Personal Monitoring System for Measuring Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

Counts

et al. 2000

Approximately 173 subjects employed as waiters, waitresses, or bartenders in the Knoxville, TN, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area collected a sample of air from their breathing zone while at their workplace for one shift. In addition, area samples were placed near the work spaces of many of the subjects. Collected samples were analyzed for respirable suspended particulate matter ( RSPM ) , ultraviolet -absorbing and fluorescing particulate matter, solanesol, 3 -ethenyl pyridine ( 3 -EP ) , and nicotine. Saliva samples were collected from the subjects prior to and within 24 h following their work shift, to confirm their non -smoking status. The range of concentrations of environmental tobacco smoke ( ETS ) constituents encountered was considerable, e.g., for nicotine, from undetectable to more than 100 g / m 3 . However, the highest RSP levels observed were considerably lower than OSHA workplace standards. Distributions of ETS concentrations suggest that there are two``ETS exposure'' types of bartenders: those that work in single room bars and those that work in larger, multiroom restaurant / bars. Personal exposure to ETS of the former group was ca. 10Â greater than those of the latter group, who were exposed to ETS levels more comparable to those encountered by wait staff. Exposure ( concentrationÂduration ) differences between wait staff and workers in other types of unrestricted smoking environments reported in other studies suggest that exposures in the restaurant environment may be more difficult to assess than originally considered. Salivary cotinine levels indicated that for those subjects living in smoking homes, ETS exposures outside the workplace are at least as important as those in the workplace.

Section: Sampling Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in restaurant and tavern workers in one US city

Maskarinec

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

Counts

et al. 2000

“…The sampling equipment used to collect particle-phase and vapor-phase species in both the laboratory and field investigations was similar to that described by Ogden et al 19 It is now commercially available as the Double Take Sampler, manufactured by SKC, Inc. Two sound-insulated constant-flow pumps are built into a single unit and were used to collect the vapor-phase and particulate-phase samples through different channels. Particulate-phase samples were collected using 37-mm Fluoropore filters at a flow rate of 2.2-2.3 L/min, through a BGI-4 (BGI) cyclone separator.…”

Section: Gravimetric Rsp Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Application of Protocols for the Determination of Response of Real-Time Particle Monitors to Common Indoor Aerosols

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Ilgner

Tomkins

et al. 2004

Protocols have been developed and applied for the generation of aerosols that are likely to be comparable to those encountered in field settings for the calibration of easily transportable/portable real-time particle monitors. Aerosols generated were simulated environmental tobacco smoke, cedar wood smoke, cooking oil fumes, and propane stove particles. The time-integrated responses of three nephelometers and a monitor for particle-bound polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were compared with gravimetric respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP) in a controlled-atmosphere chamber. In general, the monitor responses increased linearly with increasing mass concentration. However, the two monitors that reported mass per volume concentrations tended to overreport the actual RSP concentrations by factors up to 4.4. The real-time PAH monitor did not respond to cooking oil fumes, indicative of little PAH being present in the aerosol. One of the monitors that has been used in a variety of studies reported in the literature (DustTrak) was collocated with gravimetric RSP samplers in several hospitality venues in the Louisville, KY, area. Field studies indicated that the units overreported actual RSP concentrations by factors of 2.6 -3

“…The personal air sampling equipment has been described in detail elsewhere (Ogden et al, 1996). It consisted of a sound-insulated sampling pump (approximately 8.5 in.Â6.5 in.Â4.25 in., weighing ca.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

Counts

1999

A large study was conducted to assess exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in a geographically dispersed study population using personal breathing zone air sampling and salivary cotinine levels. Approximately 100 self-reported nonsmoking subjects in each of 16 metropolitan areas were recruited for this investigation. Cumulative distributions of salivary cotinine levels for subjects in smoking and nonsmoking homes and workplaces exhibited a general trend of decreasing salivary cotinine levels with decreasing time spent in smoking environments. Median salivary cotinine levels for the four experimental cells in the study (product of smoking and nonsmoking home and workplaces) were comparable to those reported for a large national study of serum levels of cotinine (Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, NHANES III), when the latter was corrected for expected differences between serum and saliva concentrations. However, the most highly exposed group in this study had a median salivary cotinine concentration approximately a factor of 2 greater than that of the comparable group in the NHANES III study. Misclassification rates, both simple (for self-reported nonsmokers) and complex (self-reported lifetime never smokers), were near the median of those reported for other studies. Estimated misclassification rates for self-reported lifetime never-smoking females are sufficiently high (2.95% using a discrimination level of 106 ng/ml) that, if used in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment related to ETS and lung cancer, would place the lower 90% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk at nearly 1.00, i.e., no statistically significant increased risk. For the 263 most highly exposed subjects in the study whose self-reported nonsmoking status was accurate, the correlation between airborne exposure to nicotine and average salivary cotinine is so small, on an individual basis, that it makes the relationship useless for estimating exposure on a quantitative basis. When subjects are grouped according to likely categories of nicotine exposure, correlation between group median airborne nicotine exposure and salivary cotinine level increases dramatically. The comparison improves for the most highly exposed subjects, suggesting that such quantitative comparisons are useful for only those subjects who are exposed to the higher levels of ETS. However, airborne nicotine exposure for most of the subjects does not account for estimated systemic levels of nicotine, based on salivary cotinine levels.