Tobacco Documents Online

---

---

. Table 8.-Responses of Men to Submaximum Bicycle Test Immediately Post-Exposure, Mean ± SD Variable VE, liter/min, BTPS Number of breaths per min Heart rate, beat/min VO,,,liter/min, STPD Number of Subjects Time, in mina Control Test 10 At rest 10.19± 1.58 11.]0t 1.86 2 34.72 t 7.09 35.89 :t 7.72 4 51.24 ~ 9.59 ;52.64 ± 5.81 7 75.26 ± 13.39 77.94 ± 13.86 Recov. 5b 16.46 ± 3.63 17.22 ~ 4.00 10 At rest 13.0 ± 2.90 15.4 ± 4.59 2 .21.4 t5.48 21.5 t5.03 4 23.4 f. 5.25 23.8 ± 5.19 7 28.3 ± 5.45 293 ± 7.30 Recov. 5 16.4 t 3.71 17.0 ± 3.24 10 - At rest .68.5 =12.84 68.6 t 11.36 2 113.2 t 10.33 113.9 ± 9.64 4 136.2 { 9.13 136.1 ± 10.29 7 158.3 t 9.76 _ 159.8 ± 9.66 Recov. 5 92.0 ± 15.32 • 90.3 ±13.52 9 At rest 0.34± 0.06 0.39 ± 0.70 2 1.43 t 0.15 1.47 ± 0.16 4 1.95* 0.22 1.98f 0.74 7 2.47t 0.25 2.65t 0.36., Recov. 5 0.38 t 0.08 0.43 ± 0.11 •'P<0.01 by paired t test 'P<0.05 by paired t test aElapsed time of bicycle test. bb'ive minutes after subject stopped pedaling Hinds and Firsti' suggested an equivalent of 0.009 ciga- `' iettes per hour,'from observed levels of nicotine and esti- mated particulates.'17zus under realistic conditions it is ;=tlnlikely that a passive smoker inhales the equivalent of more than two cigarettes per 8-hour work shift. Over such an extended period normal clearance mechanisms would be sufficient to avoid most immediate physiological responses, although it is questionable whether this remains the case with continued work (i.e., chronic exposures) in such an environment, considering the cumulative exposure to carcinogens. Moreover, on those rare occasions when CO levels do rise to greater than 40 ppm, the angina thresh- old in patients with ischemic heart disease could be lowered."•sa Air Quality Criteria for Cigarette Smoke Can one conclude from the small amount of physio- logical changes reported here that passive exposure to cigarette smoke has little significance for the healthy adult? One problem in setting air quality criteria is that for every ten persons exposed there may be only one or two who 210 Difference 0.91t 1.38 1.17 ± 6.56 1A0 t 6.08 2.68 ± 2.94ss 0.76 ±' 2.70- 2.4 It 3.21~ 0.1 t330 0.4 :k 1.80 1-0 t 3.12. .0.6 f 2.40 -~ 0.1 t 8.02 -0.1 ± 4.82 -0.1 t 4.63 -,;1.5 ± 4S3 . . -1.7 ±1455 -0:05± 0.05 0.04 t 0.13 0.03t 0.14 0.18t 0.18« 0.05 ± 0.07 reacts9 thus, mean results from small samples may not be particularly'sensitive in indicating a physiological thresh- old. We can conclude, however, that, on average, physio- logical responses as measured are minimal in nonnal sub- 'jects as a consequence of acute exposure,.and thus _ arguments concerning adverse effects rest on (i) sympto- matology, (ii) possible impairments of fine vision, (iii) the : unknown risks of chronic exposure, (iv) a possible lower- ing of angina threshold in patients with ischemic heart disease, and (v) a possible greater sensitivity in individuals with hyperreactive airways. Since the majority of the adult North American population are nonsmokers, these appear to be sufficient reasons for applying statutory limitations on the accumulation of cigarette smoke in public places. Appendix 1000795132 Choice of Exposure Conditions t Cigarette smoke has several fractions that include main- stream smoke (the portion inhaled by a smoker during a puff), sidestream smoke (emitted from the burning cone Archives of Environmental Health 4