Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Epidemiology: a foundation of environmental decision making


Many epidemiologic studies are designed so they can be drawn upon to provide scientific evidence for evaluating hazards of environmental exposures, conducting quantitative assessments of risk, and informing decisions designed to reduce or eliminate harmful exposures. However, experimental animal studies are often relied upon for environmental and public health policy making despite the expanding body of observational epidemiologic studies that could inform the relationship between actual, as opposed to controlled, exposures and health effects. This paper provides historical examples of how epidemiology has informed decisions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, discusses some challenges with using epidemiology to inform decision making, and highlights advances in the field that may help address these challenges and further the use of epidemiologic studies moving forward.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Birnbaum L, Burke T, Jones J. Informing 21st-century risk assessments with 21st-century science. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124:A60–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gwinn M, Axelrad D, Bahadori T, Bussard D, Cascio W, Deener K. et al. Chemical risk assessment: traditional vs public health perspectives. Am J Public Health. 2017;107:1032–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Owens EO, Patel MM, Kirrane E, Long TC, Brown J, Cote I. et al. Framework for assessing causality of air pollution-related health effects for reviews of the national ambient air quality standards. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;88:332–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    NRC (National Research Council). Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Greenbaum D. Epidemiology for decisions: why we need it, and opportunities to address its challenges. Bloomberg BNA: Environment & Safety Resource Center: Arlington, VA; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pope CA, Dockery DW. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2006;56:709–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dockery DW, Pope CA, 3rd, Xu X, Spengler JD, Ware JH, Fay ME. et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1753–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Pope CA 3rd, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer FE, et al. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;151:669–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldberg MS, Hoover BK, Siemiatycki, et al. Overview of the reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and American Cancer Society study of particulate air pollution and mortality. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2003;66:1507–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Participate Matter. Final Rule. 62 FR 38652-38760. 1997. Accessed 22 April 2017.

  11. 11.

    Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldberg MS, Hoover K, Siemiatycki J, Jerrett M, et al. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Cambridge, MA: Health Effects Institute; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW. Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: Extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173:667–72.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kaufman JD, Adar SD, Barr RG, Budoff M, Burke GL, Curl CL. et al. Association between air pollution and coronary artery calcification within six metropolitan areas in the USA (the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution): a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet. 2016;388:696–704.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Brook RD, Rajagopalan S, Pope CA, Brook JR, Bhatnagar A, Diez-Roux AV. et al. Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: an update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121:2331–78.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Final Report: Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. 2009. Accessed 7 June 2016.

  16. 16.

    USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Participate Matter. Final Rule. 78 FR 3085-3287. 2013. Accessed 22 April 2017.

  17. 17.

    Rice DC. Lead-induced behavioral impairment on a spatial discrimination reversal task in monkeys exposed during different periods of development. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1990;106:327–33.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Integrated science assessment for lead (EPA/600/R-10/075F). Research Triangle Park: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Federal Register (FR) Vol 73 No 219 Wednesday, 2 Nov 2008. p. 66964-7062.

  20. 20.

    USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos (EPA/635/R-11/002F). Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sullivan PA. Vermiculite, respiratory disease, and asbestos exposure in Libby, Montana: update of a Cohort Mortality Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:579–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Nachman KE, Fox MA, Sheehan MC, Burke TA, Rodricks JV, Woodruff TJ. Leveraging epidemiology to improve risk assessment. Open Epidemiol J. 2011;4:3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Burns CJ, Wright M, Pierson JB, Bateson TF, Burstyn I, Goldstein DA. et al. Evaluating uncertainty to strengthen epidemiologic data for use in human health risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:1160–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Rooney AA, Cooper GS, Jahnke GD, Lam J, Morgan RL, Boyles AL, et al. How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards. Environ Int. 2016;92-93:617–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    NRC (National Research Council). Review of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2014.

  26. 26.

    Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:711–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    NTP. Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens Monographs. Office of the Report on Carcinogens. 2015. p. 83

  28. 28.

    Pearl J. An introduction to causal inference. Int J Biostat. 2010;6:1–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Weisskopf MG, Kioumourtzoglou MA, Roberts AL. Air pollution and autism spectrum disorders: causal or confounded?. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2015;2:430–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Brewer LE, Wright JM, Rice G, Neas L, Teuschler L. Causal inference in cumulative risk assessment: the roles of directed acyclic graphs. Environ Int. 2017;102:30–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Lash TL, Fox MP, MacLehose RF, Maldonado G, McCandless LC, Greenland S. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43:1969–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Spiegelman D. Approaches to uncertainty in exposure assessment in environmental epidemiology. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:149–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Christensen K, Christensen CH, Wright JM, Galizia A, Glenn BS, Scott CS. et al. The use of epidemiology in risk assessment: challenges and opportunities. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2015;21:1644–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Sobus JR, DeWoskin RS, Tan YM, Pleil JD, Phillips MB, George BJ. et al. Uses of NHANES biomarker data for chemical risk assessment: trends, challenges, and opportunities. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:919–27.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Shin HM, Vieira VM, Ryan PB, Detwiler R, Sanders B, Steenland K. et al. Environmental fate and transport modeling for perfluorooctanoic acid emitted from the Washington Works Facility in West Virginia. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:1435–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Shin HM, Vieira VM, Ryan PB, Steenland K, Bartell SM. Retrospective exposure estimation and predicted versus observed serum perfluorooctanoic acid concentrations for participants in the C8 Health Project. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119:1760–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Winquist A, Lally C, Shin H, Steenland K. Design, methods, and population for a study of PFOA health effects among highly exposed Mid-Ohio valley community residents and workers. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:893–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zartarian V, Xue J, Tornero-Velez R, Brown J. Children’s lead exposure: a multimedia modeling analysis to guide public health decision-making. Environ Health Perspect. 2017;125:097009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kloog I, Chudnovsky AA, Just AC, Nordio F, Koutrakis P, Coull BA, et al. A new hybrid spatio-temporal model for estimating daily multiyear PM2.5 concentrations across northeastern USA using high resolution aerosol optical depth data. Atmos Environ. 2014;95:581–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Sacks JD, Rappold AG, Davis JA,Jr, Richardson DB, Waller AE, Luben TJ. Influence of urbanicity and county characteristics on the association between ozone and asthma emergency department visits in North Carolina. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:50612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kirrane EF, Bowman C, Davis JA, Hoppin JA, Blair A, Chen H. et al. Associations of ozone and PM2.5 concentrations with Parkinson’s disease among participants in the Agricultural Health Study. J Occup Environ Med. 2015;57:509–17.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


All authors were employed at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the time of the writing of this article.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen C. (Kacee) Deener.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deener, K.C.(., Sacks, J.D., Kirrane, E.F. et al. Epidemiology: a foundation of environmental decision making. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 28, 515–521 (2018).

Download citation


  • Epidemiology
  • criteria air pollutants; disease
  • exposure modeling

Further reading


Quick links