Eliminating Environmental Tobacco Smoke In
The Workplace
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has
determined that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is potentially carcinogenic
to occupationally exposed workers. In 1964, the Surgeon General issued
the first report on smoking and health, which concluded that cigarette
smoke causes lung cancer. Since then, research on the toxicity and carcinogenicity
of tobacco smoke has demonstrated that the health risk from inhaling
tobacco smoke is not limited to the smoker, but also includes those
who inhale ETS. ETS contains many of the toxic agents and carcinogens
that are present in mainstream smoke, but in diluted form. Recent epidemiologic
studies support and reinforce earlier published reviews by the Surgeon
General and the National Research Council demonstrating that exposure
to ETS can cause lung cancer. These reviews estimated the relative risk
of lung cancer to be approximately 1.3 for a nonsmoker living with a
smoker compared with a nonsmoker living with a nonsmoker. In addition,
recent evidence suggests a possible association between exposure of
nonsmokers to ETS and an increased risk of heart disease.
Although these data were not gathered in an occupational setting, ETS
meets the criteria of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) for classifying substances as potential occupational carcinogens
[Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1990]. NIOSH therefore
recommends that ETS be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen
in conformance with the OSHA carcinogen policy, and that exposures to
ETS be reduced to the lowest feasible concentration. Employers should
minimize occupational exposure to ETS by using all available preventive
measures.
Reports of the Surgeon General on the Health
Effects of Tobacco Smoke
In 1964, the Surgeon General issued the first report on smoking and
health, which concluded that cigarette smoke causes cancer [DHEW 1964]:
Cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer in men; the magnitude
of the effect of cigarette smoking far outweighs all other factors.
The data for women, though less extensive, point in the same direction....The
risk of developing lung cancer increases with duration of smoking and
the number of cigarettes smoked per day, and is diminished by discontinuing
smoking.
Since 1964, evidence has continued to support the causal relationship
between exposure to cigarette smoke and lung cancer, demonstrating that
risk increases with amount and duration of smoking. Subsequent research
has increased our knowledge about the toxicity and carcinogenicity of
tobacco smoke and the risks of exposure. Additional support for the
Surgeon General's conclusion has come from (1) animal studies that demonstrated
the carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke condensate, and (2) analytical
studies demonstrating that tobacco smoke contains carcinogens [DHEW
1972; DHHS 1982]. Cigarette smoking is the major cause of lung cancer
(87% of lung cancer deaths) and is estimated to account for 30% of all
cancer deaths [DHHS 1989].
The 1964 Surgeon General's report also pointed out that male cigarette
smokers have higher death rates from heart disease than nonsmokers.
Subsequent reports have concluded that cigarette smoking is a major
cause of heart disease and that smoking is a major independent risk
factor for heart attack [DHEW 1968; DHHS 1983].
On July 1, 1965, Congress approved the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-92). This law, which became effective
on January 1, 1966, was the first of a continuing series of Federal
statutes enacting warning labels to inform the public about the health
hazards of smoking and, subsequently, the use of other tobacco products.
Presently, the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act (Public Law 98-474)
[Title 15, § 1331 of the U.S. Code] requires cigarette companies
to rotate four health warnings on all cigarette packages and in advertisements.
Comparison of the Chemical Composition of ETS
and MS
ETS contains many of the toxic agents and carcinogens that are present
in MS, but in diluted form [DHHS 1986]. The major source of ETS is sidestream
smoke*** (SS), which contains higher amounts of some toxic and carcinogenic
agents than MS when it is obtained in its undiluted form under laboratory
conditions [DHHS 1989]. For example, the release of volatile N-nitrosamines
and aromatic amines is higher in SS than in MS.
A major reason that undiluted SS and MS have different concentrations
of toxic and carcinogenic agents is that peak temperatures in the burning
cone of a cigarette reach 800° to 900°C during puffing, but
only 600°C between puffs, resulting in less complete combustion
of tobacco during generation of SS. In addition, most of the burning
cone is oxygen deficient during smoldering and produces a strongly reducing
environment [NRC 1986]. Table 1 lists 26 toxic and carcinogenic agents
identified in SS and MS.
ETS is diluted in the air before it is inhaled and thus is less concentrated
than MS. However, active inhalation of MS is limited to the time it
takes to smoke each cigarette, whereas exposure to ETS is constant over
the period spent in the ETS-polluted environment. This fact is reflected
in measurements of nicotine uptake by smokers and ETS-exposed nonsmokers
[DHHS 1989].
Potential for Occupational Exposure
Approximately 29% of the U.S. adult population smokes cigarettes, and
exposure to ETS is common [DHHS 1989]. Many people who report no exposure
to ETS have low concentrations of cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine)
in their urine, indicating exposure. The average concentration of cotinine
in the urine of nonsmokers has been reported to be approximately 8 ng/ml
compared with approximately 1,200 ng/ml in smokers [Cummings et al.
1990]. The National Research Council (NRC) estimated that nonsmokers
exposed to ETS averaged 25 ng of urinary cotinine/ml, and active smokers
averaged 1,825 ng/ml [NRC 1986]. Husgafvel-Pursiainen et al. [1987]
found that nonsmoking restaurant workers had an average urinary cotinine
concentration of 56 ng/ml, and nonsmokers not exposed to ETS had an
average concentration of 8.3 ng/ml. Other investigators have shown that
nonsmokers living with smokers have approximately two to three times
the amount of urinary cotinine as nonsmokers living with nonsmokers
[Haley et al. 1989].
Table 1.
Toxic and carcinogenic agents in undiluted cigarette SS*,**
| Compound |
Type of toxicity
|
Amount in SS (per
cigarette) |
Ratio of SS/MS
|
| Vapor phase: |
| Carbon monoxide |
T |
26.8-61 mg |
2.5-14.9 |
| Carbonyl sulfide |
T |
2-3 mg |
0.03-0.13 |
| Benzene |
C |
400-500 µg |
8-10 |
| Formaldehyde |
C |
1,500 µg |
50 |
| 3-Vinylpyridine |
SC |
300-450 µg |
24-34 |
| Hydrogen cyanide |
T |
14-110 g |
0.06-0.4 |
| Hydrazine |
C |
90 ng
|
3 |
| Nitrogen oxides (NOx) |
T |
500-2,000 µg |
3.7-12.8 |
| N-nitrosodimethylamine |
C |
200-1,040 ng
|
20-130 |
| N-nitrosopyrrolidine |
C |
30-390 ng
|
6-120 |
| |
| Particulate phase: |
| Tar |
C |
14-30 mg |
1.1-15.7 |
| Nicotine |
T |
2.1-46 mg |
1.3-21 |
| Phenol |
TP |
70-250 µg |
1.3-3.0 |
| Catechol |
CoC
|
58-290 µg |
0.67-12.8 |
| o-Toluidine |
C |
3 µg |
18.7 |
| 2-Naphthylamine |
C |
70 ng
|
39 |
| 4-Aminobiphenyl |
C |
140 ng
|
3.1 |
| Benz(a)anthracene |
C |
40-200 ng
|
2-4 |
| Benzo(a)pyrene
|
C |
40-70 ng
|
2.5-20 |
| Quinoline |
C |
15-20 µg |
8-11 |
| N-nitrosonomicotine |
C |
0.15-1.7 µg |
0.5-5.0 |
| NNK |
C |
0.2-1.4 µg |
1.0-22 |
| N-nitrosodiethanolamine |
C |
43 ng
|
1.2 |
| Cadmium |
C |
0.72 µg |
7.2 |
| Nickel |
C |
0.2-2.5 µg |
13-30 |
| Polonium-210 |
C |
0.5-1.6 pCi
|
1.06-3.7 |
*Sources: DHHS [1989]; Hoffmann and Hecht [1989]. [return to table]
**Abbreviations: C, carcinogenic; CoC, cocarcinogenic; MS, mainstream
smoke; SC, suspected carcinogen; SS, sidestream smoke; T, toxic; TP,
tumor promoter, NNK, 4-(methyl-nitrosamino)-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone.
[return to table]
Exposures to ETS were measured by respirable suspended particulates
(±2.5 m) and averaged 242 g/m3 in public access buildings [First
1984; NRC 1986; Repace and Lowrey 1980, 1982]. Studies reviewed by [Repace
and Lowrey 1990] suggested a 62% probability of exposure to ETS for
a nonsmoker in the workplace. However, the relative contribution of
work versus home environments in ETS exposure has not been well quantified.
In addition, social settings outside the workplace or the home (e.g.,
restaurants and bowling alleys) may contribute significantly to ETS
exposure.
On the basis of urinary cotinine concentrations, the [NRC 1986] concluded
that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb the equivalent of 0.1 to 1.0 cigarette
per day. On the basis of 1985 data, NIOSH estimates that each cigarette
smoker in the United States smokes an average of about 21 cigarettes
per day [NCHS 1988]. Blood and urine samples analyzed for vapor phase
nicotine indicate that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb about 1% of
the tobacco combustion products absorbed by active smokers [NRC 1986;
DHHS 1986].
Reference Key:
SS - sidestream smoke (smoke generated by smoldering tobacco between
puffs and smoke diffusing through the cigarette paper and escaping from
the burning cone during puffing)
MS - mainstream smoke (smoke drawn through the tobacco and into the
smoker's mouth)
Table 2.
Recent Studies of Lung Cancer Among ETS-Exposed Persons Who
Never Smoked
| Study |
Design |
Exposure definition
|
Relative risk*
|
Comment |
| Update of Gillis et al. [1984] by Hole et al. [1989]
|
12-yr followup, 3,960
men and 4,037 women aged 45-64 in1972-76 |
Living with smoker or ex-smoker at the time of
the survey |
2.41 (CI, 0.45-12.83; 7 observed) |
Adjusted for age, sex, and social class |
| Brownson et al. [1987]
|
19 cases, 47 controls |
Exposure for >4 hr /day |
1.68 (CI, 0.39-2.97) |
Adjusted for age, income, and occupation |
| Humble et al. [1987] |
28 cases, 54 controls |
Lived with a spouse who smoked |
For cigarette ETS exposure: 2.2 (90% CI, 1.0-4.9)
For any type of ETS exposure: 2.6 (90% CI, 1.2-5.6) |
Adjusted for ethnicity and age |
| Gao et al. [1987] |
246 cases, 375 controls |
Lived with a smoker |
<20 yr, 1.0; 20-29 yr, 1.1 (CI, 0.7-1.8); 30-39
yr, 1.3 (CI, 0.8-2.1); >40 yr, 1.7(CI, 1.0-2.9) |
Adjusted for age and education |
| Lam et al. [1987] |
199 cases, 335 controls |
Lived with a spouse who smoked |
1.65 (CI, 1.16-2.35) |
Matched for age and neighborhood |
| Janerich et al. [1990]
|
191 cases, 191 controls |
>25 smoker-yr of exposure during childhood
|
2.07 (CI, 1.16-3.68) |
Matched for age, sex, and county of residence;
relative risk for spousal smoking = 0.9 |
| Shimizu et al. [1988] |
90 cases, 163 controls |
Lived with mother who smoked Lived with father-in-law
who smoked |
4.0 (P<0.05)
3.2 (P<0.05)
|
Matched for age, sex,
and hospital; relative
risk for spousal smoking = 1. 1 |
|
Geng et al. [1988] |
54 cases, 93 controls |
Lived with spouse who smoked |
2.16 (CI, 1.03-4.53) |
Matched for race, age, sex, and marital status;
positive dose response; methodologic
details not presented |
*Confidence interval is 95 % unless otherwise indicated
Conclusions
In 1964 the Surgeon General concluded that cigarette smoke causes lung
cancer. Since that time, additional research on the toxicity and carcinogenicity
of tobacco smoke has demonstrated that the health risks from inhaling
tobacco smoke are not limited to smokers, but also include those who
inhale ETS. ETS contains many of the toxic agents and carcinogens found
in MS, but in diluted form. Recent epidemiologic studies support and
reinforce the conclusions of the reviews by the Surgeon General and
the NRC demonstrating that exposure to ETS can cause lung cancer. These
reviews estimated the relative risk for lung cancer to be approximately
1.3 for nonsmokers living with smokers compared with nonsmokers living
with nonsmokers. In addition, recent evidence also suggests a possible
association between exposure to ETS and an increased risk for heart
disease in nonsmokers. The recent epidemiologic studies (including those
associating ETS with other adverse health effects) point to a pattern
of health effects that is similar for both smokers and nonsmokers exposed
to ETS.
NIOSH recognizes that these recent epidemiologic studies have several
shortcomings: lack of objective measures for characterizing and quantifying
exposures, failure to adjust for all confounding variables, potential
misclassification of exsmokers as nonsmokers, unavailability of comparison
groups that have not been exposed to ETS, and low statistical power.
Nonetheless, NIOSH has determined that the collective weight of evidence
(i.e., that from the Surgeon General's reports, the similarities in
composition of MS and ETS, and the recent epidemiologic studies) is
sufficient to conclude that ETS poses an increased risk of lung cancer
and possibly heart disease to occupationally exposed workers. The epidemiologic
data are not sufficient to draw conclusions about other health effects
such as cervical cancer, ischemic stroke, spontaneous abortion, and
low birthweight.
Recommendations
Several systems exist for classifying a substance as a carcinogen. Such
classification systems have been developed by NTP [1989], IARC [1987],
and OSHA [29 CFR 1990]. NIOSH considers the OSHA classification system
(Identification, Classification, and Regulation of Potential Occupational
Carcinogens [29 CFR 1990], also known as the OSHA carcinogen policy)
the most appropriate for use in identifying occupational carcinogens.††
The Surgeon General has concluded that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer
as well as heart disease. Table 1 lists 21 known or suspected carcinogens,
cocarcinogens, and tumor promoters identified as components of ETS and
MS in analytical studies. Furthermore, a large body of evidence indicates
that exposure to ETS has produced lung cancer in nonsmokers. NIOSH therefore
considers ETS to be a potential occupational carcinogen in conformance
with the OSHA carcinogen policy [29 CFR 1990].
The risk of developing cancer should be decreased by minimizing exposure
to ETS. Employers should therefore assess conditions that may result
in worker exposure to ETS and take steps to reduce exposures to the
lowest feasible concentration.
Methods for Controlling Involuntary Exposure to
ETS
Workers should not be involuntarily exposed to tobacco smoke. To prevent
worker exposures to any hazardous substance, employers should first
eliminate hazardous workplace emissions at their source. If elimination
is not possible, emissions should be removed from the pathway between
the source and the worker [NIOSH 1983]. Therefore, the best method for
controlling worker exposure to ETS is to eliminate tobacco use from
the workplace and to implement a smoking cessation program. Until tobacco
use can be completely eliminated, employers should protect nonsmokers
from ETS by isolating smokers. Methods for eliminating tobacco use from
the workplace and isolating smokers are described here briefly.
Eliminating Tobacco Use from the Workplace
Worker exposure to ETS is most efficiently and completely controlled
by simply eliminating tobacco use from the workplace. To facilitate
elimination of tobacco use, employers should implement smoking cessation
programs. The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) has recommended
the following strategy for smoking cessation [NIOSH 1986]. Specifically,
management and labor should work together to develop appropriate nonsmoking
policies that include some or all of the following:
• Prohibit smoking at the workplace and provide sufficient disincentives
for those who do not comply
• Distribute information about health promotion and the harmful
effects of smoking
• Offer smoking-cessation classes to all workers
• Establish incentives to encourage workers to stop smoking
Further information regarding workplace smoking policies and smoking
cessation programs can be found in No Smoking: A Decision Maker's Guide
to Reducing Smoking at the Worksite [American Cancer Society et al.
1985].
Isolating Smokers
The 1986 Surgeon General's report on involuntary smoking concluded that,
"the simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same
airspace may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers
to ETS." In indoor workplaces where smoking is permitted, ETS can
spread throughout the airspace of all workers. The most direct and effective
method of eliminating ETS from the workplace is to prohibit smoking
in the workplace. Until that is achieved, employers can designate separate,
enclosed areas for smoking, with separate ventilation. Air from this
area should be exhausted directly outside and not recirculated within
the building or mixed with the general dilution ventilation for the
building. Ventilation of the smoking area should meet general ventilation
standards, and the smoking area should have slight negative pressure
to ensure airflow into the area rather than back into the airspace of
the workplace [ASHRAE 1989]. Guidance for designing local exhaust ventilation
systems can be found in Recommended Industrial Ventilation Guidelines
[Hagopian and Bastress 1976], Industrial Ventilation A Manual of Recommended
Practice [ACGIH 1986], and Fundamentals Governing the Design and Operation
of Local Exhaust Systems [ANSI 1979].
Warning signs should be posted at the entrances to the workplace in
both English and the predominant language of non-English-reading workers.
These signs should state that smoking is prohibited or permitted only
in designated smoking areas. If designated smoking areas are provided,
they should be clearly identified by signs.
POSITIONS OF OTHER AGENCIES REGARDING ETS
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) have not established permissible
exposure limits (PELs) for ETS in the workplace. OSHA is now preparing
to address this issue as part of an indoor air quality standard.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that ETS is a
known cause of lung cancer and respiratory symptoms and that it has
been linked to heart disease. EPA also recommends that exposure to ETS
be minimized wherever possible by restricting smoking to separately
ventilated areas directly exhausted to the outside, or by entirely eliminating
smoking in buildings [EPA 1989].
The International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC 1986] states that
epidemiologic studies have demonstrated an increased risk of lung cancer
for nonsmoking spouses of smokers. Although researchers had substantial
difficulty in determining exposure to ETS and other risk factors for
the cancers studied, IARC concluded that "passive smoking gives
rise to some risk of cancer." IARC also concluded that "there
is sufficient evidence that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic to humans,"
and that "there is sufficient evidence that inhalation of tobacco
smoke as well as topical application of tobacco smoke condensate cause
cancer in experimental animals."
|