This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Michael W. Ogden, PhD
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co Winston-Salem, NC

JAMA. 1996;275(6):441.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—The article by Dr Hammond and colleagues¹ appears to contain a serious error in data calculation. The authors state that passive monitors for nicotine were exposed for "1 week." Assuming this means 7 days, the monitors were exposed for a period of 168 hours. However, it appears that the authors used only 45 hours in the calculation of airborne nicotine concentration (with the possible exception of samples acquired at "fire stations"). If so, correcting this miscalculation significantly alters the conclusions with respect to potential worker risk as stated in their article and in the accompanying American Medical Association news release.

All official analysis methods of which I am aware (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, American Society for Testing and Materials, International Standards Organization, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, etc) require that airborne concentration be calculated using . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?