TST

TABLE 10.—Carbon monoxide measured under

realistic conditions

 

Levels (ppm)

Nonsmoking controls (ppm)

 

 

 

Type of Monitoring
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
Badre et al. 6 cafes Varied Not given 20 min samples 2-23 (outdoors) 0-15
(1978) Room 18 smokers Not given 20 min samples 60 0 (outdoors)
Hospital lobby 12 to 30 smokers Not given 20 min samples 5
2 train 2 to 3 smokers Not given 20 min samples 45
compartments
Car 3 smokers Natural, open 20 min samples 14 0 (outdoors)
2 smokers Natural, closed 20 min samples 20 0 (outdoors)
Cano et al. Submarines 157 cigarettes Yes <40 ppm
(1970) 66 m* per day
94-103 cigarettes Yes <40 ppm
per day
Chappell and 10 offices Not given Values not 7 xX 23 min 2.6 + 10 15-4.5 25 + 10 15-45
Parker given samples (outdoors)
(1977) 15 restaurants Not given Values not 17 x 23 min 40 + 2.5 1.0-9.5 2.5 + 15 1.0-5.0
given samples (outdoors)
14 nightclubs Not given Values not 19 < 2-3 min 13.0 + 7.0 3.0-29.0 3.0 + 2.0 1.0-5.0
and taverns given samples (outdoors)
Tavern Not given Artificial 16 x 2-3 min 85
samples
None 2x 23 min 35 (peak)
samples
Offices 1440 fs Natural, open 2-3 min samples 10.0 (peak)
30 min after 1.0
amoking

 
6ST

TABLE 10.—Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

Levels Nonsmoking controls
Type of Monitoring
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
Coburn et al. Rooms Not given Not given Not given 4.3-9.0
(1965) Nonsmokers’ rooms 22 + 0.98 04-45
Cuddeback Tavern 1 10-294 people 6 changes/hr 8 hr continuous 11.5 10-12 2 (outdoors)
et al. . 2 hr after smoking ~l1 :
(1976) Tavern 2 Not given 1-2 changes/hr 8 hr continuous 17 ~8-22 Values not given
2 hr after amoking ~12 Values not given
U.S. Dept. of 18 military 165-219 people Mechanical 6-7 hr continuous <6
Transportation planes
(1971)* 8 domestic 27-113 people Mechanical 1¥%,-2%, hr <2
planes continuous
Elliott and Arena 1 11,806 people Mechanical Not given 9.0 3.0 (nonactivity day)
Rowe Arena 2 2,000 people Natural Not given 25.0 3.0 (nonactivity day)
(1975)* Nonsmoking 9.0
arena
Fischer et al. Restaurant 50-80/470 m* Mechanical 27 x % min 51 2.1-9.9 48 (outdoors)
(1978) and samples
Weber et al. Restaurant 60-100/440 m* Natural 29 x 30 min 2.6 1.43.4 1.5 (outdoors)
(1979) samples
Bar 80-40/50 m* Natural, open 28 x 30 min 48 2.4-9.6 1.7 (outdoors)
samples
Cafeteria 80-150/574 m* 11 changes/hr 24 X 30 min 12 0.7-L.7 0.4 (outdoors)
Nonsmoking 05 0.3-0.8

room

 
8ST

TABLE 10.—Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Levels (ppm) Nonsmoking controls (ppm)
Type of Monitoring .
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
Godin et al. Ferryboat Not given Not given 11 grab samples 18.4 + 87 3.0 + 2.4 (nonsmoking room)
(1972) Theater foyer Not given Not given Grab samples 3.4 + 0.8 14 + 08 (auditorium)
Harke Office ~72 m* 236 m*/hr 30 min samples “<25-48
(1974)! Office ® ~78 m? Natural 30 min samples <2.5-9.0
Harke and Car 2 smokers Natural Samples 42 (peak) (Nonsmoking runs)
Peters (4 cigs) 13.5 (peak)
(1974)* Mechanical Samples 32 (peak) (Nonsmoking runs)
15.0 (peak)
Harmsen and Train 1-18 smokers Natural Not given 0-40
Effenberger
(4957)'
Perry 14 public Not given Not given One grab sample <10
(1973)* places
Portheine Rooms Not given Not given Not given 5-25
(1971)"
Sebben et al. 9 nightclubs Not given Varied 77 X 1 min 13.4 6.5-41.9
(1977) samples
Outdoors 9.2 3.0-35.0

14 restaurants Not given Not given Spot checks 9.9 + 5.5 Values not given

45 restaurants Not given Not given Spot checks 8.2 + 2.2 7.1 + 1.7 (outdoors)

33 stores Not given Not given Spot checks 10.0 + 4.2 11.5 + 6.9 (outdoors)

3 hospital Not given Not given Spot checks 48 Values not given

lobbies

 
FST

TABLE 10.—Continued

 

 

 

 

Levels Nonsmoking controls
Type of Monitoring
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
Seiff Intercity bus Not given 15 changes/hr, 33 ppm
(1978) 23 cigarettes
burning
continuously
3 cigarettes 18 ppm
burning
continuously
Slavin and 2 conference Not given 8 changes/hr Continuous, 8 (peak) 1-2 (separate
Hertz rooms morning nonsmoking day)
(1975) 6 changes/hr Continuous, 10 (peak) 1-2 (separate
morning nonsmoking day)
Szadkowski 25 offices Not given Not given Continuous 2.78 + 1.42 2.59 + 2.23
et al. (separate nonsmoking
(1976) offices)

 

‘The Drager tube used is accurate only within + 25 percent.

* The MSA Monitaire Sampler used is accurate only within + 25 percent.
* Three cigarettes and one cigar smoked in 20 minutes.

* About 40 cigarettes/day were smoked.

* About 70 cigarettes/day were smoked.

* Four filter cigarettes were smoked.

* No experimental description given.
SST

TABLE 11.—Nicotine measured under realistic conditions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 Nonsmoking
Levels (ug/m*) controls
Type of Monitoring
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
Badre et al. 6 cafes Varied Not given 50 min sample 25-52
(1978) Room 18 smokers Not given 50 min sample 500
Hospital lobby 12 to 30 smokers Not given 50 min sample 37
2 train compartments 2 to 3 smokers Not given 50 min sample 36-50
Car 3 smokers Natural, open 50 min sample
Natural, closed 50 min sample 1010
Cano et al. Submarines 157 cigarettes Yes 32 pg/m*
(1970) 66 m? per day
94-103 cigarettes Yes 15-35 pg/m*
per day
Harmsen and Train Not given Natural, closed 30-45 min 0.7-3.1
Effenberger samples
(1957) /
Hinds and First Train Not given Not given 2%, hr samples 49 Values not given
(1975)* Bus Not given Not given 2%, hr samples 63 Values not given
Bus waiting room Not given Not given 2, hr samples 10 Values not given
Airline waiting room Not given Not given 2%, hr samples 3.1 Values not given
Restaurant Not given Not given 2%, hr samples 5.2 Values not given
Cocktail lounge Not given Not given 2, hr samples 10.3 Values not given
Student lounge Not given Not given 2%, hr samples 28 Values not given
Weber and Fischer 44 offices Varied Varied 140 x 3 hr 09 + 19 13.8 (peak) Values not given
(1980)? samples

 
9ST

TABLE 11.—Continued

 

 

 

 

Nonsmoking
Levels (ug/m') controls
Type of Monitoring
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
First 1 public building Nonsmokers Mechanical Not given 5.5
(1984) 8 public buildings 1 to 5 amokers Natural and Not given 13.2 2.7-30.0
mechanical

Muramatsu et al. Office Not given Not given Not given 19.4 9.3-31.6
(1984) Office Not given Not given Not given 22.1 14.6-26.1

Laboratory Not given Not given Not given 58 18-9.6

§ conference rooms Not given Not given Not given 88.7 16.5-53.0

3 houses Not given Not given Not given M1 76-146

Hospital lobby Not given Not given Not given 3.0 1.8-5.0

4 hotel lobbies Not given Not given Not given 11.2 5.5-18.1

5 restaurants Not given Not given Not given 14.8 7.1-27.8

8 cafeterias Not given Not given Not given 26.4 11.6-42.2

3 bus and railway Not given Not given Not given 19.1 10.1-96.4

waiting rooms

4 cars Not given Not given Not given 417 7.1-83.1

8 trains Not given Not given Not given 16.4 8.6-26.1

7 airplanes Not given Not given Not given 15.2 6.3-28.8

 

‘ Background levels have been subtracted.

* Control values (unoccupied rooms) have been subtracted.
LST

 

 

 

 

TABLE 12.—Nitrogen oxides measured under realistic conditions
Nonsmoking
Levels controls (ppb)
Type of Monitoring
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
Fischer et al. Restaurant 50-80/470 m* Mechanical 27 X 30 min NO,: 76 59-105 63 (outdoors)
(1978) and samples NO: 120 36-218 115 (outdoors)
Weber et al. Restaurant 60-100/440 m* Natural 29 x 30 min NO,: 63 24-99 50 (outdoors)
(1979) samples NO: 80 14-21 11 (outdoors)
Bar 30-40/50 m* Natural, 28 X 30 min NO;: 21 1-41 48 (outdoors)
open samples NO: 195 66-414 44 (outdoors)
Cafeteria 80-150/574 m* 11 changes/hr 24 xX 30 min NO,: 58 35-103 34 (outdoors)
samples NO: 9 2-38 4 (outdoors)
Other—non- NO,: 27 16-44
smokers room
NO: 5 2-9
Weber and 44 offices Varied Varied 348-354 NO,: 24 + 22 115 (peak) Values not given
Fischer samples
(1980)! NO: 32 + 60 280 (peak) Values not given

 

1 Control values (unoccupied rooms) have been subtracted.
Sct

TABLE 13.—Nitrosamines measured under realistic conditions

 

 

 

 

Levels (ng/L)
Type of Monitoring

Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean

Brunnemann and Train bar car Not given Mechanical 90 min continuous 0,13

Hoffmann Train bar car Not given Natural 90 min continuous 0.11

(1978)

Brunnemann et al.

(1978) Bar Not given Not given 3 hr continuous 0.24
Sports hall Not given Not given 3 hr continuous 0,09
Betting parlor Not given Not given 90 min continuous 0.06
Discotheque Not given Not given 2*/, br continuous 0.09
Bank Not given Not given 5 hr continuous 0.01
House Not given Not given 4 hr continuous <0.005
House Not given Not given 4 br continuous <0.003

 
6ST

TABLE 14.—Particulates measured under realistic conditions

 

 

 

Nonsmoking
Occupancy Monitoring Levels (g/m *) controls (ug/m*)
Type of {active smokers conditions
Study premises per 100 m*) Ventilation (min) Mean SD Mean SD
Repace and Cocktail party 0.75 Natural 15 351 + 38 24
Lowrey Lodge hall 1.26 Mechanical 50 697 + 28 6!
(1980) Bar and grill 1.78 Mechanical 18 589 + 28 637
Firehouse bingo 2.77 Mechanical 16 417 + 63 51°
Pizzeria 2.94 Mechanical 32 414 + 58 40°
Bar/cocktail lounge 3.24 Mechanical 26 334 + 120 50!
Church bingo game 0.47 Mechanical 42 279 + 18 30
Inn 0.74 Mechanical 12 239 + 9 22'
Bowling alley 1.53 Mechanical 20 202 + 19 49°
Hospital waiting room 2.15 Mechanical 12 187 + 652 58?
Shopping plaza restaurant
Sample 1 0.18 Mechanical 18 163 + 8 59!
Sample 2 0.18 Mechanical 18 13 + 4 36"

 
3 TABLE 14—Continued

 

 

 

 

Nonsmoking
Occupancy Monitoring Levels (yg/m?) controls (g/m *)
Type of (active smokers conditions
Study premises per 100 m*) Ventilation (min) Mean SD Mean SD
Barbeque restaurant 0.89 Mechanical 10 196 + 17 40}
Sandwich restaurant A
Smoking section 0.29 Mechanical 20 10 + 36 403
Nonsmoking section 0 Mechanical 20 b+ 6 30
Fast-food restaurant 0,42 Mechanical 40 109 + 38 um!
Sports arena 0.09% Mechanical 12 4 + 18 55:
Neighborhood restaurant/bar 0.40 Mechanical 12 93 + 17 55!
Hotel bar 0.59 Mechanical 12 98 + 2 3%
Sandwich restaurant B
Smoking section 0.138 Mechanical 8 e+ 7 55
Nonsmoking section 0 Mechanical 21 51
Roadside restaurant 1.12 Mechanical (9.5 ach*) 18 107¢ 0
Conference room 3.54 Mechanical (4.3 ach*) 6 19474 55
Repace and Dinner theater 0.14 Mechanical “4 45 + 43 47 +10
Lowrey Reception hall 1.19 Mechanical 20 301 + 90 33!
(1982) Bingo hall 0.93? Natural 2 1140 4:
0.932 Mechanical (1.89 ach*) 6 443¢ 40!
’ Sequential outdoor measurement (6 minute average).
* Estimated.
* Air changes per hour.

“Equilibrium level as determined from concentration vs. time curve.
TOT

TABLE 14.—Continued

 

Levels (ug/m*)

Nonsmoking controis (g/m?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Monitoring
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
Cuddeback et al. Tavern Not given 6 changes/hr 4x 8hr 310 233-346
(1976) continuous
Tavern Not given 1-2 changes/hr 8 hr continuous 986
US. Dept. of 18 military planes 165~219 people Mechanical 72% 67 hr <10-120
Transportation samples
(1971) 8 domestic planes 27-113 people Mechanical 24 xX 14-2%, hr Not given
samples
Dockery and Residences Not given Varied 24 hr samples 32
Spengler
(1981)
Elliott and Arena 1 11,806 people Mechanical During activities 323 42 (nonactivity day)
Rowe Arena 2 2,000 people Natural During activities 620 92 (nonactivity day)
(1975) Arena 8 (smoking 11,000 people Mechanical During activities _ 148 71 (nonactivity day)
prohibited)
Harmsen and Trains 15-120 people Natural Not given 46-440
Effenberger particles/cm*
(1957) Nonsmokers’ cars 20-75
particles/cm*
Just et al. 4 coffee houses Not given Not given 6 hr averages 1160 500-1900 570 (outdoors) 100-1900
(1972)
Neal et al. Hospital unit Not given Mechanical 48 hr samples 21+ 14 3-58 73 + 25
(1978) Hospital unit Not given Mechanical 48 hr samples 40 + 21 13-79 72 + 25

 
cot

TABLE 14,— Continued

 

Levels (ug/m?)

Nonsmoking controls (yg/m*)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Monitoring

Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean Range
Spengler et al. Residences 2+ smokers Natural 24 hr samples 70 + 43 21 + 12 (outdoors)
(1981) 1 smoker Natural 24 hr samples 37 + 15 21 + 12 (outdoors)
Weber and 44 offices Varied Natural and 429 x 2 min 133 + 130! 962 (peak)
Fischer (1980) mechanical - samples
Quant et al. Office No. 1 0.82? Mechanical Five 10-hr. workday 45 39-54 5-15
(1982) Office No. 2 0.68? Mechanical averages; continuous 46 37-50 15-20

Office No. 3 1.46* Mechanical monitoring 68 42-89 15-20
Brunekreef and 26 houses 1 to 3 smokers Natural 2 mo averages 153* 60-340 55 20-90
Boleij (1982)
First 1 public building Nonsmokers Mechanical 2 min 20
(1984) 8 public buildings 1 te 5 smokers Natural and 2 min 260 40-660

mechanical

Hawthorne et al. 11 residences Nonsmokers 0.18-0.96 6-15 min 940
(1984) 8 residences Nonsmokers 0.26-1.98 _ 5-15 min 12-46

2 residences Smokers 0,27-1.47., 5-15 min 96-106
Nitechke et al. Outdoor 168 hr 11 11-28
(1985) 19 residences Nonsmokers Natural 168 hr 26 6-88

11 residences Smokers Natural 168 hr 59 10-144
Spengler et al. | Outdoor 24 br 18
(1985) 73 residences Nonsmokers Natural 24 br 28

24 residences Smokers Natural 24 hr 74
Sterling and 1 office Smokers Not given Not given 26 15-36
Sterling 22 offices Smokers Not given Not given 32
(1984)

* Values above background.
* Habitual smokers per 100 m?.

* Weighted mean.
egt

TABLE 15.—Residuals measured under realistic conditions

 

 

Nonsmoking
Leveis controls
Type of Monitoring
Study premises Occupancy Ventilation conditions Mean Range Mean = Range
Acetone (mg/m*)
Badre et al. 6 cafes Varied Not given 100 mL samples 0.91-5.88
(1978)! Room 18 smokers Not given 100 mL samples 051
Hospital lobby 12 to 30 smokers Not given 100 mL samples 1.16
2 train 2 or 3 smokers Not given 100 mL samples 0.36-0.75
compartments
Car 3 smokers Natural, open 100 mL samples 0.32
Car 2 smokers Natural, closed 100 mL samples 1.20
Sulfates (ug/m*)
Dockery and Residences Not given Varied 24 hr samples 4.81
Spengler
(1981)
Sulfur dioxide (ppb)
Fischer et al. Restaurant 50-80/470 m* Mechanical 27 x 30 min samples 20 9-32 12 ppb
(1978) Restaurant 60-100/440 m* Natural 29 x 30 min samples 13 5-18 6
Bar 30-40/50 m* Natural, open 28 x 30 min samples 30 13-75 8
Cafeteria 80-150/574 m* 11 ch/hr 24 x 30 min samples 15 1-27 12
Other nonsmokers’ 7 3-13
room
Aldehydes (ug/m*)
Just et al. 4 coffee houses Not given Not given 6 hr continuous 12.0-15.3
(1972)

 

 

 

 

 

‘ See original paper for nine other residuals.

SOURCE: Sterling et al. (1982).
wn ee = Outdoor
~-=~ = Indoor. no smokers
120 wom = Indoor, 1 smoker
J ——. = Indoor, > 1 smoker

pg/m?

Respirable suspended particulate matter

 

 

 

Op TT
Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dac. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.

1976 1977 1978

FIGURE 2.—Monthly mean mass respirable particulate

concentrations (ug/m*) across six cities
SOURCE: Spengler et al. (1981).

TABLE 16.—Respirable particulate levels as a function of
number of smokers

 

 

Smoker status Number Mean (ug/m*) Standard deviation
No smokers 35 homes/1,186 samples 24.4 11.6
1 smoker 15 homes/494 samples 36.5 14.5
2 smokers 5 homes/153 samples 10.4 429
2+ smokers 4 homes/? samples 518 12.3

 

SOURCE: Spengler et al. (1981).

Spengler and colleagues (1981) collected respirable suspended
particulate samples in 55 homes in six cities. The average concentra-
tions observed between May 1977 and April 1978 are shown in Table
16. The quantity of tobacco smoked was not reported, nor was the
number of hours each smoker spent in the home. The researchers
concluded that the mean RSP levels increased by 20 pg/m* per
smoker.

Dockery and Spengler (1981) further analyzed these data and
considered the number of cigarettes smoked in the home. They
concluded that the mean RSP concentration increased by 0.88 g/m?

164
for every cigarette smoked per day in the house. A one-pack-a-day
smoker in the home thus raises indoor respirable particulate levels
by 17.6 pg/m*. Air conditioning increased the contribution of each
cigarette by 1.23 yg/m%, to a total of 2.11 yg/m® per cigarette in fully
air-conditioned homes. These values are annual averages; air-condi-
tioned homes, in which air is recirculated during the warmer
months, have higher levels.

Repace and Lowrey (1980) measured RSP concentration using a
piezobalance in several public and private locations, including
restaurants, cocktail lounges, and halls, in both the presence and the
absence of smoking. They then developed an empirical model
utilizing the mass-balance equation. Using both measured and
estimated parameters as input to the model, they validated the
model for predicting an individual’s exposure to the RSP constituent
of ETS. The model takes the form: Ce, = 650 D,/nv; where Ceq equals
the equilibrium concentration of the RSP component of ETS (ug/m'),
D, equals the density of active smokers (number of burning cigarettes
per 100 m*), and nv equals the ventilation rate (in air changes per
hour). The ventilation rate is a complex parameter that takes into
account all the room-specific constants affecting the removal of ETS,
such as ventilation, decay, and mixing.

Measurements in a large number of locations using measures of
smoke generation such as the number of people smoking or the
number of cigarettes being smoked have shown a definite relation-
ship of smoke generation to particulate levels. First (1984) cautioned
against the use of RSP measurements as a measure of ETS in public
places because of its nonspecificity for ETS, and noted that other
sources may contribute enough to the levels to invalidate the
determination of the ETS contribution. However, there are few other
sources of RSP in most U.S. homes, and therefore, the relationships
of RSP measurements to ETS levels are generally quite accurate in
this setting.

Nicotine appears to be a promising tracer for ETS because of its
specificity for tobacco and its presence in relatively high concentra-
tions in tobacco smoke. It can also be measured in biological fluids to
provide an indication of acute exposure to tobacco smoke. Cotinine,
nicotine’s major metabolite, can be used as an indicator of more
chronic exposure. These biological markers are discussed in a
separate chapter of this Report.. Recent studies have indicated that
nicotine may be primarily associated with the vapor phase of ETS
and therefore not a surrogate for the particulate phase as once
thought (Eudy et al. 1986). However, the possible usefulness of this
compound in estimating exposure to ETS warrants further evalu-
ation. The nicotine content of sidestream smoke does not differ
significantly from brand to brand when normalized on a per gram of
tobacco basis (Rickert et al. 1984). The use of nicotine as a marker for

165
ETS must also give consideration to its loss to surfaces and its
subsequent revolatilization and readmission to the room volume.

Carbon monoxide, a marker for gas phase components, has been
measured extensively as a surrogate for ETS. There are many
sources of carbon monoxide other than cigarettes, indoors (e.g.,
stoves, grills) and outdoors (e.g., automobile). This nonspecificity for
ETS seriously limits its usefulness for environmental measurements.

In summary, no single compound definitively characterizes an
individual’s exposure to ETS. Additional research is currently under
way to quantify the relationships among various constituents and
ETS levels. Because of the complex nature of ETS, investigators may
need to measure several markers or to separately record source
variables (such as number of cigarettes smoked) in order to estimate
exposure to ETS.

Monitoring Studies

Personal monitors can measure the concentrations of ETS in an
individual’s breathing zone. Personal monitoring is preferable to
area monitoring because it integrates the temporal and spatial
dimensions of an individual’s exposures. At the present time, all of
the studies that have used personal monitors to measure ETS
constituents have utilized active samplers that provide integrated
exposures over differing time periods.

The markers assessed in personal monitoring studies have the
same lack of specificity found in area monitoring studies. However,
in many of the personal monitoring studies, time-activity diaries
were kept to permit greater resolution in attributing exposure to
specific sources.

In Topeka, Kansas, 45 nonsmoking adults carried personal RSP
monitors for 18 days, and area monitors were placed inside and
outside their homes (Spengler and Tosteson 1981). The indoor RSP
levels were consistently higher than outdoor levels, and the personal
exposures levels were higher than either. The group was divided into
those who reported ETS exposure and those who did not (Figure 3).
Reported exposure to ETS clearly shifts the distribution to the right.
On the average, reported ETS exposure increased an individual’s
personal concentration by 20 pg/m*.

Personal RSP monitors were carried by 101 nonsmoking volun-
teers for 3 days in Kingston-Harriman, Tennessee (Spengler et al.
1985). The study population was divided into two groups: those who
lived with a smoker and those who did not. ETS exposure was
reported by 28 of the participants, with the remaining participants
reporting none. The RSP distribution for the ambient samples is
shown in Figure 4. Clearly, exposure to ETS significantly increases
an individual’s personal concentration profile.

166
20 + _
18 +4
16 Non-smoke-exposed
14
12 —

10 +4

Percentage

84
64
4+

1 on. a -

0 5 10 18 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smoke-exposed

Percentage

no & DD @

oll |[lnann...|

oO

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

FIGURE 3.—Percentage distribution of personal respirable
particulate concentrations, non-smoke-exposed

and smoke-exposed samples, Topeka, Kansas
SOURCE: Spengler and Tosteson (1981).

Sexton and colleagues (1984) monitored personal RSP exposure for
48 nonsmokers in Waterbury, Vermont, every other day for 2 weeks.
The participants kept activity logs and had simultaneous indoor and
outdoor RSP samples collected at their homes. The proportion of
time individuals spent exposed to ETS was the single most important
determinant of their personal exposure. Volunteers who reported
greater than 120 minutes of exposure to ETS had a mean RSP
exposure of 50.1 pg/m*, whereas those volunteers who reported no
exposure to ETS had a mean exposure of 31.7 pg/m°.

167
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 ~ ee Te _——— =e
f ae
S ser } c
c j Jj
S 6o- 1 J a”
& ' f
o ? o
2 = : 4
en
2 (if
a wey if -
t s/f
in| l I t \
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Respirable particulate concentration
(yg/m?)

FIGURE 4.—Cumulative frequency distributions of central
site ambient and personal smoke-exposed and
non-smoke-exposed. respirable suspended
particulate concentrations

SOURCE: Spengler et al. (1980).

Nicotine, a tobacco-specific compound, should make an excellent
tracer for ETS if its usage can be properly validated. Some
considerations in its usage are detailed in the section on area
sampling. Currently, no published reports are available that utilize
this compound for the type of detailed personal monitoring studies
carried out for RSP. However, a lightweight personal nicotine
monitor has recently been developed (Muramatsu et al. 1984) that
may aid this type of research. The researchers measured average
nicotine concentrations ranging from 3.0 pg/m? in a hospital lobby to
38.7 pg/m* in a conference room and 47.7 pg/m* in an automobile.
No information on the duration of exposure or representativeness of
these levels to the general population was given. However, this study
does provide information as to the range of exposures an individual
may encounter and demonstrates that high nicotine levels can be
encountered in various settings. It will be necessary to quantify the
relationship between nicotine, a vapor phase component of ETS, and
other components of interest such as RSP in order to fully utilize this
tracer.

Certain organic gases have been measured as possible indicators of
ETS exposure or of specific effects such as irritation. These include
formaldehyde and acrolein (Weber and Fischer 1980) and aromatic
compounds such as benzene, toluene, xylene, and styrene (Higgins et
al. 1983). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent TEAM
study utilized personal monitors, employing Tenax cartridges, to
develop profiles of individual exposures to volatile organics (Wallace

168
et al. in press). The TEAM study has found significantly increased
exposure to benzene for individuals exposed to ETS. Again, the
nonspecificity of these materials for ETS limits their applicability.

Other materials such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide
have been measured in personal monitoring studies attempting to
assess individuals’ exposure to ETS. Their nonspecificity and lack of
sensitivity for low-level ETS exposure make them inappropriate for
population-based studies.

Personal monitoring techniques are currently available that will
allow the assessment of individual exposures to various components
of ETS. Although not widely used in the past, they can provide
valuable input in developing exposure models and in validating
other monitoring schemes. Their usefulness is primarily that they
sample all of the microenvironments in which individuals find
themselves and therefore automatically compensate for the nonuni-
form temporal and spatial distributions of ETS that affect individual
exposure profiles.

Conclusions

1. Undiluted sidestream smoke is characterized by significantly
higher concentrations of many of the toxic and carcinogenic
compounds found in mainstream smoke, including ammonia,
volatile amines, volatile nitrosamines, certain nicotine decom-
position products, and aromatic amines.

2. Environmental tobacco smoke can be a substantial contributor
to the level of indoor air pollution concentrations of respirable
particles, benzene, acrolein, N-nitrosamine, pyrene, and carbon
monoxide. ETS is: the only source of nicotine and some N-
nitrosamine compounds in the general environment.

3. Measured exposures to respirable suspended particulates are
higher for nonsmokers who report exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke. Exposures to ETS occur widely in the non-
smoking population.

4. The small particle size of environmental tobacco smoke places
it in the diffusion-controlled regime of movement in air for
deposition and removal mechanisms. Because these submicron
particles will follow air streams, convective currents will
dominate and the distribution of ETS will occur rapidly
through the volume of a room. As a result, the simple
separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same
airspace may reduce, but will not eliminate, exposure to ETS.

5.It has been demonstrated that ETS has resulted in elevated
respirable suspended particulate levels in enclosed places.

169
References

ADAMS, J.D., O’MARA-ADAMS, K.J., HOFFMANN, D. On The Mainstream-Sj
stream Distribution of Cigarette Smoke Components. Paper presented at the 3
Tobacco Chemists’ Research Conference, Montreal, Canada, October 1985.

AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIS
Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1985-86. Cincinn,
ACGIH, 1985, p. 114.

AYER, H.E., YEAGER, D.W. Irritants in cigarette smoke plumes. American Jour:
of Public Health 72(11):1283-1285, November 1982.

BADRE, R., GUILLERM, R., ABRAN, N,, BOURDIN, M., DUMAS, C. Pollut:
atmospherique par la fumee de tabac [Atmospheric pollution by smoking]. Anna
Pharmaceutiques Francaises 36(9/10):4438-452, 1978.

BAKER, R.R. The effect of ventilation on cigarette combustion mechanisms. Rec,
Advances in Tobacco Science 10:88-150, 1984.

BERGMAN, H., AXELSON, O. Passive smoking and indoor radon daughter cone
trations. (letter). Lancet 2(8362):1308-1309, December 3, 1983.

BRUNEKREEF, B., BOLEW, J.S.M. Long-term average suspended particulate conc
trations in smokers’ homes. International Archives of Occupational and Envin
mental Health 50(3):299-302, 1982.

BRUNNEMANN, E_D., ADAMS, J.D., HO, D.P.S., HOFFMANN, D. The influences
tobacco smoke on indoor atmospheres: 2. Volatile and tobacco-specific nitro
mines in main- and sidestream smoke and their contribution to indoor pollutir
Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Sensing of Environmental Pol
tants, New Orleans, 1977. American Chemical Society, 1978, pp. 876-880.

BRUNNEMANN, KD. HOFFMANN, D. The pH of tobacco smoke. Food a
Cosmetics Toxicology 12(1):118-124, February 1974,

BRUNNEMANN, E.D. HOFFMANN, D. Chemical studies on tobacco smoke: !

BRUNNEMANN, K.D., HOFFMANN, D., WYNDER, E.L., GORI, G.B. Chemic

N-nitrosamines in tobacco and in mainstream and sidestream smoke fro
cigarettes. Cancer Research 37(9):3218-3222, September 1977.

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. Current Population Survey. U.S. Department
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1985. .

CARTER, W.L., HASEGAWA, L Fixation of tobacco smoke aerosols for si

CHAN, T.L., LIPPMANN, M. Experimental Measurements and empirical modelli:
of the regional depositions of inhaled particles in humans. American Industri
Hygiene Association Journal 41(6):399-409, June 1980.

170
CHANG, P.-T., PETERS, L.K., UENO, Y. Particle size distribution of mainstream
cigarette smoke undergoing dilution. Aerosol Science and Technology 4:191-207,
1985.

CHAPPELL, S.B., PARKER, R.J. Smoking and carbon monoxide levels in enclosed
public places in New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of Public Health 68(2):159-161,
March-April 1977.

COBURN, RF., FORSTER, R.E., KANE, P.B. Considerations of the physiological
variables that determine the blood carboxyhemoglobin concentration in man.
Journal of Clinical Investigation 44(11):1899-1910, November 1965.

CUDDEBACK, J.E., DONOVAN, J.R., BURG, W.R. Occupational aspects of passive
smoking. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 37(5):263-267, May
1976.

DALHAMN, T., EDFORS, M.L., RYLANDER, R. Mouth absorption of various
compounds in cigarette smoke. Archives of Environmental Health 16(6):831-835,
June 1968a.

DALHAMN, T., EDFORS, M.L., RYLANDER, R. Retention of cigarette smoke
components in human lungs. Archives of Environmental Health 17(5):746-748,
November 1968b.

DOCKERY, D.W., SPENGLER, J.D. Indoor-outdoor relationships of respirable
sulfates and particles. Atmospheric Environment 15(3):335-343, 1981.

DUBE, M.F., GREEN, C.R. Methods of collection of smoke for analytical purposes.
Recent Advances in Tobacco Science 8:42-102, 1982.

ELLIOTT, L.P., ROWE, D.R. Air quality during public gatherings. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association 25(6):635-636, June 1975.

EUDY, L.W., GREEN, C.R., HEAVOR, D.L., INGEBRETHSEN, B.J., THORNE, F.A.
Studies on the Vapor-Particulate Phase Distribution of Environmental Nicotine By
Selective Trapping and Detection Methods. Paper presented at the 79th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, June 1986.

EUDY, L.W., THORNE, F.A., HEAVOR, D.L., GREEN, C.R., INGEBRETHSEN, B.J.
Studies on the Vapor-Phase Distribution of Environmental Nicotine By Selected
Trapping and Detection Methods. Paper presented at the 39th Tobacco Chemists’
Research Conference, Montreal, October 1985.

FERRIS, B.G., Jr., SPEIZER, F.E., SPENGLER, J.D., DOCKERY, D.W., BISHOP,
Y.M.M., WOLFSON, M., HUMBLE, C. Effects of sulfur oxides and respirable
particles on human health: Methodology and demography of populations in study.
American Review of Respiratory Disease 120(4):767-779, October 1979.

FIRST, M.W. Environmental tobacco smoke measurements: Retrospect and prospect.
European Journal of Respiratory Diseases 65(Supp. 133):9-16, 1984.

FISCHER, T., WEBER, A., GRANDJEAN, E. Luftverunreinigung durch Tabakrauch
in Gaststatten [Air pollution due to tobacco smoke in restaurants}. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 41(4):267-280, 1978.

FLEISCHER, R.L., PARUNGO, F.P. Aerosol particles on tobacco trichomes. Nature
250(5462):158-159, July 12, 1974.

GALUSKINOVA, V. 3,4-Benzpyrene determination in the smoky atmosphere of social
meeting rooms and restaurants: A contribution to the problem of the noxiousness
of so-called passive smoking. Neoplasma 11(5):465-~-468, 1964.

GODIN, G., WRIGHT, G., SHEPHARD, R.J. Urban exposure to carbon monoxide.
Archives of Environmental Health 25(5):305-313, November 1972.

GRIMMER, G., BOHNKE, H., HARKE, H.P. Zum Problem des Passivrauchens
Aufnahme von polycyclischen aromatischen Kohlenwasserstoffen durch Einatmer
von zigarettenrauchhaltiger Luft [Problem of passive smoking: Intake of polycycli:
aromatic hydrocarbons by breathing air containing cigarette smoke]. J nternational
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 40(2):93-99, 1977.

171
HARKE, H.P. Zum Problem des Passivrauchens: 1, (ber den Einfluss des Rauchens
auf die CO-Konzentration in Burordumen [The problem of passive smoking: 1, The
influence of smoking on the CO concentration in office rooms). Internationales
Archiv fiir Arbeitsmedizin 33(3):199-206, 1974,

HARKE, H.LP., PETERS, H. Zum Problem des Passivrauchens: 3. Uber den Einfluss
des Rauchens auf die CO-Konzentration im Kraftfahrzeug bei Fahrten im
stadtgebiet [The problem of Passive smoking: 3. The influence of smoking on the
CO concentration in driving automobiles]. Internationales Archiv fir Arbeitsmed-
izin 33(3):221-~229, 1974.

HARLOS, DP., MARBURY, M., SAMET, J., SPENGLER, J.D. Relating indoor NOz
levels to infant personal exposures. Atmospheric Environment, in press.

HARMSEN, H., EFFENBERGER, E. Tabakrauch in Verkehrsmitteln, Wohn- und
Arbeitsriumen [Tobacco smoke in transportation vehicles, living and working
rooms). Archiv fiir Hygiene und Bakteriologie 141(5):383-400, 1957.

HAWTHORNE, RB. Indoor Air Quality Study of Forty East Tennessee Homes. ORNL-
5965. Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1984.

HERNING, R.L, JONES, R.T., BACHMAN, J., MINES, A.H. Puff volume increases
when low-nicotine cigarettes are smoked. British Medical Journal 283(6285):187—
189, July 18, 1981.

HIGGINS, C.E., GRIEST, W.H., OLERICH, G. Application of Tenax trapping to the
analysis of gas phase organic compounds in ultra-low tar cigarette smoke.
Journal—Association of Official Analytical Chemists 66(5):1074-1083, September
1983.

HILL, CR. Radioactivity’ in cigarette smoke. (letter). New England Journal of
Medicine 307(5):311, July 29, 1982.

Association Journal 89(1):48-54, January 1978,
HINDS, W.C., FIRST, M.W. Concentrations of nicotine and tobacco smoke in public

Stockholm, Vol. 2, 1984, pp. 313-318,

HOFFMANN, D., HALEY, N.J., ADAMS, J.D., BRUNNEMANN, K.D. Tobacco

sidestream smoke: Uptake by nonsmokers. Preventive Medicine 13(6):608-617,
November 1984,

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR CIGAR SMOKE STUDY. Machine amoking of
cigars. Coresta Information Bulletin 1:33-34, 1974,

172
ISHIZU, Y. General equation for the estimation of indoor pollution. Environmental
Science and Technology 14:1254-1257, 1980.

JOHNSON, W.R., HALE, R.W., CLOUGH, S.C., CHEN, P.H. Chemistry of the
conversion of nitrate nitrogen to smoke products. Nature 243(5404):223-225, May
25, 1978.

JOHNSON, W.R., KANG, J.C. Mechanisms of hydrogen cyanide formation from the
pyrolysis of amino acids and related compounds. Journal of Organic Chemistry
36(1):189-192, January 15, 1971.

JU, C., SPENGLER, J.D. Room-te-room variations in concentration of respirable
particles in residences. Environmental Science and Technology 15(5):592-596, May
1981.

JUST, J.. BORKOWSKA, M., MAZIARKA, S. Zanieczyszcenie dymen tytoniowym
powietrza kawiarn Warszawskich [Tobacco smoke in the air of Warsaw coffee
rooms). Roczniki Pantstwowego Zakladu Hygieny 23(2):129~135, 1972.

KEITH, C.H., DERRICK, J.C. Measurement of the particle size distribution and
concentration of cigarette smoke by the “conifuge.” Journal of Colloid Science
15(4):340-356, August 1960.

KLUS, H., KUHN, H. Verteilung verschiedener Tabakrauchbestandteile auf Haupt-
und Nebenstromrauch (eine Ubersicht) [Distribution of various tobacco smoke
components among mainstream and sidestream smoke (a survey)]. Beifriige zur
Tabskforschung International 11(6):229-265, November 1982.

KOZLOWSKI, L.T., FRECKER, R.C., KHOUW, V., POPE, M.A. The misuse of “leas-
hazardous” cigarettes and its detection: Hole-blocking of ventilated filters.
American Journal of Public Health 76(11):1202-1203, November 1980.

KRUGER, J., NOTHLING, J.F. A comparison of the attachment of the decay products
of radon-220 and radon-222 to monodispersed aerosols. Journal of Aerosol Science
10(6):571-579, 1979.

LEADERER, B.P., CAIN, W.S., ISSEROFF, R. Ventilation requirements in buildings:
2. Particulate matter and carbon monoxide from cigarette smoking. Atmospheric
Environment 18(1):99-106, 1984.

LEBOWITZ, M.D., BURROWS, B. Respiratory symptoms related to smoking habits of
family adults. Chest 69(1):48-50, January 1976.

LEBRET, E. Air Pollution in Dutch Homes. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural
University, The Netherlands, 1985. :

LEHNERT, G. Roundtable discussion. Preventive Medicine 136):730-746, November
1984.

LETZ, R.E., SOCZEK, M.L., SPENGLER, J.D. A survey of time-activity patterns in
Kingston/Harriman. In: Methods and Support for Modelled Data. Paper presented
at Quality Assurance in Air Pollution Measurements Conference, Boulder,
Colorado, October 1984.

MARTELL, E.A. Tobacco radioactivity and cancer in smokers. American Scientist
63(4):404-412, July-August 1975.

McCUSKER, K., HILLER, F.C., WILSON, J.D., MAZUMDER, M.K., BONE, R.
Aerodynamic sizing of tobacco smoke particulate from commercial cigarettes.
Archives of Environmental Health 38(4):215-218, July-August 1983.

MILLER, J.E. Determination of the components of pipe tobacco and cigar smoke by
means of a new smoking machine. Proceedings of the Third World Tobacco
Scientific Congress. Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, February 1963, Salisbury
Printers, Ltd., 1964, pp. 584-595.

MOSCHANDREAS, D.J., STARK, J.W.C., McFADDEN, J.E., MORSE, 8.5. Indoor Air
Pollution in the Residential Environment, Vol. 1 and 2. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report No. EPA 600/7—78-229a and b, 1978.

MURAMATSU, M., UMEMURA, S., OKADA, T., TOMITA, H. Estimation of personal
exposure to tobacco smoke with a newly developed nicotine personal monitor.
Environmental Research 35(1):218-227, October 1984.

173
NEAL, A.D., WADDEN, R.A., ROSENBERG, S.H. Evaluation of indoor Particulate
concentrations for an urban hospital. American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal 39(7):578-582, July 1978.

NERO, A.V., SEXTRO, R.G., DOYLE, S.M., MOED, B.A., NAZAROFF, Ww,
REVZAN, K.L., SCHWEHR, M.B. Characterizing the sources, range and environ.
mental influences of radon 222 and its decay products. Science of the Total
Environment 45:233-244, October 1985.

NEURATH, G.B. Nitrosamine formation from precursors in tobacco smoke. In:
Bogovsky, P., Preussmann, R., Walker, E.A. (eds). N-Nitroso Compounds: Analysis
and Formation. IARC Scientific Publication No. 3. Lyon, International Agency for
Research on Cancer, 1972, pp. 134-136.

NEURATH, G., EHMKE, H. Apparatur zur Untersuchung des Nebenstromraucheg
[Apparatus for the investigation of side-stream smoke]. Beitriige zur Tabakfor.
schung 2(4):117-121, February 1964.

NEURATH, G., HORSTMANN, H. Einfluss des Feuchtigkeitsgehaltes von Cigaretten
auf die Zusammensetzung des Rauches und die Glutzonentemperatur [Effect of
moisture content of cigarettes on the composition of the smoke and the combustion
temperature]. Beitrige zur Tabakforschung 2(3):93-100, October 1963.

NITSCHKE, LA., CLARKE, W.A., CLARKIN, M.E., TRAYNOR, G.W., WADACH,
J.B. indoor Air Quality. Infiltration and Ventilation in Residential Buildings.
NYSERDA No. 85-10. New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, 1985.

OKADA, T., MATSUNAMA, K. Determination of particle-size distribution and
concentration of cigarette smoke by a light-scattering method. Journal of Colloid
and Interface Science 48(3):461~469, September 1974.

PERRY, J. Fasten your seatbelts: No smoking. British Columbia Medical Journal
15(10):304-305, November 1973.

PORSTENDORFER, J., SCHRAUB, A. Concentration and mean particle size of the
main and side stream of cigarette smoke. Staub- Reinhaltung der Luft 32(10):33-
36, October 1972.

PORTHEINE, F. Zum Problem des “Passivrauchens” [A contribution to the problem
of “passive smoking”), Miinchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 113(18):707-709,
April 30, 1971.

QUACKENBOSS, J.J., KANAREK, M.S., SPENGLER, J -D., LETZ, R. Personal
monitoring for nitrogen dioxide exposure: Methodological considerations for a
community study. Environment International 8(1-6):249-258, 1982.

QUANT, F.R., NELSON, P.A., SEM, G.J. Experimental measurements of aerosol
concentrations in offices. Environment International 8(1-6):223-227, 1982.

RAABE, O.G. Concerning the interactions that occur between radon decay products
and aerosols. Health Physics 17(2):177-185, August 1969.

RADFORD, E-P., Jr., HUNT, V.R. Polonium-210: A volatile radioelement in ciga-
rettes. Science 143(3603):247-249, January 17, 1964,

REPACE, J.L., LOWREY, AH. Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke, and public health.
Science 208:464~472, May 2, 1980.

REPACE, J.L, LOWREY, AH. Tobacco smoke, ventilation, and indoor air quality.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc,
Transactions 8&part 1895-914, 1982.

RICKERT, W.S., ROBINSON, J.C, COLLISHAW, N. Yields of tar, nicotine, and
carbon monoride in the sidestream smoke from 15 brands of Canadian cigarettes.

American Journal of Public Health 74(3):228-231, March 1984.

SAKUMA, H., KUSAMA M., MUNAKATA, S,, OHSUMI, T., SUGAWARA, S. The
distribution of cigarette smoke components between mainstream and sidestream
smoke: 1. Acidic components, Beitriige zur Tabakforschung 12(2):-63-71, June 1983.

174
SAKUMA, H., KUSAMA, M., YAMAGUCHI, K., MATSUKI, T., SUGAWARA, S. The
distribution of cigarette smoke components between mainstream and sidestream
smoke: 2. Bases. Beitrage zur Tabakforschung 12(4):199-209, July 1984.

SAKUMA, H., KUSAMA, M., YAMAGUCHL K., SUGAWARA, S. The distribution of
cigarette smoke components between mainstream and sidestream smoke: 3. Middle
and- higher boiling components. Beitrige zur Tabckforschung 12(5):251-258,
November 1984.

SCASSELLATI-SFORZOLINI, G., SAVINO, A. Evaluation of a rapid index of ambient
contamination by cigarette smoke in relation to the composition of gas phases of
the smoke. Rivista Italiana d Tgiene 28(1-2):43-55, January-April 1968.

SCHILLING, R.S.F., LETAI, A.D., HUI, S.L, BECK, G., SCHOENBERG, J.B.,
BOUHUYS, A. Lung function, respiratory disease and smoking in families.
American Journal of Epidemiology 106(4):274-288, October 1977.

SCHMELTZ, L, dePAOLIS, A., HOFFMANN, D. Phytosterols in tobacco: Quantitative
analysis and fate in tobacco combustion. Beitrige zur Tabakforschung &(4):211-218,
December 1975.

SCHMELTZ, L, WENGER, A.. HOFFMANN, D., TSO, T.C. On the fate of nicotine
during pyrolysis and in a burning cigarette. Agricultural and Food Chemistry
27(3):602-608, May-June 1979.

SEBBEN, J., PIMM, P., SHEPHARD, RJ. Cigarette smoke in enclosed public
facilities. Archives of Environmental Health 32(2):52-58, March-April 1977.

SEIFF, H.E. Carbon Monoxide as an Indicator of Cigarette-Caused Pollution Levels in
Intercity Buses. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, April 1973.

SEXTON, K., SPENGLER, J.D., TREITMAN, R.D. Personal exposure to respirable
particles: A case study in Waterbury, Vermont. Atmospheric Environment
18(7):1385-1398, 1984.

SLAVIN, R.G., HERTZ, M. Indoor Air Pollution. Paper presented at the 30th annual
meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, San Diego, February 1975.

SPENGLER, J.D., DOCKERY, D.W., TURNER, W.A., WOLFSON, J.M., FERRIS,
BG., Jr. Long-term measurements of respirable sulfates and particles inside and
outside homes. Atmospheric Environment 15(1):23-30, 1981.

SPENGLER, J.D., REED, M.P., LEBRET, E., CHANG, B.-H., WARE, J.H., SPEIZER,
FE., FERRIS, B.G. Harvard’s Indoor Air Pollution Health Study. Paper presented
at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis,
June 1986.

SPENGLER, J.D., TOSTESON, TD. Statistical Models for Personal Exposures Data.
Paper presented at the Environmetrics 81 conference of the Society for Industrial
and Applied Mathematics, Alexandria, Virginia, April 1981.

SPENGLER, J.D., TREITMAN, R.D., TOSTESON, T.D., MAGE, D.T., SOCZEK, MLL.
Personal exposures to respirable particulates and implications for air pollution
epidemiology. Environmental Science and Technology 1X8):700-707, August 1985.

STERLING, T.D., DIMICH, H., KOBAYASHI, D. Indoor byproduct levels of tobacco
smoke: A critical review of the literature. Journal of the Air Poilution Control
Association 32(3):250-259, March 1982.

STERLING, T.D., STERLING, E.M. Environmental tobacco smoke. 1.2. Investigations
on the effect of regulating smoking on levels of indoor pollution and on the
perception of health and comfort of office workers. European Journal of Respira-
tory Diseases 65(Suppl. 133):17-32, 1984.

SZADKOWSKI, D., HARKE, H.P., ANGERER, J. Kohlenmonoxidbelastung durch
Passivrauchen in Birordéumen [Body burden of carbon monoxide from passive
smoking in offices]. Innere Medizin 3(6):310-313, September 1976.

SZALAI, A. The Use of Time: Daily Activities of Urban and Suburban Populations in
Twelve Countries. The Hague, Mouton Publishers, 1972.

175