Babies and toddlers at greater risk from second-hand smoke than previously thought, study finds

Credit: Vera Kratochvil/public domain

Infants and toddlers in low-income communities may be even more at risk from second- and third-hand smoke exposure than has been believed, according to new federally supported research.

In testing that included more than 1,200 , researchers found that up to 15 percent of them had levels of cotinine, a byproduct of the body's breakdown of nicotine, comparable with what would be found in an adult smoker.

Overall, about 63 percent of the babies and in the study had discernible levels of cotinine, evidence of significant to second- and third-hand smoke, according to the study, published last week in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research. Previous similar research, focused on , detected cotinine in less than half of the children studied or did not document levels of cotinine.

For those who remain skeptical about the body's susceptibility to passive smoke exposure, the study may serve as a wake-up call.

"We're finding (as much as) 15 percent of the babies have levels as if they were smokers themselves," said Clancy Blair, senior study author and a professor of cognitive psychology at New York University.

"It was definitely more than we expected, and it's scary," said Lisa M. Gatzke-Kopp, the study's lead author and a professor of human development and family studies at Pennsylvania State University. "Smoke continues on in the environment even after the cigarette is out."

The study, which also included researchers from other universities, sought to find if infants and very young children are at increased risk from passive tobacco smoke exposure given their higher respiration rates and likely contact with surface residues. The exposure included second-hand smoke from being around a adult or third-hand smoke from residue on surfaces like toys, floors, or clothing.

"I think some parents are trying to reduce their children's exposure," said Gatzke-Kopp. "They're making a good effort. They go outside, or they don't smoke around their child, but they may not know it's all over them, and when they pick the baby up and cuddle the baby, the baby's getting it through their clothes, their hair."

The study was part of the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, a nationwide research effort with funding from the National Institutes of Health. Its aim is to learn about the effects of a broad range of environmental influences on child health and development.

The cotinine study focused on mostly low-income children in rural communities in central Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Saliva samples were taken from children ages 6 months, 12 months, 15 months, and 2 and 4 years.

Certain factors that often coincide with poverty also tended to coincide with higher cotinine levels—more residential moves, unstable households with adults coming and going, low educational attainment by adults in the household, and low income. Children who spent time in center-based day care were less likely to have high cotinine levels.

The majority of the children's mothers did not profess to be smokers. According to Gatzke-Kopp, about a quarter of the mothers said they smoked while pregnant, and about 30 percent said they smoked after their children were born.

And while the children tested for the study lived in , the researchers said it's unlikely children in urban communities are any less at risk.

"It might be even more worrisome, in that kids in urban environments are operating in more of a toxic chemical soup than kids in a more rural environment," Blair said.

Gatzke-Kopp said the researchers plan to use the data to learn if increased exposure to second- and third-hand smoke is related to later health problems, including learning deficits.

"It's definitely true that nicotine binds in the brain in special receptors that affect things like cognition and attention, and there's every reason to believe all brains are equally vulnerable," she said.

Explore further

Low-income, rural kids at higher risk for second- or third-hand smoke exposure

Journal information: Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Citation: Babies and toddlers at greater risk from second-hand smoke than previously thought, study finds (2018, December 16) retrieved 21 October 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 16, 2018
right . . . all those people who died prematurely between the years 1920 - 1980. Right.

Well it is true that 100% of babies who drink milk, die.

Dec 16, 2018
cotinine is retained in the body of babies and young children for almost a day. Did the study control for mothers who smoked, rolled cigarettes or cigars, chewed tobacco or used nicotine patches and breastfed their children. Menthol prolongs the presence of cotinine in bodily fluids. Cotinine can also be found in those who come in contact with tobacco or tobacco products, so the study would also have to control for the location of the poor rural communities. If those communities engage in tobacco agriculture then that rather than smoke would explain cotinine levels.

Dec 16, 2018
The second and third hand smoke dangers are just "I hate people who use tobacco" reactions.

There have been similar studies to this which measured cotinine in infants and children which found high levels of cotinine in children who lived in separate housing (not connected to any other structure) where no one in the house used tobacco and where the children had never been anywhere except in their home. Whatever cotinine is, it is not confined to people exposed to tobacco products.

No one has ever seen any deleterious effect of second and third hand smoke -- ever.

Dec 17, 2018
You are all smokers?
But also childless eunuchs?
& you have no memory of anyone, ever choking on the smoke you blow in their faces?

Based on your desire that tax money should not be wasted on studying medical health issues?
By that logic?
You would insist that "your" taxes not be wasted on breathing-masks for firefighters. Your medical degree is proof of your claim there is no danger to the firefighters.

It would be a lot more accurate to say that there is no danger to you. Cause, when your house caught on fire. (you fell asleep with a lite cigarette, again!)

When you heard the scream of "Fire!"? You leaped out of your lounger, knocking all the women & children out of your path as you stampeded out the door.

Afterwards, you resented that the firefighters/police/paramedics taking credit for e rescuing your family.

How dare they, mere Public Employees, receive any credit for saving those lives? It was your prayers, at a safe distance. A Divine Miracle!.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more