Particulate matter (PM) 2.5 levels in ETS emissions of a Marlboro Red cigarette in comparison to the 3R4F reference cigarette under open- and closed-door condition

Introduction: Potential health damage by environmental emission of tobacco smoke (environmental tobacco smoke, ETS) has been demonstrated convincingly in numerous studies. People, especially children, are still exposed t
Introduction: Potential health damage by environmental emission of tobacco smoke (environmental tobacco smoke, ETS) has been demonstrated convincingly in numerous studies. People, especially children, are still exposed to ETS in the small space of private cars. Although major amounts of toxic compounds from ETS are likely transported into the distal lung via particulate matter (PM), few studies have quantified the amount of PM in ETS. Study aim The aim of this study was to determine the ETS-dependent concentration of PM from both a 3R4F reference cigarette (RC) as well as a Marlboro Red brand cigarette (MRC) in a small enclosed space under different conditions of ventilation to model car exposure.

Method: In order to create ETS reproducibly, an emitter (ETSE) was constructed and mounted on to an outdoor telephone booth with an inner volume of 1.75 m3. Cigarettes were smoked under open- and closed-door condition to imitate different ventilation scenarios. PM2.5 concentration was quantified by a laser aerosol spectrometer (Grimm; Model 1.109), and data were adjusted for baseline values. Simultaneously indoor and outdoor climate parameters were recorded. The time of smoking was divided into the ETS generation phase (subset "emission") and a declining phase of PM concentration (subset "elimination"); measurement was terminated after 10 min. For all three time periods the average concentration of PM2.5 (Cmean-PM2.5) and the area under the PM2.5 concentration curve (AUC-PM2.5) was calculated. The maximum concentration (Cmax-PM2.5) was taken from the total interval.

Results: For both cigarette types open-door ventilation reduced the AUC-PM2.5 (RC: from 59 400 +/- 14 600 to 5 550 +/- 3 900 mug*sec/m3; MRC: from 86 500 +/- 32 000 to 7 300 +/- 2 400 mug*sec/m3; p < 0.001) and Cmean-PM2.5 (RC: from 600 +/- 150 to 56 +/- 40 mug/m3, MRC from 870 +/- 320 to 75 +/- 25 mug/m3; p < 0.001) by about 90%. Cmax-PM2.5 was reduced by about 80% (RC: from 1 050 +/- 230 to 185 +/- 125 mug/m3; MRC: from 1 560 +/-500 mug/m3 to 250 +/- 85 mug/m3; p < 0.001). In the subset "emission" we identified a 78% decrease in AUC-PM2.5 (RC: from 18 600 +/- 4 600 to 4 000 +/- 2 600 mug*sec/m3; MRC: from 26 600 +/- 7 200 to 5 800 +/- 1 700 mug*sec/m3; p < 0.001) and Cmean-PM2.5 (RC: from 430 +/- 108 to 93 +/- 60 mug/m3; MRC: from 620 +/- 170 to 134 +/- 40 mug/m3; p < 0.001). In the subset "elimination" we found a reduction of about 96-98% for AUC-PM2.5 (RC: from 40 800 +/- 11 100 to 1 500 +/- 1 700 mug*sec/m3; MRC: from 58 500 +/- 25 200 to 1 400 +/- 800 mug*sec/m3; p < 0.001) and Cmean-PM2.5 (RC: from 730 +/- 200 to 27 +/- 29 mug/m3; MRC: from 1 000 +/- 450 to 26 +/- 15 mug/m3; p < 0.001). Throughout the total interval Cmax-PM2.5 of MRC was about 50% higher (1 550 +/- 500 mug/m3) compared to RC (1 050 +/- 230 mug/m3; p < 0.05). For the subset "emission" - but not for the other periods - AUC-PM2.5 for MRC was 43% higher (MRC: 26 600 +/- 7 200 mug*sec/m3; RC: 18 600 +/- 4 600 mug*sec/m3; p < 0.05) and 44% higher for Cmean-PM2.5 (MRC: 620 +/- 170 mug/m3; RC: 430 +/- 108 mug/m3; p < 0.05).

Conclusion: This method allows reliable quantification of PM2.5-ETS exposure under various conditions, and may be useful for ETS risk assessment in realistic exposure situations. The findings demonstrate that open-door condition does not completely remove ETS from a defined indoor space of 1.75 m3. Because there is no safe level of ETS exposure ventilation is not adequate enough to prevent ETS exposure in confined spaces, e.g. private cars. Additionally, differences in the characteristics of cigarettes affect the amount of ETS particle emission and need to be clarified by ongoing investigations.
show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

  • Export Bibtex
  • Export RIS

Additional Services

    Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Daniel Müller, Johannes Schulze, Hanns Ackerman, Doris Klingelhöfer, Stefanie Uibel, Jan David Alexander Groneberg
URN:urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-252349
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1186/1745-6673-7-14
ISSN:1745-6673
Pubmed Id:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=22735100
Parent Title (English):Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology
Publisher:BioMed Central
Place of publication:London
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Date of Publication (online):2012/06/26
Date of first Publication:2012/06/26
Publishing Institution:Univ.-Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main
Release Date:2012/11/14
Volume:7
Issue:14
Pagenumber:9
First Page:1
Last Page:9
Institutes:Medizin
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Sammlungen:Universitätspublikationen
Licence (German):License LogoCreative Commons - Namensnennung 2.0

$Rev: 11761 $