China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Relationship Between Passive Exposure to Cigarette Smoke and Cancer
Published in Richard B. Gammage, Stephen V. Kaye, Vivian A. Jacobs, Indoor Air and Human Health, 2018
Association between passive smoking and lung cancer derives biological plausibility from the chemical composition of sidestream smoke, the confirmation of exposure in nonsmokers with biological markers, and the failure to find a threshold for respiratory carcinogenesis in active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains the same toxic and tumorigenic agents as mainstream smoke; some are present in much higher concentrations because of the burning conditions under which sidestream smoke is generated (2). Investigations with markers of tobacco smoke exposure have convincingly demonstrated that passive smoking results in inhalation and absorption of sidestream smoke components (3). For example, Wald et al. (4) recently reported increased urinary cotinine levels in exposed nonsmokers and a dose-response relationship between urinary concentration and the duration of reported exposure. In Japan, Matsukura and colleagues (5) found that the presence of smokers in the home and in the workplace, and urban residence were associated with increased urinary cotinine levels. Finally, studies of active smoking have uniformly indicated excess lung cancer risks at lower levels of cigarette smoking and none have implied the presence of a threshold (2).
Fitness and Performance
Published in Frank H Hawkins, Harry W Orlady, Human Factors in Flight, 2017
Frank H Hawkins, Harry W Orlady
The COHb of a non-smoker may rise to about 5% when he is sitting in a badly ventilated, smoky room. He is then exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and becomes what is known as a ‘passive smoker’. The smoke drawn in by the smoker, called mainstream smoke, is largely retained and only a small part is exhaled. When the cigarette is not being drawn, so-called sidestream smoke is generated and passes directly into the air and is breathed by passive smokers. Although the constituents of mainstream and sidestream smoke are essentially the same, they are present in quite different proportions, mainly as a result of the different temperatures of burning. Exhaled mainstream smoke also has the constituents in different proportions from the inhaled smoke. It is noteworthy here that some irritant gases, such as ammonia, and some cancer-forming substances, such as dimethylnitrosamine, are present in far higher proportions in sidestream than mainstream smoke (DHEW, 1979). Evidence is accumulating that ETS may pose a health hazard to the non-smoker (Royal College of Physicians, 1983). And he frequently suffers discomfort, annoyance and sometimes an allergic reaction.
Introduction
Published in R. A. Jenkins, M. R. Guerin, B. A. Tomkins, The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 2000
R. A. Jenkins, M. R. Guerin, B. A. Tomkins
Sidestream collection devices must be capable of collecting sidestream smoke without influencing smoking characteristics. That is, the number of standard puffs required to consume a cigarette and the mainstream deliveries of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide should be the same in the presence of the sidestream apparatus as they are in its absence. It is also important that the cigarette be smoked in an environment of fresh air comparable with that associated with human smoking and standard FTC machine smoking. Devices that highly confine the burning cigarette (e.g., Norman et al. 1983, Brunnemann et al. 1977) have been found to result in smoking environments highly elevated in temperature and moisture content and are thus falling from favor relative to other devices (see Fig. 3. 1). The “fishtail” sampler (Proctor et al. 1988; Perfetti et al. 1998; see Fig. 3.1) was designed to maximally collect sidestream smoke while minimally affecting smoking conditions and is currently being considered as a possible standard collection apparatus.
Can nasal filters be used to reduce personal exposure against nano- to submicron-sized environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) aerosols?
Published in Aerosol Science and Technology, 2022
Jintuo Zhu, Xinyu Li, Pengli Jing, Xinjian He, Liang Wang, Lina Zheng, Haisong Sun, Jin Yang, Jinyu Liu
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), also known as secondhand smoke (SHS), consists of mainstream smoke (MS) exhaled by the smoker and sidestream smoke (SS) emitted from the burning end of the cigarette (Jaakkola and Jaakkola 1997). ETS contains more than 4000 chemicals (Paoletti et al. 2006), most of which exist as nano- to submicron-sized aerosols (Li et al. 2014). Those ETS aerosols are highly susceptible to be inhaled by nonsmokers and then penetrate deeply into the respiratory tract and lungs, causing a variety of smoking-related diseases (Cheng et al. 2021; Min et al. 2018; Wheeler et al. 2021). Therefore, ETS exposure is also an aerosol-related exposure (Ghio and Rahul 2011), belonging to one of the main indoor air pollutants (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ) 2022). There is no "threshold value" for ETS exposure, and establishing smoke-free environment through legislation has been proved to be an effect way to reduce personal ETS exposure (Verdonk-Kleinjan et al. 2009). Although the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has been issued as early as 2003, workplace ETS exposure is still serious till now, especially in casinos, bars, and restaurants—it turns out that the ETS exposure of service workers is extremely high (Dunbar, Shiffman, and Chandra 2018; Rashiden et al. 2020; Ruscitti et al. 2021; Tripathy 2020). The 2018 China Adult Tobacco Epidemic Survey showed that the percentages of workplace ETS exposure of nonsmokers were 68.1% (Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) 2019). In 2021, the WHO reported that approximately 1.2 million nonsmokers worldwide lose their lives each year due to ETS exposure (World Health Organization (WHO) 2021). Therefore, it is necessary to protect people in specific occupational settings from ETS exposure.
Particulate matter emissions of different brands of mentholated cigarettes
Published in Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2018
Julia Gerharz, Michael H.K. Bendels, Markus Braun, Doris Klingelhöfer, David A. Groneberg, Ruth Mueller
As limitations, it should be pointed out that an AETSE and a laser aerosolspectrometer with a measuring range from 0.25 µm to 30 µm were used in this study. In particular, the smoking behavior of humans and the ETS cannot be imitated exactly using the AETSE. In the respiratory tract, inhaled mainstream smoke can change due to hygroscopic growth (McGrath et al., 2009), and the exhaled smoke particles are larger by a factor of 1.5 ± 0.3 (Sahu et al. 2013). When using an AETSE, it is not possible to detect differences between inhaled mainstream smoke and exhaled mainstream smoke. However, it should be noted that mainstream smoke only constitutes a small fraction, about 15%, of ETS, whereas about 85% is made up of sidestream smoke (Jenkins et al. 2004; Keil, Prugger, and Heidrich 2016; Nowak et al. 2008). Sidestream smoke in turn can be imitated excactly by using the AETSE. Therefore, the measured PM emissions are very similar to ETS. Nonetheless, this has guaranteed reproducible results by avoiding interindividual deviations and without endangering test persons. The laser aerosolspectrometer Grimm 1.109 is especially built for the continuous measurement of PM and is commonly used in monitoring networks (Burkart et al. 2010). ETS consists mostly of particles between 0.02 and 2 µm in diameter (Nazaroff and Klepeis 2003). However, there is no common agreement about the peak size. On the one hand, it was described by geometric mean diameters of sidestream smoke particles of 0.1 µm (Guerin, Higgins, and Jenkins 1987; Ueno and Peters 1986). On the other hand, Haustein and Groneberg (2008) report mean diameters of 0.5 µm. Nevertheless, a new measurement system is needed for particles smaller than 0.25 µm. Furthermore, a modified smoking regime, and none of the already existing ones like ISO or FTC, was used. However, there is general agreement that no “gold standard” of smoking regime exists (ISO 2016; Liu, Mcadam, and Perfetti 2011; Marian et al. 2009; Wright 2015). Moreover, the main focus of this study lies on data comparison, and therefore the use of the AETSE and the modified smoking protocol is justified.