Korean Study Finds that Nonsmokers are Still Exposed to Thirdhand Smoke

Researchers from the Korean National Institute of Environmental Research found that thirdhand smoke exposure in nonsmokers varied with occupation and housing type. These results suggest that Korea’s existing indoor smoking bans may not offer sufficient protection from toxic thirdhand smoke and point to the importance and challenges of distinguishing between second- and thirdhand smoke exposure.

By Leta Dickinson

August 11, 2021

Previous studies of the Korean population have found that despite indoor smoking bans in most public places, secondhand smoke exposure to tobacco is common. One recent study found that 88% of nonsmoking Korean residents had traces of cotinine, a marker of tobacco exposure, in their urine.
A team of researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Research analyzed samples collected through the Korean National Environmental Health Survey, combined with a few self-reported questions about smoking status, to determine how thirdhand smoke exposure might be affecting the population. They found that of the 2,500 nonsmoking survey respondents, cotinine was detected in nearly 94% of nonsmokers who reported living in smokefree homes. Among these respondents, cotinine levels were higher in those who lived in homes with less ventilation and spent more time at home. Employment was also associated with higher cotinine levels.
The authors note as a limitation that the study relied on self-reported smoking status. That is smoking and smokefree homes were determined based solely on participant responses to survey questions). The study authors also acknowledge possible errors participants could have made in distinguishing between second- and thirdhand smoke: “The nonsmoking respondents in smoke-free homes, defined by questions, might have resided with occasional smokers in their homes. The present study did not take into account potential secondhand smoke from workplaces because the questionnaires did not ask. These unmeasured factors might have over- or underestimated urinary cotinine levels in nonsmoking adults.”
Nonetheless, this study makes an important contribution to understanding how widespread second- and thirdhand tobacco smoke exposure are and draw attention to the need for stricter policies worldwide to ensure equal access to clean air, regardless of a person’s occupation or housing situation.

Click here to read the research study.

More Must Read Stories

A row of apartments on a sunny day. The image has the title “The California Fair Employment and Housing Act Can Help Tenants Avoid Second- and Thirdhand Smoke.”

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act Can Help Tenants in Multiunit Housing Avoid Second- and Thirdhand Smoke

Do you live in California and have medical conditions made worse by from tobacco smoke intrusion? If you live in multiunit housing, you may be able to get help from California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

A wooden decoration that says “home” and a set of house keys lie on a table. A question about the smoking history on the Seller Property Questionnaire is in the bottom right corner.

What can I do to Avoid Thirdhand Smoke when Buying a House in California?

A team at the Thirdhand Smoke Resource Center examined home disclosure documents commonly used in San Diego to see how well they inform buyers about the smoking history of their potential home.

Children’s Hands Can Tell us if They were Exposed to Thirdhand Smoke

A recent study from San Diego State University suggests that nicotine on the hands of children is one of the most effective ways to measure children’s thirdhand smoke exposure over time and in different environments. In collaboration with colleagues at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, the researchers

Silhouette rows of people stand with the words "56 million Americans" in front

56 Million Americans Don’t Know They’re Exposed to Tobacco Smoke – Thirdhand Smoke Could be to Blame

Over half of Americans who don’t smoke are exposed to tobacco, but only one-third are aware of it, according to a recent University of Florida study.

An electronic cigarette and conventional cigarette fight a pair of lungs.

Is the chemical residue from electronically heated tobacco products different from the chemical residue from traditional cigarettes?

A recent study compared the effects of chemical residue from using electronically heated tobacco products to chemical residue from smoking on lung cells. It turns out that both kinds of chemical residue can damage lungs.