To fill a research gap on firefighter exposures and breast cancer risk, and guide exposure reduction, we aimed to identify firefighter occupational exposures linked to breast cancer. We conducted a systematic search and review to identify firefighter chemical exposures and then identified the subset that was associated with breast cancer. To do this, we compared the firefighter exposures with chemicals that have been shown to increase breast cancer risk in epidemiological studies or increase mammary gland tumors in experimental toxicology studies. For each exposure, we assigned a strength of evidence for the association with firefighter occupation and for the association with breast cancer risk. We identified twelve chemicals or chemical groups that were both linked to breast cancer and were firefighter occupational exposures, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile aromatics, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, persistent organohalogens, and halogenated organophosphate flame retardants. Many of these were found at elevated levels in firefighting environments and were statistically significantly higher in firefighters after firefighting or when compared to the general population. Common exposure sources included combustion byproducts, diesel fuel and exhaust, firefighting foams, and flame retardants. Our findings highlight breast-cancer-related chemical exposures in the firefighting profession to guide equitable workers compensation policies and exposure reduction.

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Upholstered furniture has been a major source of chemical flame retardant (FR) exposures in US homes since the 1970s. FRs are a large group of chemicals, many of which are associated with adverse health effects, including cancer, reproductive toxicity, and neurotoxicity. California homes have some of the highest dust concentrations of FRs, due to Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117), California's outdated flammability standard for furniture foam that was generally followed across the US and Canada. In 2014, this standard was updated to a smolder standard for furniture fabric called TB117-2013, and it is no longer reliant on FRs. This update provided an opportunity to measure differences in FR dust levels in California homes before and after residents replaced older upholstered furniture, or its foam, with products that met the new standard and were expected to be FR-free. We collected dust from homes of participants who had plans to replace older upholstered furniture, or furniture foam, with FR-free options. We returned for follow-up dust collection six, 12, and 18 months following replacement. Concentrations of three polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (BDE-47, BDE-99, BDE-100), three chlorinated organophosphate ester FRs (tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), tris(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCIPP), and tris(1,3-dichloroisopropyl) phosphate (TDCIPP)), and one aryl organophosphate ester FR triphenyl phosphate (TPHP), were widely detected in participant homes. All measured FRs decreased in nearly all homes after the older upholstered furniture was replaced. The decreases in FRs were significant in both homes that replaced entire pieces of furniture and those that replaced only the furniture foam. This study demonstrates that replacing older upholstered furniture or foam significantly reduces concentrations of a range of FRs in the home. Foam replacement offers a potentially more economic alternative that produces a lower volume of waste.

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).

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.