Promoting smoke-free environments in Latin America: a comparison of methods to assess secondhand smoke exposure.

Abstract

Secondhand smoke (SHS) contains toxicants and carcinogens that are known to cause premature death and disease. Objectively measuring SHS exposure can support and evaluate smoke-free legislation. In Latin America, the most commonly used methods to measure SHS exposure are airborne nicotine and respirable suspended particles (PM₂.₅). Here we present results from studies conducted in public places and homes across Latin American countries. Airborne nicotine was detected in most locations between 2002-2006, before the implementation of 100% smoke-free legislation in Uruguay, Panama, Guatemala and other large cities within Latin America. Between 2006 and 2008, PM₂.₅ levels were found to be five times higher in places where smoking was present at the time of sampling compared to those without smoking. Measuring SHS exposure across Latin America has increased our understanding of the magnitude of exposure in this region and results have been used to effectively promote smoke-free legislation.

Full text

Page 1

S138
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Ávila-Tang E y col.
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Buffalo, New York, USA.
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Maryland, USA.
Received on: March 22, 2010 • Accepted on: April 21, 2010
Address reprint requests to: Erika Avila- Tang, PhD, MHS. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School
of Public Health 627 N. Washington St. 2nd floor. Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21205
E-mail: etang@jhsph.edu
Promoting smoke-free environments
in Latin America: a comparison of methods
to assess secondhand smoke exposure
Erika Avila-Tang, PhD, MHS,(1-2) Mark J Travers, PhD, MS,(3) Ana Navas-Acien, MD, PhD.(1-2,4)
Avila-Tang E, Travers MJ, Navas-Acien A.
Promoting smoke-free environments
in Latin America: a comparison of methods
to assess secondhand smoke exposure.
Salud Publica Mex 2010;52 suppl 2:S138-S148.
Abstract
Secondhand smoke (SHS) contains toxicants and carcino-
gens that are known to cause premature death and disease.
Objectively measuring SHS exposure can support and
evaluate smoke-free legislations. In Latin America, the most
commonly used methods to measure SHS exposure are
airborne nicotine and respirable suspended particles (PM2.5).
Here we present results from studies conducted in public
places and homes across Latin American countries. Airborne
nicotine was detected in most locations between 2002-2006,
before the implementation of 100% smoke-free legislation
in Uruguay, Panama, Guatemala and other large cities within
Latin America. Between 2006 and 2008, PM2.5 levels were
found to be five times higher in places where smoking was
present at the time of sampling compared to those without
smoking. Measuring SHS exposure across Latin America has
increased our understanding of the magnitude of exposure in
this region and results have been used to effectively promote
smoke-free legislation.
Keywords: air pollution, tobacco smoke; nicotine; particulate
matter; surveillance
Avila-Tang E, Travers MJ, Navas-Acien A.
Promoción de ambientes libres de humo
en América Latina: una comparación de métodos
para evaluar la exposición a humo de tabaco.
Salud Publica Mex 2010;52 supl 2:S138-S148.
Resumen
El humo de tabaco (HT) contiene tóxicos y carcinógenos
que causan muerte prematura y enfermedades. La medición
objetiva de la exposición en el ambiente a HT puede apoyar
y evaluar las legislaciones que prohiben fumar. Aquí presen-
tamos resultados de estudios realizados en lugares públicos
y hogares latinoamericanos usando los métodos más comu-
nes para esta exposición: nicotina y partículas respirables
(PM2.5). Se detectó nicotina en el aire de la mayoría de los
lugares muestreados entre 2002-2006, antes de la ejecución
de la legislación 100% libre de humo en Uruguay, Panamá, y
Guatemala. Entre 2006-2008, los niveles de PM2.5 resultaron
ser cinco veces mayores en lugares donde personas fumaban
comparado con lugares sin fumadores. Medir la exposición al
HT en América Latina ha aumentado nuestra comprensión de
la magnitud de la exposición en esta región y ha servido para
promover eficazmente legislación libre de humo de tabaco.
Keywords: contaminación por humo de tabaco; nicotina;
material particulado; vigilancia

Page 2

S139
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Methods to assess exposure to secondhand smoke in Latin America
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
S
toxicants and carcinogens that cause premature death
and disease worldwide.1 Mainstream smoke is the to-
bacco smoke exhaled by the smoker whereas sidestream
smoke is the tobacco smoke released from the burning
cigarette.1 In 2001, the Pan American Health Organi-
zation (PAHO) launched the Smoke-Free Americas
initiative to mobilize action in support of smoke-free
communities, workplaces and homes. The World Health
Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Con-
trol (WHO-FCTC), the United Nations first public health
treaty, entered into force in February 2005. The FCTC
was developed in response to the globalization of the
tobacco epidemic and has been adopted by 168 countries
(parties) as of March 4th, 2010, including 26 countries
from the Americas. Article 8 of the WHO-FCTC and its
implementation guidelines legally binds all parties to
adopt and implement comprehensive smoke-free leg-
islations in all public places and workplaces to protect
all people from exposure to tobacco smoke.2,3
The WHO-FCTC indicates that smoke-free legisla-
tion should be monitored and evaluated, and objective
measurement of SHS exposure can play a key role.
First, such measurements quantify the levels of SHS to
which people are exposed in critical locations. Second,
determining SHS exposure can be used to assess health
risks associated with SHS. Third, SHS levels can be used
to educate policy makers and the population at large
about SHS occurrence and the importance of enacting
smoke-free legislations to eliminate health risks associ-
ated with SHS exposure. Finally, objective measures of
SHS are excellent tools to evaluate smoke-free legislation
once the law has been implemented.
In this review, we present a summary of the meth-
ods used to measure exposure to SHS in Latin America,
results obtained using these methods, and potential next
steps for the region.
econdhand smoke (SHS), a mixture of mainstream
and sidestream tobacco smoke, contains well known
Methods and environments for monitoring
exposure to SHS
In general, a good marker of SHS exposure should be
easily and accurately measured at an affordable cost,
providing a valid assessment of SHS exposure as a
whole.4 However, SHS is a dynamic and complex mix-
ture of thousands of compounds in vapor and particulate
phases. This has important implications for measuring
SHS in the air, as it is not possible to directly measure
SHS in its entirety. To facilitate the understanding of total
suspended particles (TSP) dynamic behavior, Daisey5
proposed grouping TSP compounds into 5 major com-
ponents according to their physicochemical properties
(physical state, vapor pressure, and type of compound):
1) very volatile organic compounds (VVOCs) such as
formaldehyde, 2) volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
such as benzene, 3) semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) such as nicotine, 4) particulate matter (PM)
and its organic compounds such as benzo[a]pyrene,
and 5) gas-phase inorganic compounds such as carbon
monoxide.
Each of these different components will behave
differently in the environment. The primary determi-
nants of PM and VVOC are the amount of smoking
and ventilation rates, with 20-30% of PM also being
deposited on surfaces.6,7 Deposition is the process by
which aerosol particles collect or deposit themselves
on solid surfaces, decreasing the concentration of the
particles in the air over time. For VOCs and SVOCs,
such as nicotine, significant amounts of the compound
will also sorb (adhere) onto room surfaces. This sorption
will decrease the concentration of the SHS component
in the air. Subsequent desorption (i.e. reemission into
the environment), however, will increase the concen-
tration of the component in the air. The amount and
time-scale across which the sorption and desorption
occurs is a function of the specific SHS component in
question, ventilation rate, and the amount and type of
surfaces (e.g. furnishings) in the room. Exposure to these
compounds can hence occur hours, days, or even weeks
after active smoking has stopped and these compounds
are adsorbed and desorbed into the air of the room.6
Dozens of different markers of SHS in the air have
been measured, including nicotine, respirable particles,
3-ethenylpyridine (3-EP), polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons (PAHs), carbon monoxide, and acrolein. Each
marker has advantages and disadvantages in terms of
specificity, sensitivity, cost and ease of determination.
Furthermore, the choice of marker will also depend
on the specific question being addressed and the en-
vironment studied. Nevertheless, two methods have
become the most commonly used for determining SHS
exposure in different environments: airborne nicotine
and respirable suspended particles. The two methods
are compared side-by-side in Table I.
Air nicotine
Airborne nicotine concentrations are well correlated
with the number of cigarettes smoked and with respi-
rable PM generated by the burning cigarette. They also
provide reasonable estimates of exposure to the rest of
tobacco components.5,7 Nicotine is a particularly attrac-
tive marker because tobacco smoke is its only source in
most environments (i.e., it is specific to tobacco smoke)
and the measurement methods, based on a small passive

Page 3

S140
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Ávila-Tang E y col.
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
filter-badge, are accurate, precise, relatively inexpensive
and easy to use.7-9 The quantification of SHS with air-
borne nicotine is generally made by passive sampling, a
method that does not rely on mechanized air pumping.
The sampling device is a small, lightweight, circular
plastic badge containing a filter treated with sodium
bisulfate (Figure 1). As air passes through a porous mem-
brane, nicotine in the air is absorbed into the filter.8
After the sampling devices have been in place for
a period of time in the location of interest (e.g. one to
two weeks), they are sent to a laboratory where the
nicotine collected by the filter is extracted into heptane
with an internal standard, and then injected into a gas
chromatograph, coupled with a nitrogen phosphorus
detector and a capillary column.8,10 The lowest amount
of nicotine that the laboratory method/instrument has
been able to determine in a 7-day sample is around 0.001
μg/m3, although the limit of detection can vary across
different laboratories. For quality control purposes, it is
important to use around 10% duplicate samples and at
least 10% blanks. Duplicate samples, a second monitor
placed next to the main sampler, are used to determine
how repeatable the laboratory analysis is. Correlation
coefficients between 0.85 and 0.97 have been reported
between duplicate and original samples.11-13 Blanks are
monitors that are opened for 3-5 seconds at the sampling
site, stored, and analyzed with the rest of the monitors.
These blank samples are used to assess background
Table I
Comparison of sHs exposure assessment metHods
Airborne nicotine (passive sampling)Particulate matter (PM2.5, active sampling)
Method
Passive sampling using a small filter badge hung in an area of interest.
The nicotine collected by the filter is later analyzed in a laboratory
for an integrated value of airborne nicotine concentration in the
area of interest over the duration of sampling.
Portable battery operated machine with a vacuum pump
and integrated laser that samples the air continuously and
stores measurements into memory. Data can be down-
loaded and viewed immediately after sampling.
Time scale
Duration of sampling depends on the amount of nicotine in the air
but typically requires 1-2 days to 1-2 weeks of sampling. For instance
in a bar or nightclub where smoking is allowed 1 day of sampling is
generally sufficient to provide a precise quantification of nicotine
in that environment. For any location, a week of sampling has the
advantage to provide a good estimate of time weighted average
concentrations.
Measurements are taken continuously and stored in me-
mory as often as once per second for 6-14 hours depending
on batteries used. Longer sampling would require plugging
in and securing the device. Allows for the examination of
changes in SHS exposure over time. Allows for the mea-
surement of peak concentrations that are not seen with
integrated methods.
Sensitivity
A sufficient amount of nicotine must be collected on the filter in
order to perform quantification in the laboratory. Current laboratory
methods are very sensitive allowing for the quantification of ≥0.0026
µg/ml of nicotine. For instance, 1 hour of sampling is sufficient to
detect an average concentration of 0.22 µg/m3 in an environment
where this concentration is constant during the hour of sampling.
Highly sensitive to tobacco smoke; the machine detects
levels as low as 1 microgram per cubic meter of PM while
cigarettes emit large quantities of PM, about 14 000 mi-
crograms per cigarette.
Specificity
Highly specific to tobacco smoke. Tobacco is generally the only
source of nicotine.
PM is not specific to tobacco smoke and there are many
other sources of PM present at all times. Especially at low
concentrations it may be difficult to distinguish tobacco
smoke PM from other sources.
Correlation between
markers
Both are correlated with other SHS constituents. Especially in places where there is consistent smoking there is a good correlation
between nicotine and PM2.5 with an increase of about 10 micrograms of PM2.5 for each 1 microgram of nicotine.
Because there is no safe level of SHS exposure the concentration
of nicotine in the environment should be zero (i.e. undetectable).
Any level of exposure increases health risk, although the risk is
substantially higher with increasing concentrations. Nicotine itself
can be of health interest as it may have some cardiovascular effects.
Comparisons of air nicotine concentrations in different locations,
including smoke-free environments are powerful tools in support
of smoke-free initiatives.
Communication
PM2.5 has known direct health effects in terms of mor-
bidity and mortality. There are existing health standards
for PM2.5 in outdoor air (USEPA and WHO) that can be
used to communicate the relative harm of PM2.5 levels in
places with smoking. The continuous nature of sampling
allows for the creation of real-time plots showing levels
minute-by-minute which can be powerful communication
tools (e.g. Figure 5).
Cost
No expensive equipment to buy up front and minimal operating
cost. Per sample laboratory costs including the filter badge are
~$40-$100 USD.
High initial investment (~$4 000USD) but minimal ope-
rating cost. No per sample costs, i.e. no laboratory costs
or consumables.
Training protocols Readily available (e.g. www.shsmonitoring.org) Readily available (e.g. www.tobaccofreeair.org)

Page 4

S141
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Methods to assess exposure to secondhand smoke in Latin America
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
nicotine levels trapped by the filter during shipping,
storage and manipulation of the sampling devices.
Final concentrations are calculated after subtraction of
nicotine background levels from these blank samples.
Because nicotine directly relates to tobacco smoke, there
is no safe level of air nicotine and nicotine should be
undetectable in all indoor environments. Protocols and
analysis using this method are readily available at www.
shsmonitoring.org.
Particulate matter
PM can be divided into categories based on size. Re-
spirable suspended particulates (RSP) refer only to
particles small enough to be inhaled into the lower
airways of the lungs. The maximum particle size for
RSP is generally considered 3.5 or 4 microns. PM2.5 is a
measure of the mass concentration of particles less than
2.5 microns in diameter. It is commonly used to assess
SHS as it closely approximates the respirable fraction
(RSP) and there are existing outdoor air quality stan-
dards based on PM2.5 concentrations that can be used
for comparison.14,15 Virtually all PM in tobacco smoke
is less than one micron in diameter, with the median
particle size around 0.2 μm.16,17 Other properties of
particles, besides mass concentration, can be measured
including particle count and surface chemistry,18 al-
though the relevance of these measures for secondhand
monitoring is less clear.
In contrast to nicotine, PM is not specific to tobacco
smoke and thus measurements in environments where
smoking occurs must be compared to concentrations
in comparable environments where smoking does not
occur. In environments without smoking, sources of PM
could be related to the presence of burning ovens and
candles or to varying levels of outdoor pollution. Like
nicotine, measured concentrations of SHS-associated
particulate range about 100-fold, from 5 to 500 μg/m3,
over a wide variety of indoor environments,19 although
extreme levels of several thousand micrograms per cubic
meter are not rare in some indoor environments (e.g. in
certain bars and nightclubs). Indoor environments with
smoking commonly have concentrations of PM2.5 and/
or RSP in the range of 10-20 or even more times higher
than the maximum allowed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) concentrations for outdoor
pollution.14,20
The novelty in PM monitoring is the availability of
portable, user-friendly, affordable instruments capable
of real-time continuous monitoring (one measurement
every second to minutes).21 The continuous nature of
measurement allows for examination of changes in
tobacco smoke levels over time. These instruments al-
low multiple assessments of indoor air quality and are
suited to check compliance with smoking policy rules.
PM measurements can also be compared with health
based national air quality standards for outdoor air.14
Moreover, the results of the measurements can be shared
instantly with bartenders, patrons and customers, thus
representing an educational opportunity. Real-time
monitors can also compare outdoor and indoor air qual-
ity instantly, often a shocking experience for lay people
who are accustomed to considering pollution mainly as
an outdoor problem.21 The principal drawback of this
marker is its poor specificity to SHS: in order to collect
reliable information about exposure, it is sometimes
figure 1. passive monitor (left) used to measure niCotine in tHe air and sidepak am510 personal aerosol moni-
tor (rigHt) (tsi inC., minnesota, usa)

Page 5

S142
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Ávila-Tang E y col.
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
useful to link PM measures with other specific markers
such as nicotine.*
One commonly used device for measuring SHS-
derived PM is the TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol
Monitor (TSI, Inc., St. Paul, MN)(Figure 1). The SidePak
uses a built-in sampling pump to draw air through the
device where the PM in the air scatters the light from a
laser. The amount of light scattering is correlated with
the particle mass concentration or PM2.5. It is important
to note that with any type of light-scattering instrument
such as the SidePak, it is important to calibrate the device
for the specific aerosol of interest, in this case tobacco
smoke. The SidePak has been calibrated and validated
for use in studies of SHS exposure.22-26 Protocols and
a training course to measure SHS exposure using this
device are readily available at www.tobaccofreeair.org.
Studies in Latin America
Air nicotine
Public places: Between 2002 and 2004, we measured
indoor air nicotine concentrations in public places
in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uru-
guay.11,13,27-29 In each of the countries, we included two
secondary schools, a hospital, a government building,
an airport (two airports in Argentina), and 10 restau-
rants and bars.
Homes: Between 2005 and 2006, we measured indoor
air nicotine concentrations in approximately 40 homes
of smokers and non-smokers in each of the following
countries: Argentina, Brazil, Dominican Republic,
Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and
Venezuela.12
Sampling methods: For both studies, the filter-badges
were assembled at the Secondhand Smoke Exposure
Assessment Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins Institute
for Global Tobacco Control and shipped to each country
in securely closed smoke-free containers. Trained, in-
country investigators placed the small, unnoticeable
filter-badges in locations selected to represent areas that
people frequently occupy and spend time in. The filter-
badges passively filtered the air trapping the nicotine
for a period of 7-14 days in each location. At the end of
the sampling period, the filter-badges were sent back
to the Johns Hopkins laboratory where nicotine was
extracted to provide a time weighted average estimate
of air nicotine concentrations (μg/m3) in each location
using the method described above. Using this relatively
simple method, we have monitored more than 1100
indoor public places (around 100 per country) and 400
homes across major cities in Latin America.
Air nicotine in Latin America – Key findings
Public places: Airborne nicotine was detected in most
locations surveyed (>90%) confirming that smoking
was widespread in indoor public environments across
these Latin American countries between 2002-2004,
before the implementation of 100% smoke-free legisla-
tion in Uruguay, Panama, Guatemala and other large
cities within Latin America. Nicotine concentrations,
however, ranged widely across locations and countries
(Figure 2). Concentrations in hospitals, schools and
city government buildings were highest in Argentina
and Uruguay, followed by Chile and other countries.
At the time of the study, legislation banning smoking
in schools, hospitals and government buildings were in
place in most countries. Our quantification of nicotine,
however, revealed incomplete compliance with these
laws and the need for better enforcement. The highest
nicotine concentrations within all countries were found
in bars and restaurants. Air nicotine concentrations were
high even in non-smoking areas, showing once more
that nonsmoking areas contiguous to smoking areas do
not prevent SHS exposure. Most importantly, the high
concentrations of SHS measured in restaurants and bars
raised major concerns about the health of employees
who work long hours in those environments. Our study
clearly documented that comprehensive smoke-free
laws were urgently needed to protect all people, includ-
ing workers in the hospitality industry.
Homes: Airborne nicotine was detected in more than 85%
of the homes surveyed. Non-smoking households had
very low levels of airborne nicotine although nicotine
was detected in nearly 60% of these homes. The median
levels of air nicotine in households with smokers in
these Latin American countries ranged from 0.04 μg/
m3 in Panama, Dominican Republic, and Peru, to 1.19
μg/m3 in Argentina (Figure 3). A major concern was
that air nicotine levels in some smoking households
were as high as or even higher than air nicotine levels in
restaurants or bars in some of the countries. Children, in
particular young children, are at high risk of SHS expo-
sure at home since they spend a large amount of time in
their homes and because of their limited mobility.30
Particulate matter
In 2006 and 2007 PM2.5 was assessed in restaurants,
bars, transportation areas such as airports and bus and
* Agbenyikey W, Wellington E, Gyapong J, Travers M, Breysse PN,
McCarty KM, et al. Secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in selected
public places (PM2.5 and air nicotine) and non-smoking employees
(hair nicotine) in Ghana. Tob Control 2010. In press.

Page 6

S143
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Methods to assess exposure to secondhand smoke in Latin America
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
figure 2. air niCotine ConCentrations (µ g/m3) in publiC plaCes in latin ameriCa, 2002-2004. Horizontal lines witHin boxes indiCate medians; boxes, interquartile
ranges; error bars, values witHin 1.5 times tHe interquartile range; solid CirCles, outlying data points
Schools
10 15 16 6 19 12 14 14 15 18
Uruguay
Peru
Paraguay
Panama
Mexico
Honduras
Costa Rica
Chile
Brazil
Argentina
20.0
5.0 1.00.1
0.01
0.001
N=
Hospitals
24 24 25 22 26 23 24 21 20 27
Uruguay
Peru
Paraguay
Panama
Mexico
Honduras
Costa Rica
Chile
Brazil
Argentina
20.0
5.0 1.0 0.1
0.01
0.001
N=
City government building
16 19 20 18 20 20 20 21 19 21
Uruguay
Peru
Paraguay
Panama
Mexico
Honduras
Costa Rica
Chile
Brazil
Argentina
20.0
5.01.00.1
0.01
0.001
N=
Airports
12 10 13 13 16 16 14 15 14 11 14
Uruguay
Peru
Paraguay
Panama
Mexico
Honduras
Costa Rica
Chile
Brazil
Int’I Domestic
Argentina
20.0
5.01.0 0.1
0.01
0.001
N=
Restaurants
7 19 13 15 14 13 12 14 15 14
Uruguay
Peru
Paraguay
Panama
Mexico
Honduras
Costa Rica
Chile
Brazil
Argentina
20.0
5.01.0 0.1
0.01
0.001
N=
Bars
10 – 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6Uruguay
Argentina
Peru
Paraguay
Panama
Mexico
Honduras
Costa Rica
Chile
Brazil
20.0
5.01.00.1
0.01
0.001
N=

Page 7

S144
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Ávila-Tang E y col.
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
train stations, and other types of venues including ho-
tels, shopping malls, offices, casinos and schools. This
study was conducted in 1 822 locations in 32 countries
around the world,31 including 385 locations in 5 Latin
American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay
and Venezuela. In 2008, an additional 79 locations in
Panama, and 56 locations in Argentina were added to the
previous data collection. All of the sampling in Panama
was conducted after Panama implemented nation-wide
smoke-free air legislation in April 2008. Each location
was visited for a minimum of 30 minutes with the
SidePak monitor continuously recording PM2.5 concen-
trations. The number of people inside the venue and
the number of burning cigarettes were recorded every
15 minutes during sampling. These observations were
averaged over the time inside the venue to determine
the average number of people on the premises and the
average number of burning cigarettes. A sonic measur-
ing device was used to measure room dimensions and
hence the volume of each of venue where measurements
were taken. The active smoker density was calculated
by dividing the average number of burning cigarettes
by the volume of the room in meters.
Particulate matter – Key findings in Latin America
Figure 4 shows an overall 5-fold increase in PM2.5 con-
centration in places where smoking was present at the
time of sampling compared to those without smoking.
The particle concentrations in the presence of smoking
far exceeded limits established by the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and the World Health Organiza-
tion to protect human health. Brazil showed a smaller
difference between places with and without smoking
(2-fold) compared to other Latin American countries.
This is due to the higher PM2.5 concentration in the non-
smoking restaurants sampled in Brazil, likely because
of the common practice of open-fire cooking in these
restaurants. Compliance with the Panama smoke-free
air legislation was extremely high with only a single
burning cigarette observed indoors in the 79 locations
sampled. As a result, public places in Panama had low
levels of indoor particulate air pollution. Figure 5 com-
pares 4 locations sampled in smoke-free Colon, Panama
to 4 locations sampled in smoking-permitted Olavar-
ria, Argentina. This example plot shows the change in
PM2.5 concentrations minute-by-minute as the monitor
moved between the outdoors and the four locations in
each city. Immediate and dramatic increases in PM2.5
levels are seen in Olavarria as the monitor moves from
outdoors to indoor places with smoking. In contrast, in
Colon, levels stay low as the monitor moves between
the outdoor and indoor smoke-free places.
Using monitoring data in support of
smoke-free environments in Latin America
Dissemination. SHS exposure levels quantified in Latin
America between 2002 and 2004 had immediate implica-
tions for public health professionals and for the govern-
figure 3. air niCotine ConCentrations (µ g/m3) in Homes in latin ameriCa, 2005-2006. Horizontal lines witHin boxes
indiCate medians; boxes, interquartile ranges; error bars, values witHin 1.5 times tHe interquartile range; solid
CirCles, outlying data points
Argentina
Brazil
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
Mexico
Panama
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
Argentina
Brazil
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
Mexico
Panama
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
20
5
1
.1
.01
.001
N=
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 33 32 32 32 34 35

Page 8

S145
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Methods to assess exposure to secondhand smoke in Latin America
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
ment entities responsible for protecting the public from
exposure to SHS. The initial peer-review publication of
the study of air nicotine levels in public places11 received
substantial media attention in Latin America. More im-
portantly, partner organizations were actively involved
in tobacco control activities in their countries. To help
them disseminate the study findings, we prepared
specific country reports trying to make them attractive
and easy to understand. Tips to prepare policy relevant
reports are provided in www.shsmonitoring.org. Re-
ports included summary tables, figures, and conclusions
highlighting the key points for each country. They also
provided details on tobacco legislation at the country
level and summarized the international evidence for
smoke-free environments. Our target audiences were
policy makers, medical and public health providers,
media and the public at large.
Some successes. The air nicotine data and the multi-coun-
try approach proved to be powerful tools in support of
smoke-free environments. Both air nicotine and PM2.5
data have been extensively used for media advocacy in
Latin America. The air nicotine findings had a substan-
tial media impact in Latin America, including at least
Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Guatemala and were ac-
tively used in support of smoke-free legislations in those
countries. PM2.5 results also received very important
media coverage in Argentina where PM2.5 monitoring
has been used to demonstrate the need for smoke-free
air legislation, to evaluate the positive impact of 100%
smoke-free air legislation in some provinces, and to
figure 5. real-time plot sHowing pm2.5 ConCentrations over time in four loCations in olavarria, argentina (3
bars and 1 disCotHeque), and four loCations in Colon, panama (2 bars and 2 disCotHeques). all four loCations
in olavarria permitted and Had observed indoor smoking. all four loCations in Colon were smoke-free aCCording
to national law and no smoking was observed
figure 4. pm2.5 ConCentrations in publiC plaCes in
latin ameriCa, 2006- 2008. error bars represent 95%
ConfidenCe intervals
Smoking observed No observed smoking
250
200
150
100
50
0
Argentina Brazil Mexico Panama Uruguay Venezuela AII LA
(post-law) (pre-law) countries
Geometric mean PM2.5 concentration (µg/m3)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
060120180
Elapsed time in minutes
PM 2.5 level in micrograms per cubic meter
ArgentinaArgentina
PanamaPanama

Page 9

S146
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Ávila-Tang E y col.
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
document the shortcomings of partial restrictions re-
quiring only separate sections.32 In most countries, the
air nicotine and PM2.5 results were presented to legisla-
tive bodies debating tobacco control legislation at the
national and sub-national levels. In 2004, the Uruguayan
government cited the air nicotine study in a decree that
made all health care facilities smoke-free.11 Two years
later, Uruguay was the first country in the Americas and
the first low- or middle-income country in the world to
enact comprehensive national smoke-free legislation
that prohibited smoking in all indoor public places and
workplaces, including bars and restaurants. In 2008, air
nicotine data were used in the successful promotion of
comprehensive smokefree legislation in Panama and
Guatemala and PM2.5 data were used for promotion of
sub-national laws in Argentina and in evaluation of the
national law in Panama. In other countries, legislation
remains incomplete: however, many cities are taking the
lead and passing comprehensive smoke-free legislation
in their jurisdictions.
Evaluation of smoke-free legislation
in Latin America
We are currently revisiting locations from the 2002-2004
studies in Uruguay33 and Guatemala to measure air
nicotine concentrations following the implementation of
smoke-free legislation in these countries. Our questions
are the following: Has exposure to SHS changed? Are
levels of enforcement similar across different institu-
tions? Are additional enforcement efforts needed? In
Montevideo, Uruguay, air nicotine levels in public places
and workplaces have decreased extraordinarily after the
implementation of the comprehensive national smoke-
free legislation in 2006.33 These findings, consistent
with self-reported data on seeing smoking in regulated
venues34 confirm that similar legislation can be enacted
and implemented successfully in other countries. By ob-
jectively documenting decreases in SHS exposure from
before to after implementation of comprehensive smoke-
free legislation, we expect to encourage other countries
in Latin America and other regions of the world to take
the necessary steps to eliminate toxic tobacco smoke
from indoor public places and workplaces.
Next steps
Measuring air nicotine and respirable suspended par-
ticles in public places in Latin America has contributed
to increase our understanding of the magnitude of
exposure to SHS in Latin America and to use those data
to support and promote compliance with smoke-free
legislation. The measurement of nicotine in the home
environment objectively revealed the critical need to
implement educational measures that would protect
children from SHS in their homes. Additional efforts to
monitor and reduce SHS exposure in private environ-
ments, such as homes and motor vehicles, are needed
in Latin America. While legislating smoke-free environ-
ments in private homes is challenging,35 ethical support
for banning smoking across different environments
can be obtained when the goal is to protect children’s
health.36 These environments could include multi-unit
housing, parks and other outdoor places where children
gather and spend time, as well as in motor vehicles.
There is substantial legislative experience showing that
it is possible to ban smoking in cars when children are
present. Air nicotine levels37 and respirable suspended
particles38 have been assessed in motor vehicles in some
countries and could also be applied in Latin American
countries to support smoke-free motor-vehicle legisla-
tion there. The source of SHS pollution is easily identifi-
able: the burning cigarette. Smoke-free environments,
through legislation and education, are thus relatively
simple and straightforward measures to eliminate to-
bacco smoke pollution.
Acknowledgements
Conducting these multi-country studies in Latin Amer-
ica was possible thanks to the collaboration of multiple
institutions and investigators. Dr. Armando Peruga from
the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and Drs.
Patrick Breysse, Jonathan Samet and Heather Wipfli
from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health provided the necessary leadership to define the
study goals, refine the study methods and protocols and
identify the study coordinators and partnering institu-
tions for the air nicotine in public places and home stud-
ies. The effective study conduction and dissemination of
the findings in each country was possible thanks to the
following lead country investigators: Marta Angueira
(Argentina), Vera Colombo and Valeska Figueiredo
(Brazil), Marisol Acuña (Chile), Katya Jimenez (Costa
Rica), Sergio Diaz, Deborah Ossip-Klein and Essie Sierra
(Dominican Republic), Joaquin Barnoya (Guatemala),
Claudia Gomez (Honduras), Raydel Valdes and Luz
Myriam Reynales (Mexico), Reina Roa (Panama), Gra-
ciela Gamarra (Paraguay), Carmen Barco (Peru), Adri-
ana Blanco (Uruguay) and Natasha Herrera (Venezuela).
The public places nicotine study was originally funded
by PAHO and the Institute for Global Tobacco Control,
and in recent years by a Clinical Investigator Award
from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute

Page 10

S147
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Methods to assess exposure to secondhand smoke in Latin America
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
(FAMRI), the FAMRI Center of Excellence Award to the
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, and the Bloomberg
Initiative to Reduce to Tobacco Use. The home nicotine
study was funded by FAMRI through a Dr William
Cahan Distinguished Professor award to Dr. Jonathan
M. Samet. Dr. Travers’ work in measuring SHS-derived
particulate matter is also funded by FAMRI. The new
particle monitoring data presented was made possible
by lead investigators Verónica Schoj and María Elizabeth
Pizarro in Argentina and Reina Roa in Panama.
Declaration of conflicts of interest
We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health
Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of
the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating
Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
2. World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco
Control. Geneva: WHO, 2003.
3. World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco
Control Guidelines for implementation Article 5.3; Article 8; Article 11;
Article 13. Geneva: WHO, 2009.
4. National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Passive Smoking.
Environmental tobacco smoke: Measuring exposures and assessing health
effects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1986.
5. Daisey JM. Tracers for assessing exposure to environmental tobacco
smoke: what are they tracing? Environ Health Perspect 1999;107(Suppl
2):319-327.
6. Singer BC, Hodgson AT, Guevarra KS, Hawley EL, Nazaroff WW. Gas-
phase organics in environmental tobacco smoke. 1. Effects of smoking
rate, ventilation, and furnishing level on emission factors. Environ Sci
Technol 2002 Mar 1;36(5):846-853.
7. Leaderer BP, Hammond SK. Evaluation of vapor-phase nicotine and
respirable suspended particle mass as markers for environmental tobacco
smoke. Environ Sci Technol 1991 Apr 1;25(4):770-777.
8. Hammond SK, Leaderer BP. A diffusion monitor to measure exposure
to passive smoking. Environ Sci Technol 1987;21:494-497.
9. Guerin MR, Jenkins RA, Tomkins BA. The chemistry of environmental
tobacco smoke: composition and measurement. 2nd. ed. Washington, DC:
Lewis Publishers Inc., 1992.
10. Hammond SK, Leaderer BP, Roche AC, Schenker M. Collection and
analysis of nicotine as a marker for environmental tobacco smoke.
Atmospheric Environment 1987;21(2):457-462.
11. Navas-Acien A, Peruga A, Breysse P, Zavaleta A, Blanco-Marquizo A,
Pitarque R, et al. Secondhand smoke in public places in Latin America,
2002-2003. JAMA 2004;291(22):2741-2745.
12. Wipfli H, Avila-Tang E, Navas-Acien A, Kim S, Onicescu G, Yuan J, et al.
Secondhand smoke exposure among women and children: Evidence from
31 countries. Am J Public Health 2008;98(4):672-679.
13. Barnoya J, Mendoza-Montano C, Navas-Acien A. Secondhand
smoke exposure in public places in Guatemala: comparison with
other Latin American countries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007;16(12):2730-2735.
14. Environmental Protection Agency. PM Standards Revision - 2006.
http://www epa gov/oar/particlepollution/naaqsrev2006 html 2007
[cited 2010 Mar 11];Available from: URL: http://www.epa.gov/oar/
particlepollution/naaqsrev2006.html
15. World Health Organization. WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate
matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Global update 2005.
Summary of risk assessment. Geneva: WHO, 2006.
16. Klepeis NE, Apte MG, Gundel LA, Sextro RG, Nazaroff WW.
Determining size-specific emission factors for environmental tobacco
smoke particles. Aerosol Science and Technology 2003;37(10):780-790.
17. Morawska L, Barron W, Hitchins J. Experimental deposition of
environmental tobacco smoke submicrometer particulate matter in the
human respiratory tract. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal
1999;60(3):334-339.
18. Ott WR, Siegmann HC. Using multiple continuous fine particle
monitors to characterize tobacco, incense, candle, cooking, wood
burning, and vehicular sources in indoor, outdoor, and in-transit settings.
Atmospheric Environment 2006;40:821-843.
19. National Cancer Institute. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph
10. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Final
Report. 1999.
20. Repace J. Respirable particles and carcinogens in the air of delaware
hospitality venues before and after a smoking ban. J Occup Environ Med
2004;46(9):887-905.
21. Invernizzi G, Ruprecht A, Mazza R, Rossetti E, Sasco A, Nardini S, et al.
Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: an educational
perspective. Tobacco Control 2004;13(3):219-221.
22. Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer P. Real-time measurement of outdoor
tobacco smoke particles 6. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association 2007;57(5):522-534.
23. Travers MJ, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Repace J, Babb S, Pechacek T, et
al. Indoor air quality in hospitality venues before and after implementation
of a clean indoor air law -- Western New York, 2003. MMWR: Morbidity &
Mortality Weekly Report 2004;53(44):1038-1041.
24. Travers MJ, Lee K. Particulate air pollution in Irish pubs is grossly
underestimated. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;177(2):236-237.
25. Waring MS, Siegel JA. An evaluation of the indoor air quality in bars
before and after a smoking ban in Austin, Texas. J Expo Sci Environ
Epidemiol 2007;17(3):260-268.
26. Lee K, Hahn EJ, Pieper N, Okoli CT, Repace J, Troutman A. Differential
impacts of smoke-free laws on indoor air quality. J Environ Health
2008;70(8):24-30, 54.
27. Navas-Acien A, Blanco-Marquizo A, Goja B. Estudio de vigilancia de la
exposición a humo de tabaco en Uruguay. Rev Salud Publica de Uruguay
2004;2:3-8.
28. Navas-Acien A, Gómez Mass CDHACE. Exposición ambiental a humo
de tabaco en Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Revista Facultad Ciencias Médicas
Hondureña 2005;2:51-59.
29. Barrientos-Gutierrez T, Valdes-Salgado R, Reynales-Shigematsu LM,
Navas-Acien A, Lazcano-Ponce E. [Involuntary exposure to tobacco
smoke in public places in Mexico City]. Salud Publica Mex 2007;49 Suppl
2:S205-S212.
30. Kim S, Wipfli H, Navas-Acien A, Dominici F, vila-Tang E, Onicescu G, et
al. Determinants of hair nicotine concentrations in nonsmoking women
and children: a multicountry study of secondhand smoke exposure in
homes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(12):3407-3414.
31. Hyland A, Travers MJ, Dresler C, Higbee C, Cummings KM. A
32-country comparison of tobacco smoke derived particle levels in
indoor public places. Tob Control 2008;17(3):159-165.
32. Schoj V, Sebrie E, Pizarro M, Hyland A, Travers MJ. Informing effective
smokefree policies in Argentina: air quality monitoring study in 15 cities
(2007-20009). Salud Publica Mex 2010.

Page 11

S148
salud pública de méxico / vol. 52, suplemento 2 de 2010
Ávila-Tang E y col.
Exposición ambiEntal a humo dE tabaco
33. Blanco-Marquizo A, Goja B, Peruga A, Jones MR, Yuan J, Samet JM, et al.
Reduction of secondhand tobacco smoke in public places following national
smoke-free legislation in Uruguay. Tobacco Control. 2010;19:231-234.
34. Thrasher JF, Boado M, Sebrie EM, Bianco E. Smoke-free policies and
the social acceptability of smoking in Uruguay and Mexico: Findings from
the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. Nicotine &
Tobacco Research 2009;11(6):591-599.
35. Jarvie JA, Malone RE. Children’s secondhand smoke exposure
in private homes and cars: an ethical analysis. Am J Public Health
2008;98(12):2140-2145.
36. Tobacco and the Rights of the Child. World Health Organization
Tobacco and the Rights of the Child Web site. [accessed December, 2009].
Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/CRCreport.pdf
37. Jones MR, Navas-Acien A, Yuan J, Breysse PN. Secondhand tobacco
smoke concentrations in motor vehicles: a pilot study. Tob Control
2009;18(5):399-404.
38. Sendzik T, Fong GT, Travers MJ, Hyland A. An experimental investigation
of tobacco smoke pollution in cars. Nicotine Tob Res 2009;11(6):627-634.