Article

Secondhand tobacco smoke: an occupational hazard for smoking and non-smoking bar and nightclub employees.

Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Tobacco control (Impact Factor: 3.85). 01/2012; DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050203
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: In the absence of comprehensive smoking bans in public places, bars and nightclubs have the highest concentrations of secondhand tobacco smoke, posing a serious health risk for workers in these venues. OBJECTIVE: To assess exposure of bar and nightclub employees to secondhand smoke, including non-smoking and smoking employees. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2009, the authors recruited approximately 10 venues per city and up to five employees per venue in 24 cities in the Americas, Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Air nicotine concentrations were measured for 7 days in 238 venues. To evaluate personal exposure to secondhand smoke, hair nicotine concentrations were also measured for 625 non-smoking and 311 smoking employees (N=936). RESULTS: Median (IQR) air nicotine concentrations were 3.5 (1.5-8.5) μg/m(3) and 0.2 (0.1-0.7) μg/m(3) in smoking and smoke-free venues, respectively. Median (IQR) hair nicotine concentrations were 6.0 (1.6-16.0) ng/mg and 1.7 (0.5-5.5) ng/mg in smoking and non-smoking employees, respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, education, living with a smoker, hair treatment and region, a twofold increase in air nicotine concentrations was associated with a 30% (95% CI 23% to 38%) increase in hair nicotine concentrations in non-smoking employees and with a 10% (2% to 19%) increase in smoking employees. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational exposure to secondhand smoke, assessed by air nicotine, resulted in elevated concentrations of hair nicotine among non-smoking and smoking bar and nightclub employees. The high levels of airborne nicotine found in bars and nightclubs and the contribution of this exposure to employee hair nicotine concentrations support the need for legislation measures that ensure complete protection from secondhand smoke in these venues.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
115 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Waterpipe smoking has been growing in popularity in the United States and worldwide. Most tobacco control regulations remain limited to cigarettes. Few studies have investigated waterpipe tobacco smoke exposures in a real world setting. We measured carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM)2.5, and airborne nicotine concentrations in seven waterpipe cafes in the greater Baltimore area. Area air samples were collected between two and five hours, with an average sampling duration of three hours. Waterpipe smoking behaviors were observed at each venue. Indoor air samplers for CO, PM2.5, and airborne nicotine were placed in the main seating area 1-2 m above the floor. Indoor airborne concentrations of PM2.5 and CO were markedly elevated in waterpipe cafes and exceeded concentrations that were observed in cigarette smoking bars. Air nicotine concentrations, although not as high as in venues that allow cigarette smoking, were markedly higher than in smoke-free bars and restaurants. Concentrations of PM approached occupational exposure limits and CO exceeded occupational exposure guidelines suggesting that worker protection measures need to be considered. This study adds to the literature indicating that both employees and patrons of waterpipe venues are at increased risk from complex exposures to secondhand waterpipe smoke.Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology advance online publication, 16 April 2014; doi:10.1038/jes.2014.19.
    Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 04/2014; · 3.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the relative contribution of occupational vs. non-occupational secondhand tobacco smoke exposure to overall hair nicotine concentrations in non-smoking bar and restaurant employees. We recruited 76 non-smoking employees from venues that allowed smoking (n=9), had mixed policies (smoking and non-smoking areas, n=13) or were smoke-free (n=2) between April and August 2008 in Santiago, Chile. Employees used personal air nicotine samplers during working and non-working hours for a 24-h period to assess occupational vs. non-occupational secondhand tobacco smoke exposure and hair nicotine concentrations to assess overall secondhand tobacco smoke exposure. Median hair nicotine concentrations were 1.5ng/mg, interquartile range (IQR) 0.7 to 5.2ng/mg. Time weighted average personal air nicotine concentrations were higher during working hours (median 9.7, IQR 3.3-25.4µg/m(3)) compared to non-working hours (1.7, 1.0-3.1µg/m(3)). Hair nicotine concentration was best predicted by personal air nicotine concentration at working hours. After adjustment, a 2-fold increase in personal air nicotine concentration in working hours was associated with a 42% increase in hair nicotine concentration (95% confidence interval 14-70%). Hair nicotine concentration was not associated with personal air nicotine concentration during non-working hours (non-occupational exposure). Personal air nicotine concentration at working hours was the major determinant of hair nicotine concentrations in non-smoking employees from Santiago, Chile. Secondhand tobacco smoke exposure during working hours is a health hazard for hospitality employees working in venues where smoking is allowed.
    Environmental Research 05/2014; 132C:206-211. · 3.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2008, the Portuguese smoke-free law came into effect including partial bans in the leisure-hospitality (LH) sector. The objective of the study is to assess the prevalence of smoking control policies (total ban, smoking permission and designated smoking areas) adopted by the LH sector in Portugal. The levels of noncompliance with each policy are investigated as well as the main factors associated with smoking permission and noncompliance with the law.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(7):e102421. · 3.73 Impact Factor

Full-text (4 Sources)

View
62 Downloads
Available from
May 28, 2014