Urinary cotinine concentration in flight attendants, in relation to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke during intercontinental flights

Abstract

Tobacco smoking in commercial aircraft may cause significant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among C/A working in the aft galley, despite high air exchange rates and spatial separation between smokers and non-smokers. This agrees with earlier studies, as well as measurements on the aircraft, showing a higher degree of ETS-related air pollution in the aft galley than in the forward galley. The average cotinine concentration in urine was similar to that in other groups with occupational exposure to ETS, e.g., restaurant staff, police interrogators and office workers. Since smoking in commercial aircraft may result in an involuntary exposure to ETS among non-smokers, it should be avoided.

Occupational exposure of non‐smoking restaurant personnel to environmental tobacco smoke in Finland

“…g Median values in urine reported, N ¼ 30 [Moyer et al, 2002]. h Average concentration in urine in non-smoking flight staff after landing (2.4 ng/ml before departure), N ¼ 25 [Lindgren et al, 1999]. i Cotinine concentrations in saliva converted to urine concentrations by multiplying by 4.9 and plasma concentrations converted by multiplying by 6 [Benowitz, 1999].…”

“…Due to technically difficult analyses and other sources than ETS of other biomarker compounds, the preferred choice to this date has been the analysis of cotinine [Benowitz, 1999;Jaakkola and Samet, 1999a]. Promising methods utilizing hair cotinine and nicotine levels have been developed and this tracks exposure that has occurred months before sampling [Dimich-Ward et al, 1997;Klein and Koren, 1999] Exposure to ETS has been assessed by analyzing cotinine in body fluids (urine, saliva, and serum) by several groups [Coultas et al, 1990;Bergman et al, 1996;Jenkins et al, 1996;Phillips et al, 1996;Pirkle et al, 1996;Bernert et al, 1997;Phillips et al, 1998a,b,c;Trout et al, 1998;Jenkins and Counts, 1999b;Lindgren et al, 1999;Phillips et al, 1999;Maskarinec et al, 2000]. However, only few have determined 3 0 -hydroxycotinine Tuomi et al, 1999;Tyrpien et al, 2000], even though it is the main nicotine metabolite in both active and passive smokers and corresponds to $40% of the total nicotine excretion [Neurath et al, 1987;Jacob et al, 1992;Jacob et al, 1993].…”

An evaluation of the indoor air quality in bars before and after a smoking ban in Austin, Texas

“…In an additional study, employees working in the gaming areas in casinos were determined to be exposed to indicators of ETS at levels that were greater than those observed in a representative sample of the US population (Trout et al, 1998). Also, researchers have noted that flight attendants working in the smoking section of an aircraft may have significant exposure to indicators of ETS (Lindgren et al, 1999).…”

Changes in the ocular and nasal signs and symptoms of aircrews in relation to the ban on smoking on intercontinental flights

“…Moreover, the cabin in commercial aircraft is densely populated, and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke can occur if smoking is allowed (10,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18).…”

“…In 2 of the studies (21,22), the symptoms were suspected to be caused by exposure to ozone during higher altitude flights. In addition, there has been concern about environmental tobacco smoke as a health hazard in aircraft (10,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18). Recently, many flight companies have prohibited smoking on board, but few hygienic or medical evaluations have been made of the ban on smoking in aircraft.…”