Literature DB >> 2102297

Exposure of nonsmoking women to environmental tobacco smoke: a 10-country collaborative study.

E Riboli1, S Preston-Martin, R Saracci, N J Haley, D Trichopoulos, H Becher, J D Burch, E T Fontham, Y T Gao, S K Jindal.   

Abstract

The interpretation and interpretability of epidemiologic studies of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) depend largely on the validity of self-reported exposure. To investigate to what extent questionnaires can indicate exposure levels to ETS, an international study was conducted in 13 centers located in 10 countries, and 1,369 nonsmoking women were interviewed. The present paper describes the results of the analysis of self-reported recent exposure to ETS from any source in relation to urinary concentrations of cotinine. Of the total, 19.7 percent of the subjects had nondetectable cotinine levels, the median value was 6 ng/mg, and the cut-point of the highest decile was 24 ng/mg. The proportion of subjects misreporting their active smoking habit was estimated at between 1.9 and 3.4 percent, depending on whether cut-points of 50 or 100 ng/mg creatinine were used. Large and statistically significant differences were observed between centers, with the lowest values in Honolulu, Shanghai, and Chandigarh, and the highest in Trieste, Los Angeles, and Athens. Mean cotinine/creatinine levels showed a clear linear increase from the group of women not exposed either at home or at work, to the group of those exposed both at home and at work. Values were significantly higher for women exposed to ETS from the husband but not at work, than for those exposed at work but not from the husband. The results of linear regression analysis indicated that duration of exposure and number of cigarettes to which the subject reported being exposed were strongly related to urinary cotinine. ETS exposure from the husband was best measured by the number of cigarettes, while exposure at work was more strongly related to duration of exposure. After adjustment of number of cigarettes for volume of indoor places, a similar increase in cotinine (5 ng/mg) was predicted by the exposure to 7.2 cigarettes/8 h/40 m3 from the husband and 17.9 cigarettes/8 h/40 m3 at work. The results indicate that, when appropriately questioned, nonsmoking women can provide a reasonably accurate description of ETS exposure. Assessment of individual exposure to ETS should focus on daily duration and volume of indoor places where exposure occurred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2102297     DOI: 10.1007/BF00117476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  14 in total

1.  Cotinine in the serum, saliva, and urine of nonsmokers, passive smokers, and active smokers.

Authors:  M A Wall; J Johnson; P Jacob; N L Benowitz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Questionnaire assessment of lifetime and recent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

Authors:  D B Coultas; G T Peake; J M Samet
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Elimination from the body of tobacco products by smokers and passive smokers.

Authors:  D W Sepkovic; N J Haley; D Hoffmann
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1986-08-15       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Passive smoking on commercial airline flights.

Authors:  M E Mattson; G Boyd; D Byar; C Brown; J F Callahan; D Corle; J W Cullen; J Greenblatt; N J Haley; K Hammond
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-02-10       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Validation of self-reported smoking behavior: biochemical analyses of cotinine and thiocyanate.

Authors:  N J Haley; C M Axelrad; K A Tilton
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Biomedical applications of cotinine quantitation in smoking related research.

Authors:  D W Sepkovic; N J Haley
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Lung cancer and passive smoking.

Authors:  D Trichopoulos; A Kalandidi; L Sparros; B MacMahon
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1981-01-15       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Biochemical validation of self-reported exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

Authors:  N J Haley; S G Colosimo; C M Axelrad; R Harris; D W Sepkovic
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 6.498

9.  Tobacco sidestream smoke: uptake by nonsmokers.

Authors:  D Hoffmann; N J Haley; J D Adams; K D Brunnemann
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Evaluation of nicotine, cotinine, thiocyanate, carboxyhemoglobin, and expired carbon monoxide as biochemical tobacco smoke uptake parameters.

Authors:  H Muranaka; E Higashi; S Itani; Y Shimizu
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.015

View more
  23 in total

1.  Characteristics of women exposed and unexposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in a general population sample of North Italy (Po River Delta epidemiological study).

Authors:  M Simoni; L Carrozzi; S Baldacci; M Pedreschi; F Di Pede; A Angino; F Pistelli; G Viegi
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  A randomized trial of smoking cessation interventions in general practice in Italy.

Authors:  N Segnan; A Ponti; R N Battista; C Senore; S Rosso; S H Shapiro; D Aimar
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 3.  Misclassification rates for current smokers misclassified as nonsmokers.

Authors:  A J Wells; P B English; S F Posner; L E Wagenknecht; E J Perez-Stable
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Estimating lung cancer mortality attributable to second hand smoke exposure in Germany.

Authors:  Heiko Becher; Matthias Belau; Volker Winkler; Annette Aigner
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 3.380

5.  Japanese spousal smoking study revisited: how a tobacco industry funded paper reached erroneous conclusions.

Authors:  E Yano
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Laryngeal cancer and passive smoking: the neglected factor?

Authors:  Antonios Mallis; Eleni Jelastopulu; Nicholas S Mastronikolis; Stefanos S Naxakis; Christos Kourousis; Theodoros A Papadas
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 7.  Quantification of ETS exposure in hospitality workers who have never smoked.

Authors:  Stefanie Kolb; Ulrike Brückner; Dennis Nowak; Katja Radon
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 5.984

8.  Involuntary smoking and head and neck cancer risk: pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium.

Authors:  Yuan-Chin Amy Lee; Paolo Boffetta; Erich M Sturgis; Qingyi Wei; Zuo-Feng Zhang; Joshua Muscat; Philip Lazarus; Elena Matos; Richard B Hayes; Deborah M Winn; David Zaridze; Victor Wünsch-Filho; Jose Eluf-Neto; Sergio Koifman; Dana Mates; Maria Paula Curado; Ana Menezes; Leticia Fernandez; Alexander W Daudt; Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Eleonora Fabianova; Peter Rudnai; Gilles Ferro; Julien Berthiller; Paul Brennan; Mia Hashibe
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  "Marriage to a smoker" may not be a valid marker of exposure in studies relating environmental tobacco smoke to risk of lung cancer in Japanese non-smoking women.

Authors:  P N Lee
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.015

10.  Active and passive cigarette smoking and the risk of endometrial cancer in Poland.

Authors:  Hannah P Yang; Louise A Brinton; Elizabeth A Platz; Jolanta Lissowska; James V Lacey; Mark E Sherman; Beata Peplonska; Montserrat Garcia-Closas
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 9.162

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.