Article

Secondhand Smoke Exposure in the Nonsmoking Section: How Much Protection?

Center for Energy and Environment, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research (Impact Factor: 2.81). 12/2012; 15(7). DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nts263
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure continues to be a problem in bars and restaurants where smoking is permitted. This study measures the relative SHS exposure reduction in nonsmoking sections of establishments that allow some smoking. METHODS: Measurements were conducted simultaneously in the smoking and nonsmoking sections of 14 Minnesota hospitality venues. All of the 16 two-hr visits included photometer measurements of fine particles (PM(2.5)) and 12 of the visits also included measurements of 4 gas-phase tracers of SHS. RESULTS: The median ratio of nonsmoking/smoking section PM(2.5) concentrations was 0.65 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 0.49-0.72. Measurements conducted after implementation of a smoking ban at 13 of the venues resulted in a smoking section PM(2.5) post-ban/pre-ban ratio of 0.06 (IQR = 0.02-0.16). The median nonsmoking/smoking section ratios for gas-phase compound were 0.67 (IQR = 0.35-0.78) for pyridine, 0.52 (IQR = 0.30-0.70) for pyrrole, 0.43 (IQR = 0.35-0.84) for 3-EP, and 0.27 (IQR = 0.16-0.47) for nicotine. These results are consistent with the expectations of differential removal: the lowest ratios are for the least volatile, most strongly sorbing gases and the highest ratios for less sorbing gases and PM(2.5). CONCLUSIONS: Designated nonsmoking sections in establishments that allow some smoking resulted in a median PM(2.5) reduction of 35% compared with a 94% reduction after a smoking ban. The only adequate protection from cigarette smoke exposure is to eliminate smoking in indoor spaces.

1 Follower
 · 
69 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS), only 5% of the world's population enjoy smoke-free restaurants and bars. METHODS: Lifetime excess risk (LER) of cancer death, ischaemic heart disease (IHD) death and asthma initiation among non-smoking restaurant and bar servers and patrons in Minnesota and the US were estimated using weighted field measurements of SHS constituents in Minnesota, existing data on tobacco use and multiple dose-response models. RESULTS: A continuous approach estimated a LER of lung cancer death (LCD) of 18×10(-6)(95% CI 13 to 23×10(-6)) for patrons visiting only designated non-smoking sections, 80×10(-6)(95% CI 66 to 95×10(-6)) for patrons visiting only smoking venues/sections and 802×10(-6)(95% CI 658 to 936×10(-6)) for servers in smoking-permitted venues. An attributable-risk (exposed/non-exposed) approach estimated a similar LER of LCD, a LER of IHD death about 10(-2) for non-smokers with average SHS exposure from all sources and a LER of asthma initiation about 5% for servers with SHS exposure at work only. These risks correspond to 214 LCDs and 3001 IHD deaths among the general non-smoking population and 1420 new asthma cases among non-smoking servers in the US each year due to SHS exposure in restaurants and bars alone. CONCLUSIONS: Health risks for patrons and servers from SHS exposure in restaurants and bars alone are well above the acceptable level. Restaurants and bars should be a priority for governments' effort to create smoke-free environments and should not be exempt from smoking bans.
    Tobacco control 02/2013; 23(4). DOI:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050831 · 5.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: This study examined tobacco smoke pollution (also known as thirdhand smoke, THS) in hotels with and without complete smoking bans and investigated whether non-smoking guests staying overnight in these hotels were exposed to tobacco smoke pollutants. METHODS: A stratified random sample of hotels with (n=10) and without (n=30) complete smoking bans was examined. Surfaces and air were analysed for tobacco smoke pollutants (ie, nicotine and 3-ethynylpyridine, 3EP). Non-smoking confederates who stayed overnight in guestrooms provided urine and finger wipe samples to determine exposure to nicotine and the tobacco-specific carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone as measured by their metabolites cotinine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), respectively. FINDINGS: Compared with hotels with complete smoking bans, surface nicotine and air 3EP were elevated in non-smoking and smoking rooms of hotels that allowed smoking. Air nicotine levels in smoking rooms were significantly higher than those in non-smoking rooms of hotels with and without complete smoking bans. Hallway surfaces outside of smoking rooms also showed higher levels of nicotine than those outside of non-smoking rooms. Non-smoking confederates staying in hotels without complete smoking bans showed higher levels of finger nicotine and urine cotinine than those staying in hotels with complete smoking bans. Confederates showed significant elevations in urinary NNAL after staying in the 10 most polluted rooms. CONCLUSIONS: Partial smoking bans in hotels do not protect non-smoking guests from exposure to tobacco smoke and tobacco-specific carcinogens. Non-smokers are advised to stay in hotels with complete smoking bans. Existing policies exempting hotels from complete smoking bans are ineffective.
    Tobacco control 05/2013; 23(3). DOI:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050824 · 5.15 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
20 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014