home  /  contaminants & exposure media
department of contaminants & exposure media

The substances, and what is actually contested about them.

Each contaminant class carries its own analytical difficulties, its own state of scientific development, and its own reasons that matters succeed or fail.

get started

What was the exposure?

Start a conversation with our AI Research Concierge, already scoped to contaminants & exposure media. Select a specialization to prompt it, or describe your situation directly.

AI Research Conciergecontaminants & exposure media · triage, not a substitute for an expert
Tell me which substance and what the matter involves. I'll help scope where the science currently stands, what the analytical issues are, and which experts it takes.

Toxic tort matters cluster around a relatively small number of substance classes, and each behaves differently as litigation. Some have decades of epidemiology and a settled general causation position, so the fight moves entirely to individual exposure and specific causation. Others are early enough in their scientific development that general causation is itself the battleground. Some are regulated by long-stable standards; PFAS, by contrast, is the subject of a live and contested federal rulemaking whose outcome will shape both compliance obligations and the evidentiary landscape. This department covers what distinguishes the major classes — analytically, scientifically, and in how they are litigated.

specialization areas

Specialization areas in this department.

Three classes with genuinely different profiles. The differences matter more than the similarities.

methodology

How this department investigates.

How the Institute approaches a contaminant question — orientation on the state of the science, not an opinion on it.

State of the evidenceWhat the epidemiological and toxicological record currently supports for the substance, and where it is genuinely unsettled.
Analytical considerationsWhich methods apply, what they can and cannot detect, and the sampling pitfalls specific to the compound.
Litigation landscapeHow matters involving the substance have been structured and where they have turned.
Regulatory postureWhat standards apply, whether they are stable, and how they are properly used as evidence.
Characteristic pathwaysHow the substance typically reaches receptors, which shapes what exposure evidence is available.
Expert disciplinesWhich specialists a matter involving this class actually requires.
common questions

Contaminants — the questions we hear.

Which substances are driving current toxic tort volume?

By case count the largest active mass torts include talc, with more than 67,000 pending cases, and AFFF firefighting foam under MDL-2873, which stood at roughly 15,200 cases with PFAS personal injury filings growing sharply through 2025. Camp Lejeune water contamination, Roundup, paraquat and chemical hair relaxer litigation also carry substantial dockets. Ethylene oxide is the notable maturing wave — sterilization-facility emissions cases have produced a $363 million verdict against Sterigenics, a $408 million settlement resolving roughly 900 Willowbrook claims, and a $20 million Georgia verdict against C.R. Bard in 2025, with litigation now active in several states.

Why does PFAS get treated differently from other contaminants?

Because its physical and regulatory situations are both unusual. PFAS compounds are exceptionally persistent — they do not meaningfully degrade, so plumes extend further and last longer than solvent plumes and conventional attenuation assumptions do not apply. There are thousands of individual compounds, most without toxicological characterisation, and analytical methods are still developing. On top of that the federal drinking water standards are mid-rulemaking and contested, so the regulatory backdrop that would normally provide a stable reference point is itself in motion.

How mature does the science need to be for a matter to be viable?

It depends which showing is at issue. For substances with decades of literature and authoritative review, general causation may be effectively settled for certain disease pairings, and matters turn on individual exposure and specific causation. For emerging contaminants, general causation is often the whole fight, and early matters function as tests of whether the evidence base can carry the inference at all. Assessing honestly where a substance sits on that spectrum is one of the more valuable things to do before committing to a matter, in either direction.

Do older contaminants still generate new matters?

Consistently, for two reasons. Long latency means diagnoses continue to appear decades after exposure ended — asbestos remains active for exactly this reason. And CERCLA's federally required commencement date can preserve claims that state accrual rules would otherwise have extinguished, by starting the limitations clock when the claimant knew or should have known the harm was caused by the substance. Legacy contamination is therefore rarely closed simply because the release was long ago.

Working on a specific contaminant?

Describe the substance and the matter. We will scope it and connect you with the right expert — usually within one business day.

contamination assistanttriage · not a causation opinion
Tell me which substance and what the matter involves. I'll help scope where the science currently stands, what the analytical issues are, and which experts it takes.