A science-based agenda for health-protective chemical assessments and decisions: overview and consensus statement.

The manufacture and production of industrial chemicals continues to increase, with hundreds of thousands of chemicals and chemical mixtures used worldwide, leading to widespread population exposures and resultant health impacts. Low-wealth communities and communities of color often bear disproportionate burdens of exposure and impact; all compounded by regulatory delays to the detriment of public health. Multiple authoritative bodies and scientific consensus groups have called for actions to prevent harmful exposures via improved policy approaches. We worked across multiple disciplines to develop consensus recommendations for health-protective, scientific approaches to reduce harmful chemical exposures, which can be applied to current US policies governing industrial chemicals and environmental pollutants. This consensus identifies five principles and scientific recommendations for improving how agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach and conduct hazard and risk assessment and risk management analyses: (1) the financial burden of data generation for any given chemical on (or to be introduced to) the market should be on the chemical producers that benefit from their production and use; (2) lack of data does not equate to lack of hazard, exposure, or risk; (3) populations at greater risk, including those that are more susceptible or more highly exposed, must be better identified and protected to account for their real-world risks; (4) hazard and risk assessments should not assume existence of a "safe" or "no-risk" level of chemical exposure in the diverse general population; and (5) hazard and risk assessments must evaluate and account for financial conflicts of interest in the body of evidence. While many of these recommendations focus specifically on the EPA, they are general principles for environmental health that could be adopted by any agency or entity engaged in exposure, hazard, and risk assessment. We also detail recommendations for four priority areas in companion papers (exposure assessment methods, human variability assessment, methods for quantifying non-cancer health outcomes, and a framework for defining chemical classes). These recommendations constitute key steps for improved evidence-based environmental health decision-making and public health protection.

Advancing the science on chemical classes.

BACKGROUND: Hazard identification, risk assessment, regulatory, and policy activity are usually conducted on a chemical-by-chemical basis. Grouping chemicals into categories or classes is an underutilized approach that could make risk assessment and management of chemicals more efficient for regulators. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: While there are some available methods and regulatory frameworks that include the grouping of chemicals (e.g.,same molecular mechanism or similar chemical structure) there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of these different approaches nor a recommended course of action to better consider chemical classes in decision-making. This manuscript: 1) reviews current national and international approaches to grouping; 2) describes how groups could be defined based on the decision context (e.g., hazard/risk assessment, restrictions, prioritization, product development) and scientific considerations (e.g., intrinsic physical-chemical properties); 3) discusses advantages of developing a decision tree approach for grouping; 4) uses ortho-phthalates as a case study to identify and organize frameworks that could be used across agencies; and 5) discusses opportunities to advance the class concept within various regulatory decision-making scenarios. RESULTS: Structural similarity was the most common grouping approach for risk assessment among regulatory agencies (national and state level) and non-regulatory organizations, albeit with some variations in its definition. Toxicity to the same target organ or to the same biological function was also used in a few cases. The phthalates case study showed that a decision tree approach for grouping should include questions about uses regulated by other agencies to encourage more efficient, coherent, and protective chemical risk management. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our evaluation of how classes of chemicals are defined and used identified commonalities and differences based on regulatory frameworks, risk assessments, and business strategies. We also identified that using a class-based approach could result in a more efficient process to reduce exposures to multiple hazardous chemicals and, ultimately, reduce health risks. We concluded that, in the absence of a prescribed method, a decision tree approach could facilitate the selection of chemicals belonging to a pre-defined class (e.g., chemicals with endocrine-disrupting activity; organohalogen flame retardants [OFR]) based on the decision-making context (e.g., regulatory risk management).

Lead dustfall from demolition of scattered site family housing: developing a sampling methodology.

BACKGROUND: Over 3000 older homes containing lead-based paint are demolished in Chicago each year. While previous studies investigating large multifamily housing demolitions have shown high levels of lead in dustfall, dispersed single-family housing demolition have yet to be assessed. Presently, no standards exist to regulate the extent of lead dustfall from housing demolition. OBJECTIVES: We studied ten residences in Chicago undergoing demolition and debris removal and compared dustfall rates to five standing homes from March to October 2006. METHODS: Dustfall was measured using a modification of APHA Method 502; samplers consisted of plastic buckets filled with 1l of deionized water, elevated to breathing zone height and placed around the demolition site perimeter. Laboratory analysis consisted of filtration, acid digestion and analysis by ICP/MS. RESULTS: During demolition, the geometric mean lead dustfall (n=43 at 10 locations) was 64.1 microgPb/m(2)/h (range: 1.3-3902.5), while the geometric mean lead dustfall for areas with no demolition (n=18 at 6 locations) was 12.9 microgPb/m(2)/h (range: 1.8-54.5). This difference was highly statistically significant (p=0.0004). When dust suppression measures were used, dustfall lead levels were lower, although the difference was not statistically significant. The geometric mean lead dustfall with dust suppression (n=25 at five locations) and without (n=22 at six locations) was 48 Pbmicrog/m(2)/h and 74.6 microgPb/m(2)/h, respectively. CONCLUSION: Demolition dustfall lead levels are much higher than background levels of lead during demolition of single-family housing and may constitute a yet uncharacterized but important source of lead exposure to nearby residents. Simple dust suppression methods are likely to reduce the contamination considerably.

Identifying housing that poisons: a critical step in eliminating childhood lead poisoning.

The purpose of our study was to develop a method to identify and prioritize "high-risk" buildings in Chicago that could be targeted for childhood lead poisoning prevention activities. We defined "high-risk" buildings as those where multiple children younger than 6 years with elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) had lived and where lead hazards were previously identified on environmental inspection. By linking 1997-2003 Chicago elevated blood lead surveillance, environmental inspection, and building footprint data, we found that 49,362 children younger than 6 years with elevated BLLs lived at 30,742 buildings. Of those, 67 were "high-risk" buildings and these were associated with 994 children with elevated BLLs. On average, 15 children with elevated BLLs had lived in each building (range: 10-53, median: 13). Almost two thirds (n = 43) of the high-risk buildings had two or more referrals for inspection to the same apartment or housing unit; of those, 40 percent (n = 17) failed to maintain lead-safe status after compliance. Linking blood lead surveillance, environmental inspection, and building footprint databases allowed us to identify individual high-risk buildings. This approach prioritizes lead hazard control efforts and may help health, housing, and environmental agencies in targeting limited resources to increase lead-safe housing for children.