Assessment of air quality in Turin by personal monitoring of nonsmokers for respirable suspended particles and environmental tobacco smoke

Phillips, K.; Howard, David A.; Bentley, M.C.; Alván, Gunnar

doi:10.1016/s0160-4120(97)00097-4

Cited by 28 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, Phillips et al (1997) have reported much better correlation between 24-h TWA nicotine and post-test salivary cotinine for a pool of 69 subjects in Turin, Italy (R 2 =0.527). However, the reported 24-h TWA levels for subject pools equivalent to Cells 2 ± 4 in this study were two to eight times higher in the Turin study, and may account in part for the improved correlation.…”

Section: Comparison Of Salivary Cotinine Levels and Nicotine Exposurementioning

confidence: 98%

“…In a study of ca. 200 subjects in Turin, Italy, Phillips et al (1997) have reported nonsmoker misclassification rates ranging from 1.6% to 6.1%, depending on the discrimination criteria.…”

Section: Distribution Of Salivary Cotinine Concentrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ogden et al (1993) reported 5-day duration personal nicotine levels and salivary cotinine levels for 96 nonsmoking married women in Columbus, OH. Phillips et al (1996Phillips et al ( , 1997 have reported on the nicotine exposure and salivary cotinine levels of 190 nonsmokers in Stockholm, Sweden, and 188 nonsmokers in Turin, Italy. A recent series of manuscripts by these same authors has reported nicotine exposures and salivary cotinine levels for subjects in the cities of Lisbon, Bremen, and Paris (Phillips et al, 1998a(Phillips et al, , 1998b(Phillips et al, , 1998c.…”

Section: Comparison Of Salivary Cotinine Levels and Nicotine Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Jenkins

Counts

1999

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Salivary Cotinine Levels and Nicotine Exposurementioning

confidence: 98%

“…In a study of ca. 200 subjects in Turin, Italy, Phillips et al (1997) have reported nonsmoker misclassification rates ranging from 1.6% to 6.1%, depending on the discrimination criteria.…”

Section: Distribution Of Salivary Cotinine Concentrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Salivary Cotinine Levels and Nicotine Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Jenkins

Counts

1999

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Measured exposures by personal monitoring for respirable suspended particles and environmental tobacco smoke of housewives and office workers resident in Bremen, Germany

Phillips

Howard

Bentley

et al. 1998

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most highly exposed workers, both living and working with smokers, would potentially inhale over 20 cigarette equivalents (CE) per annum as based on the upper decile levels. Housewives living with smokers could inhale up to 11 CE per annum as based on the upper decile levels. Locations outside the workplace, including the home, contribute most to overall RSP and ETS particle exposure. Consideration should be given to extending the personal monitoring period in cities where levels appear to be quite low.

show abstract

Assessment of environmental tobacco smoke and respirable suspended particle exposures for nonsmokers in Prague using personal monitoring

Phillips¹,

Bentley²,

Howard³

et al. 1998

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highest exposures were apparent for office workers both working and living in smoking environments. and our findings suggest a significant contribution to overall ETS particle and nicotine levels from the workplace where smoking takes place. Overall, the rates at which subjects were determined to have misclassified their smoking status in this study were the lowest observed in any of the European cities investigated to date. Clearly, a more sensitive method of analysis for cotinine in body fluids is needed for more accurate determination of the levels expected for nonsmokers.

show abstract

Assessment of air quality in Turin by personal monitoring of nonsmokers for respirable suspended particles and environmental tobacco smoke

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Measured exposures by personal monitoring for respirable suspended particles and environmental tobacco smoke of housewives and office workers resident in Bremen, Germany

Assessment of environmental tobacco smoke and respirable suspended particle exposures for nonsmokers in Prague using personal monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About