Home
hamburger menu icon

Chemical Pollution

Following, we examine the health and environmental impacts of several hazard exposures. See also our analysis of the chemical industry.

There are additional potentially hazardous material exposures, such as from unclassified neurotoxicants and endocrine disruptors, chemical pesticides, pharmaceutical waste, and emerging nanomaterials, for which the risk is not yet established 1.

Chemical Exposure

Dangerous elements and chemicals, transmitted through the air, water, food, consumer products, industrial production, or building materials are a major cause of illness and environmental damage. Due to the wide range of hazardous substances, the full cost is highly uncertain. Following, we estimate damages from major classes of chemical pollution.

The image: "hazardous_exposure.svg" cannot be found!

Sources: Flanagan et al. 2, Gibbs et al. 3, Global Burden of Disease 4.

Some hazardous substances, such as mercury--especially methylmercury chemicals that accumulate in life and food--cause debilitating illness, even if it is difficult to directly attribute deaths.

The image: "daly_exposure.svg" cannot be found!

The DALY metric measures the number of years of life lost, with partial years attributed to years living with illness or disability. Sources: Gibbs et al. 3, Global Burden of Disease 4.

Following are select estimates of monetized damages from the health impact of hazardous material exposure.

The image: "chemical_econ_damage.svg" cannot be found!

Estimates of the health impact, expressed as monetized damages from suffering and lost productivity. As only select materials are considered, only the United States and the European Union except in the case of lead are assessed, and ecosystem damages are not considered, these figures significantly underestimate the full cost of chemical exposure. Source: Grandjean and Bellanger 5.

Problem:
Asbestos Exposure Deaths / Disease - World
Solution:
Phase Out Asbestos Usage
Problem:
Damages From Arsenic Exposure
Solution:
Reverse Osmosis Filtration Systems

Lead

As shown above, lead is by far the most damaging environmental pollutant that has been measured. Up to 800 million children worldwide have shown blood lead levels of at least 5 micrograms per decilitre, which is associated with a loss of 3-5 IQ points on standardized tests and observable behavioral impacts, and lead poisoning can be attributed to 900,000 premature deaths per year 6 and the annual loss of 21.2 million disability-adjusted life years 7.

A recent study puts worldwide productivity losses resulting from lead contamination at $906 billion per year 8, though a more comprehensive estimate, which considers monetized health impacts and the impairment of highly exposed countries' economic growth, is $5-10 trillion annually 7. A 2010 study found $192-270 billion annually of damage from lead in the United States, almost all of which resulted from IQ loss and lifetime earning loss 9. Lead exposure is strongly linked with crime and other forms of antisocial behavior 10.

Lead Paint

There do not exist precise estimates of the level of human exposure by source, but it is believed that lead paint and lead acid battery recycling are the two most serious exposures.

Problem:
Damages From Lead Exposure
Solution:
Ban Lead Paint - World

Analyses of remediation of lead paint in housing in France and in the United States have shown greater benefits than costs 9, but it is more cost-effective and better for health to prevent lead paint from entering the market in the first place than it is to remediate it later.

Lead Acid Batteries

Informal recycling of used lead acid batteries is a particular hazard for lead exposure 7. While formal recycling programs are safer and more efficient, informal programs are cheaper where labor costs are low 11.

Problem:
Damage from Lead Exposure
Solution:
ULAB Site Remediation - World

For many environmental problems, it is cheaper to prevent a problem from occurring in the first place than it is to remediate the problem after the fact. Strategies to divert lead acid batteries away from informal recycling include subsidies for formal recycling, which may include elimination of the goods and services tax; and a deposit on the manufacture or import of lead acid batteries that is returned upon formal manufacturing 7.

Leaded Gasoline

Leaded gasoline was once responsible for at least 90% of human lead exposure 12. In the 1970s, with growing awareness of the health and environmental hazards of lead pollution, the U.S. Congress began the process of eliminating leaded gasoline. Due to the cost of compliance, this process was not completed until 1996 13. In 2021, Algeria became the last country to ban leaded gasoline 14. The health and environmental benefits of the phaseout of leaded gasoline has been estimated to exceed the cost by a factor of five to ten 15.

However, leaded aviation gasoline, used for small piston-engine planes that carry 2-10 passengers and not for commercial jets, remains in use 16. In 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency published an endangerment finding on leaded aviation gasoline, paving the way for regulation under the Clean Air Act 17. The Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) program, a consortium of the Federal Aviation Administration and the aviation community, seeks to deploy safe, unleaded aviation gasoline and eliminate leaded aviation gasoline by 2030 18.

Aviation gasoline in the United States today is 100LL (100 octane low lead aviation gasoline). An alternative, 100VLL (100 octane very low lead aviation gasoline) is a suitable drop-in replacement for 100LL, but it would require that general airports provide new fueling options, and it reduces lead content by only 20%. Another alternative, UL94, meets the ASTM standards for unleaded fuel and avoids tetraethyl lead (TEL) additives, but it may not be usable for high-performance general aviation aircraft without modification. Work to develop drop-in, unleaded aviation gasoline is ongoing 19.

Other Sources of Lead Exposure

Spices, particularly turmeric, are sometimes adulterated with lead to grant them a more vibrant appearance. This has been identified as a cause of lead poisoning around the world, including in the United States. The Food And Drug Administration can take several measures to protect American consumers, such as more stringent screening of imported spices for lead contamination 20. A public education campaign on the dangers of lead adulteration in areas of Asia in which adulteration is most prevalent may be a cost-effective way to improve health 7.

Unavoidable contamination of lead and other harmful heavy metals may be present in the material used to produce cookware 21. A fluoropolymer finish can greatly reduce cookware leaching, and this finish adds modestly to cost, but mandating coating may be difficult where small-scale producers predominate, and fluoropolymers carry their own health hazards 7.

The United States has not allowed new lead pipes in decades, but many exist and leach lead into the water supply. In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency announced consideration of a plan that would remove all lead pipes within 10 years 22. Where removal is not cost-feasible, it may be possible to apply an electric current in a lead pipe, which would cause more lead ions to leach and react with phosphates in the water to create a mineral barrier and prevent most further leaching 23.

Lead ammunition and fishing sinkers creates an environmental hazard, particularly for migratory birds, and a human health hazard through ingestion of game meat that contains lead 24. This can be eliminated with non-lead alternatives, such as copper alloys 25.

Persistent Organic Pollutants

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are long-lastic organic chemicals. Pesticides, such as DDT, are the largest category of POPs, and other categories include cosmetics, solvents, and some industrial chemicals 26. The main tool to regulate POPs is the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, an international agreement to ban or restrict many classes of POPs 27.

Exposure pathways to POPs include the following.

  • As POPs are bioaccumulators, meat-based diets pose greater risk of exposure to endocrine disruptors 28, though soy may also be an endocrine disruptor 29. Bioaccumulation through animal tissues are, for people not exposed to endocrine disruptors occupationally, the most potent means of exposure 30.
  • Exposure to daily objects, such as those containing brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 31. Although the United States has banned the manufacture of PCBs, exposure remains a risk due to these chemicals' long persistence.
  • Phthalates, such as bisphenol A (BPA), are often contained in food containers and can leech out when microwaved or exposed to sunlight 32.
  • Indoor air pollution 33.
  • Rainwater for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) 34.
  • Cosmetics 35.

POPs are endocrine disruptors, and they have been linked with low sperm count and reproductive issues 36 and developmental problems 37.

Radiation

Among sources of ionizing radiation, radon is the greatest threat to human health.

The image: "radiation_exposure.svg" cannot be found!

Actual dosage can vary widely, with high concentration of radon a particular threat when the gas accumulates in a confined space. Medical exposure varies widely depending on medical needs. Sources: Schauer and Linton 38, with explanatory notes from the World Nuclear Association 39.

Problem:
Damages From Radon Exposure
Solution:
Radon Testing for Low-Income Households - U.S.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model holds that the health damage from radiation exposure is proportional to the amount of exposure, even at very low doses. Several researchers and organizations, including the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency, endorse the LNT model 40, while the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation argues that low doses of radiation are less harmful than implied by LNT 41. The majority of recent research supports LNT 42. Rejection of the LNT model would lower the assessed risk of low doses of radiation and thus lower the appropriate level of regulation on radiation emissions from nuclear power plants.

Nanomaterials

Nanomaterials are generally particles that are between 1 and 100 nanometers (billionths of a meter) on at least one dimension. While such materials have long been part of the natural world, production of novel nanomaterials is growing, with environmental and health implications that are unclear.

The image: "nanomaterial_flow.svg" cannot be found!

Source: Hochella et al. 43.

Carbon-based nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes and graphene, pose toxic hazards to plants, animals, and microbes 44 and impose negative effects on human health 45. Long, thin carbon nanotubes can interact with the body in a manner similar to asbestos 46. Additional negative health impacts have been found with exposure to titanium dioxide and silver nanoparticles, while zinc oxide and cerium oxide were found to be relatively benign 46.

World production of carbon nanotubes is increasingly rapidly and is forecast to exceed 50,000 tons per year in a few years 47. By comparison, world asbestos production peaked in 1977 at about 4.8 million tons per year 48.

Many nanomaterials are also valuable for pollution remediation 49.

References

  1. Landrigan, P. et al. "The Lancet Commission on pollution and health". The Lancet Commissions 391(10119), pp. 462-512. February 2018. ↩

  2. Flanagan, S.V., Johnston, R.B., Zheng, Y. "Arsenic in tube well water in Bangladesh: health and economic impacts and implications for arsenic mitigation". Bulletin of the World Health Organization 90(11), pp. 839-846. November 2012. ↩

  3. Gibbs, H., Barchowsky, A., Bellinger, D., Bolger, P.M., Carrington, C., Havelaar, A., Oberoi, S., Zang, Y., O'Leary, K., Devleesschauwer, B. "Estimates of the 2015 global and regional disease burden from four foodborne metals – arsenic, cadmium, lead and methylmercury". Environmental Research 174, pp. 188-194. July 2019. ↩ ↩2

  4. Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. "Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) Results". Seattle, United States: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 2018. ↩ ↩2

  5. Grandjean, P., Bellanger, M. "Calculation of the disease burden associated with environmental chemical exposures: application of toxicological information in health economic estimation". Environmental Health 16, Article number: 123. December 2017. ↩

  6. UNICEF, Pure Earth. "The toxic truth". July 2020. ↩

  7. Bernard, D. R., Schukraft, J. "Global lead exposure report". Rethink Priorities. May 2021. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  8. Hu, J. "How Much Economic Productivity Does Lead Exposure Cost the World?". Lead Exposure Elimination Project. August 2022. ↩

  9. Chemical Safety and Health Unit. "Global elimination of lead paint: why and how countries should take action - Technical brief". World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Programme. August 2020. ↩ ↩2

  10. Doleac, J. "Research Roundup: Lead Exposure Causes Crime". Niskanen Center. June 2021. ↩

  11. Wilson, B., Binks, S., McCartor, A., Fuller, R., Sandilya, K., Christensen, S., Stanislaus, M., Eckart, J., Kemene, E. "Consequences of a Mobile Future: Creating an Environmentally Conscious Life Cycle for Lead-Acid Batteries". Global Battery Alliance, World Economic Forum, Pure Earth, International Lead Assocation, Responsible Battery Coalition. December 2020. ↩

  12. United Nations Environment Programme. "Lead campaign". Accessed March 8, 2024. ↩

  13. Newell, R., Rogers, K. "The U.S. Experience with the Phasedown of Lead in Gasoline". Resources for the Future. June 2003. ↩

  14. Choi, J. "UN praises 'official end' of leaded gasoline in cars after Algeria halts sales". The Hill. August 2021. ↩

  15. de Larderel, J. A., Radka, M., Karmali, A., Visser R., Short, J., Sigman, R., Wiederkehr, P. "Phasing Lead out of Gasoline: An Examination of Policy Approaches in Different Countries". Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations Environment Programme. 1999. ↩

  16. United States Environmental Protection Agency. "EPA Determines that Lead Emissions from Aircraft Engines Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution". October 2023. ↩

  17. United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Finding That Lead Emissions From Aircraft Engines That Operate on Leaded Fuel Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare". Federal Register. October 2023. ↩

  18. United States Federal Aviation Administration. "Building an Unleaded Future by 2030". February 2024. ↩

  19. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. "Options for Reducing Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft". Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26050. ↩

  20. Cowell, W., Ireland, T., Vorhees, D., Heiger-Bernays, W. "Ground Turmeric as a Source of Lead Exposure in the United States". Public Health Reports 132(3), pp. 289-293. May 2017. ↩

  21. Weidenhamer, J.D., Fitzpatrick, M.P., Biro, A.M., Kobunski, P.A., Hudson, M.R., Corbin, R.W., Gottesfeld, P. "Metal exposures from aluminum cookware: an unrecognized public health risk in developing countries". Science of the Total Environment 579, pp. 805-813. February 2017. ↩

  22. United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements". Accessed March 8, 2024. ↩

  23. Service, R. F. "To seal off dangerous lead pipes, just add electricity". Science. April 2019. ↩

  24. United Nations Environment Programme. "Lead in ammunition and hunting". Accessed September 13, 2022. ↩

  25. Department of Environmental Conservation. "Choose Non-Lead Ammunition". New York State. Accessed March 8, 2024. ↩

  26. Ritter, L., Solomon, K. R., Forget, J. "Persistent Organic Pollutants". Canadian Network of Toxicology Centers, prepared for The International Programme on Chemical Safety, Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals. Accessed December 15, 2022. ↩

  27. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutions. "Stockholm Convention". Accessed December 15, 2022. ↩

  28. Ji K., Kho Y. L., Park Y., Choi K. "Influence of a five-day vegetarian diet on urinary levels of antibiotics and phthalate metabolites: a pilot study with “Temple Stay” participants". Environmental Research 110(4), pp. 375-382. May 2010. ↩

  29. Patisaul, H. B. "Endocrine disruption by dietary phyto-oestrogens: impact on dimorphic sexual systems and behaviours". Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 76(2), pp. 130-144. May 2017. ↩

  30. Vallack H. W., Bakker D. J., Brandt I., Broström-Lundén E., Brouwer A., Bull K. R., Gough C., Guardans R., Holoubek I., Jansson B., Koch R. "Controlling persistent organic pollutants–what next?". Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 6(3), pp. 143-175. November 1998. ↩

  31. Endocrine Society. "Common EDCs and Where They Are Found". Accessed December 15, 2022. ↩

  32. Zero Breast Cancer. "What are some examples of common everyday exposures to phthalates and tips to avoid exposure?". Accessed December 15, 2022. ↩

  33. Bohlin P., Jones K. C., Strandberg B. "Occupational and indoor air exposure to persistent organic pollutants: A review of passive sampling techniques and needs". Journal of Environmental Monitoring 9(6), pp. 501-509. 2007. ↩

  34. Cousins, I. T., Johansson, J. H., Salter, M. E., Sha, B., Scheringe,r M. "Outside the safe operating space of a new planetary boundary for per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)". Environmental Science & Technology 56(16), pp. 11172-11179. August 2022. ↩

  35. Perkins, T. "Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ widespread in top makeup brands, study finds". The Guardian. June 2021. ↩

  36. El-Shahawi M. S., Hamza A., Bashammakh A. S., Al-Saggaf W. T. "An overview on the accumulation, distribution, transformations, toxicity and analytical methods for the monitoring of persistent organic pollutants". Talanta 80(5), pp. 1587-1597. March 2010. ↩

  37. Damstra T. "Potential effects of certain persistent organic pollutants and endocrine disrupting chemicals on the health of children". Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology 40(4), pp. 457-465. January 2002. ↩

  38. Schauer, D. A., Linton, O. W. "NCRP report No. 160, ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States". Health physics 97(1), pp. 1-5. 2009. ↩

  39. World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects". Rev. April 2020. ↩

  40. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Petition for Rulemaking; Denial: Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation". Regulations.gov. August 2021. ↩

  41. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. "Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 2019 Report". Report to the General Assembly, Scientific Annexes A and B. 2020. ↩

  42. Boice, J. D. Jr. "The linear nonthreshold (LNT) model as used in radiation protection: an NCRP update". International Journal of Radiation Biology 93(10), pp. 1079-1092. October 2017. ↩

  43. Hochella, M. F. Jr. et al. "Natural, incidental, and engineered nanomaterials and their impacts on the Earth system". Science 363(6434). March 2019. ↩

  44. Chen, M., Zhou, S., Zhu, Y., Sun, Y., Zeng, G., Yang, C., Xu, P., Yan, M., Liu, Z., Zhang, W. "Toxicity of carbon nanomaterials to plants, animals and microbes: Recent progress from 2015-present". Chemosphere 206, pp. 255-265. September 2018. ↩

  45. Malakar, A., Kanel, S. R., Ray, C., Snow, D. D., Nadagouda, M. N. "Nanomaterials in the environment, human exposure pathway, and health effects: A review". Science of the Total Environment 759: 143470. March 2021. ↩

  46. Drew, R., Hagen, T. "Engineered Nanomaterials: An Update on the Toxicology and Work Health Hazards". Commissioned by Safe Work Australia, by ToxConsult Pty Ltd. 2015. ↩ ↩2

  47. Research and Markets. "Global Carbon Nanotubes Market Report 2022: Global Production Capacities for MWCNTS and SWCNTs - Historical Data and Forecasts to 2032". PR Newswire. June 2022. ↩

  48. King, D. "History of Asbestos". The Mesothelioma Center. April 2022. ↩

  49. Kumar, L., Ragunathan, V., Chugh, M., Bharadvaja, N. "Nanomaterials for remediation of contaminants: a review". Environmental Chemistry Letters 19, pp. 3139–3163. March 2021. ↩