A comparison of methods of assessing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in non-smoking British women

The German Environmental Survey 1990/92 (GerES II): Sources of personal exposure to volatile organic compounds

“…This is in accordance with the results of other studies of personal and indoor air ( e.g., Krause et al, 1991;Proctor et al, 1991 ) and can be explained by both its presence in outdoor air and its frequent use indoors as a solvent in paints, lacquers, printing inks, adhesives and other household products ( Kumai et al, 1983;Sack et al, 1992 ). Somewhat unexpected was that 2-propanol and limonene were next in rank with mean concentrations higher than 30 g/m 3 .…”

“…At the present stage, the most reliable information on personal exposure will be obtained by personal monitoring in which the pollutants of interest are measured close to the breathing zone of a person. In previous studies dealing with personal monitoring ( Wallace et al, 1988( Wallace et al, , 1991Proctor et al, 1991 ) only 24-h exposures were analysed. Wallace et al ( 1994 ) stated that such short -term measurements are not suitable to estimate long -term distributions of exposure to most of the analysed VOCs.…”

Doses and lung burdens of environmental tobacco smoke constituents in nonsmoking workplaces

“…Hammond et al (1995 ) measured concentrations of ETS constituents and found ratios similar to those observed here (i.e., nonsmokers married to smokers were exposed to three to four times the nicotine concentration as nonsmokers married to nonsmokers ). In a study of nonsmoking British women, Proctor et al ( 1991 ) observed a mean nicotine exposure of 1.6 g/m 3 for working women married to smokers and half this level (0.8 g/m 3 ) for working women married to nonsmokers. If home smoking status is not considered when assessing workplace ETS exposure, significant confounding will be added and will, in turn, make the search for other patterns more difficult.…”

Personal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: salivary cotinine, airborne nicotine, and nonsmoker misclassification

“…While many studies have examined its relationship to some indicators of ETS exposure (time spent around smokers, number of cigarettes observed, number of smokers in one's residence, etc.) (e.g., Jenkins et al, 1992;Delfino et al, 1993;Emmons et al, 1994;Rebagliato et al, 1995;Thompson et al, 1995;Tunstall-Pedoe et al, 1995;Emmons et al, 1996), few studies have provided an assessment in nonsmokers of cotinine levels vs. airborne nicotine (e.g., Proctor et al, 1991;Marbury et al, 1993;Ogden et al, 1993;Bergman et al, 1996;Phillips et al, 1996Phillips et al, , 1997Phillips et al, , 1998aPhillips et al, , 1998bPhillips et al, , 1998c. Nicotine is the primary precursor to cotinine (Curvall et al, 1990;Byrd et al, 1992).…”

“…One interesting assessment used area monitoring levels of nicotine in workplaces to model personal exposure, and compared the results with salivary cotinine from another study population to model risk from ETS exposure in the workplace (Repace et al, 1998). Relatively few studies (Proctor et al, 1991;Phillips et al, 1997Phillips et al, , 1998aPhillips et al, , 1998bPhillips et al, , 1998c) have compared results from personal breathing zone sampling of ETS nicotine, and salivary cotinine (the matrix that is easiest to collect from subjects), and none has reported on data on a geographically dispersed population within a given society. The purpose of the work reported here is to describe findings of a large, 16-city study within the United States, with regard to salivary cotinine levels and direct determination of ETS nicotine (predominantly vapor phase, ca.…”