INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspectives
Children’s Environmenal Health: The School Environment
Kristie Trousdale, Joyce Martin, Laura Abulafia, Claire Barnett, and Carol Westinghouse
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-48.2.135
Since the government action on the removal of
lead from gasoline in the 1970s, children’s envi-
ronmental health research and policy measures
have expanded greatly. Education and outreach
campaigns urge parents to ensure their homes are
lead free and to check for the presence of radon,
mold, and other potential environmental hazards.
However, children also spend a good portion of
their days in school environments, with the
conditions of many schools being so poor that
Lloyd Kolbe, founding and former director of the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
(CDC) Division of Adolescent and School Health,
has referred to them as ‘‘America’s largest unad-
dressed children’s health crisis’’ (Healthy Schools
Network, 2005, p. ii.).
According to 2008 National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) data, there are
approximately 132,000 public and private schools
in the United States, employing over 7 million
adults and enrolling 56 million children (NCES,
2008). Twenty percent of the U.S. population
attends elementary and secondary schools, many of
which are very densely occupied (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency [EPA], 2002).
In 2006, a national collaborative report
entitled Lessons Learned (Healthy Schools Network,
2006) estimated that 32 million U.S. children were
at risk due solely to school conditions. These
conditions include the presence of old and peeling
paint, asbestos, mold, poor indoor air quality, and
pesticides, as well as possible preexisting on-site or
off-site contamination. According to the EPA
(2002), one half of U.S. schools have indoor
environmental quality problems. Indoor concentra-
tions of pollutants are commonly three to five times
higher than outdoor concentrations due to chem-
icals found in some conventional cleaning prod-
ucts, improper cleaning procedures, defective or
ineffective climate control (HVAC) systems,
’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
interior finishes, exterior pollutants, personal care
products, and renovation projects (EPA, 2002).
Contamination is portable as well and can be
brought inside from outdoor exposures.
Special Needs on the Rise
Childhood exposures to environmental toxins
have been associated with various cognitive and
behavioral impairments, immune dysfunction, ad-
verse reproductive and developmental effects,
cardio-respiratory illnesses, and cancer (Greater
Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility
[GBPSR], 2000; Landrigan, Needleman, & Land-
rigan, 2002; Rudant et al., 2007; Salam, Li,
Langholz, & Gilliland, 2004). One out of every
10 school-aged children, or over 6.7 million
children under 18 years of age, has asthma, and
between 1977 and 1994 the number of children in
special education increased 191% (Akinbami,
2006; American Lung Assocation, 2009; GBPSR,
2000). The prevalence of diagnosed learning
disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, and atten-
tion deficit hyperactivity disorder in children has
increased dramatically nationwide (GBPSR, 2000).
Environmental contaminants, especially those that
affect indoor air quality, have also been linked to
increased allergies and sensitivities, rashes, head-
aches, and other symptoms, often referred to as sick
building syndrome (EPA, 2008).
Environmental toxic exposures have also been
linked with decreased IQ. One study reported that,
on average, a 1-mg/dL increase in blood lead results
in a decrease of 0.46 IQ points (Canfield et al.,
2003). This rate of decline in intellectual func-
tioning appears even greater (1.37 IQ points lost
per 1-mg/dL increase in blood lead) among children
with blood lead levels below, rather than above, the
CDC recommended level of 10 mg/dL (Canfield et
al., 2003). Taking into account this increased effect
135
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
at lower body burdens, more children may be at
greater risk of harm from lead exposure than
previously believed.
Lead has been relatively well researched with
regard to its adverse effect on IQ. Yet, other
toxicants and combinations of chemicals have also
been associated with lowered cognitive function-
ing. For example, a 2009 Columbia University
study found that exposure to polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, chemicals released into the air from
burning of coal, diesel, oil, gas, and other
substances, such as tobacco, can also inversely
impact IQ in the developing brain. Schools that
have idling buses or are close to major highways
may have higher levels of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in the indoor air (Perera et al., 2009).
Researchers have found that lowered IQ, even
by just a few points, negatively impacts an
individual’s future earnings (Schwartz, 1994).
Other hidden expenses of unaddressed children’s
environmental health concerns include parents’
lost wages due to medical and therapeutic expenses
and missed work and the costs to school districts
and taxpayers of postconstruction remediation
efforts, which often far exceed the costs of
precautionary or proactive measures (Center for
Health Environment and Justice [CHEJ], 2005).
Additonal expenses may arise from lawsuits brought
against school districts by affected families. Indeed,
the adverse effects of childhood environmental
exposures, such as lead poisoning–induced aggres-
sion and violence, affect society as a whole. It is
estimated that anywhere from $4.6 to $18.4 billion
in costs of neurobehavioral disorders alone in the
U.S. are attributable to environmental toxicants
(Landrigan, Schechter, Lipton, Fahs, & Schwartz,
2002).
Between 1976 and 1994, the average blood
lead levels of U.S. children plunged from 16 mg/dL
to 3.2 mg/dL, primarily as a result of the removal of
lead from products such as gasoline and paint in the
1970s (Gilbert & Weiss, 2006). Grosse, Matte,
Schwartz, and Jackson (2002) estimated that U.S.
preschool-aged children in the late 1990s had IQs
that were, on average, 2.2–4.7 points higher than
they would have been had their blood lead
distribution matched that observed among U.S.
preschool-aged children in the late 1970s. Each 1-
point increase in an individual’s IQ has been
associated with a 1.76% to 2.37% increase in future
earning potential, and the researchers estimated
that the economic benefit for each year’s cohort of
136 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
3.8 million 2-year-old children ranged from $110
billion to $319 billion (in 2000 dollars; Gross et al.,
2002). This represents a truly significant public
health triumph in the United States, yet the
problems of lead exposure continue to persist for
many children. The CDC estimates that there
remain approximately 310,000 children aged 1–
5 years with BLLs greater than 10 mg/dL, the upper
limit of what is considered an acceptable level,
which is arguably too high (CDC, 2005; Gilbert &
Weiss, 2006).
Children’s Unique Vulnerabilities
Although adults also work in school environ-
ments, the deleterious health impacts of environ-
mental hazards may be greater for children. The
unique physical and behavioral characteristics of
children as well as the paucity of research, policy,
and regulation with regard to school environments
and children’s health underscore the need to
recognize and address school children as a partic-
ularly vulnerable population.
Physical Vulnerabilities
Children are not ‘‘little adults,’’ and, therefore,
assessments of their exposures to, and outcomes
resulting from, environmental toxicants using
adult-based toxicological models are insufficient.
Children breathe more, eat more, and drink more
per pound of body weight than adults, increasing
their risk of exposures. Their behaviors also expose
them to more possible contaminants (e.g., hand-to-
mouth behaviors, more time spent on the ground),
and they cannot always identify and protect
themselves against hazards (Guzelian, 1992; Na-
tional Research Council, 1993).
Not only are children generally exposed to
toxins at higher levels than adults, they may also
absorb the toxins more readily than adults, placing
them at even greater risk of harm. The efficiency of
detoxification and elimination of toxins from the
body may differ in children and adults. For
example, young children may lack sufficient
amounts of a key enzyme needed to metabolize
and excrete a particular contaminant quickly,
resulting in longer residency time of the contam-
inant in the body, leading potentially to greater
toxicity and harm.
Children’s organ systems continue developing
through early childhood and are, thus, more
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
vulnerable to adverse effect. Longer exposures to
some toxins, such as those experienced since early
childhood, leads to greater body burdens, with
potentially more detrimental health outcomes.
Those with existing disabilities may be more
vulnerable, both with regard to exposure and
absorption, and, thus, at even greater risk.
Policy and Regulation
Public sector employees (including teachers and
others working within the public school system) in
25 states are protected from environmental and
occupational hazards through state-adopted, Occu-
pational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)–approved standards. All but 4 of these
states also provide protection to private sector
employees, such as private school staff and admin-
istrators (Healthy Schools Network, 2005). Injured
workers may also be eligible for, and receive,
worker’s compensation, sick leave, union support,
and access to U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services–funded occupational health clin-
ics; they may also be able to switch their job
locations. Thus, there exists protection for some of
the adults employed in schools in the United States.
However, OSHA standards do not exist for any
of the children attending these schools who are
exposed to the same environmental hazards and are
more vulnerable to their effects. In addition,
chemical regulations under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 in the U.S. do not
guarantee adequate protection to children because
they are based upon risk assessment models derived
from adult populations and other inherently limited
assumptions (Environmental Working Group
[EWG], 2005).
Research
Whereas the health effects of some contami-
nants, such as lead, tobacco, and asbestos, have
been well studied, barely any of the approximately
80,000 chemicals inventoried by the TSCA have
been fully tested for their impacts on human health
(U.S. General Accounting Office, 2005). In fact,
only 7% of the 2,863 most commonly used
chemicals have undergone complete toxicological
testing, and few of these have been studied for
neurodevelopmental effects (EPA, 1998).
Research of children’s environmental health
issues at school is either minimal or nonexistent. In
fact a seemingly noncontagious outbreak of rashes
in 2001–2002, which affected approximately 1,000
’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
children in 27 states, could not be meaningfully
investigated due to the lack of baseline data of
children’s environmental health measures at
schools (Healthy Schools Network, 2005).
The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) performed a workplace
evaluation of a school near ‘‘ground zero’’ in New
York City and found evidence of new-onset diseases
among school staff. However, no agency offered a
similar service for students, including children with
special needs, in the dust-contaminated school
(Bartlett & Petrarca, 2002). Furthermore, had any
investigations been conducted, meaningful assess-
ment would have been difficult due to the lack of
any baseline data on students’ health.
A NIOSH Healthy Hazard Evaluation (HHE)
evaluates worker health and safety on site based on
previous and current individual medical conditions.
The same type of evaluation could have been done
for school children but was not, thus depriving
children (who outnumber adults in schools), their
families, schools, IEO sciences, and NIOSH of
important information. Children are the work
product, or ‘‘output,’’ of schools, so not having any
assessment of them erodes the educational mission.
Specific School Facilities Issues
School Siting
Some environmental concerns, such as the
prevention of urban sprawl, the creation of walk-
able and bikable communities, the need for safe
routes to school, and the selection of a locale
conducive to high-performing schools, are often
considered when choosing a school site; however,
the presence of on- or off-site sources of pollution
are usually not considered. This is mainly due to
considerations of land cost and availability (CHEJ,
2005). School districts seek out inexpensive land
due to declining school budgets and rising,
unfunded mandates, such as the No Child Left
Behind Act (legislation enacted in 2002 that ties
federal funding for schools to states’ performances
in standards-based assessments). Contaminated
land is inexpensive because it is unsuitable for
housing and most types of businesses.
Availability of land is another factor in site
selection. School districts in rural areas look to site
schools on inexpensive, unused agricultural land,
which is often contaminated with pesticides,
whereas urban school districts, limited in their
137
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
siting choices due to the shortage of undeveloped
land, often turn to sites on or near abandoned
landfills or abandoned industrial sites, such as
brownfields, or near heavily polluting industries
(CHEJ, 2005). Furthermore, urban school districts,
motivated to save money or to devote greater
percentages of their budgets to hiring highly
qualified teachers and improving schools’ technol-
ogy and curriculum, may be unwilling to invest in
proper clean up of contaminated sites. There are
1,100 public schools, and over 600,000 students
attending public schools, within half a mile of
contaminated sites (CHEJ, 2005). This issue
directly affects children’s health, especially low-
income and non-White children, who may have
less access to health care and who have higher rates
of asthma and lead poisoning (CHEJ, 2005).
According to a 50-state siting laws survey
detailed in a 2005 report entitled Building Safe
Schools: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions, only 10
states have laws that prohibit the siting of a school
on or near sources of pollution or other environ-
mental hazards (CHEJ, 2005). These hazards
include sites affected by air, motor vehicle, and
rail traffic; sites near utility transmission lines; sites
impacted by air and noise pollution; sites where
hazardous or solid waste was disposed; and sites
especially vulnerable to natural hazards, such as
flooding or earthquakes.
The report indicated that only 6 states require
environmental investigation of potential school
sites, such as the preparation of Phase I or Phase II
environmental assessments or environmental im-
pact statements for school projects. A Phase I
environmental assessment is a cursory evaluation of
the site, in which surveyors check for obvious signs
of hazards, such as those that can be seen or
smelled. Phase II assessments would be based on the
findings of a Phase I assessment and would involve
actual testing of site media (e.g., soil, water, air).
Environmental impact statements or reports docu-
ment the positive and negative environmental
effects of a proposed action, such as the building
of a school, and cite alternative actions. Twelve
states require public notice or public meetings
about proposed school sites, and 8 states require or
authorize the creation of school siting advisory
committees.
The report also revealed that 20 states have no
laws that either prohibit or restrict the siting of a
school on or near man-made or naturally occurring
environmental hazards and that 24 states do not
138 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
require school districts to investigate potential
school sites for the presence of pollutants or other
environmental hazards or to assess environmental
impacts associated with potential school sites.
Potential toxicants at contaminated sites
include heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic,
cadmium, and mercury; organic chemicals, such as
benzene and toluene (commonly from underground
storage tanks and gasoline contamination); chloro-
phenols, benzo[a]pyrene, and naphthalene from
creosote at wood treatment operations; polychlori-
nated biphenyls, which often at sites where
electrical equipment has been in use; and many
more (CHEJ, 2005).
Many of the heavy metals, most notably lead
and mercury, are known neurotoxicants. Mercury
impairs brain development and reduces IQ (U.S.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
[ATSDR], 1999). Lead reduces IQ levels, leads to
cognitive and attention deficits, and is linked to
oppositional behaviors, aggression, and violence
(ATSDR, 2007). Benzene and toluene also ad-
versely affect the central nervous system. They are
also both associated with adverse reproductive
effects, and benzene, in particular, is associated
with leukemia (ATSDR, 2000, 2007). PCBs are
also suspected of impairing cognitive functioning in
children, although more studies on its health effects
are needed (ATSDR, 2000).
There is a compelling need for comprehensive
school siting laws that would restrict siting on or
near sources of environmental hazards and require
thorough investigation and assessment of hazards
on potential school sites or impacts to future users
of sites; proper clean up, remediation, and moni-
toring of contaminated sites; and public involve-
ment in siting decisions. An example of a thorough
siting process is illustrated in Figure 1.
A public education component is also critical
to a comprehensive siting process. The virtual
absence of state laws and federal guidelines on
school siting is not common knowledge. In
addition, chemical contamination clean-up pro-
grams are complicated and often not well under-
stood by the general population. Thus, parents and
school communities may often be unaware of on-
site contamination, demonstrating the need for a
strong educational element as part of the process.
Green Cleaning
Material safety data sheets written by a
cleaning product’s manufacturer do not always
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
Figure 1 Example of a proper school siting process. Provided by the Center for Health, Environment and
Justice (www.chej.org). PEA, preliminary endangerment assessment.
provide complete information on the health
hazards of the product and are not required at all
for retail products (Kolp, Williams, & Burtan,
1995). Conventional cleaning products may con-
tain carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) and in-
gredients that affect the central nervous system; the
respiratory system, such as asthmagens; and devel-
opment and reproduction (Grandjean & Landrigan,
2006; Main et al., 2006; Petsonk, 2002; Rumchev,
Spickett, Bulsara, Phillips, & Stick, 2004; Swan et
al., 2005’; U.S. National Toxicology Program,
2000). Ingredients commonly found in cleaners,
such as aliphatic polyamines, ammonia, hydrochlo-
ric acid, and monoethanolamine, have been linked
with respiratory disease, as have some ingredients
found in disinfectants such as chloramine-T and
quaternary ammonium compounds, including ben-
zalkonium chloride (Association of Occupational
and Environmental Clinics [AOEC], 2000; Purohit
et al., 2000; Savonius, Keskinen, Tupperainen, &
Kanerva, 1994). Some fragrances and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) found in certain
cleaning products also are associated with respira-
tory illness (AOEC, 2000; Rumchev, Spickett,
Bulsara, Phillips, & Stick, 2004).
Table 1 Less Toxic Cleaning Chemicals Substitutions
Conventional cleaning chemicals
N Nonylphenol ethoxylates or alkylphenol ethoxylates
N Harsh acids/alkali builders
N Petroleum distillates
N Petroleum-derived surfactants
N Petroleum solvents or harsh acids
Note. Provided by the Healthy Schools Network, Inc.
’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are
commonly found in cleaning products and can be
harmful to the human body in very small doses. The
endocrine system regulates growth, development,
metabolism, puberty, and many of the functions of
all other body systems via the release of specific
chemical messengers called hormones. Hormones
attach to receptors on cell surfaces, carrying
information into the cells and triggering certain
essential actions. EDCs, also termed hormone-
disrupting chemicals, can either block hormones from
attaching to their proper cell receptors or mimic
hormones and bind with the cells themselves;
either way, important bodily processes are impact-
ed, and adverse health outcomes may ensue. The
following EDCs are common ingredients in clean-
ing products: dibutyl phthalate and diethyl phthal-
ate, found in floor care products and fragrances, and
alkylphenol ethoxylates, found in all-purpose
cleaners and specialty cleaners (AOEC, 2000; Main
et al., 2006; Swan et al., 2005). Table 1 lists
common conventional cleaning chemicals and
some less toxic substitutes.
In 2005 the Chicago public schools adopted a
green cleaning policy (Environmental Law Institute
Less toxic substitutes
N Alcohol ethoxylates and/or polyglucosides
N Hydrogen peroxide
N Corn-based esters
N Vegetable-derived surfactants
N Fruit-derived solvents and acids
139
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
[ELI], 2007), New York state issued an executive
order mandating the use of environmentally
preferred cleaning products (Executive Order
134), and the New York state legislature passed
supporting legislation for all K–12 public and
private schools (ELI, 2007).
Illinois passed similar legislation in 2007, and a
movement grew in New England to follow suit
(ELI, 2007). As of spring 2009, 17 states had
adopted green cleaning procurement policies (Ba-
lek, 2009). In addition, nationwide, many school
districts have begun to embrace, or have already
adopted, green cleaning regimens, even in the
absence of state mandates.
An effective and comprehensive green clean-
ing program focuses not only on reducing the use of
toxic chemical cleaners but calls for the use of more
efficient equipment and the implementation of
proper training protocols for the cleaning staff.
Third-party–certified cleaning chemicals, both for
everyday use and for specialty cleaning uses (e.g.,
floor sealers and finishes), are required. A product
must meet strict, and continually updated, human
and environmental health criteria throughout its
lifecycle to achieve certification. In a green
cleaning program, the majority of everyday clean-
ing can be accomplished with just one third-party–
certified, all-purpose concentrate, greatly reducing
the number of different chemicals in use. Environ-
mentally preferable disinfectants, graffiti removers,
mineral build-up removers, and white board
cleaners and markers are also available to replace
their conventional equivalent. Investment in
equipment such as HEPA-filter vacuum cleaners,
high-filtration floor care equipment, microfiber
cloths and mops, and multilevel, scraper walk-off
mats, greatly improves indoor air quality. Green
cleaning custodial training programs ideally include
instruction on best practices, proper equipment
operation, and the use of the new certified cleaning
products, as well as information on bloodborne
pathogens and chemical right-to-know; these
programs would be provided in a multilingual
format where necessary.
Reducing the use of antimicrobials is another
important goal of green cleaning programs. The
overuse of antibacterial soaps, wipes, and washes
may be creating antibiotic-resistant strains of
bacteria (McDonnell & Russell, 1999). Conven-
tional hand soaps can be replaced with third-party–
certified and nonanti-bacterial soaps. Staff should
be trained to clean prior to disinfecting and to use
140 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
disinfectants in high-risk areas only, such as those
areas required by regulations and those where body
fluids may be present. Detergent and water can
remove most microbes, and sanitizers may be
appropriate for certain touch points, rather than
disinfectants.
Schools planning to implement a green
cleaning program need only invite their favored
vendor to present a free demonstration of certified
green cleaning products on real dirt to custodial
staff and then initiate a pilot project by selecting
products and practices to phase in, based on the
unique needs of the site. For schools that want to
assess the benefits of adopting a green cleaning
program, an evaluation of the current products,
equipment, and methods used on site should be
conducted, and baseline measurements, such as the
number of student visits to the nurse’s office, should
be obtained. Schools may also elect to establish an
environmental health and safety committee to
educate staff other than custodians and to monitor
and reward success. Ideally, schools would adopt
policy that would endure staff and administrative
turnover. However, it is most important that
schools understand how easy it is to begin a green
cleaning program immediately.
Pest Management
The school environment presents an agreeable
habitat for a number of various pests. Meals and
snacks are served and eaten within school facilities,
and moisture and nesting areas abound. Pests may
also find suitable nutrients and habitat among
books and other educational materials present
within schools (Healthy Schools Network, 2006).
Hazards associated with pests include the spread of
diseases from flies, cockroaches, mice, and rats;
allergies and asthma attacks triggered by cock-
roaches and mice; and allergic reactions to some
insect bites or stings (EPA, 2009a). Structural
damage from termite and mice activity may also
present physical hazards to schoolbuilding occu-
pants (EPA, 2009a). However, conventional pest
control methods may introduce serious hazards of
their own.
Routine pesticide application is often the
primary means of pest prevention and control in
U.S. schools, and herbicides are used on school
grounds to control weeds. Herbicides and fungicides
are formulated to kill certain plants and fungi, and
insecticides and rodenticides are often neurotoxins
designed to kill certain animal species via enzyme
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
system disruption or cell membrane damage (EPA,
2009b).
These lethal compounds are potentially toxic
to children, and adults. Indeed, pesticides registered
with the EPA are not guaranteed to be safe for
human health (Landrigan, Needleman, & Land-
rigan, 2002). Levels of the enzyme critical in
detoxifying organophosphorous (OP) pesticides, in
particular, and in protecting against oxidative stress
remain low in children through at least Age 7
(Huen et al., 2009). Thus, this window of
vulnerability to OPs includes school-aged children
as well as infants, necessitating the implementation
of safer pest management practices in schools.
Regulatory authorities use a retroactive, ‘‘proof-of-
harm’’ approach to pesticide regulation rather than
taking a more precautionary tactic. Many older
pesticides have not been thoroughly tested by
today’s standards and are still commonly used,
despite the complete testing of each compound
taking at least 10 years (Purdue University
Cooperative Extension Service [PUCES], 2001).
Furthermore, most pesticides in use today have not
been tested specifically for their health effects on
children (Landrigan, Needleman, & Landrigan,
2002).
Recent toxicological studies found that many
pesticides harm the developing brain and nervous
system. Some pesticides act as hormone disruptors,
resulting in impaired development and functioning,
and many herbicides are known, probable, or
suspected carcinogens (Landrigan, Needleman, &
Landrigan, 2002). Acute human health problems
associated with pesticide exposure include eye and
skin irritations, nausea, dizziness, breathing diffi-
culties, upper respiratory infections, systemic man-
ifestations, and even seizures and pulmonary edema
in high-severity cases (Alarcon et al., 2005;
Californians for Pesticide Reform, 2003; EPA,
1999). Long-term exposure to some pesticides has
also been associated with chronic health problems,
such as childhood cancers; respiratory diseases, such
as asthma; abnormal brain development; and
developmental and behavioral delays and disorders
(Guillette, Meza, Aquilar, Soto, & Garcia, 1998;
Lizardi, O’Rourke, & Morris, 2008; Rudant et al.,
2007; Salam, Li, Langholz, & Gilliland, 2004;
Weiss, Amler, & Amler, 2004).
Although no federal regulations exist for
pesticide use in schools, the EPA recommends that
schools use integrated pest management (IPM)
practices to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure to
’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
children. IPM is a safer and usually less costly
option for effective pest management within
schools, although it does not eliminate use of
pesticides altogether. A school IPM program takes
advantage of all pest management strategies,
including the judicious and careful use of pesticides
when necessary. However, a properly implemented
program focuses on implementing preventative
measures and least toxic solutions, such as strategies
to reduce sources of food, water, and shelter for
pests within school buildings and grounds.
Proper school IPM practices include the follow-
ing: vegetation, shrubs, and wood mulch are kept at
least 1 foot away from structures; cracks and crevices
in walls, floors, and pavement are either sealed or
eliminated; lockers and desks are emptied and
thoroughly cleaned at least twice a year; all food-
contaminated dishes, utensils, and surfaces are
cleaned by the end of each day; garbage cans and
dumpsters are cleaned regularly; litter is collected
and disposed of properly at least once a week;
fertilizers are applied several times throughout the
year rather than one heavy application; the problem
or pest is identified prior to taking action; and spot
treatments, rather than area-wide applications, of
pesticides are used when pesticides are needed (EPA,
2009a). Pesticides can travel long distances and have
been found as far as 50 miles away from the point of
application (Californians for Pesticide Reform,
2003). Thus, reduction of pesticide drift, particularly
for schools near agricultural fields, is also critical,
and pesticide-spray buffer zones should be estab-
lished around school buildings. Last, schools should
strive to educate their school communities about
pesticides and IPM practices and notify and provide
re-entry recommendations when pesticides are used
(NIOSH, 2007).
Conclusion
School facilities in the United States are
densely occupied, understaffed, underfunded, and
often designed and built by low bidders, without
any, or minimal, oversight. Maintenance budgets
are often the first to be reduced when budgets
shrink. In addition to poor availability of school
sites and the lack of research and policy regulation,
these realities pose considerable unaddressed health
hazards to schoolchildren across the country.
Siting committees need to establish environ-
mentally sound protocol for selecting new school
141
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
sites, and new schools need help to improve the
design and construction of the facility. Existing
schools should establish an environmental health
committee to report on facility conditions and
recommend improvements; to provide advance
notice to parents, staff, and the community of
school construction projects and the public plan to
protect occupants; to physically separate construc-
tion from occupants and air out new areas prior to
reoccupancy; to practice nontoxic pest control,
such as IPM practices; to adopt green cleaning
practices; and to inventory and clean out ‘‘legacy’’
stored chemicals.
Research, such as the National Children’s
Study, funded and led primarily by the Eunice
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, should capture
exposures in daycare settings and schools. Health
providers, advised by the EPA, should develop a
common way to assess these exposures. Advocates
should insist that congress supports and federal
agencies create a coordinated strategy for children’s
health at school.
References
Akinbami, L. J. (2006). The state of childhood
asthma, United States, 1980–2005. Advance
data from vital and health statistics (No. 381).
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
Statistics.
Alarcon, W. A., Calvert, G. M., Blondell, J. M.,
Mehler, L. N., Sievert, J., Propeck, M., et al.
(2005). Acute illnesses associated with pesti-
cide exposure at schools. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 294, 455–465.
American Lung Association, Epidemiology and
Statistics Unit, Research and Program Servic-
es. (2009). Trends in asthma morbidity and
mortality. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of Occupational and Environmental
Clinics. (2000). Product material safety data
sheets (MSDS)—AOEC exposure codes. Re-
trieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.
aoec.org/aoeccode.htm
Balek, Bill. (2009). Green cleaning product procure-
ment policies, initiatives, and requirements in the
U.S. Lincolnwood, IL: ISSA.
Bartlett, S., & Petrarca, J. (2002). Schools of ground
zero: Early lessons learned in children’s environ-
142 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
mental health. Washington, DC: American
Public Health Association and the Healthy
Schools Network.
Kegley, S. E., Katten, A., Moses, M., Pesticide
Action Network, California Rural Legal Assis-
tance Foundation, Pesticide Education Center,
and Californians for Pesticide Reform. (2003).
Secondhand pesticides: Airborne pesticide drift in
California. San Francisco: Authors.
Kegley, S., Katten, A., & Moses, M. Canfield, R. L.,
Henderson, Jr., C. R., Cory-Slechta, D. A.,
Cox, C., Jusko, T. A., & Center for Health,
Environment, and Justice (CHEJ). (2005).
Building safe schools: Invisible threats, visible
actions. Falls Church, VA.
Lanphear, B. P. (2003). Intellectual impairment in
children with blood lead concentrations below
10 mg/dL. New England Journal of Medicine, 348,
1517–1526.
Environmental Law Institute. (2007). Green clean-
ing in schools: Summary of selected state and
school district policies. Washington, DC: Author.
Environmental Working Group. (2005). Body
burden: The pollution in newborns. Washington,
DC: J. Houlihan, T. Kropp, R. Wiles, S. Gray,
& C. Campbell
Gilbert, S. G., & Weiss, B. (2006). A rationale for
lowering the blood lead action level from 10 to
2 mg/dL. NeuroToxicology, 27, 693–701.
Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. J. (2006). Devel-
opmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals.
Lancet, 368, 2167–2178.
Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibil-
ity. (2000). In harm’s way: Toxic threats to child
development. Cambridge, MA: T. Schettler, J.
Stein, F. Reich, M. Valenti, & D. Wallinga.
Gross, S. D., Matte, T. D., Schwartz, J., & Jackson,
R. J. (2002). Economic gains resulting from the
reduction in children’s exposure to lead in the
United States. Environmental Health Perspec-
tives, 110, 563–569.
Guillette, E. A., Meza, M. M., Aquilar, M. G., Soto,
A. D., & Garcia, I. E. (1998). An anthropo-
logical approach to the evaluation of preschool
children exposed to pesticides in Mexico.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 106, 347–
353.
Guzelian, P. S. (Ed.). (1992). Similarities and
differences between children and adults: Implica-
tions for risk assessment. Washington, DC: ILSI
Press.
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
Healthy Schools Network. (2005). Who’s in charge
of protecting children’s health at school? A report
on ‘‘America’s largest unaddressed health crisis.’’
Washington, DC: C. L. Barnett.
Healthy Schools Network. (2006). Lessons learned:
A national report. Washington, DC: C. L.
Barnett.
Huen, K., Harley, K., Brooks, J., Hubbard, A.,
Bradman, A., Eskenazi, B., et al. (2009).
Developmental changes in PON1 enzyme
activity in young children and effects of
PON1 polymorphisms. Environmental Health
Perspectives. doi:10.1289/ehp.0900870.
Kolp, P. W., Williams, P. L., & Burtan, R. C.
(1995). Assessment of the accuracy of material
safety data sheets. American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal, 56, 178–183.
Landrigan, P. J., Needleman, H. L, & Landrigan,
M. M. (2002). Raising healthy children in a toxic
world: 101 smart solutions for every family.
Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
Landrigan, P. J., Schechter, C. B., Lipton, J. M.,
Fahs, M. C., & Schwartz, J. (2002). Environ-
mental pollutants and disease in American
children: Estimates of morbidity, mortality, and
costs for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and
developmental disabilities. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 110, 721–728.
Lanphear, B. P. (2003). Intellectual impairment in
children with blood lead concentrations below
10 mg/dL. N Engl J Med, 348, 1517–1526.
Lizardi, P. S., O’Rourke, M. K., & Morris, R. J.
(2008). The effects of organophosphate pesti-
cide exposure on Hispanic children’s cognitive
and behavioral functioning. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 33, 91–101.
Main, K. M., Mortensen, G. K., Kaleva, M. M.,
Boisen, K. A., Damgaard, I. N., Chellakooty,
M., et al. (2006). Human breast milk contam-
ination with phthalates and alterations of
endogenous reproductive hormones in infants
three months of age. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 114, 270–276.
McDonnell, G., & Russell, A. D. (1999). Antisep-
tics and disinfectants: Activity, action, and
resistance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 12,
147–179.
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. (2008). Projections of education
statistics to 2017 (NCES 2008-078). Washing-
ton, DC: W. J. Hussar & T. M. Bailey.
’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. (2007). Reducing pesticide exposure at
schools (Publication No. 2007-150). Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
National Research Council. (1993). Pesticides in the
diets of infants and children. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub.L. 107–
110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Petsonk, E. L. (2002). Work-related asthma and
implications for the general public. Environ-
mental Health Perspectives, 110, 569–572.
Perera, F. P., Li, Z., Whyatt, R., Hoepner, L., Wang,
S., Camann, D., et al. (2009). Prenatal
airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ex-
posure and child IQ at age 5 years. Pediatrics,
124, e195–e202.
Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service.
(2001). Pesticides and wildlife. Retrieved August
5, 2009, from http://www.btny.purdue.edu/
Pubs/PPP/PPP30.html
Purohit, A., Kopferschmidtt-Kubler, M. C., Mor-
eau, C., Popin, E., Blaumeiser, M., & Pauli, G.
(2000). Quarternary ammonium compounds
and occupational asthma. International Archives
of Occupational and Environmental Health, 73,
423–427.
Rudant, J., Menegaux, F., Leverger, G., Baruchel,
A., Nelken, B., Bertrand, Y., et al. (2007).
Household exposure to pesticides and risk of
childhood hematopoietic malignancies: The
ESCALE study (SFCE). Environmental Health
Perspectives, 115, 1787–1793.
Rumchev, K., Spickett, J., Bulsara, M., Phillips, M.,
& Stick, S. (2004). Association of domestic
exposure to volatile organic compounds with
asthma in young children. Thorax, 59, 746–
751.
Salam, M. T., Li, Y. F., Langholz, B., & Gilliland, F.
D. (2004). Early-life environmental risk factors
for asthma: Findings from the Children’s
Health Study. Environmental Health Perspec-
tives, 112, 760–765.
Savonius, B., Keskinen, H., Tupperainen, M., &
Kanerva, L. (1994). Occupational asthma
caused by ethanolamines. Allergy, 49, 877–881.
Schwartz, J. (1994). Societal benefits of reducing
lead exposure. Environmental Research, 66, 105–
124.
Swan, S. H., Main, K. M., Liu, F., Stewart, S. L.,
Kruse, R. L., Calafat, A. M., et al. (2005).
Decrease in anogenital distance among male
143
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Perspective: children’s Environmental Health
infants with prenatal phthalate exposure.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 1056–
1061.
Toxic Substances Control Act § 2601 et seq.
U.S.C. §15 (1976).
U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry. (1999). Toxicological profile for mercu-
ry. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.
atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46.html
U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry. (2000). Toxicological profile for poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Retrieved August
5, 2009, from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro
files/tp17.html
U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry. (2000). Toxicological profile for toluene.
Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.
atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp56.html
U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry. (2007). Toxicological profile for ben-
zene. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp3.html
U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry. (2007). Toxicological profile for lead.
Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.atsdr.
cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.html#bookmark05
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(2005). Blood lead levels - United States,
1999–2002. MMWR, 54(20), 513–516.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998).
Chemical hazard availability study: What do we
really know about the safety of high production
volume chemicals? Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999).
Recognition and management of pesticide poison-
ings (EPA No. 735-R-98-003). Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002).
Indoor air quality tools for schools program:
Benefits of improving air quality in the school
environment (EPA 402-K-02-005). Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008).
Indoor air facts no. 4 (Revised): Sick building
syndrome. Air and radiation (6609J). Retrieved
August 5, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
pubs/sbs.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a).
About pesticides. Retrieved August 5, 2009,
144 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2: 135–144 | APRIL 2010
K. Trousdale et al.
from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/types.
htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009b).
Pesticides: Controlling pests. Integrated pest
management (IPM) in schools. Retrieved August
5, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/
ipm/
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2005). Chemical
regulation: Options exist to improve EPA’s ability
to assess health risks and manage its chemical
review program (GAO-05-458). Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. National Toxicology Program. (2000). Toxi-
cology and carcinogenesis studies 2-butoxy-
ethanol (CAS NO. 111-76-2) in F344/N rats
and B6C3F1 mice (inhalation studies). Nation-
al Toxicology Program Technical Report Series,
484, 1–290.
Weiss, B. (1988). Neurobehavioral toxicity as a
basis for risk assessment. Trends in Pharmaco-
logical Science, 9, 59–62.
Weiss, B., Amler, S., & Amler, R. W. (2004).
Pesticides. Pediatrics, 113, 1030–1036.
Funded by the John Merck Fund.
Authors:
Kristie A. Trousdale (E-mail: ktrousda@umd.edu),
MPH Candidate, spring 2010, University of
Maryland School of Public Health, Maryland
Institute for Applied Environmental Health, Bldg.
255 Valley Drive, College Park, MD 20742. Joyce
Martin, JD, Director, Environmental Health
Policy, American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 501 3rd St., NW, Suite
200, Washington, DC 20001. Laura Abulafia,
MHS, National Coordinator, Learning &
Developmental Disabilities Initiative; and
Director, Education and Outreach, Environmental
Health Initiative, American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 501
3rd St., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20001.
Claire Barnett, Executive Director, Healthy
Schools Network, 110 Maryland Ave., NE, Suite
505, Washington, DC 20002. Carol Westinghouse,
President, Informed Green Solutions, P.O. Box 60,
East Burke, VT 05832.