Brown & Williamson
Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Why Is It A Problem?
Fields
- Type
- Report
- Characteristic
- CHRT
- Original File
- Srg-Ets. Se02.
- Date Loaded
- 23 Nov 1998
- Request
- H79
- Attachment
- 976657
- Litigation
- 10004026
Page count mismatch (files 32, split 20)
Document Images
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE: WHY IS IT A PROBLEM?
ISSIES TO BE ADDRESSED:
0
i. POLITICAL:
2, SOCIAL
- GUIDELINES
- LEGISLATIONS
- HEALTH CONCERNS
- INDOOR AIR QUALITY
3, TECHNICAL:
- NATURE OF ETS
- ASSESSING EXPOSURE-DOSE-RESPONSE
f
/
G;~000;~353

# STUDIES
13
2
18
20
5
10
6
0 1
1
1
1
~,)
COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED LEVELS OF
ETS CONSTITUENTS AND ACCEPTABLE EXPOSURE LIMITS*
EXPERIMENTAL
CONSTITUENT RANGE
NICOTINE
~IOSH
EXPERIMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE:
< 0,01-0.065 N,G,
0.5 & 1,01
CO 2 - 46 40
RSP 1.76-83.13 10
NO < 1 - 0,5 30
ACROLEIN 0,02-0,19 0,23
ACETONE 0.32-5.88 800
BENZENE 0.2-0.32 32
BENZO(A)PYRENE 2,8 - 76D 4,0-9.3**
PYRENE 4.1 - 9,4 0,1-1.7""
VOLATILE 7.4 -11.5 19 "*
PHENOLS
EXCERPTS FROM:
ASSESSING HEALTH EFFECTS,
(U.S,) 1986.
ALL UNITS IN MG/M3
N,G,: NOT GIVEN
GUIDELINES
OSHA ACGIH EUROPEAN
0,5 0,5 N,G,
57 57 57
15 10 10
30 30 N.G,
10 1 10
32 32 32
MEASURING EXPOSURES AND
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
UNITS ARE NG/M3, NO GUIDELINESj OUTDOORS AS CONTROLS,
G2000~354

LIMITATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURE GUIDELINES
WITH RESPECT TO ETS
,
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS
NOT A COMPLEX MIXTURE, SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS ARE
UNKNOWN,
O
1
.
LIMITS ARE INTERPRETED AS TLV, TWA, STEL, ETC,
I,E, LIMITEDEXPOSURE, ETS EXPOSURE MAY BE CHRONIC,
RAHIFICATIONS ARE UNCLEAR,
LIMITS APPLY TO NORMAL, HEALTHY POPU~TIONS NOT TO
POPULATIONS AT RISK,
,
.
.
THERE ARE CONSTITUENTS OF ETS FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO
GUIDELINES,
ETS MY UNDERGO SECONDARY REACTIONS GENERATING POSSIBLY
MORE HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS,
TOXICITY OF SOME CONSTITUENTS (# 4) AND SECONDARY
PRODUCTS IS UNKNOWN,
LZ .... : .........
62000~355

SOME ETS CONSTITUENTS FOR WHICH NO GUIDELINES EXIST
0
CARBONYL SULFIDE
3 METHYL PYRIDINE
3 VINYL PYRIDINE
ANATABINE
BENZ(A)ANTH~CENE
BENZ(A)PYRENE
QUINOLINE
HARMAN
N-NITROSONO~NICOTINE
NNK
N-NITROSODIETHANOLAMINE
ZINC
POLONIUM 210
G~OOO,~35G

.-)
IMPLICATIONS
0
i, STIFFER GUIDELINES
2, NO SMOKING POLICIES
3. REGULATED MONITORING
G~O00~.3~

SOCIAL ISSUE
• HEALTH CONCERNS
PRIMARY PROBLEM
ELIMINATION / MINIMIZATION OF RISKS
9
• INDOOR AIR QUALITY - SECONDARY PROBLEM
SIGNAL OF ETS
6;~000~35S

BASIS FOR HEALTH CONCERNS
STUDY TYPE
AILMENT INVESTIGATED
0
CHILDHOOD
POPULATIONS AT RISK
EXTRAPOLATION FROM SMOKERS
SPOUSAL
LUNG FUNCTION
LUNG FUNCTION
LUNG FUNCTION, LUNG
OTHER CANCERS
LUNG CANCER
CANCER,
._7

EXTRAPOLATION FROM ACTIVE S~KERS
O
ASSUME
10~-./MIN, INHALATION RATE
I0~ DEPOSITION RATE IN LUNGS
8 HR, CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE
(2 CIGTS,/HR,)
DOSE TO PASSIVE SMOKER:
0,1 - i CIGT,/8 HR, PERIOD,
620002360

REASONS FOR ACCEPTING WORST CASE SCENARIO
i, ETS IS CHEMICALLY DIFFERENT FROM MS SMOKE,
©
2, ETS EXPOSURE IS CHRONIC,
THE SHAPE OF THE BIOLOGICAL DOSE-RESPONSE CURVE
UNKNOWN.
IS
,/
G~OOO23G1

SUM~RY OF CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM STUDIES REVIEWED
CHILDHOOD STUDIES
i,
RATIOS FOR INCREASED PREVALENCE OF RESPIRATORY
SYMPTOMS: 1,2 - 1,8,
THEREFORE ETS EXPOSURE CAUSES RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS IN
SOME CHILDREN,
O
,
DECREASES IN LUNG FUNCTION DUE TO ETS: U TO 0,5~ PER YEAR,
THIS EFFECT IS NOT CLINICALLY IMPORTANT BUT MAY:
- REFLECT PATHOPHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
- BE A FACTOR IN LATER DEVELOPMENT OF CHRONIC
AIRFLOW OBSTRUCTION,
,
DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS EXIST BETWEEN LOW BIRTHWEIGHT
CHILDREN AND:
- PREGNANT WOMEN WITH DAILY ETS EXPOSURE,
- NUMBER OF CIGARETTES SMOKED BY FATHER,
q, HOUSEHOLD ETS EXPOSURE IS LINKED TO RETARDED GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONIC EAR INFECTIONS,
T

SlUrRY OF CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM STUDIES REVIEWED
EXTRAPOLATION FROM ACTIVE SMOKERS
©
ID
THE RELATIVE RISK OF LUNG CANCER IN NON-SMOKING
GI.~BJECTS EXPOSED TO ETS Is 1,10 USING RELATIVE
URINARY COTININE LEVELS,
HOWEVER THE QUESTIONS REMAIN;
e ARE DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS LINEAR AT
LOW TO AVERAGE DOGES?
IS THERE A CONSTANT PROPORTIONALITY OF
NICOTINE AND CARCINOGENS IN BOTH MS SMOKE
AND ETS?
J
NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE Bt,rF THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT
INHALED DECAY PRODUCTS (PB210 AND Po210) PLAY A ROLE
IN OTHER CANCERS,
•?
B20002B~

SUMMARY DF CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM STUDIES REVIEWED
SPOUSAL STUDIES
ii
FOR 11 OUT nP ]~ GROUPS (8 SEPARATE STUDIES) OF NON
SMOKERS EXPOSED TO ETS, THE RELATIVE RISK OF LUNG
CANCER EXCEEDS 1.0. HOWEVER THIS IS SIGNIFICANT
(P<0.OS) IN ONLY 5 OF THESE GROUPS.
O
2. SUMMARy ESTIMATES PLACE RESTIVE RISK OF LUNG CANCER
IN NON-SMOKERS AT 1.34, WITH A RANGE OF VALUES 1.15-1.52.
,
MISCLASSIFICATIDN BIAS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE
INCREASED RISK, RECALCULATI~OF RELATIVE RISK, USING
10, 20, ~O AND 40~ MISCLASDIFICATION RATES YIELDS A
MINIMUM RELATIVE RISK OF
1.25 FOR NON-SMOKERS MARRIED TO SMOKERS AND
1.08 FOR NON-SMOKERS MARRIED TO NON-SMOKERS BUT
EXPOSED TO ETS.

CALLS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
O
EPIDEMIOLOGY
1, LONGITUDINAL STUDIES TO INVESTIGATE EFFECTS OF ETS
EXPOSURE ON LUNG FUNCTION
- TO CONTROL FOR HOUSING/CLIMATE
- TO ASSESS DEVELOPMENT OF AIRWAY HYPER-RESPONSIVENESS,
2, COHORT STUDIES OF NORMAL AND AT-RISK POPULATIONS"
- ASTHMATICS
- OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISORDER PATIENTS
- ANGINA AND HEART DISEASE PATIENTS,
3. AssEsS THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ETS AND RADON EXPOSURE,
4, EXAMINE MECHANISMS THROUGH WHICH PATERNAL SMOKING
ADVERSELY AFFECTS FETAL GROWTH IN NON-SMOKING MOTHERS
- EXCRETION AND ABSORPTION OF ETS
- TRANSPLACENTAL METABOLISM,
NON-EPIDEMIOLOGY
i, DETERMINE THE CARCINOGENIC CONSTITUENTS OF ETS
- CONCENTRATIONS IN DAILY ENVIRONMENTS,
2, EXPLORE THE ETIOLOGIC ROLE OF INHALED DECAY PRODUCTS,
3, OUANTIFY THE DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP USING BIOLOGICAL
MARKERS,
4, ANIMAL STUDIES TO:
- EVALUATE TIMING OF PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES IN LUNG FUNCTION
- ASSESS CHANGES IN CARDIOVASCULAR FUNCTIONS.
6;~000;336S

SICK BUILDING SYNDROME INCIDENTS
.-.)
NIoSH (1984:203 BUILDINGS)
H & W CANADA (1984:94 BUILDINGS)
O
%
VENTILATION 48,3
INSIDE CONTAMINATION 17,7
OUTSIDE CONTAMINATION 10,3
HUMIDITY 4,4
BUILDING FABRIC 3,h
HYPERSENSITIVII"Y
PNEUMONITIS •3,0
CIGARETTE SMOKING 2.0
NOISE/ILLUMINATION 1,0
SCABIES 0.5
UNKNOWN 9.4
INADEQUATE VENTILATION - POOR AIR CIRCULATION
- INADEQUATE OUTDOOR AIR
- POOR TBMP,/HUMIDITY
OUTDOOR CONTAMINANT - REENTRY BUILDING EXHAUST
- VEHICULAR EXHAUST
INDOOR CONTAMINANT
- COPY MACHINES
- TOBACCO SMOKE
BUILDING FABRIC - GLUES
- FORMALDEHYDE
BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
UNKNOWN
%
6B
10
5
2
O
15

O
IBPACT OF ETS ON INDOOR AIR QUALITY
0DOUR
lJ
ETS AROUSES ODOUR RESPONSES, OBJECTIONABLE ODOUR GENERATED
BY ETS GREATLY EXCEEDS THAT GENERATED BY SIMPLE OCCUPANCY
UNDER COMPARABLE CONDITIONS OF OCCUPANCYJ DENSITY,
TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY.
O
1
TOBACCO SMOKE ODOUR IS STABLE OVER TIME, CURRENT
VENTILATION AND AIR CLEANING REQUIREMENTS DO NOT REMOVE
ODOUR,
3. 0DOUR DERIVES PRIMARILY FROM THE VAPOUR PHASE,
0DOUR GOVERNS REACTIONS OF VISITORS.
REACTIONS OF OCCUPANTS.
]RRITATION GOVERNS
x
G~OOO~3G7

O
IRRITATION
EYE IRRITATION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT NEGATIVE FACTOR.
2, EYE BLINK CORRELATES WITH SENSORY IRRITATION AT HIGH
LEVELS OF ETS (C0~5 PPM),
3, IRRITATION CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PARTICULATE PHASE,
4, IRRITATION MAY REMAIN AFTER REMOVAL OF IRRITANT,
5, CUTANEOUS SENSITIVITY TO TOBACCO LEAF OR SMOKE EXTRACTS
DOES NOT CORRELATE WITH SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS,
G OOO2 GS

'O
VENTILATION
1, Low HUMIDITY EXACERBATES ODOUR AND IRRITATION TO ETS,
1
VENTILATION RATES OF 50-60 CFM PER PERSON ARE REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE SATISFACTORY INDOOR AIR QUALITY WHERE ETS
IS PRESENT,
3, THERE IS PROBABLY NO PRACTICAL VENTILATION RATE THAT
COULD SATISFY 80~ OR MORE NON-SMOKING VISITORS,
4, SEGREGATION OF SMOKER/NON-SMOKERS IS ROT A SOLUTION,
fi200023G9

ASHRAE GUIDELINES FOR VENTILATION
0
TARGET
: SATISFY 80~ OF VISITORS TO A ROOM,
NON-SMOKING: 5-8 CFM PER OCCUPANT,
SMOKING : 20-35 CFM PER OCCUPANT,
ASHRAE GUIDELINES CONSIDERED INADEQUATE DUE TO:
i, BASED ON LITERATURE VALUES, ASHRAE GUIDELINES SATISFY
S0-75% VISITORS AND NON-SMOKING OCCUPANTS NOT 80~,
2. NON-SMOKERS HAVE LOWER THRESHOLD VALUES FOR OBJECTIONS
WHICH SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE,
G;~OOOP~.?.70

J
SEGREGATION OF SMOKERS / NON-SMOKERS
NOT A SOLUTION:
i, RATE OF'MIGRATION OF SMOKE FROM SMOKING TO NON-SMOKING
AREAS IS UNKNOWN,
0
2. COMMON VENTILATION/FILTRATION SYSTEMS NEGATE ANY
BENEFITS OF SEGREGATION,
L)
G20002371

CALLS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
SUBJECTIVE
i, FIELD STUDIEG TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE VISITOR
ACCEPTABILITY RATE,
1
INVESTIGATE THE EFFECT OF FILTRATION OF ETS, BOTH PHASES,
INCLUDING VENTILATION AND CLEANING SYSTEMS ON ABATEMENT
OF DISCOMFORT.
3. DETERMINE APPROPRIATE OBJECTIVE PHYSIOLOGICAL OR
BIOCHEMICAL INDICES TO MEASURE IRRITATION,
OBJECTIVE
i, DETERMINE CONSTITUENTS OF ETS RESPONSIBLE
2. COMPARE NORMAL AND ATOPIC INDIVIDUALS,
FOR IRRITATION.
m

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
