Effectiveness of Clean Indoor Air Ordinances in Controlling Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Restaurants

Tobacco smoke exposure and impact of smoking legislation on rural and non-rural hospitality venues in North Dakota

The purpose of this cross-sectional study in a stratified random sample of 135 bars and restaurants in North Dakota was to describe factors that influenced tobacco smoke pollution levels in the venues; to compare the quantity of tobacco smoke pollution by rurality and by presence of local ordinances; and to assess compliance with state and local laws. In data collection in 2012, we measured the indoor air quality indicator of particulate matter (2.5 microns aerodynamic diameter or smaller), calculated average smoking density and occupant density, and determined compliance with state and local smoking ordinances using observational methods. As rurality increased, tobacco smoke pollution in bars increased. A significant association was found between stringency of local laws and level of tobacco smoke pollution, but the strength of the association varied by venue type. Compliance was significantly lower in venues in communities without local ordinances. Controlling for venue type, 69.2% of smoke-free policy's impact on tobacco smoke pollution levels was mediated by observed smoking. This study advances scientific knowledge on the factors influencing tobacco smoke pollution and informs public health advocates and decision makers on policy needs, especially in rural areas.

Protecting the world from secondhand tobacco smoke exposure: where do we stand and where do we go from here?

INTRODUCTION

Article 8 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control mandates all signatory countries to "protect citizens from exposure to tobacco smoke in workplaces, public transport and indoor public places." Even though there has been great progress in the implementation of Article 8, still most of the world population remains exposed to secondhand smoke (SHS). In this article, we sought to summarize the research that supports Article 8, where do we stand, and current research gaps and future directions.

DISCUSSION

Secondhand smoke is an established cause of heart disease and several types of cancer. Additional research is needed to reach final conclusions for diseases where evidence is only suggestive of causality. The only solution to SHS exposure in public places is banning smoking indoors. Research on the gaming industry and nightclubs, particularly in developing countries, needs to be disseminated to support their inclusion in smoke-free laws. Aside from indoor bans, additional research is needed for outdoor and multiunit housing bans and in support of measures that protect children and other vulnerable populations. The impact of smoke-free laws on other health outcomes, besides heart disease and respiratory outcomes, is another area where further research is needed. Thirdhand smoke assessment and health effects are also likely to be a topic of further research. As new tobacco products emerge, evaluating SHS exposure and effects will be vital.

CONCLUSIONS

Furthering research in support of Article 8 can contribute to reach the final goal of protecting everyone from SHS exposure.

Quantification of ETS exposure in hospitality workers who have never smoked

BACKGROUND

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) was classified as human carcinogen (K1) by the German Research Council in 1998. According to epidemiological studies, the relative risk especially for lung cancer might be twice as high in persons who have never smoked but who are in the highest exposure category, for example hospitality workers. In order to implement these results in the German regulations on occupational illnesses, a valid method is needed to retrospectively assess the cumulative ETS exposure in the hospitality environment.

METHODS

A literature-based review was carried out to locate a method that can be used for the German hospitality sector. Studies assessing ETS exposure using biological markers (for example urinary cotinine, DNA adducts) or questionnaires were excluded. Biological markers are not considered relevant as they assess exposure only over the last hours, weeks or months. Self-reported exposure based on questionnaires also does not seem adequate for medico-legal purposes. Therefore, retrospective exposure assessment should be based on mathematical models to approximate past exposure.

RESULTS

For this purpose a validated model developed by Repace and Lowrey was considered appropriate. It offers the possibility of retrospectively assessing exposure with existing parameters (such as environmental dimensions, average number of smokers, ventilation characteristics and duration of exposure). The relative risk of lung cancer can then be estimated based on the individual cumulative exposure of the worker.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, having adapted it to the German hospitality sector, an existing mathematical model appears to be capable of approximating the cumulative exposure. However, the level of uncertainty of these approximations has to be taken into account, especially for diseases with a long latency period such as lung cancer.

Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption

BACKGROUND

Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and smoking behaviour of those populations they affect.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which legislation-based smoking bans or restrictions reduce exposure to SHS, help people who smoke to reduce tobacco consumption or lower smoking prevalence and affect the health of those in areas which have a ban or restriction in place.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Conference Paper Index, and reference lists and bibliographies of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; July 1st 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans and restrictions affecting populations. The minimum standard was having a ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before and after studies, interrupted-time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies were extracted by one author and checked by a second. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the studies, we did not attempt a meta-analysis. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 50 studies included in this review. Thirty-one studies reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) with 19 studies measuring it using biomarkers. There was consistent evidence that smoking bans reduced exposure to SHS in workplaces, restaurants, pubs and in public places. There was a greater reduction in exposure to SHS in hospitality workers compared to the general population. We failed to detect any difference in self-reported exposure to SHS in cars. There was no change in either the prevalence or duration of reported exposure to SHS in the home as a result of implementing legislative bans. Twenty-three studies reported measures of active smoking, often as a co-variable rather than an end-point in itself, with no consistent evidence of a reduction in smoking prevalence attributable to the ban. Total tobacco consumption was reduced in studies where prevalence declined. Twenty-five studies reported health indicators as an outcome. Self-reported respiratory and sensory symptoms were measured in 12 studies, with lung function measured in five of them. There was consistent evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions for cardiac events as well as an improvement in some health indicators after the ban.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to a reduction in exposure to passive smoking. Hospitality workers experienced a greater reduction in exposure to SHS after implementing the ban compared to the general population. There is limited evidence about the impact on active smoking but the trend is downwards. There is some evidence of an improvement in health outcomes. The strongest evidence is the reduction seen in admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is an increase in support for and compliance with smoking bans after the legislation.

Indoor air quality in restaurants with and without designated smoking rooms

Indoor air quality in restaurants was studied in two cities in northwest Ohio after clean indoor air ordinances had been enacted. Carbon dioxide and ultrafine particles were measured in two restaurants in Toledo and two restaurants in Bowling Green. One restaurant in each city was smoke free, and one restaurant in each city contained a dedicated smoking room. A smoke free office space was also assessed as a reference site. Measurements were collected with datalogging instrumentation simultaneously in both the designated smoking room, if present, and in the nonsmoking section. For smoke free establishments, datalogging instrumentation was also used. Carbon dioxide levels were elevated in all four restaurants, with only 32% of the measurements meeting the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) criterion level of 1000 ppm. Ultrafine particles currently do not have any formal standard or guideline. Statistically significant differences were evident between all four restaurants and the reference site. The largest differences were found between the two designated smoking rooms and the reference site (p < 0.001), with the mean levels in the smoking rooms up to 43 times higher than in the reference site. The results from this study indicate inadequate fresh air supply in all four restaurants, particularly in the designated smoking rooms, and the possibility that the designated smoking rooms were not containing the environment tobacco smoke, based on the ultrafine particle concentrations measured in the nonsmoking areas of the smoking restaurants.