Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Comparison of  Secondhand Smoke  in Bars and Restaurant  Non/smoking Sections
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Comparison of Secondhand Smoke in Bars and Restaurant Non/smoking Sections

3,206

Published on

Information on levels of secondhand smoke measured simultaneously in the smoking and nonsmoking section of bars and restaurants in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metro area, presented at the 2011 Indoor …

Information on levels of secondhand smoke measured simultaneously in the smoking and nonsmoking section of bars and restaurants in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metro area, presented at the 2011 Indoor Air conference.

For more info, read an interview with CEE's Dave Bohac and Martha Hewett:
http://mncee.org/Innovation-Exchange/ie/November-2012/IAQ-and-Energy-Efficiency--Part-2/?utm_source=slideshare&utm_medium=slideshare&utm_campaign=slideshare

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,206
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 1st question is what was our motivation for this study? The simple answer is that nonsmoking sections have been one of the most common methods that bars and restaurants have dealt with the smoking issue. As you can see out of the 65 venues in our study, over ¾ of the full-service restaurants had nonsmoking sections and they devoted almost half of their floor area to those sections. Those fractions have been lower in bars where there has been less concern with protecting customers from SHS.
  • So the next question is – are nonsmoking sections good public policy or are they just good PR?
  • Our objectives for this study was to quantify the ratio of SHS concentration in the nonsmoking section to that of the smoking section. Or in other words, how much protection is provided by nonsmoking sections. The main motivation was that our exposure assessment needed to quantify SHS exposures for customers in both the smoking and nonsmoking sections. We found that there was fairly limited information on this issues. Also, we were interested in the ratio of SHS in the nonsmoking to smoking concentrations for not only particulates but also gaseous components of SHS.
  • This effort was part of a larger project to provide an assessment of bar and restaurant patrons and workers to SHS. I just want to give you some brief information about the larger project. We generated a statistically representative sample of 65 venues – including 19 drinking places or bars and 48 restaurants with those broken down into 9 limited service and 37 full service restaurants. The distinction there is that in a limited service restaurant customers order their meal at a counter and sit down w/their food while for a FS restaurant they sit down to order their food or drink. In order to make this a comprehensive assessment each venue was visited during the lunch, dinner and evening periods of four different day types – Fri, Sat, Sun and weekday. This was repeated 3 times in each period for a total of 36 visits/venue or over 2,000 visits for the entire study. For each visit the monitors stayed in the venue for at least 10 minutes and recorded the # of customers, workers, and lit cigs. They also used a photometer to record one minute averages of PM2.5 and another instrument to record carbon dioxide levels.
  • All of the visits were conducted without the knowledge of the venue owners or workers. The 65 venues were located within a 20 mile radius of downtownMpls. We would have liked to have a sample across the entire state, but that wasn’t feasible with the number of visits required. For those of you who live on the east or west coast and forget where Minnesota is – we are in the upper midwest – home of frostbit falls.
  • Our IRB was very strict so our monitors had a little problem being completely discrete.
  • Just kidding. The photometer was located in a backpack or brief case and we used a Palm personal assistant to record information. For 3 – 5 visits per venue we conducted more extensive monitoring over a two hour period. For these visits two people used a briefcase to bring in a TSI Sidepak photometer, PEM for gravimetric PM2.5, gas samples were collected on a tenax tube and real-time ultraviolet absorbing PM measurements were provided by an aethalometer.
  • To determine the ratio of the nonsmoking to smoking section SHS concentrations we sent two monitoring teams to a venue at approx. the same time and had one sit in the nonsmoking section and the other in the smoking section. This was generally done on a Friday or Sat night. We didn’t have funds or time to do this for all 65 venues so we targeted venues which previous monitoring had shown had a higher than typical number of customers in the nonsmoking section and higher levels of PM2.5. In addition, we tried to select franchise type businesses so that the information would be more broadly applicable. We were able to complete 16 visits to 14 venues. Since a higher fraction of the full-service venues had nonsmoking areas most of the venues (11 of the 14) were FS restaurants.
  • Before I present our results I wanted to review the information we found in the literature. The most extensive measurements were conducted by Lambert et al in 1993 – they conducted 24 hour measurements at 7 restaurants in New Mexico and found a median nonsmoking/smoking section ratio of 0.63 for RSP and 0.29 for nicotine. Olshansky reported no statistically significant difference in the metabolic carboxyhemolglobin of customers in the smoking and nonsmoking section. Finally, Repace and Lowry measured PM at two sandwich shops and found ratios of 0.5 and 0.59. The PM monitoring suggests a 35% to 50% reduction by sitting in a nonsmoking section.
  • Here is a sample of one-minute resolution data from two hours of monitoring for one of our 16 visits. The upper curves are the CO2 levels in the smoking and NS sections with the dashed line indicating the level in the nonsmoking section. The lower levels at the beginning and end are from outdoor monitoring. The smoking section has a floor area of about 100m2 and the nonsmoking section is about 166m2. The number of people in the smoking section varied from 20 to 54 and there were from 1 to 3 lit cigarettes counted at 15 minute intervals. There were from 6 to 34 people in the nonsmoking section. You can see that even with the higher density of customers in the smoking section the CO2 levels in the two sections are very similar which suggests that there is significant mixing between the zones or ventilation in proportion to the number of people. There are 5 – 10 minute time periods when the PM2.5 concentration is similar in the two areas, but in general the smoking area level is greater than the nonsmoking area. Over the entire two hours the average PM2.5 concentration in the nonsmoking section is 67% of that in the smoking section.
  • This graph shows the nonsmoking section concentrations on the vertical axis and the smoking section concentrations on the horizontal axis. The solid black line indicates 1 to 1 agreement. The blue diamonds are the average PM2.5 concentrations and the red circles the nicotine concentrations. The table on the right shows the 25th percentile, median, average, the 75th percentile nonsmoking to smoking section ratios for PM2.5 and nicotine. The median ratio for PM2.5 is 0.62 and over half of the ratios fall between 0.5 and 0.7. The dashed blue line indicates a ratio of 0.58. The one venue that has a very low ratio has a small smoking section that is located adjacent to the kitchen and had a relatively high ventilation rate of 5ach. If the kitchen exhaust fans were working properly it is possible that some of the smoking section air was being drawn into the kitchen and not mixing with the rest of the venue. I should note that for all of these venues there are no floor to ceiling walls between the two sections – for some there was a half height wall. I don’t have information on whether the same ventilation system served both areas.
  • By contrast, the nicotine ratios are lower and more scattered. This is to be expected because of the relatively high rate of sorption of nicotine to surfaces. Also, the nicotine measurements have a higher level of uncertainty than the PM2.5 measurements with the LOQs indicated by the error bars.
  • This graph shows the ratio of the nonsmoking to smoking concentrations for all 16 visits. The PM2.5 ratios are the blue diamonds and nicotine the red circles again. The ratios for pyridine, pyrrole, and 3-EP have also been included. The visits are sorted from low to high PM2.5 ratio as you go from left to right. The vertical bars indicate the relative concentration of PM2.5 in the smoking section – this was included because the uncertainty in the ratios are higher for lower levels of PM2.5. As indicated in the table to the right the median ratio for pyridine is similar to that for PM2.5 and the median ratio for 3-EP and nicotine are lower. This is to be expected since 3-EP and nicotine will tend to be absorpted to surfaces more readily as the SHS moves from the smoking to nonsmoking section.
  • To summarize, the median ratio of nonsmoking to smoking section PM2.5 was 0.58 for the 16 visits and the median ratio for nicotine was 0.28. The lower ratio is consistent for the higher absorbing gas. These results are consistent with those reported by Lambert for 7 restaurants.
  • Finally, nonsmoking sections provide only moderate protection – a smoking ban is required for adequate protection.
  • We would like to acknowledge ClearWay Minnesota for the project funding and thank the 13 people that we had help with the monitoring on this project.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Center for Energyand Environment Comparison of Secondhand Smoke in Bars and Restaurant Non/smoking Sections Center for Energy and Environment David Bohac, Martha Hewett, Kristopher Kapphahn Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Michael Apte, Lara Gundel University of Minnesota David Grimsrud
    • 2. Prevalence of Nonsmoking Sections 90% 65 venues 78% 80% in Mpls/SP 70% 60% 56% 50% 45% 40% 32% 30% 30% 20% 13% 10% 0% Drinking Place Limited Service Full Service % with nonsmoking area nonsmoking/total floor areaCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 3. Prevalence of Nonsmoking Sections Good public health policy or good public relations?? 90% 65 venues 78% 80% in Mpls/SP 70% 60% 56% 50% 45% 40% 32% 30% 30% 20% 13% 10% 0% Drinking Place Limited Service Full Service % with nonsmoking area nonsmoking/total floor areaCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 4. Non/smoking Section Objectives  Determine level of protection from SHS provided by nonsmoking sections in hospitality venues where smoking is permitted  Evaluate differences between PM2.5 and gas phase components of SHSCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 5. Main Project Methodology  Statistically representative sample: 65 venues • 19 drinking places (bars & taverns) • 9 limited service restaurants • 37 full service restaurants  Three repeat visits at 12 periods (36 total visits) • Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Weekday (M-Th) • Lunch, dinner, and evening  Visits at least 10 minutes recording PM2.5, #cigarettes, #customers, and #workersCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 6. Main Project Methodology  All visits were discrete and unannounced  3 to 5 of the visits to each venue conducted for two hours with enhanced monitoring Bans Minneapolis St. Paul Bloomington Golden Valley Partial Bans Hennepin Cty Ramsey Cty Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area Venues within 20 mile radius of downtown MinneapolisCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 7. Incognito Monitoring???Center for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 8. Two-hour Enhanced Monitoring Catalogue Case Briefcase Aethalometer TSI SidePak TM (Real-time UVPM) (Real-time Photometer PM2.5) TSI P-Trak TM (Real-time CPC UFPM) PEM (Gravimetric PM2.5 ) Tenax Tube (integrated nicotine, 3- Two-hour monitoring EP, pyridine) performed with 2 person team TSI IAQCalc TM (Real-time CO & CO2) Just need to keep my equipment warm – no knives, guns or boozeCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 9. Non/smoking Methodology  Simultaneous two-hour monitoring – one team in smoking and 2nd in nonsmoking section  Selection criteria • Significant fraction customers in nonsmoking • Higher levels of PM2.5 • Franchise type business  14 venues monitored (16 visits – 2 repeats) • 2 drinking places • 1 limited service restaurant • 11 full service restaurantsCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 10. Previous Studies: Ratio of Nonsmoking/smoking SHS  7 New Mexico restaurants, 24 hr samples: • RSP: median= 0.63 (0.39 to 1.20) Lambert et al., 1993 • Nicotine: median= 0.29 (0.06 to 0.75)  Gaming hall patrons: metabolic Olshansky,1982 carboxyhemoglobin statistically identical in nonsmoking and smoking sections  Two sandwich restaurants, consecutive samples: 0.50 and 0.59 Repace and Lowry,1980Center for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 11. Results: Real-time Data 70 1,050 FL-9: average PM2.5 Smoking = 27.8 CO2 Nonsmoking = 18.5 (67%) 60 900 50 750 PM2.5 Smoking section PM2.5 (ug/m3) 40 600 CO2 (ppm) 30 450 20 300 10 Nonsmoking section 150 0 0 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:30 PM 11:00 PM 11:30 PM Smoking section – solid lines, Nonsmoking section – dashed PM2.5 Smk Time (hh:mm) PM2.5 NS CO2 Smk CO2 NSCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 12. Results Smoking Section Nicotine (mg/m3) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 120 4.0 NS/Smoking 3.5 PM Nicotine 100 P25 0.46 0.11 Nonsmoking Section Nicotine (mg/m3) Nonsmoking Section PM2.5 (mg/m3) 3.0 P50 0.62 0.26 80 2.5 Avg. 0.58 0.28 P75 0.65 0.40 60 2.0 1.5 None of the venues had 40 floor to ceiling walls 1.0 between the smoking and 20 nonsmoking sections. 0.5 0 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Smoking Section PM2.5 (mg/m3) Smoking section only10% of total PM2.5 1:1 1:0.58 Nicotine 1:0.28 floor area, located adjacent to kitchen, and high (5ach) ventilationCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 13. Results Smoking Section Nicotine (mg/m3) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 120 4.0 NS/Smoking 3.5 PM Nicotine 100 P25 0.46 0.11 Nonsmoking Section Nicotine (mg/m3) Nonsmoking Section PM2.5 (mg/m3) 3.0 P50 0.62 0.26 80 2.5 Avg. 0.58 0.28 P75 0.65 0.40 60 2.0 1.5 None of the venues had 40 floor to ceiling walls 1.0 between the smoking and 20 nonsmoking sections. LOQ 0.5 0 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Smoking Section PM2.5 (mg/m3) Smoking section only10% of total PM2.5 1:1 1:0.58 Nicotine 1:0.28 floor area, located adjacent to kitchen, and high (5ach) ventilationCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 14. Results 160% Median 140% NS/Smoking Nonsmoking/smoking section concentration (%) PM2.5 0.62 120% Pyridine 0.62 100% 3-EP 0.47 Nicotine 0.26 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% FL-12 FM-5 FM-6(2) FL-7(2) DL-5 LM-1 FL-2 FS-9 FM-6(1) FL-9 FM-9 FL-5 FL-11 DS-5 FL-7(1) FM-11 Venue ID PM2.5 Pyridine Pyrrole 3-EP NicotineCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 15. Conclusions  Separate nonsmoking section provides minor reduction in PM2.5 exposure (median NS/Smoking = 0.58) (without floor/ceiling walls)  Reduction in gas phase SHS component concentration is greater (nicotine NS/Smk= 0.28) with higher sorbing gases >> greater reduction  Results are consistent with those from previous studies (RSP ratio= 0.63, nicotine= 0.29; Lambert et al. 1993)Center for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 16. Conclusions  Smoking ban required for adequate protection – nonsmoking sections are NOT good public policyCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
    • 17. Acknowledgements This research project was funded in part by ClearWay Minnesota. SM Thanks to our field monitors: Kevin Brauer, Trent Byers, David Farrar, Matt Hruby, Melanie Larson, Aaron Norman, Carrie Quinlan, Angie Thomas, Jeff Thomas, Angela Vreeland, McKinzie Woelfel, and Nate WoelfelCenter for Energyand Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac

    ×