Assessing progress in protecting non-smokers from secondhand smoke.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in population exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and consider two exposure metrics as appropriate targets for tobacco control policy-makers. DESIGN: Comparison of adult non-smokers' salivary cotinine data available from 11 Scottish Health Surveys between 1998 and 2016. METHODS: The proportions of non-smoking adults who had measurable levels of cotinine in their saliva were calculated for the 11 time points. The geometric mean (GM) concentrations of cotinine levels were calculated using Tobit regression. Changes in both parameters were assessed for the whole period and also for the years since implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland in 2006. RESULTS: Salivary cotinine expressed as a GM fell from 0.464 ng/mL (95% CI 0.444 to 0.486 ng/mL) in 1998 to 0.013 ng/mL (95% CI 0.009 to 0.020 ng/mL) in 2016: a reduction of 97.2%. The percentage of non-smoking adults who had no measurable cotinine in their saliva increased by nearly sixfold between 1998 (12.5%, 95% CI 11.5% to 13.6%) and 2016 (81.6%, 95% CI 78.6% to 84.6%). Reductions in population exposure to SHS have continued even after smoke-free legislation in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Scotland has witnessed a dramatic reduction in SHS exposure in the past two decades, but there are still nearly one in five non-smoking adults who have measurable exposure to SHS on any given day. Tobacco control strategies globally should consider the use of both the proportion of non-smoking adults with undetectable salivary cotinine and the GM as targets to encourage policies that achieve a smoke-free future.

Laboratory Validation and Field Assessment of Petroleum Laboratory Technicians' Dermal Exposure to Crude Oil Using a Wipe Sampling Method.

Crude oil may cause adverse dermal effects therefore dermal exposure is an exposure route of concern. Galea et al. (2014b) reported on a study comparing recovery (wipe) and interception (cotton glove) dermal sampling methods. The authors concluded that both methods were suitable for assessing dermal exposure to oil-based drilling fluids and crude oil but that glove samplers may overestimate the amount of fluid transferred to the skin. We describe a study which aimed to further evaluate the wipe sampling method to assess dermal exposure to crude oil, with this assessment including extended sample storage periods and sampling efficiency tests being undertaken at environmental conditions to mimic those typical of outdoor conditions in Saudi Arabia. The wipe sampling method was then used to assess the laboratory technicians' actual exposure to crude oil during typical petroleum laboratory tasks. Overall, acceptable storage efficiencies up to 54 days were reported with results suggesting storage stability over time. Sampling efficiencies were also reported to be satisfactory at both ambient and elevated temperature and relative humidity environmental conditions for surrogate skin spiked with known masses of crude oil and left up to 4 h prior to wiping, though there was an indication of reduced sampling efficiency over time. Nineteen petroleum laboratory technicians provided a total of 35 pre- and 35 post-activity paired hand wipe samples. Ninety-three percent of the pre-exposure paired hand wipes were less than the analytical limit of detection (LOD), whereas 46% of the post-activity paired hand wipes were less than the LOD. The geometric mean paired post-activity wipe sample measurement was 3.09 µg cm-2 (range 1.76-35.4 µg cm-2). It was considered that dermal exposure most frequently occurred through direct contact with the crude oil (emission) or via deposition. The findings of this study suggest that the wipe sampling method is satisfactory in quantifying laboratory technicians' dermal exposure to crude oil. It is therefore considered that this wipe sampling method may be suitable to quantify dermal exposure to crude oil for other petroleum workers.