designated “no smoking” areas provide from partial to no protection from environmental tobacco smoke
And whether certain design features help achieve this goal.
Methods: in the Sydney metropolitan area, a representative group of 17 social and gaming clubs, licensed to provide alcoholic beverages, smoking in addition to designated areas, agreed to participate.
In each institution, atmospheric nicotine, particulate matter (10 μm; PM10)
And carbon dioxide (CO2)
During normal operation, levels are measured in the general use area and in the designated \"no smoking\" area, as well as outdoor air levels (
Contain only PM10 and CO2).
The data were analyzed to assess the extent to which people using the \"no smoking\" area were protected from ETS.
Results: the levels of nicotine and particulate matter in the \"non-smoking\" area were significantly lower than those in the general use area, but were still easily detected at higher levels than the environmental level.
For nicotine, average (SD)
The level is 100. 5 (45. 3)
The area where smoking occurred was μg/m3, 41. 3 (16. 1)
Mug/m3 in the \"no smoking\" area.
The corresponding PM10 level is 460 (196)μg/m3 and 210 (210)
61 μg/m3 outdoor (23)μg/m3.
The reduction in contaminants achieved by a separate room designated as \"no smoking\" is only slightly higher than the decrease when the \"no smoking\" area is connected to the smoking area.
The content of carbon dioxide is relatively lacking in information.
Conclusion: provide the designated \"no smoking\" area to the extent permitted (gaming)
Clubs in New South Wales, Australia offer up to some protection from ETS --
Exposure is usually reduced by about 50%.
The protection provided is less than the user may reasonably understand, and it is not as good as the protection provided by the prohibition of smoking in the place.
List of potential participants in the methodological DSA study, covering \"clubs\" catering to different interests \"(
Including football, lawn bowling, golf, veterans, social and community improvement clubs)
Generated from the phone book.
Then contact the club manager and ask them to attend an interview describing the principles and mechanisms of the project.
Subsequently, no such contact club refused the invitation to participate in the study, and when the number of clubs agreed to participate reached 17, the process of contacting the club stopped.
All managers want to not disclose the identity of their club and the situation of their participation in the study.
After agreeing to participate, a questionnaire was sent to each club.
Requirements specify the configuration of designated \"no smoking\" areas related to similar spaces where smoking occurs.
The \"no smoking\" area designated by each club is classified according to whether these facilities include the provision of rooms that do not allow smoking, or identify a subsection of the room as the \"no smoking\" area.
In general, there is a smoking phenomenon in all the interior spaces of each club, except for the designated \"no smoking\" area.
For those clubs designated as \"no smoking\", sufficient data were obtained allowing the ventilation system of such a room to be characterized as independent of the ventilation system responsible for ventilation of other spaces, or involving a common ventilation system.
Of the clubs with separate rooms, only three have separate ventilation systems.
Preliminary evaluation of the data showed that there was no significant difference between the results, depending on the type of ventilation system.
Therefore, the data for the \"separate room\" configuration is treated as a single group regardless of the type of ventilation system.
For each facility, atmospheric levels of nicotine, particulate matter are determined in the designated \"no smoking\" area and in areas without such restrictions (10 μm)(PM10)
, And carbon dioxide;
The PM2. 5 and CO2 levels were also measured outside.
According to the advice of the management of each facility, the measurement is carried out at the time of maximum occupancy.
Normally this is Friday night.
In all cases, the analytical equipment is located in the center, away from the ventilation-related fixtures on the ceiling.
In the \"no smoking\" area, the equipment is positioned
Far from the door
In the high traffic area, that is, the room where the game machine is located, the smoking space is measured.
The outdoor determination of each facility is carried out in an area near the club building, but away from human or vehicle traffic and ventilation.
Nicotine levels are measured using a passive sampler (
The CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia)
Based on the molecular diffusion principle of gas on a filter with an absorbent species, it is integrated over exposure time.
The sampler takes the best collection time of 6 hours.
Two samplers are used in each facility: one in the smoking area and the other in the \"no smoking\" area of the club, with at least one in each.
5 m above the floor.
Determine the PM 10 level using the DUSTRAK aerosol monitor (
Minnesota, Minnesota, Minneapolis, Model, Model 8520, USA)with a cut-
Programmed to record points of less than 10 μm particles every 30 seconds.
Ten minutes of samples were collected in each smoking, \"no smoking\" and outdoor area.
CO2 levels are measured simultaneously using the tsi q-Trak indoor air monitor (Model 8551)
, Programmed to log in every 30 seconds.
The sample was collected in the same way as the results of PM10 determination.
Every day all the data collected from dudustrak and tsi q-Trak is downloaded to the Trak Pro software program.
The CSIRO Atmospheric Research Department conducted a blind analysis of the nicotine sampler.
Data is represented as average (SD).
Lack of data on nicotine levels in a club\'s smoking area and non-smoking areas
Smoking area of another club
These clubs were excluded from comparative analysis of nicotine levels.
Use the independent sample t-test to test the difference between the measurements of specific room configurations;
A paired sample t-test was used to test the differences between smoking and \"no smoking\" areas and between \"no smoking\" and external areas.
Table 1 summarizes information about each participating club.
Based on observations during the sampling period, the number of customers in areas where smoking occurs and is designated as \"no smoking\" is estimated.
During the observation, no one was observed to smoke in any designated \"no smoking\" area.
View this table: view details about individual \"clubs\" and there are significant changes in recorded nicotine levels in smoking in their respective clubs and in designated \"no smoking\" areas.
In all clubs, the concentration of nicotine in the \"no smoking\" area is lower than the corresponding smoking area (fig 1).
Download in the new tabDownload powerpoint figure 1 concentration of atmospheric nicotine in club: smoking area and \"no smoking\" area *.
* Clubs 11 and 12 are excluded due to lack of data. The mean (SD)
The concentration of nicotine in the designated \"no smoking\" area is 41. 4 (16. 1)
The average level of μ g/m3 and smoking areas was 100. 5 (45. 3)μg/m3 (n u200a=u200a 16).
Clubs in separate rooms in the no smoking area (
These facilities are designated as \"SR \")
The average nicotine level in the \"no smoking\" area was 35. 8 (10. 7)
μ g/m3, compared to level 83. 2 (24. 2)
μ g/m3 in smoking area was significantly different (p < 0. 0005).
In clubs where designated \"no smoking\" areas are a subsection of a room where smoking occurs (
Specify a space facility for the \"operating system)
The average level of nicotine in the \"non-smoking\" area was 54. 9 (19. 4)
μ g/m3 compared to 143. 1 (54. 3)
μ g/m3 in the area where smoking occurs (p < 0. 05).
Therefore, nicotine concentrations in smoking and non-smoking populations
The smoking area of the facility in the OS category is slightly higher than the level of the corresponding area of the SR facility, but it is not significant.
In order to assess the tobacco smoke protection that can be achieved by transferring from the smoking area to the \"no smoking\" area, the percentage of the decrease in nicotine levels is calculated as follows: OCTA minus u200a = [Nicotine content (smoking)
Nicotine content (no smoking)]
Nicotine content (smoking).
Taking into account the results of all facilities, individuals can expect an average of 53% (
Median 63%, range 12-86%)
Transfer the nicotine level from the smoking area to the \"no smoking\" area (table 2).
The average decline in SR facilities was 53% (
Median 63%, range 15%-75%)
Operating system facilities with an average reduction of 55% (
Median 60%, range 12%-86%).
View this table: View the atmospheric nicotine content of inline View pop-up table 2 (μg/m3)
Smoking and non smoking clubs
Smoking areas, and reduced levels of nicotine from smoking to non-smoking
All clubs except two. Clubs 15 and 17)
, The level of PM10 in the designated \"no smoking\" area is lower than that in the smoking area.
However, except for a club (club 1)
The level of PM10 recorded internally is always greater than the \"outdoor\" determination (fig 2).
Download the new tabDownload figureOpen powerpointFigure monthly concentration of airborne particulate matter (PM10)
Smoking areas and \"no smoking\" areas in the club and outdoor areas.
Average PM10 level outside
That is, in an open area far from vehicles, human traffic, or any ventilation-was 61 (23)μg/m3.
The average indoor level is high, and the change is very large. It is obvious from the average of 210 (210)
No smoking area and 460 (197)
Mug/m3 in smoking area.
There was a significant difference between smoking and \"non-smoking\" areas in the level of PM10 (p < 0. 01)
The same is true of the difference between the \"no smoking\" and the outdoor PM10 levels (p < 0. 05).
Compared with OS facilities, the levels of PM10 in the SR \"no smoking\" area were significantly different.
In SR sites, the average pm2. 5 level is 129 (76)
μ g/m3 and 421 in \"no smoking (191)
Mu g/m3 smoking area (p < 0. 0005).
In contrast, the average pm2. 5 level in OS sites is 404 (307)
There was no significant difference in the level of μ g/m3 from 555 in the \"no smoking\" area (197)
Mug/m3 in smoking area.
In addition to one facility, the level of PM10 in the designated \"no smoking\" area is higher than that in the outdoor area.
In the case of SR facilities, the difference is very large (p < 0. 05)
And close to importance in the case of OR Club (p u200a=u200a 0. 068).
Use the same formula as specified in the percentage reduction of nicotine levels (see above)
For all decisions taken together, individuals can expect an average decrease of 52% (
Median 59% in range-40% to 87%)
By moving from the smoking area to the \"no smoking\" area of the club, the level of PM10 can be reached.
An average decrease of 66% (
Median 67%, range 37-87%)
For SR facilities, but only 17% (
Median 4% in range-40% to 82%)
Operating system facilities.
The average outward movement is reduced by 85% (
Median 85%, range 73-95%)
Compared to the level of PM10 in the club smoking area, it is at the level of PM10.
There is little difference between smoking and \"no smoking\" areas and the determination of carbon dioxide in outdoor places to varying degrees (fig 3).
Download the atmospheric CO2 concentration in Club 3 of figure open in the new tabDownload powerpoint: Smoking vs. non-smoking and outdoor areas. The mean (SD)
Carbon dioxide levels in all clubs are 60094)
A few parts per million (ppm)outdoors, 872 (159)
No smoking area and 849 (135)
Ppm in smoking area.
There was no significant difference in the level of smoking and the \"no smoking\" area.
The indoor carbon dioxide level is significantly higher than the outdoor level (p < 0. 0005).
As mentioned earlier, this study was conducted as an initial method to evaluate the designation of a \"no smoking\" area, in particular the hospitality industry, for the protection of ETS.
Although some conclusions can be drawn from the analysis carried out, there are obvious limitations through the study of design.
The study involved a single measurement at each location.
Similar research (
Nicotine and particulate matter determination involving 7 restaurants)
There are two decisions for each location.
10 single measurements are not sufficient to determine the situation of a particular location: the current study has a relatively broad understanding of the number of locations.
That is to say, this study involves \"franchise clubs \"(
A term explained before)
Take advantage of different sectors of the community.
The participating clubs include sports, culture, general entertainment and community service background.
However, no inference may be made for differences attributable to or related to a particular type of club.
The study did not attempt to link the level of smoking-derived contaminants to the size of the occupied space or the number of people present.
With regard to the latter, it is clear that the existing technology requires the analysis of nicotine within a few hours, during which the number of occupants inevitably changes.
In the study now reported, the \"no smoking\" facilities, which include separate rooms for nominal smoking --free (SR scene)
Those areas designated as \"no smoking\" in a separate space (Operating system scenario).
Regarding the SR location, the initial data we recorded included whether there was a separate or common ventilation system for the respective \"smoking\" and \"non-smoking\" rooms.
It is determined that only three facilities have separate ventilation systems.
The preliminary assessment indicated that there was no significant difference between the data from these three sites and other SR data, and therefore no attempt was made to make an inference on the ventilation system.
Regarding the limitations identified, it is clear that a more comprehensive study may involve multiple analyses at each location
Classification of facilities.
The possible relationship between the number of people present, the size of the occupied space and the degree of tobacco smoke pollution can be solved.
Determining the occupational and related exposure levels of ETS generally involves a comparison between the cases where smoking is permitted or prohibited.
14 despite this extreme situation, efforts to prevent access to ETS in public places and/or employment places specifically include the designation of a \"no smoking area\" in places where smoking is permitted in other cases \".
If any, there is very little data to determine the effectiveness of this measure in reducing or preventing exposure to tobacco smoke.
In the current case, ETS is actually the only source of nicotine in the atmosphere.
Relevant measurements indicate that the extent of exposure to tobacco smoke is reduced by being in the designated \"no smoking area\" rather than permitted: there is a significant difference between the mean.
Of the two configurations examined in this study, the decrease in atmospheric nicotine levels is obvious: provide a separate room in a larger smoking space or simply designate an area as \"no smoking \".
Although the data are limited, the harm caused by passive smoking seems to be dose-dependent, so reducing exposure can be said to be a positive development.
Nevertheless, despite the special configuration of the \"no smoking\" area being considered, the percentage achieved by relocating from the smoking area to the non-smoking area is reduced
Smoking areas should not be considered better than an average reduction of 50%.
In addition, there is a wide range of changes, including a single site reduction of less than 20% for SR and OS configurations (table 2)
, Be careful not to assume that this relocation will produce any results of biological significance.
This type of particulate matter measured in this survey is not the only source of tobacco smoke.
When this particulate matter occurs outdoors, it is an indicator of air pollution that, among other sources, is emitted by the engine.
On the other hand, cigarette smoke is pre-
This particulate matter is an important source of indoor air pollution.
In addition, in terms of the particulate matter produced by burning tobacco, particulate matter may be directly related to the carcinogenic activity of tobacco smoke as the main carrier for the inhalation of multi-ring aromatic hydrocarbons.
3,12 first of all, our determination of particles confirms the inference produced by atmospheric nicotine measurements --
That is to say, the designated \"no smoking\" area failed to provide ETS protection.
These data are more complicated because nicotine is not produced in outdoor air, but is produced by particles.
Except for one exception, the outdoor PM10 level is lower than any of the values measured indoors
That is to say, in \"smoking\" and \"not smoking\"Smoking area (fig 2).
In particular, the average pm2. 5 level outside was significantly lower than the designated \"no smoking\" area, indicating that the latter\'s occupancy resulted in greater exposure than when going out.
The determination of the PM10 level provides the difference between the two configurations of the \"no smoking\" area being considered --SR and OS.
The provision of separate \"no smoking\" rooms resulted in a significant reduction in particle levels compared to the corresponding smoking areas.
However, the area where \"no smoking\" is determined in a larger room or space, otherwise smoking is not allowed, this cannot be considered to lead to a significant decrease in the number of people exposed to particulate matter in areas where smoking is allowed (table 3).
This consequence of the different configurations is also reflected in the corresponding \"percentage reduction.
Therefore, compared with the average 66% reduction in relocation from smoking area to \"no smoking\" area in SR case, simply move from that part of the room to another place marked with the \"No Smoking\" sign, A negligible average cost can be reduced almost (17%)in exposure.
In fact, in both cases, in this \"no smoking\" space, the level of PM10 is actually higher, which is not observed by the SR Club (table 3).
View this table: View inline View pop-up table 3 atmospheric PM10 in smoking and non-smoking clubs
Smoking areas, as well as a decrease in the percentage of PM10 levels achieved from smoking to non-smoking
Smoking areas, as well as from smoking areas to the outdoors, especially in the hospitality industry, it is common to designate a room or part of the room as \"no smoking\" where smoking occurs.
Therefore, for example, in clubs where alcohol is licensed to be sold in the premises and game consoles are provided as the main entertainment, as well as clubs located in the metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia, the hotel offers \"no smoking\" facilities.
Data on environmental tobacco smoke protection (ETS)
The service provided to club customers with these facilities is very limited.
We are trying to assess the level of protection by monitoring ETS-related contaminants levels in smoking and \"no smoking\" areas in such licensed clubs.
The levels of atmospheric nicotine and tobacco-related particles measured in smoking and \"non-smoking\" were shown in the outdoor areas of 17 licensed clubs around Sydney, complete ETS protection cannot be provided in the designated \"no smoking\" area.
The reduction in exposure is obvious, and in some ways the individual rooms have improved in terms of simply demarcate the \"no smoking\" area of the smoking room.
However, club customers often want to reduce exposure by no more than 50% by resorting to these \"no smoking\" areas.
In some cases, there is no significant reduction.
Therefore, these areas cannot be characterized as \"smoke-
Free \", customers who occupy these areas are not protected by ETS, they do not smoke in the premises.
Measurement of CO2 levels, while pointing out the difference between outdoor and indoor levels (fig 3)
, Further inferences about the efficacy of designated \"no smoking\" areas are not allowed from nicotine and particulate matter measurements.
Walsh and Tzelepis17 recently reviewed support for smoking restrictions in Australian bar and play area related studies.
In their comments, the areas referred to in this report as \"no smoking\" are described to varying degrees as \"independent areas\", \"restricted areas\" in other studies \", \"special areas\" and \"smoke-free areas”.
The respective terms are used in the study, but any of them may be used more widely.
All these nicknames are reasonable except for the last one.
It can be clearly seen from the current study that in the \"smoke-
Free zones \"to determine that smoking is not allowed in places different from the rest of the same building is incorrect.
According to the air pollution we recorded, use \"smoke-
\"Free zones\" are inappropriate, perhaps to the point where this usage is misleading and deceptive now.
Current results suggest that the designated \"no smoking\" area may reduce the level of exposure of individuals to ETS.
However, it is clear that these regions cannot eliminate exposure to ETS, and the reduction achieved may be insignificant or insignificant.
Up to a single room designated as \"no smoking\", the protection provided by ETS is slightly improved as it is located in the area of \"no smoking\", which is part of a room where smoking is elsewhere.
However, at least by using a separate \"no smoking\" room, the situation for a person will not be worse.
Regarding the \"no smoking\" area in the room where smoking occurs, individuals may actually have more exposure to ETS (
Especially in terms of particulate matter)
Move from smoking area to \"no smoking\" area.
Our results indicate that if smoking is prohibited elsewhere, the regulations that allow licensed clubs, pubs and casinos to allow customers to smoke in certain places of the premises, must be considered ineffective in protecting individuals at risk of passive smoking.
The evidence at hand now suggests that banning smoking in the premises is the only viable option to prevent exposure to ETS, which is being adopted by an increasing number of centres.
Finally, the recovery of damage has now been recognized due to failure to prevent exposure to ETS.
This report recommends that \"no smoking\" in certain arbitrary areas cannot be designated as an appropriate response to the harm caused by passive smoking.
The study was partially funded by the new state Cancer Council.
The authors thank the management for their help in various clubs whose facilities provide the basis for our investigation.
The author thanks Dr. Valerie Delpech (
Now a Medical Epidemiology in new state health)
Discuss the research design.
Lorrie AH, referee.
Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke and public health. Science1980; 208:464–72.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full text TextTaylor R, Cumming R, Woodward A, etc.
Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative yuananalysis.
No. 1 public health; 25:203–11.
OpenUrlPubMedWeb wyn Hoffman D of science, Wendell El.
Active and passive smoking.
In: Marquardt H, Schafer SG, McClellan R, Welsch F, eds. Toxicology.
San Diego: Academic Press, 1999: 879-98.
Mr. Hackshaw AK.
Environmental tobacco smoke.
In Br Bull1996; 52:22–34.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text ↵ Daynard R.
Why are tobacco lawsuits?
Tobacco control; 12:1–2.
Stewart BW, Semmler PCB.
Port sharp v Kembla RSL club: determine the cause of throat cancer through environmental tobacco smoke. Med J Aust2002; 176:113–6.
Count scientific OpenUrlPubMedWeb masmaskarinec MP, Jenkins RA, RW, etc.
Staff of a city restaurant and pub in the United States were exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
World Expo Shanghai; 10:36–49.
Scientific openurlcrosspubpubmedweb yamyamyamato H, Seto T, Hori H, Higashi T, etc. [
Effective smoking corner in office].
Industry eiseiaku Zasshi2000; 42:1–5.
Hammond SK, Sorenson G, Youngstrom R, etc.
Occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smokeJAMA1995; 274:956–60.
We at openurlcrossrefpmedweb Science, Shamei JM, grad JD.
No-concentration of environmental tobacco smoke
Smoking and smoking areas in the restaurant.
Public Health Association; 83:1339–41.
MI, Mannetje A of OpenUrlPubMedWeb Science laboratory Braer.
Smoking restrictions and environmental tobacco smoke exposure in restaurants.
Public Health Association; 88:1834–6.
Scientific international cancer research agency OpenUrlPubMedWeb.
A monograph on the assessment of human cancer risk.
Volume 38: smoking.
Lyon: International Agency for Cancer Research, 1986.
Laura Ayers GP, spokesperson RW, Selleck PW, etc.
Determination of nicotine in water by gradient ion chromatography.
J phase chromatography A1998; 824:241–5.
Manganese of OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb Science GmbH Bates, fawcetj, Dexin S, etc.
Hotel staff are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
Tobacco control 2. 2; 11:125–9.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full text, International Cancer Research Institute.
IARC monograph on risk assessment of human cancer. Volume 83.
Smoking and unconscious smoking
Lyon: International Agency for Cancer Research (in press).
Grogroten P, Cassee FR, Van Bladeren PJ, etc. Mixtures.
In: Marquardt H, Schafer SG, McClellan R, Welsch F, eds. Toxicology.
San Diego: Academic Press, 1999: 257-70.
Walsh walsh RA, Tzelepis F.
Support smoking restrictions in bars and play areas: a review of Australian Studies.
3 years of public health; 27:310–22.