T, Sirota M, Morello-Frosch R, et al. A Suspect Screening Method for Characterizing Multiple Chemical Exposures among a Demographically Diverse Population of Pregnant Women in San Francisco. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2018;126(7):077009. pmid:30044231
- 11. Trasande L, Liu Y. Reducing The Staggering Costs Of Environmental Disease In Children, Estimated At $76.6 Billion In 2008. Health Affairs. 2011;30(5):863–70. pmid:21543421
- 12. Landrigan PJ, Schechter CB, Lipton JM, Fahs MC, Schwartz J. Environmental pollutants and disease in American children: estimates of morbidity, mortality, and costs for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002;110(7):721–8. pmid:12117650
- 13. US Environmental Protection Agency. Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program OSWER Publication 9200.1–104 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2011 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/175526.pdf
- 14. US Environmental Protection Agency. Number, Cost and Nature of Contaminated Site Cleanups in the US over the Next 30 Years [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2007[cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/superfund
- 15. National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. National Academies Press. 2009.
- 16. Feitshans IL. Law and regulation of benzene. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1989;82:299–307. pmid:2792048
- 17. Sutton P, Woodruff TJ, Perron J, Stotland N, Conry JA, Miller MD, et al. Toxic environmental chemicals: the role of reproductive health professionals in preventing harmful exposures. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012;207(3):164–73. pmid:22405527
- 18. American Academy of Pediatrics. Chemical-Management Policy: Prioritizing Children's Health. Pediatrics. 2011;127(5):983–90. pmid:21518722
- 19. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 575. Exposure to toxic environmental agents. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122(4):931–5. Available from: http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Health_Care_for_Underserved_Women/Exposure_to_Toxic_Environmental_Agents pmid:24084567
- 20. Renzo GCD, Conry JA, Blake J, Defrancesco MS, Denicola N, Martin JN, et al. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics opinion on reproductive health impacts of exposure to toxic environmental chemicals. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2015;131(3):219–25.
- 21. Bennett D, Bellinger DC, Birnbaum LS, Bradman A, Chen A, Cory-Slechta DA, et al. Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks The TENDR Consensus Statement. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2016;124(7).
- 22. Cranor CF. Legally poisoned: how the law puts us at risk from toxicants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2013.
- 23. Silbergeld EK, Mandrioli D, Cranor CF. Regulating Chemicals: Law, Science, and the Unbearable Burdens of Regulation. Annual Review of Public Health. 2015;36(1):175–91.
- 24. Markell D. An overview of TSCA, its history and key underlying assumptions, and its place in environmental regulation. Washingt Univ J Law Policy. 2010;32: 333.
- 25. US Government Accountability Office. High Risk Series: An Update. 2009.
- 26. National Research Council. Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment. 2008.
- 27. Roe D. Ready or not: The coming wave of toxic chemicals. Ecol LQ. 2002;29: 623–7.
- 28. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Methylene Chloride [Internet]. Atlanta, GA; 2000 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp14.pdf
- 29. US Environmental Protection Agency. IRIS Toxicological Review of Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (Final Report EPA-635-R-10-003F). Washington, DC; 2011.
- 30. National Toxicology Program (NTP). Report on Carcinogens. 14th ed. Durham, NC; 2016 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/asbestos.pdf
- 31. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Asbestos [Internet]. Atlanta, GA; 2001 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp61.pdf
- 32. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts. Volume 100C. Lyon, France; 2012 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100C/mono100C-11.pdf
- 33. Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 114–182, 90 Stat. 2003 (June 22, 2016).
- 34. 15 U.S.C. § 2602 (12)
- 35. 15 U.S.C. § 2604 (a)(3)(A)
- 36. 15 U.S.C. § 2605 (b)(1)(B)(i)
- 37. 15 U.S.C. § 2605 (b)(4)(A)
- 38. 15 U.S.C. § 2605 (h)(1)(B)
- 39. 15 U.S.C. § 2625 (h)
- 40. California Office of Health. Handbook for conducting a literature-based health assessment using OHAT approach for systematic review and evidence integration [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/pubs/handbookjan2015_508.pdf
- 41. US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment EPA/630/P-03/001F [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2005 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf
- 42. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Using 21st Century Science to Improve Risk-Related Evaluations. National Academies Press; 2017.
- 43. Frieden TR. A Framework for Public Health Action: The Health Impact Pyramid. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(4):590–5.
- 44. Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The Social Determinants of Health: It's Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes. Public Health Reports. 2014;129(Suppl2):19–31.
- 45. Krimsky S. The unsteady state and inertia of chemical regulation under the US Toxic Substances Control Act. PLOS Biology. 2017;15(12).
- 46. The President’s Council on Cancer. Reducing environmental cancer risk: What we can do now [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf
- 47. Landrigan PJ, Goldman LR. Chemical safety, health care costs and the Affordable Care Act. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2013;57(1):1–3. pmid:24136096
- 48. US Environmental Protection Agency. America’s children and the environment, Third edition (EPA240-R-13001) [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2013 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: www.epa.gov/ace/ace-publications
- 49. Chiu WA, Axelrad DA, Dalaijamts C, Dockins C, Shao K, Shapiro AJ, et al. Beyond the RfD: Broad Application of a Probabilistic Approach to Improve Chemical Dose–Response Assessments for Noncancer Effects. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2018;126(6):067009. pmid:29968566
- 50. US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment [Internet]. Washington, DC; 1992 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/guidelines_exp_assessment.pdf
- 51. Lanphear BP. Low-level toxicity of chemicals: No acceptable levels? PLOS Biology. 2017;15(12).
- 52. Stoiber T, Temkin A, Andrews D, Campbell C, Naidenko OV. Applying a cumulative risk framework to drinking water assessment: a commentary. Environmental Health. 2019;18(1).
- 53. US Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2017 July 20; 82(138): 33753–64.
- 54. US Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2017 July 20; 82(138): 33726–53.
- 55. Woodruff TJ, Zeise L, Axelrad DA, Guyton KZ, Janssen S, Miller M, et al. Meeting Report: Moving Upstream—Evaluating Adverse Upstream End Points for Improved Risk Assessment and Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2008;116(11):1568–75. pmid:19057713
- 56. Birnbaum LS, Burke TA, Jones JJ. Informing 21st-Century Risk Assessments with 21st-Century Science. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2016;124(4).
- 57. Morello-Frosch R, Zuk M, Jerrett M, Shamasunder B, Kyle AD. Understanding the Cumulative Impacts of Inequalities in Environmental Health: Implications For Policy. Health Affairs. 2011;30(5):879–87. pmid:21555471
- 58. US Environmental Protection Agency. Problem formulation of the risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane EPA 740-R1-7012 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/14-dioxane_problem_formulation_5-31-18.pdf
- 59. US Environmental Protection Agency. Problem formulation of the risk evaluation for 1-bromopropane EPA-740-R1-7019. Washington, D.C.; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/1bp_problem_formulation_05-31-18.pdf
- 60. US Environmental Protection Agency. Problem formulation of the risk evaluation for asbestos EPA-740-R1-7018 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/asbestos_problem_formulation_05-31-18.pdf
- 61. US Environmental Protection Agency. Problem formulation of the risk evaluation for carbon tetrachloride (methane, tetrachloro-) EPA-740-R1-7020 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/ccl4_problem_formulation_05-31-18.pdf
- 62. US Environmental Protection Agency. Problem formulation for cyclic aliphatic bromides cluster (HBCD) EPA-740-R1-7012 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/hbcd_problem_formulation_05-31-18.pdf
- 63. US Environmental Protection Agency. Problem formulation of the risk evaluation for n-methylpyrrolidone (2-pyrrolidinone, 1-methyl-) EPA-740-R1-7015 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/nmp_pf_05-31-18.pdf
- 64. US Environmental Protection Agency. Problem formulation of the risk evaluation for methylene chloride (dichloromethane, DCM) EPA-740-R1-7016 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/mecl_problem_formulation_05-31-18.pdf
- 65. US Environmental Protection Agency. Draft risk evaluation for C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (Anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-d’e’f’]diisoquinoline- 1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone) [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-pigment-violet-29-anthra219-def6510
- 66. US Environmental Protection Agency. Problem formulation of the risk evaluation for trichloroethylene, EPA 740-R1-7014 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/tce_problem_formulation_05-31-31.pdf
- 67. Koman PD, Hogan KA, Sampson N, Mandell R, Coombe CM, Tetteh MM, et al. Examining Joint Effects of Air Pollution Exposure and Social Determinants of Health in Defining “At-Risk” Populations Under the Clean Air Act: Susceptibility of Pregnant Women to Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. World Medical & Health Policy. 2018;10(1):7–54.
- 68. US Environmental Protection Agency. IRIS toxicological review of trichloroethylene (TCE) (Final Report EPA-635-R-09-011F) [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2011 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0199_summary.pdf
- 69. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxicological review of tetrachlorethylene (perchloroethylene) in support of summary information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (Final Report EPA/635/R-08/011F) [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2012 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0106tr.pdf
- 70. US Environmental Protection Agency. Toxicological review of carbon tetrachloride in support of summary information on the Integrated Risk Information System (Final Report EPA/635/R-08/005F) [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2010 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=225974
- 71. US Environmental Protection Agency. Toxicological review of trichlorethylene in support of summary information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (Final Report EPA/635/R-09/011F) [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2011 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0199tr/0199tr.pdf
- 72. California Environmental Protection Agency. Table of all child-specific reference doses [Internet]. Sacramento, CA; 2010 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: http://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/chrd/table-all-chrds
- 73. Tay JH, Sellström U, Papadopoulou E, Padilla-Sánchez JA, Haug LS, Wit CAD. Assessment of dermal exposure to halogenated flame retardants: Comparison using direct measurements from hand wipes with an indirect estimation from settled dust concentrations. Environment International. 2018;115:285–94. pmid:29621716
- 74. Bearer CF. How are children different from adults? Environmental Health Perspectives. 1995;103(suppl 6):7–12.
- 75. Goldman LR, Koduru S. Chemicals in the environment and developmental toxicity to children: a public health and policy perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2000;108(suppl 3):443–8.
- 76. Goldman LR. Children—unique and vulnerable. Environmental risks facing children and recommendations for response. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1995;103(suppl 6):13–8.
- 77. Hubal EAC, Sheldon LS, Burke JM, Mccurdy TR, Berry MR, Rigas ML, et al. Childrens Exposure Assessment: A Review of Factors Influencing Childrens Exposure, and the Data Available to Characterize and Assess That Exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2000;108(6):475–86. pmid:10856019
- 78. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Proposes to Withdraw Sulfuryl Fluoride Tolerances [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2005 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://archive.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/web/html/evaluations.html
- 79. US Environmental Protection Agency. Sulfuryl Fluoride; Temporary Pesticide Tolerances. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2002 Feb 7; 67(26) 5735–40; as amended at Fed Regist. 2004 Jan 23; 69(15): 3240–57.
- 80. US Environmental Protection Agency. Sulfuryl Fluoride; Temporary Pesticide Tolerances. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2005 July 15; 70(135): 40899–40908.
- 81. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Proposes to Withdraw Sulfuryl Fluoride Tolerances [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2005 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://archive.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/web/html/evaluations.html
- 82. US Environmental Protection Agency. Sulfuryl Fluoride; Proposed Order Granting Objections to Tolerances and Denying Request for a Stay. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2011 Jan 19; 76(12): 3422–49.