A skills refocus for digital libraries? Linda Ashcroft Liverpool John Moores University UK.
Effects of tobacco smoke on air quality in pubs and...
Transcript of Effects of tobacco smoke on air quality in pubs and...
Effects of tobacco smoke on air
quality in pubs and bars
Ivan Gee, Centre for Public Health
Liverpool John Moores University
Investigation of Air Pollution Standing Conference,
5th June 2007
Structure of Talk
� Some key studies on indoor air quality in bars
� Our Research in Bars
• Segregation
• Ventilation
• Before smokefree 2007
� Current research before and after July 1st
Measuring tobacco smoke
�Tobacco smoke composed of many 100s of compounds so marker pollutants are used:
• Carbon monoxide
• Nicotine
• Fine particles (PM10, PM2.5, RSP)
• Tobacco specific particles (UVPM, FPM, Solanesol)
• 3-ethenylpyrridine
• Salivary cotinine (biomarker)
Typical ETS Levels in Workplaces
8.6 – 10 Smoking allowed
1.3 – 5.9Restrictions on smoking
0 – 0.4Ban on smoking
Workplaces with:
0.6Offices
2.7Industrial workplaces
3.0Services
37Nightclubs
Nicotine (µg/m3) AREA
From: Irish Health and Safety Agency (2002)
Nicotine in US workplaces
From: Siegel and Skeer (2003)
Type of workplaceN
oof
studies
No
of establishments
sampledWeighted
mean Range
Offices 22 940 4.1 0.8–22.1
Residences 7 91 4.3 1.6–21.0
Restaurants 17 402 6.5 3.4–34.0
Betting establishments 3 4 9.8 8.0–10.7
Bowling alleys 2 6 10.5 10.1–10.7
Billiard halls 2 3 13.0 9.8–19.4
Bars 10 27 31.1 7.4–105.4
Bingo parlours 2 3 76.0 65.5–81.2
Exposure of Bar Staff in London Pubs compared to non-smoking residents
[Jarvis, M et al. Brit J Add 1992; 87: 11-113]
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Non-smoking
London Bar staff
(n=39)
Non-smokers
married to smokers
(n=653)
Non-smokers non-
smoking homes
(n=3558)
Co
tin
ine (
ng
/ml)
Hospitality industry exposure
� About 3 million workers in the UK are exposed to ETS.
� 400,000 exposed hospitality workers in the UK.
� Their exposure to ETS is high and problematical to control.
� Professor Jamrozik (Imperial College, London) estimated that exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace causes around 600 premature deaths in the UK each year 1.
� Equates to one premature death a week among workers in the hospitality industries.
1. Professor Konrad Jamrozik BMJ 2005;330:812
What are the control options for ETS in pubs and bars?
�Voluntary codes e.g. PPC
�Legislation
• Exposure Limits (EH40)
• Smokefree
�Segregation
�Ventilation
White Paper
Smoking Kills, 1998
Public Places CharterCustomers
Non SmokingAreas
Ventilation SignsAoP, 1999
Staff
Ventilation TrainingPromoting NS
at work
Public Places Charter Non-smoker Protection?
�No existing legislation on passive smoking
� 2 Control options: Non-smoking areas & Ventilation.
But little research on their effectiveness.
The impact of non-smoking areas on ETS levels in UK pubs and bars
Ivan Gee, Adrian Watson & Joanna Carrington
Manchester Metropolitan University
Sampling Methodology� 60 pubs and bars studied in and around Manchester
• Oct 2000 – July 2001
� 4 hr sampling period:
• 6:30 – 10:30 (pm)
� Several locations sampled: 1) behind bar, 2) smoking areas 3) non-smoking areas,
� Markers Used:
• RSP as PM2.5
• ETS Specific Particles: UVPM, FPM, SolPM
• Nicotine
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
1: Timer system2: Pump3,7: Battery Packs4: Manifold – flow splitter5: PM2.5 sample head (2 l/min)6: Nicotine, XAD-4 tube (1 l/min)
Summary of Nicotine levels in various environments
0.5-51755601Manchester Bars
7.4-105312710Bars
3.4-346.540217Restaurants
1.6-214.3917Homes
0.8-224.194022Offices
Nicotine Range
(µg/m3)
Nicotine Mean
(µg/m3)
No of Venues
No of Studies
Effect of no-smoking areas� The smoking areas have higher levels of ETS than non-smoking areas.
� Bar areas are intermediate
� Some reduction in exposure for bar staff
0
25
50
75
100
125
co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Smoking Non-smoking Bar
� RSP
� SolPM� Nicotine
Area differences (ug/m3)
� Larger reductions of 30% for ETS specific particles in non-smoking areas
� Reductions at bars are <26% for ETS particles� Considerable reductions in nicotine
• misleading due to its limited mobility – not a good comparative marker for ETS
32
32
69
Median Bar
(n=26)
21
30
69
Median Non Smoking
(n=23)
426255Nicotine
263043SolPM
141380RSP
Bar % reduction
NS % reduction
Median Smoking
(n=40)
ETS Marker
�Non-smoking areas reduce levels in allareas of a pub: bar, smoking and and non-smoking areas. • Probably by dilution – fewer smokers per unit area
�Non-smoking areas have been demonstrated to reduce levels compared to smoking sections
�Reductions in nicotine much greater than particles
�But, considerable public exposure will still occur in these areas & we have no accepted ETS standards to judge air quality.
Effect of Ventilation
� Indication that mechanically ventilated pubs have lower levels,
� but this is notstatistically significant.
� Not clear what level of ETS is appropriate
248623 248623 248623 248623 248623N =
Extractor Fans OffExtrator Fans OnMechanical
500
400
300
200
100
0
RSP
UVPM
FPM
SolPM
Nicotine
Impact of ventilation at the bar
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
Me
an
diffe
ren
ce
sm
okin
g a
rea
- b
ar
co
nce
ntr
atio
n
(ug
/m3
)
Mechanical Extractor Fans Natural
� At the bar mechanical ventilation systems tend to elevate levels in comparison to adjoining smoking areas.
� Extractor fans and natural ventilation lead to reductions of 5-20ug/m3 at the bar
� RSP
� SolPM� Nicotine
Conclusions - Ventilation
�The Manchester study suggests that current ventilation systems do not appear to be reducing ETS levels sufficiently
� Some indications that mechanical systems may be increasing levels at the bars in comparison to adjoining smoking areas.
�Repace has calculated that to achieve a “safe”working environment excessive air exchange rates will be required.
Liverpool bar survey, 2005
�55 hospitality venues sampled
• Nicotine
• 3EP
• PM2.5
• Solanesol
Black, Gee, Casstles (2007) J Env. Health Res 6(1) 3-12.
�Similar results for all markers
�Much higher levels in bars and social clubs compared to restaurants and the non-smoking venue
Black, Gee, Casstles (2007) J Env. Health Res 6(1) 3-12.
Smokefree Bars 07: Researching current policy
�DoH funded a collaborative study by• Aberdeen University,
• Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (IOM) and
• Liverpool John Moores University
� Examining exposure, health and attitudes of staff and customers
� Pre and post 1 July legislation
�Saliva cotinine survey
�Lung function testing
�PM2.5 continuous monitoring
�Personal monitoring
�Attitude questionnaire
Aim is to evaluate the impact of the smokefree legislation
See you in the pub on July 1st
x
REFERENCESSiegel and M Skeer. Exposure to secondhand smoke and excess lung cancer mortality risk among workers in the "5 B’s": bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting establishments, and bingo parlours. M Tobacco Control 2003;12:333-338
T Kauppinen et al . Occupational exposure to carcinogens in the European Union. Occup. Environ Med 2000;57:10-18
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, Free at: http://xp20.ashrae.org/STANDARDS/62-2001_add_menu.htm.
Irish Health and Safety Agency, 2002. Report on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the workplace.
Borland et al, 1992. Protection from environmental tobacco smoke in California: the case for a smoke free workplace. IJ. Am. Med Assoc., 268, 749-752.
K. Jamrozik Presentation at the Royal College of Physicians conference, London, 2004
Jarvis, M et al., Repeat study of cotinine levels in 44 non smoking bar staff from pubs in London, 200, 1 Brit J Add 2002; 87: 11-113
Carrington J., Gee I.L., Watson A.F.R. The effects of smoking status and ventilation on environmental tobacco smoke concentrations in public areas of UK pubs and bars. Atmos. Environ. 20031352-2310,
Black D, Gee IL, Casstles H. Monitoring the exposure of hospitality workers to second–hand smoke: establishing a base-line in advance of the smoke–free legislation. J Env. Health Res 2007; 6: 3-12.