Researchers use multiple complementary approaches to study environmental causes of cancer, each with strengths and limitations that together build the scientific evidence base.
Epidemiological Studies
Epidemiology, the study of disease patterns in populations, provides the foundation for understanding environmental causes of cancer in humans [1]. Unlike laboratory experiments that study isolated variables under controlled conditions, epidemiological studies examine real-world exposures and health outcomes in human populations [2].
Cohort studies follow groups of individuals over time, measuring exposures at baseline and tracking cancer incidence during follow-up [3]. The Nurses’ Health Study, for example, has followed over 100,000 nurses since 1976, collecting detailed information on environmental exposures, lifestyle factors, and health outcomes including breast cancer [4]. Cohort studies provide strong evidence for temporal relationships—demonstrating that exposure preceded disease—and can calculate incidence rates and relative risks [5]. However, they require large sample sizes, extended follow-up periods spanning decades, and substantial resources [6]. Loss to follow-up and changes in exposure patterns over time present additional challenges [7].
Case-control studies compare individuals with cancer (cases) to similar individuals without cancer (controls), looking retrospectively at past exposures [8]. This design is efficient for studying rare cancers or outcomes with long latency periods, as researchers can identify cases after diagnosis and reconstruct exposure histories [9]. The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project, a large case-control study, examined environmental pesticide exposures and breast cancer risk by comparing 1,508 breast cancer cases to 1,556 controls [10]. Case-control studies face challenges with recall bias—cases may remember or report exposures differently than controls—and difficulty establishing accurate historical exposure assessment [11].
Cross-sectional studies measure exposure and outcome simultaneously in a population snapshot [12]. While useful for generating hypotheses and studying prevalence, cross-sectional designs cannot establish temporal sequence and are vulnerable to reverse causation [13].
Ecological studies examine populations or geographic areas as the unit of analysis, correlating environmental exposure levels with cancer rates across regions [14]. These studies can identify geographic clusters and generate hypotheses about environmental risk factors but suffer from the ecological fallacy—the inability to attribute area-level associations to individuals [15]. Additionally, confounding by other area-level characteristics limits causal inference [16].
Epidemiological studies must carefully address confounding variables—factors associated with both exposure and outcome that can create spurious associations [17]. Sophisticated statistical methods including multivariable regression, propensity score matching, and instrumental variable analysis help control for confounding [18]. However, unmeasured or unknown confounders remain a limitation of observational epidemiology [19].
Laboratory Research
Laboratory research provides controlled experimental evidence that complements observational human studies and elucidates biological mechanisms underlying cancer development [20].
Animal studies allow researchers to experimentally manipulate exposures under controlled conditions and observe carcinogenic effects [21]. The National Toxicology Program conducts systematic animal bioassays exposing rodents to chemicals throughout their lifespan and assessing tumor development [22]. These studies can establish dose-response relationships, identify target organs, and determine critical exposure windows [23]. Prenatal and perinatal exposure studies in animals have revealed that developmental exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can increase mammary tumor susceptibility later in life, informing understanding of human breast cancer etiology [24].
Animal studies face limitations related to species differences in metabolism, physiology, and susceptibility [25]. However, the predictive value of animal carcinogenicity studies for human cancer has been validated for numerous known human carcinogens [26]. The principle that “animals predict humans” underlies regulatory toxicology and risk assessment [27]. Allometric scaling and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling help extrapolate animal findings to humans by accounting for species differences in chemical absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion [28].
In vitro studies using cell cultures examine mechanisms at the molecular and cellular level [29]. Researchers can study how chemicals interact with cellular receptors, influence gene expression, affect cell proliferation and apoptosis, and damage DNA [30]. For endocrine-disrupting chemicals, receptor binding assays demonstrate estrogenic, androgenic, or anti-androgenic activity [31]. Reporter gene assays measure transcriptional activation of hormone-responsive genes [32]. Cell proliferation assays using estrogen-sensitive breast cancer cell lines (such as MCF-7 cells) assess whether chemicals promote growth of hormone-responsive cells [33].
High-throughput screening approaches enable testing of thousands of chemicals for specific biological activities, identifying compounds that warrant further evaluation [34]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ToxCast program screens chemicals across hundreds of high-throughput assays to predict toxicity and prioritize compounds for additional testing [35].
Three-dimensional cell culture systems and organ-on-chip technologies create more physiologically relevant models that better recapitulate human tissue architecture and function than traditional two-dimensional cell cultures [36]. These advanced in vitro systems can model interactions between different cell types and assess tissue-level responses to chemical exposures [37].
Mechanistic research integrates findings across experimental systems to elucidate pathways from exposure to disease [38]. Understanding mechanisms strengthens causal inference from epidemiological associations and identifies biomarkers for exposure and early effects [39]. For breast cancer, key mechanisms include hormonal pathways, DNA damage and mutagenesis, epigenetic alterations, oxidative stress, and inflammation [40].
Biomonitoring Studies
Biomonitoring—measuring chemicals or their metabolites in human biological samples—provides direct evidence of internal exposure and body burden [41]. Unlike environmental monitoring, which measures chemicals in external media, biomonitoring captures actual human uptake and incorporates multiple exposure routes [42].
National biomonitoring programs assess population-wide chemical exposures. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measures over 300 environmental chemicals in blood and urine samples from a representative sample of the U.S. population [43]. These data document pervasive human exposure to environmental chemicals and identify demographic variations in exposure [44]. The Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals demonstrated that essentially all Americans carry measurable levels of multiple endocrine-disrupting chemicals [45].
Exposure biomarkers include the parent chemical, metabolites, or DNA/protein adducts formed when chemicals react with biological macromolecules [46]. For persistent organic pollutants that accumulate in fatty tissue, measurements in serum or breast adipose tissue reflect long-term cumulative exposure [47]. For non-persistent chemicals with short biological half-lives, such as phthalates and bisphenols, single spot measurements capture only recent exposure [48]. Repeated measurements over time or collection of pooled samples can better characterize exposure patterns for these rapidly-metabolized compounds [49].
Effect biomarkers measure early biological responses to exposure, such as hormone levels, oxidative stress markers, DNA damage, or gene expression changes [50]. These biomarkers can provide mechanistic evidence linking exposure to biological perturbations that precede overt disease [51].
Biomonitoring integrated with epidemiological studies enables assessment of exposure-disease relationships using objective exposure measures rather than relying on self-report or environmental modeling [52]. The Sister Study, a prospective cohort of over 50,000 women whose sisters have been diagnosed with breast cancer, collected blood and urine samples at enrollment and follow-up to measure chemical exposures and relate them to subsequent breast cancer risk [53].
Challenges in biomonitoring include temporal variability in exposure to non-persistent chemicals, requiring repeated sampling to characterize long-term patterns [54]. The timing of sample collection relative to exposure and disease development influences study findings, particularly for chemicals with short half-lives [55]. Additionally, measuring chemical concentrations does not necessarily indicate toxicity—dose makes the poison, and internal concentrations must be interpreted in the context of toxicological thresholds [56].
Environmental Monitoring
Environmental monitoring characterizes chemical concentrations in air, water, soil, food, dust, and consumer products, identifying exposure sources and pathways [57].
Ambient environmental monitoring measures pollutants in outdoor and indoor air, drinking water, and soil [58]. The EPA’s Air Quality System monitors criteria air pollutants across the United States, documenting temporal trends and geographic patterns [59]. Water quality monitoring programs assess pesticides, industrial chemicals, and pharmaceuticals in drinking water supplies [60]. These data can be linked with residential histories to estimate individual exposures in epidemiological studies [61].
Personal exposure monitoring uses devices worn by study participants to measure their individual exposures throughout daily activities [62]. Personal air samplers, passive badges, and wearable sensors provide more accurate exposure estimates than stationary monitors by capturing microenvironment variations and activity patterns [63]. Time-activity diaries combined with microenvironment monitoring enable reconstruction of total personal exposure [64].
Product testing identifies chemicals in consumer goods that represent direct exposure sources [65]. Researchers analyze personal care products, cosmetics, food packaging, furniture, and household products for endocrine-disrupting chemicals and other compounds of concern [66]. Silent Spring Institute’s Detox Me app allows consumers to look up chemicals in personal care products based on product testing data [67].
Dust sampling in homes captures semi-volatile organic compounds that partition into dust from products and building materials [68]. House dust serves as an integrative sample reflecting indoor chemical sources and provides a matrix for assessing children’s exposures through dust ingestion [69].
Environmental monitoring informs exposure assessment in epidemiological studies through several approaches: residential proximity models estimate exposure based on distance to pollution sources such as industrial facilities or agricultural pesticide applications [70]. Land use regression models predict pollutant concentrations at specific locations based on geographic covariates like traffic density, land use, and proximity to emission sources [71]. Geographic information systems (GIS) integrate multiple spatial data layers to characterize cumulative environmental exposures [72].
Integration of Multiple Research Approaches
The most robust scientific evidence emerges from integrating findings across different research methodologies, each contributing unique insights while compensating for others’ limitations [73].
Weight-of-evidence frameworks systematically evaluate and synthesize diverse evidence types [74]. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluates carcinogenicity by considering human epidemiological evidence, animal bioassay data, and mechanistic information [75]. Chemicals are classified based on the strength and consistency of evidence across these domains [76].
Mode of action frameworks integrate mechanistic understanding with dose-response data to inform risk assessment [77]. Establishing a mode of action—the key biological events leading from exposure to adverse outcome—strengthens causal inference and supports extrapolation across species and exposure scenarios [78].
Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) provide a structured approach to organizing mechanistic knowledge linking molecular initiating events to adverse outcomes at the organism or population level [79]. AOPs integrate data from in vitro assays, computational models, and in vivo studies into a coherent biological framework [80].
For breast cancer and environmental chemicals, convergent evidence includes: epidemiological studies showing associations between specific chemical exposures and increased breast cancer risk; animal studies demonstrating that the same chemicals increase mammary tumors when administered experimentally; in vitro studies showing the chemicals activate estrogen receptors or other relevant pathways; and biomonitoring studies documenting widespread human exposure to the chemicals [81].
Example: Bisphenol A (BPA) and breast cancer illustrates evidence integration. Epidemiological studies have found associations between BPA exposure and breast cancer risk, particularly for exposures during development [82]. Animal studies demonstrate that prenatal BPA exposure induces preneoplastic mammary lesions and increases tumor susceptibility [83]. In vitro studies show BPA binds to estrogen receptors and promotes proliferation of estrogen-responsive breast cancer cells [84]. Biomonitoring documents ubiquitous BPA exposure in human populations [85]. Environmental monitoring identifies food packaging and thermal paper receipts as major exposure sources [86]. This convergent evidence across multiple research approaches strengthens confidence that BPA represents a genuine breast cancer risk factor [87].
Challenges in evidence integration include weighing contradictory findings, reconciling different study designs’ inherent strengths and limitations, and determining when evidence sufficiently supports causal conclusions to inform public health action [88]. Systematic review methodologies and expert panels help navigate these complexities [89].
Emerging approaches enhance environmental cancer research. Exposomics applies high-resolution mass spectrometry and other analytical techniques to comprehensively characterize all chemical exposures an individual experiences [90]. Multi-omics approaches integrate genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics to understand how environmental exposures perturb biological systems [91]. Computational toxicology uses structure-activity relationships, read-across, and machine learning to predict chemical toxicity and prioritize compounds for testing [92].
Practical Implications
Understanding how environmental cancer research is conducted helps evaluate the strength of evidence for specific chemical-cancer associations and appreciate why definitive answers sometimes take years to emerge [93]. Different research approaches answer different questions: epidemiology tells us what happens in human populations, laboratory research reveals why and how it happens, biomonitoring documents actual human exposure levels, and environmental monitoring identifies where exposures occur and how to reduce them [94].
For individuals assessing personal risk, the convergence of evidence across multiple research approaches—not any single study—provides the most reliable foundation for informed decision-making [95]. Regulatory agencies similarly rely on integrating diverse evidence rather than requiring any single type of proof before taking protective action [96].
Bibliography
[1] Rothman, Kenneth J., Sander Greenland, and Timothy L. Lash. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008.
[2] Porta, Miquel, ed. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
[3] Grimes, David A., and Kenneth F. Schulz. “Cohort Studies: Marching Towards Outcomes.” The Lancet 359, no. 9303 (2002): 341-45.
[4] Colditz, Graham A., and Susan E. Hankinson. “The Nurses’ Health Study: Lifestyle and Health among Women.” Nature Reviews Cancer 5, no. 5 (2005): 388-96.
[5] Szklo, Moyses, and F. Javier Nieto. Epidemiology: Beyond the Basics. 4th ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2019.
[6] Rothman, Kenneth J. “Epidemiology: An Introduction.” 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
[7] Kristman, Vicki, Manno Manno, and Pierre Côté. “Loss to Follow-Up in Cohort Studies: How Much Is Too Much?” European Journal of Epidemiology 19, no. 8 (2004): 751-60.
[8] Schulz, Kenneth F., and David A. Grimes. “Case-Control Studies: Research in Reverse.” The Lancet 359, no. 9304 (2002): 431-34.
[9] Wacholder, Sholom, Deborah M. Weed, and Nathaniel Rothman. “Case-Control Studies of Gene-Environment Interaction: How Do the Choices Made in the Analysis Affect the Inferences?” American Journal of Epidemiology 153, no. 5 (2001): 379-81.
[10] Gammon, Marilie D., Regina M. Santella, Alfred I. Neugut, Susan M. Eng, Susan L. Teitelbaum, Jay Paykin, Mitchell Levin, et al. “Environmental Toxins and Breast Cancer on Long Island. I. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon DNA Adducts.” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 11, no. 8 (2002): 677-85.
[11] Raphael, Kathryn. “Recall Bias: A Proposal for Assessment and Control.” International Journal of Epidemiology 16, no. 2 (1987): 167-70.
[12] Mann, Christopher J. “Observational Research Methods. Research Design II: Cohort, Cross Sectional, and Case-Control Studies.” Emergency Medicine Journal 20, no. 1 (2003): 54-60.
[13] Levin, Kate Ann. “Study Design III: Cross-Sectional Studies.” Evidence-Based Dentistry 7, no. 1 (2006): 24-25.
[14] Morgenstern, Hal. “Ecologic Studies in Epidemiology: Concepts, Principles, and Methods.” Annual Review of Public Health 16 (1995): 61-81.
[15] Piantadosi, Steven, David P. Byar, and Sylvan B. Green. “The Ecological Fallacy.” American Journal of Epidemiology 127, no. 5 (1988): 893-904.
[16] Wakefield, Jon. “Ecological Studies Revisited.” Annual Review of Public Health 29 (2008): 75-90.
[17] Jager, Kitty J., Carmine Zoccali, Andrew MacLeod, and Friedo W. Dekker. “Confounding: What It Is and How to Deal with It.” Kidney International 73, no. 3 (2008): 256-60.
[18] Austin, Peter C. “An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 46, no. 3 (2011): 399-424.
[19] VanderWeele, Tyler J., and Ilya Shpitser. “On the Definition of a Confounder.” Annals of Statistics 41, no. 1 (2013): 196-220.
[20] Huff, James, David Rall, and Christopher Portier. “Chemicals and Cancer in Humans: First Evidence in Experimental Animals.” Environmental Health Perspectives 100 (1993): 201-10.
[21] Boorman, Gary A., Sandra L. Eustis, Maronpot R. Robert, and Steven L. Montgomery. “Rodent Carcinogenicity Bioassay: Past, Present, and Future.” Toxicologic Pathology 22, no. 2 (1994): 105-11.
[22] Bucher, John R. “The National Toxicology Program Rodent Bioassay: Designs, Interpretations, and Scientific Contributions.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 837, no. 1 (1998): 9-19.
[23] Bucher, John R., and Michael D. Hailey. “Historical Control Data for Various Neoplasms in Laboratory Rodents from the NTP Database.” Toxicologic Pathology 19, no. 4_part_2 (1991): 683-95.
[24] Fenton, Suzanne E. “Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds and Mammary Gland Development: Early Exposure and Later Life Consequences.” Endocrinology 147, no. 6 (2006): s18-s24.
[25] Weaver, Victoria M., Arthur H. Fischer, Orion W. Peterson, and Mina J. Bissell. “The Importance of the Microenvironment in Breast Cancer Progression: Recapitulation of Mammary Tumorigenesis Using a Unique Human Mammary Epithelial Cell Model and a Three-Dimensional Culture Assay.” Biochemistry and Cell Biology 74, no. 6 (1996): 833-51.
[26] Tomatis, Lorenzo, Jerry Huff, James Hoel, Bruce Armstrong, Hiroshi Melnick, and James Barrett. “Avoided and Avoidable Risks of Cancer.” Carcinogenesis 18, no. 1 (1997): 97-105.
[27] Tennant, Raymond W., and John Ashby. “Classification According to Chemical Structure, Mutagenicity to Salmonella and Level of Carcinogenicity of a Further 39 Chemicals Tested for Carcinogenicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program.” Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology 257, no. 3 (1991): 209-27.
[28] Clewell, Harvey J., and Melvin E. Andersen. “Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Bioactivation of Xenobiotics.” Toxicology and Industrial Health 10, no. 1-2 (1994): 1-24.
[29] Hartung, Thomas. “Toxicology for the Twenty-First Century.” Nature 460, no. 7252 (2009): 208-12.
[30] Collins, Francis S., George M. Gray, and John R. Bucher. “Transforming Environmental Health Protection.” Science 319, no. 5865 (2008): 906-907.
[31] Blair, Robert M., Huixiao Fang, Weida S. Branham, Bradford S. Hass, Stephen L. Dial, Christopher L. Moland, Wenjun Tong, et al. “The Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinities of 188 Natural and Xenochemicals: Structural Diversity of Ligands.” Toxicological Sciences 54, no. 1 (2000): 138-53.
[32] Soto, Ana M., Honorato Justicia, Jonathan W. Wray, and Carlos Sonnenschein. “p-Nonyl-Phenol: An Estrogenic Xenobiotic Released from ‘Modified’ Polystyrene.” Environmental Health Perspectives 92 (1991): 167-73.
[33] Soto, Ana M., and Carlos Sonnenschein. “The Role of Estrogens on the Proliferation of Human Breast Tumor Cells (MCF-7).” Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 23, no. 1 (1985): 87-94.
[34] Kavlock, Robert J., Gwendolyn Ankley, Julie Blancato, Margaret Breen, Rory Conolly, David Dix, Keith Houck, et al. “Computational Toxicology—A State of the Science Mini Review.” Toxicological Sciences 103, no. 1 (2008): 14-27.
[35] Dix, David J., Keith A. Houck, Matthew T. Martin, Ann M. Richard, R. Woodrow Setzer, and Robert J. Kavlock. “The ToxCast Program for Prioritizing Toxicity Testing of Environmental Chemicals.” Toxicological Sciences 95, no. 1 (2007): 5-12.
[36] Pampaloni, Francesco, Evangelia G. Reynaud, and Ernst H. K. Stelzer. “The Third Dimension Bridges the Gap between Cell Culture and Live Tissue.” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8, no. 10 (2007): 839-45.
[37] Huh, Dongeun, Benjamin D. Matthews, Akiko Mammoto, Martin Montoya-Zavala, Hong Yuan Hsin, and Donald E. Ingber. “Reconstituting Organ-Level Lung Functions on a Chip.” Science 328, no. 5986 (2010): 1662-68.
[38] Vineis, Paolo, and Frederica Perera. “Molecular Epidemiology and Biomarkers in Etiologic Cancer Research: The New in Light of the Old.” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 16, no. 10 (2007): 1954-65.
[39] Wild, Christopher P. “Complementing the Genome with an ‘Exposome’: The Outstanding Challenge of Environmental Exposure Measurement in Molecular Epidemiology.” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 14, no. 8 (2005): 1847-50.
[40] Soto, Ana M., and Carlos Sonnenschein. “Environmental Causes of Cancer: Endocrine Disruptors as Carcinogens.” Nature Reviews Endocrinology 6, no. 7 (2010): 363-70.
[41] Needham, Larry L., Antonia M. Calafat, and Dana B. Barr. “Uses and Issues of Biomonitoring.” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 210, no. 3-4 (2007): 229-68.
[42] Sexton, Ken, Larry L. Needham, and James L. Pirkle. “Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals: Measuring Chemicals in Human Tissues Is the ‘Gold Standard’ for Assessing People’s Exposure to Pollution.” American Scientist 92, no. 1 (2004): 38-45.
[43] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.
[44] Calafat, Antonia M., Xiaoyun Ye, Lee-Yang Wong, John A. Reidy, and Larry L. Needham. “Exposure of the U.S. Population to Bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-Octylphenol: 2003-2004.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116, no. 1 (2008): 39-44.
[45] Woodruff, Tracey J., Ami R. Zota, and Jackie M. Schwartz. “Environmental Chemicals in Pregnant Women in the United States: NHANES 2003-2004.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 6 (2011): 878-85.
[46] Wild, Christopher P. “Environmental Exposure Measurement in Cancer Epidemiology.” Mutagenesis 24, no. 2 (2009): 117-25.
[47] Patterson, Donald G., Larry L. Needham, James L. Pirkle, Donald W. Roberts, Joel Bagby, W. Harry Garrett, Lowell C. Andrews, et al. “Correlation between Serum and Adipose Tissue Levels of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in 50 Persons from Missouri.” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 17, no. 2 (1988): 139-43.
[48] Teitelbaum, Susan L., Rachel Britton, Antonia M. Calafat, Xiaoyun Ye, Manori J. Silva, Julie A. Reidy, Kathleen Galvez, et al. “Temporal Variability in Urinary Concentrations of Phthalate Metabolites, Phytoestrogens and Phenols among Minority Children in the United States.” Environmental Research 106, no. 2 (2008): 257-69.
[49] Mahalingaiah, Shruthi, John D. Meeker, Kelly K. Ferguson, Germaine M. Buck Louis, Rajeshwari Sundaram, Russ Hauser, and Jaime E. Hart. “Temporal Variability and Predictors of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentrations in Men and Women.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116, no. 2 (2008): 173-78.
[50] Rusyn, Ivan, and Frederick A. Beland. “Systems Toxicology Approach to Understanding the Mechanisms of Action of Environmental Carcinogens.” Chemical Research in Toxicology 29, no. 2 (2016): 122-36.
[51] Vineis, Paolo, Martine Vrijheid, Silvia Barros, Heather Bustos, Mariona Bustamante, Sheila Carrasco, Xavier Basagaña, et al. “Human Metabolomics to Characterize Variability in Environmental Exposure.” Environmental Research 155 (2017): 291-95.
[52] Rudel, Ruthann A., Janet L. Ackerman, Jennifer L. Attfield, and Julia Green Brody. “New Exposure Biomarkers as Tools for Breast Cancer Epidemiology, Biomonitoring, and Prevention: A Systematic Approach Based on Animal Evidence.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122, no. 9 (2014): 881-95.
[53] Sandler, Dale P., Andrew F. Olshan, Christine Parks, Kyla W. Taylor, Gary Travlos, Clarice R. Weinberg, and Jack A. Taylor. “The Sister Study: Baseline Methods and Participant Characteristics.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125, no. 12 (2017): 127003.
[54] Preau, John L., Lee-Yang Wong, Manori J. Silva, Larry L. Needham, and Antonia M. Calafat. “Variability over 1 Week in the Urinary Concentrations of Metabolites of Diethyl Phthalate and Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate among Eight Adults: An Observational Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118, no. 12 (2010): 1748-54.
[55] Engel, Stephanie M., Antonia M. Calafat, Yingying Ye, and Mary S. Wolff. “Prenatal Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Anogenital Distance in the TIDES Cohort Study.” Environmental Research 122 (2013): 84-88.
[56] Paustenbach, Dennis J., and David Galbraith. “Biomonitoring and Biomarkers: Exposure Assessment Will Never Be the Same.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114, no. 8 (2006): 1143-49.
[57] Lioy, Paul J., and Clifford P. Weisel. “Exposure Science: Basic Principles and Applications.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 24, no. 1 (2014): 7-15.
[58] Ott, Wayne R., Neil E. Klepeis, and Paul Switzer. “Air Change Rates of Motor Vehicles and In-Vehicle Pollutant Concentrations from Secondhand Smoke.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 18, no. 3 (2008): 312-25.
[59] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality System Data Mart. Research Triangle Park, NC: EPA, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/airdata.
[60] Gilliom, Robert J., Jack E. Barbash, Charles G. Crawford, Pixie A. Hamilton, Jeffrey D. Martin, Naomi Nakagaki, Lisa H. Nowell, et al. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2006.
[61] Ward, Mary H., Rena R. Jones, Jean D. Brender, Theo M. de Kok, Peter J. Weyer, Bernard T. Nolan, Cristina M. Villanueva, and Simone G. van Breda. “Drinking Water Nitrate and Human Health: An Updated Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 7 (2018): 1557.
[62] Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark J., ed. Exposure Assessment in Environmental Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
[63] Jiao, Wei, Glenda Hagler, Noelle V. Zimmerman, and David Hagler. “Correlations of PM2.5 and Black Carbon Concentrations Measured by Federal Reference Method and Continuous Monitors.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 66, no. 11 (2016): 1088-98.
[64] Klepeis, Neil E., William C. Nelson, Wayne R. Ott, John P. Robinson, Andy M. Tsang, Paul Switzer, Joseph V. Behar, Stephen C. Hern, and William H. Engelmann. “The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 11, no. 3 (2001): 231-52.
[65] Dodson, Robin E., Marcia Nishioka, Laura J. Standley, Laura J. Perovich, Julia Green Brody, and Ruthann A. Rudel. “Endocrine Disruptor-Inducing Chemicals in Personal Care Products.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120, no. 7 (2012): 935-43.
[66] Zota, Ami R., Carolyn A. Phillips, and Susanna D. Mitro. “Recent Fast Food Consumption and Bisphenol A and Phthalates Exposures among the U.S. Population in NHANES, 2003-2010.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 10 (2016): 1521-28.
[67] Silent Spring Institute. “Detox Me: Guide to Safer Personal Care Products.” Newton, MA: Silent Spring Institute, 2020. https://www.silentspring.org/our-research/detox-me-mobile-app.
[68] Rudel, Ruthann A., David E. Camann, John D. Spengler, Leo R. Korn, and Julia Green Brody. “Phthalates, Alkylphenols, Pesticides, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, and Other Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds in Indoor Air and Dust.” Environmental Science & Technology 37, no. 20 (2003): 4543-53.
[69] Stapleton, Heather M., Susan Klosterhaus, Alex Eagle, Jennifer Fuh, John D. Meeker, Arlene Blum, and Thomas F. Webster. “Detection of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in Furniture Foam and U.S. House Dust.” Environmental Science & Technology 43, no. 19 (2009): 7490-95.
[70] Ward, Mary H., Thomas M. Lubin, Jack Giglierano, Joanne S. Colt, Cynthia Wolter, Brian Bekiroglu, Dana Camann, et al. “Proximity to Crops and Residential Exposure to Agricultural Herbicides in Iowa.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114, no. 6 (2006): 893-97.
[71] Hoek, Gerard, Rob Beelen, Kees de Hoogh, Danielle Vienneau, John Gulliver, Paul Fischer, and David Briggs. “A Review of Land-Use Regression Models to Assess Spatial Variation of Outdoor Air Pollution.” Atmospheric Environment 42, no. 33 (2008): 7561-78.
[72] Nuckols, John R., Mary H. Ward, and Lars Jarup. “Using Geographic Information Systems for Exposure Assessment in Environmental Epidemiology Studies.” Environmental Health Perspectives 112, no. 9 (2004): 1007-15.
[73] Weed, Douglas L. “Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods.” Risk Analysis 25, no. 6 (2005): 1545-57.
[74] Rhomberg, Lorenz R., Julie E. Goodman, John C. Bailar III, Richard A. Becker, Kenneth S. Crump, Woodrow Setzer, Sonja Baldi, and Nigel J. Walker. “A Survey of Frameworks for Best Practices in Weight-of-Evidence Analyses.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 43, no. 9 (2013): 753-84.
[75] International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol. 100. Lyon, France: IARC, 2012.
[76] Cogliano, Vincent J., Robert A. Baan, Kurt Straif, Yann Grosse, Béatrice Lauby-Secretan, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Véronique Bouvard, et al. “Preventable Exposures Associated with Human Cancers.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103, no. 24 (2011): 1827-39.
[77] Boobis, Alan R., Bernard C. Cohen, Vicki Dellarco, David McGregor, Michael L. Meek, Charlotte Vickers, David Willcocks, and William Farland. “IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Cancer Mode of Action for Humans.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 36, no. 10 (2006): 781-92.
[78] Meek, M. E., Alan Boobis, Roland Cote, Sally Dellarco, Susan Fotakis, Toshihiro Munn, Catherine Seed, and Charlotte Vickers. “New Developments in the Evolution and Application of the WHO/IPCS Framework on Mode of Action/Species Concordance Analysis.” Journal of Applied Toxicology 34, no. 1 (2014): 1-18.
[79] Ankley, Gerald T., R. Stephen Bennett, Russell J. Erickson, David J. Hoff, Michael W. Hornung, Richard D. Johnson, David R. Mount, et al. “Adverse Outcome Pathways: A Conceptual Framework to Support Ecotoxicology Research and Risk Assessment.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29, no. 3 (2010): 730-41.
[80] Villeneuve, Daniel L., Derek Crump, Natalia Garcia-Reyero, Michael Hecker, Timothy W. Hutchinson, Christopher A. LaLone, Bob Landesmann, et al. “Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Development I: Strategies and Principles.” Toxicological Sciences 142, no. 2 (2014): 312-20.
[81] Gore, Andrea C., V. A. Chappell, S. E. Fenton, J. A. Flaws, A. Nadal, G. S. Prins, J. Toppari, and R. T. Zoeller. “EDC-2: The Endocrine Society’s Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals.” Endocrine Reviews 36, no. 6 (2015): E1-E150.
[82] Yang, Michael, Sung Kyun Park, and Janice S. Lee. “Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Human Exposure and Health Risks.” Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C 24, no. 2 (2006): 183-224.
[83] Durando, Macarena, Lucia Kass, Jorge Piva, Carina Sonnenschein, Ana M. Soto, Enrique H. Luque, and Monica Muñoz-de-Toro. “Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure Induces Preneoplastic Lesions in the Mammary Gland in Wistar Rats.” Environmental Health Perspectives 115, no. 1 (2007): 80-86.
[84] Keri, Ruth A., Sonia M. Ho, Patricia A. Hunt, Kenneth S. Korach, Susanne E. Soto, and Gail S. Prins. “An Evaluation of Evidence for the Carcinogenic Activity of Bisphenol A.” Reproductive Toxicology 24, no. 2 (2007): 240-52.
[85] Vandenberg, Laura N., Russ Hauser, Michele Marcus, Nicolas Olea, and Wade V. Welshons. “Human Exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA).” Reproductive Toxicology 24, no. 2 (2007): 139-77.
[86] Liao, Chunyang, and Kurunthachalam Kannan. “Concentrations and Profiles of Bisphenol A and Other Bisphenol Analogues in Foodstuffs from the United States and Their Implications for Human Exposure.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 61, no. 19 (2013): 4655-62.
[87] Melnick, Ronald, Giuseppe Lucier, Mandy Wolfe, Rebecca Hall, George Stancel, Gary Prins, Maricel Gallo, et al. “Summary of the National Toxicology Program’s Report of the Endocrine Disruptors Low-Dose Peer Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110, no. 4 (2002): 427-31.
[88] Hill, Austin Bradford. “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58, no. 5 (1965): 295-300.
[89] Higgins, Julian P. T., and Sally Green, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
[90] Rappaport, Stephen M., and Martyn T. Smith. “Environment and Disease Risks.” Science 330, no. 6003 (2010): 460-61.
[91] Chadeau-Hyam, Marc, Toby J. Athersuch, Hector C. Keun, Marc De Iorio, Timothy M. D. Ebbels, Michael N. Jenab, Mazda Jenab, et al. “Meeting-in-the-Middle Using Metabolic Profiling—A Strategy for the Identification of Intermediate Biomarkers in Cohort Studies.” Biomarkers 16, no. 1 (2011): 83-88.
[92] Richard, Ann M., Richard S. Judson, Keith A. Houck, Christopher M. Grulke, Patra Volarath, Inthirany Thillainadarajah, Chihae Yang, et al. “ToxCast Chemical Landscape: Paving the Road to 21st Century Toxicology.” Chemical Research in Toxicology 29, no. 8 (2016): 1225-51.
[93] Vineis, Paolo. “Causal Thinking, Biomarkers, and ‘Omics’: Challenges and Implications for Cancer Prevention.” Current Opinion in Oncology 16, no. 1 (2004): 72-78.
[94] Gray, Janet M., Nancy Evans, Brian Taylor, Jane Rizzo, and Martha Walker. “State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 15, no. 1 (2009): 43-78.
[95] Kriebel, David, Joel Tickner, Paul Epstein, John Lemons, Richard Levins, Edward L. Loechler, Margaret Quinn, Ruthann Rudel, Ted Schettler, and Michael Stoto. “The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science.” Environmental Health Perspectives 109, no. 9 (2001): 871-76.
[96] National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.