Spermiogenesis or Spermateleosis or metamorphosis of spermatid
Second Hand Smoke in Minnesota Muli-Unit Housing
1. SECONDHAND SMOKE IN MINNESOTA MULTI-UNIT HOUSING :
Using physicochemical properties of tobacco smoke to identify SHS incursion in multi-unit housing
Zheng Zhou, S.D., David Bohac, P.E., Martha Hewett, Joshua Novacheck
Lara A. Gundel, Ph.D. (LBNL)
October 15, 2014
2. Pg. 2
Introduction
•26% of U.S. households live in multi-unit housing (34 million households)
•Nearly half report SHS incursions in the past 12 months (King et al. 2010, Hewett et al. 2007)
•Air moves between units:
•Bohac et al. (2011) found upper floor units in 6 Minnesota buildings got 2-65% of their air from other units (median 16%)
•Residents in multi-unit housing have little control over their exposure to SHS
•Households in smoking-permitted buildings had higher PM2.5 concentration than households in smoke-free buildings (Russo et al. 2014)
3. Pg. 3
Measuring SHS Exposure at Homes
•Fine particle (PM2.5)
•Pros:
•easy to measure
•real-time
•Cons:
•not specific to tobacco smoke
•rely on resident’s activity log
•Nicotine
•Pros:
•highly specific to tobacco smoke
•Cons:
•not very sensitive at low concentration,
•time-weighted average,
•may not transfer at the same rate as other SHS constitutes
4. Pg. 4
Objectives
•Develop a cost-effective approach to identify and quantify SHS transfer in multi- unit housing
•Assess non-smokers’ exposure to SHS in multi-unit housing in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area
5. Pg. 5
Ultraviolet-absorbing Particulate Matter (UVPM)
•Combustion-derived
•Contains organic compounds (e.g. PAHs) and black carbon
•(UVPM-BC)/UVPM distinguish tobacco smoke from other common indoor sources
6. Pg. 6
Study Design
•Chamber test
•Cigarette smoke, wood smoke, stick incense, candle and cooking activities
•Field test
•Three units (1 smoker’s; 1 adjacent non-smoker’s, and 1 above non-smoker’s)
•Field monitoring
•65 nonsmoker’s units in smoking-permitted buildings in winter (42 were re-monitored in mild weather)
•14 nonsmoker’s units in smoke-free buildings in winter (8 were re-monitored in mild weather)
7. Pg. 7
Measurements
•Real-time UVPM and BC (1 min interval)
•Dual-Channel Aethalometer (Magee Scientific)
•Wavelengths: 880 nm for BC, 370 nm for UVPM
•Real-time PM2.5 (1 min interval)
•Sidepak AM510 (TSI)
•Integrated gas phase sample
•Active sampling in Tenax TA sorbent tube
•Nicotine, 3-Ethenylpyridine (3-EP)
8. Pg. 8
Other Measurements
•Room temperature and relative humidity
•Hobo logger (Onset)
•Pressure difference between units and hallway/outdoor
•APT digital micromanometer (TEC)/Rabbit
•Range/oven use
•iButton logger (Maxim)
•Toaster, microwave oven use
•Current transducer w/logger
•Resident’s hourly activity log
9. Pg. 9
Chamber Test: a Smolder-smoked
Cigarette
16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
PM
UVPM
BC
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
PM2.5 , UVPM and BC (mg/m3)
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
PM
UVPM
BC
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
12. Pg. 12
Field Test
•Three units in a two-floor smoking-permitted building for 10 days
•One smoker’s unit in the first floor
•One non-smoker’s unit above the smoker’s unit
•One non-smoker’s unit adjacent to the smoker’s unit
14. Pg. 14
PM Events in Smoker’s Unit
0.9
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
Self-reported
Smoking
Average PM2.5 (mg/m3)
Self-reported smoking
+ Other
Unknown
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Burnt food
+ candle
cooking
15. Pg. 15
PM Events in Above Non-smoker’s Unit
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
0.9
Average PM2.5 (mg/m3)
Burnt food
Burnt food
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Suspected SHS
transfer from the
smoker’s unit
Self-reported
non-smoking
activities
Unknown
Stove &
toaster
16. Pg. 16
Field Test Results
UNIT
# OF PM2.5 EVENTS
# OF SHS EVENTS
TOTAL SHS EXPOSURE* (mg/m3•hr)
3-EP (ng/m3)
NICOTINE (ng/m3)
SMOKER’S UNIT
31
26
6093
472.8
530.0
ABOVE NON- SMOKER’S UNIT
18
11
1492
203.8
88.5
ADJACENT NON- SMOKER’S UNIT
25
10
220
49.1
140.1
* SHS Exposure is quantified using PM2.5 concentration
17. Pg. 17
Field Monitoring
•65 nonsmoker's units in smoking-permitted buildings in winter (of which 42 were re- monitored in mild weather)
•14 nonsmoker's units in smoke-free buildings in winter (of which 8 were re- monitored in mild weather)
18. Pg. 18
Field Monitoring Results
Building
# of units
Average # of SHS events per unit (6 days)
Average SHS exposure per unit in 6 days * (mg/m3•hr)
Average 3- EP level (ng/m3)
Average Nicotine level (ng/m3)
Smoke- permitted (winter)
65
2.4
245.4
52.4
41.1
Smoke-free (winter)
14
0.9
36.7
17.0
12.8
Smoke- permitted (mild)
42
1.1
94.3
52.5
33.5
Smoke-free (mild)
8
0.4
48.9
16.4
28.5
* SHS Exposure is quantified using PM2.5 concentration
19. Pg. 19
Conclusion
•Findings
•Non-smoker resident’s activity log often miss SHS incursion
•(UVPM – BC)/UVPM > 0.9 indicates tobacco smoke
•Many determinants affect SHS transfer
•SHS incursion and exposure were lower in smoke- free buildings than in smoking-permitted buildings
•Limitations
•Mix of sources
•Potential confounders: burning wood and incense, grilling or charring food
