A peer-reviewed open access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Many common environmental chemicals are mammary gland carcinogens in animal studies, activate relevant hormonal pathways, or enhance mammary gland susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Breast cancer's long latency and multifactorial etiology make evaluation of these chemicals in humans challenging. For chemicals previously identified as mammary gland toxicants, we evaluated epidemiologic studies published since our 2007 review. We assessed whether study designs captured relevant exposures and disease features suggested by toxicological and biological evidence of genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, tumor promotion, or disruption of mammary gland development. We systematically searched the PubMed database for articles with breast cancer outcomes published in 2006-2016 using terms for 134 environmental chemicals, sources, or biomarkers of exposure. We critically reviewed the articles. We identified 158 articles. Consistent with experimental evidence, a few key studies suggested higher risk for exposures during breast development to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dioxins, perfluorooctane-sulfonamide (PFOSA), and air pollution (risk estimates ranged from 2.14 to 5.0), and for occupational exposure to solvents and other mammary carcinogens, such as gasoline components (risk estimates ranged from 1.42 to 3.31). Notably, one 50-year cohort study captured exposure to DDT during several critical windows for breast development (in utero, adolescence, pregnancy) and when this chemical was still in use. Most other studies did not assess exposure during a biologically relevant window or specify the timing of exposure. Few studies considered genetic variation, but the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project reported higher breast cancer risk for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in women with certain genetic variations, especially in DNA repair genes. New studies that targeted toxicologically relevant chemicals and captured biological hypotheses about genetic variants or windows of breast susceptibility added to evidence of links between environmental chemicals and breast cancer. However, many biologically relevant chemicals, including current-use consumer product chemicals, have not been adequately studied in humans. Studies are challenged to reconstruct exposures that occurred decades before diagnosis or access biological samples stored that long. Other problems include measuring rapidly metabolized chemicals and evaluating exposure to mixtures.

A peer-reviewed open access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Low-income and minority communities often face disproportionately high pollutant exposures. The lead crisis in Flint, Michigan, has sparked concern about broader socioeconomic disparities in exposures to drinking water contaminants. Nitrate is commonly found in drinking water, especially in agricultural regions, and epidemiological evidence suggests elevated risk of cancer and birth defects at levels below U.S. EPA’s drinking water standard (10 mg/L NO3-N). However, there have been no nationwide assessments of socioeconomic disparities in exposures to nitrate or other contaminants in U.S. drinking water. The goals of this study are to identify determinants of nitrate concentrations in U.S. community water systems (CWSs) and to evaluate disparities related to wealth or race/ethnicity. We compiled nitrate data from 39,466 U.S. CWSs for 2010–2014. We used EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) to compile CWS characteristics and linked this information with both city- and county-level demographic data gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau. After applying multiple imputation methods to address censored nitrate concentration data, we conducted mixed-effects multivariable regression analyses at national and regional scales. 5.6 million Americans are served by a CWS that had an average nitrate concentration ≥ 5 mg/L NO3-N between 2010 and 2014. Extent of agricultural land use and reliance on groundwater sources were significantly associated with nitrate. The percent of Hispanic residents served by each system was significantly associated with nitrate even after accounting for county-level cropland and livestock production, and CWSs in the top quartile of percent Hispanic residents exceeded 5 mg/L nearly three times as often as CWSs serving the lowest quartile. By contrast, the percent of residents living in poverty and percent African American residents were both inversely associated with nitrate. Epidemiological evidence for health effects associated with drinking water above 5 mg/L NO3-N raises concerns about increased risk for the 5.6 million Americans served by public water supplies with average nitrate concentrations above this level. The associations we observed between nitrate concentrations and proportions of Hispanic residents support the need for improved efforts to assist vulnerable communities in addressing contamination and protecting source waters. Future studies can extend our methods to evaluate disparities in exposures to other contaminants and links to health effects.