Sociodemographic characteristics of populations living near industrial land disposals of known and suspected carcinogens across the United States

Our plain-English summary of Sociodemographic characteristics of populations living near industrial land disposals of known and suspected carcinogens across the United States, by E. Sharp, C.N. Pruitt, J.A. Fisher, et al (Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 2026).

The study

• Authors: E. Sharp, C.N. Pruitt, J.A. Fisher, A.R. Flory, B.I. Graubard, M.H. Ward, R.R. Jones, J.M. Madrigal
• Journal: Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology
• Published: 2026;36(5):910-918
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Background: Industrial facilities dispose of millions of pounds of chemical waste in U.S.-based landfills, surface impoundments, and underground injection wells annually, but information on populations living in proximity to these releases is limited.

Objective: We quantified on-site land disposals of known and suspected human carcinogens and evaluated population characteristics associated with disposals in the 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico.

Methods: We linked land releases of known and suspected carcinogenic chemicals from regulatory data (2010-2018) to 2010 census tract data overall and by region. We estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations of population characteristics with land releases of arsenic, asbestos, benzene, beryllium, cadmium, formaldehyde, nickel, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), cobalt, lead, and styrene, comparing tracts with the highest releases ( > median or 4th quartile) to those with zero releases using population density-adjusted multinomial logistic regression models.

Results: Known carcinogens with releases mostly to land included arsenic, asbestos, beryllium, cadmium, formaldehyde, nickel, and PCBs. Probable carcinogens included acrylamide, acrolein, cobalt, and hydrazine. Land disposal amounts were highest in the West and South. The tract proportion of Black population was associated with 8-31% higher odds of the highest land disposals of lead, cadmium, and formaldehyde. Increases in Hispanic and Latino population were associated with 29-33% higher odds of a tract having the highest disposals of benzene, asbestos, PCBs, and styrene. Measures of lower socioeconomic status were associated with the highest disposals, including 16-72% higher odds of tracts having the highest disposals per 10% increase in the proportion of families experiencing poverty.

Significance: Our findings highlight differences between populations living in areas with industrial land disposals compared to areas without them. As most studies of industrial pollution focus on air exposure, this study illustrates the need to consider land disposals as potential sources of environmental exposure to known and suspected carcinogens.

Impact: This evaluation showed that millions of pounds of carcinogenic chemicals and metals from industrial sources are disposed of on land annually across the U.S. Over 70% of industrial releases of asbestos, formaldehyde, polychlorinated biphenyls, and metals like beryllium, cadmium, and nickel occur as on-site land disposals to landfills, surface impoundments, and underground wells, with most occurring in the Southern and Western U.S. The highest volume disposals of these chemicals and metals occurred in census tracts with higher proportions of population with lower levels of educational attainment and family income and higher levels of poverty and unemployment.

© 2026. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.

In plain English

This study examined where U.S. industrial facilities reported land disposals of known and suspected human carcinogens, and who lives there. The authors linked 2010 to 2018 EPA Toxics Release Inventory records to 2010 census data for 73,426 tracts in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. This ecological study compared areas, not individuals' exposure or health. Land disposals were reported in 1206 tracts (1.6%), home to about 5.3 million people. Asbestos land disposals totalled 180,160,009 pounds, all to landfills, in 22 tracts, including 8,419,560 pounds in Puerto Rico. Each 10% increase in a tract's Hispanic and Latino share was associated with 32% higher odds of the tract having the highest asbestos disposals rather than none. A higher White share was associated with lower odds. Across the 11 modeled substances, each 10% increase in the share of families in poverty was associated with 16% to 72% higher odds of the highest disposals rather than none. The study had no information on actual human exposure. The authors concluded it is unclear whether living near these disposals is associated with health risks.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Ecological study linking regulatory chemical release records to census tract population data, analyzed with population density-adjusted multinomial logistic regression
• Who was studied: 73,426 populated census tracts in the 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. Population characteristics came from the 2010 census and the 2006 to 2010 American Community Survey. 243 tracts with zero population were excluded.
• Exposure: On-site land disposals reported to the EPA Toxics Release Inventory for 2010 to 2018. These went to landfills, surface impoundments, underground injection wells and land treatment. The substances were 51 chemicals and metals classified by IARC as known or probable human carcinogens. Statistical models covered the 11 substances with land disposals in more than 20 tracts, including asbestos. Asbestos tracts were split at the median disposal amount and compared with tracts having zero disposals.
• Main results:
  • From 2010 to 2018, land disposals of known and suspected carcinogens were reported in 1206 census tracts (1.6%), with an estimated population of 5.3 million people.
  • Land disposals of asbestos totalled 180,160,009 pounds, which was 100% of reported asbestos releases. Table 1 shows all of it going to landfills, in 22 census tracts with a population of 86,216.
  • In Puerto Rico, 8,419,560 pounds of asbestos and 283,022 pounds of lead were disposed of in landfills.
  • Increases in a tract's Hispanic and Latino population (modeled per 10% increase) were associated with higher odds of the tract having the highest disposals, compared with tracts with zero disposals. The odds were 32% higher for asbestos, 33% for benzene, 30% for PCBs and 29% for styrene.
  • Increases in a tract's White population were associated with lower odds of the highest disposals of asbestos, benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, PCBs and styrene.
  • A 10% increase in a tract's Black population was associated with 8% to 31% greater odds of the highest land disposals of lead, cadmium and formaldehyde.
  • Across the 11 substances, a 10% increase in the share of the population with less than a high school education was associated with 26% (lead) to 81% (styrene) higher odds of the highest disposals.
  • Each 10% increase in the proportion of families experiencing poverty was associated with 16% to 72% higher odds of a tract having the highest disposals, compared with zero disposals.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the large on-site land disposals of carcinogens highlight the need for exposure studies of people living near these sites. They stated that it is presently unclear whether living near these disposals is associated with health risks.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The study had no information about actual human exposure. Living in a tract with a disposal site was only a proxy for potential exposure.
  • The analysis could not determine whether population groups moved into existing industrial areas, or whether facilities chose to locate in existing marginalized communities.
  • The authors did not explore other distance weighting schemes. They also did not consider factors such as wind direction or chemical half-life that affect how pollutants reach people.
  • Variation in census tract size could have introduced spatial bias.
  • P-values were not corrected for multiple testing, because the study was exploratory.
  • Estimates for small population groups (e.g., Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander) were somewhat unstable.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Carcinogenic, Odds Ratio, confidence interval, Environmental Exposure.

Related studies

• Carcinogenic industrial air pollution and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the National Institutes of Health AARP Diet and Health Study — J.M. Madrigal, C.N. Pruitt, et al. (2024)
• Review of occupational lung carcinogens — K. Steenland, D. Loomis, et al. (1996)
• Prediction in the face of uncertainty: the United States versus Reserve Mining Company — A.L. Brown (1986)
• Occupational and environmental exposures among Alaska Native and American Indian people living in Alaska and the Southwest United States — D. Redwood, A.P. Lanier, et al. (2012)
• An approach to estimating the environmental burden of cancer from known and probable carcinogens: application to Ontario, Canada — S.L. Greco, E. MacIntyre, et al. (2020)
• Mesothelioma from asbestos exposures: Epidemiologic patterns and impact in the United States — R.A. Lemen (2016)

Browse more research in Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, or return to medical research.