Differential Impacts of Smoke-Free Laws on Indoor Air Quality

The authors assessed the impacts of two different smoke-free laws on indoor air quality. They compared the indoor air quality of 10 hospitality venues in Lexington and Louisville, Kentucky, before and after the smoke-free laws went into effect. Real-time measurements of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm or smaller (PM2.5) were made. One Lexington establishment was excluded from the analysis of results because of apparent smoking violation after the law went into effect. The average indoor PM2.5 concentrations in the nine Lexington venues decreased 91 percent, from 199 to 18 µg/m3. The average indoor PM2.5 concentrations in the 10 Louisville venues, however, increased slightly, from 304 to 338 µg/m3. PM2.5 levels in the establishments decreased as numbers of burning cigarettes decreased. While the Louisville partial smoke-free law with exemptions did not reduce indoor air pollution in the selected venues, comprehensive and properly enforced smoke-free laws can be an effective means of reducing indoor air pollution

Secondhand smoke Infiltration in multiunit housing: Health effects and nicotine levels

Introduction: Approximately 46% of U.S. multiunit housing residents with smoke-free home rules, 29 million persons, experience secondhand smoke infiltration in their apartments. Federal health authorities warn that secondhand smoke exposure in multiunit housing is detrimental to the health of children and nonsmoking adults. However, none of the 50 U.S. States bans smoking in privately-owned multiunit housing, and less than 0.1% of the 91,000 U.S. municipalities do. Materials and methods: This study investigates the health problems reported by 162 nonsmoking residents residing in 104 multiunit apartments in 71 municipalities in 19 U.S. States and the District of Columbia, plus 2 Canadian Provinces. Smoke infiltration was confirmed for residents of 103 nonsmoking apartments using self-deployed passive nicotine monitors from 2006 to 2023. Another five subjects reported health problems from marijuana smoke infiltration confirmed by self-administered marijuana surface wipe tests. The secondhand smoke levels in smokers’ units are estimated using mathematical modeling. Results: Nonsmokers complained of eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, headache, dizziness, nausea, difficulty in breathing, tachycardia, and asthmatic attacks as well as malodors. Many sought medical care and some were hospitalized. Some regarded their apartments as uninhabitable. About 12% resorted to litigation. Nicotine concentrations in subjects’ apartments ranged from 0.001 to 6.60 µg/m3 (geometric mean, 0.028 µg/m3). Modeled PM2.5 levels for a typical smoker’s apartment estimated air pollution levels ranging from “Very Unhealthy” to “Hazardous” levels of the U.S. Air Quality Index. Marijuana surface wipe tests in 5 units showed Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) ranging from 1.25 µg/m2 to 6.92 µg/m2. Reported health effects were similar to those with tobacco complaints. Conclusions: Secondhand smoke infiltration from smokers’ apartments into nonsmokers’ apartment units in multiunit housing can provoke major morbidity for nonsmoking residents. Nonsmokers’ efforts to eliminate infiltration by sealing of cracks, air cleaning, or increased ventilation proved futile. Building owners and managers need to be educated about protecting nonsmoking residents’ health and welfare from secondhand smoke infiltration. Smoking of tobacco and marijuana products in multiunit housing should be banned

A Killer on the Loose: An ASH special investigation into the threat of passive smoking to the U.K. workplace

• An estimated 12,000 U.K. nonsmokers die annually from secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure at home, at work, and in social venues. In fact, SHS pollution now causes as many deaths annually as did the great London Smog 50 years ago and triple the annual number of road deaths from traffic accidents.• Within the at-work category, data is sufficient to calculate risks for three subgroups: about 900 office workers, 165 bar workers, and 145 manufacturing workers are estimated to die from passive smoking each year in the U.K. That’s more than three deaths a day in these three categories alone.• For manufacturing workers, three-fold as many are estimated to die from passive smoking than work-related deaths from all other causes. 17% of bar workers are estimated to die from passive smoking at current exposure levels. The SHS-caused deaths among office workers adds an estimated 9% to the total occupational mortality from all causes in all occupations.• Recent U.S. and Canadian measurements show that during smoking, secondhand smoke accounts for about 90% of the fine-particle air pollution levels and 95% of the airborne carcinogens in hospitality venues.• Under the hospitality-industry-sponsored Public Places Charter on Smoking, which promotes ventilation as a control for secondhand smoke, it is estimated that five of every 100 bar workers would die from workplace passive smoking, yielding 66 deaths per year.• Engineering half-measures, proposed in the Charter, were evaluated by modelling and compared with air quality measurements in Canadian and U.S. venues. These methods clearly show that the Charter-specified air exchange rate would create an air pollution hazard, violating the daily U.K. air quality standard for particulate air pollution by three-fold.• Attempts to control the toxic and carcinogenic properties of secondhand smoke by ventilation are futile, requiring tornado-strength rates of air flow.• The intent of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which places a general duty of care for employers to provide a safe working environment, is not being satisfied for passive smoking. Without an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) or legislation to ensure smoke-free workplaces, nonsmoking workers will continue to die needlessly

Can Ventilation Control Secondhand Smoke in the Hospitality Industry?

A panel of ventilation experts assembled by OSHA and ACGIH concluded that dilution ventilation, used in virtually all mechanically ventilated buildings, will not control secondhand smoke in the hospitality industry (e.g., restaurants, bars, casinos). The panelists asserted that a new and unproved technology, displacement ventilation, offered the potential for up to 90% reductions in ETS levels relative to dilution technology. However, this assertion was not substantiated by any supporting data. Air cleaning was judged to be somewhere between dilution and displacement ventilation in efficacy, depending on the level of maintenance. The panel also failed to quantify the ETS exposure or risk for workers or patrons either before or after the application of the new technology. Panelists observed that building ventilation codes are not routinely enforced. They also noted the lack of recognized standards for acceptable ETS exposure as well as the lack of information on typical exposure levels. However, indoor air quality standards for ETS have been proposed in the scientific literature, and reliable mathematical models exist for predicting pollutant concentrations from indoor smoking. These proposed standards and models permit application of an indoor air quality procedure for determining ventilation rates as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 62. Using this procedure, it is clear that dilution ventilation, air cleaning, or displacement ventilation technology even under moderate smoking conditions cannot control ETS risk to de minimis levels for workers or patrons in hospitality venues without massively impractical increases in ventilation. Although there is a scientific consensus that ETS is a known cause of cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases, although ETS contains 5 regulated hazardous air pollutants, 47 regulated hazardous wastes, 60 known or suspected carcinogens, and more than 100 chemical poisons, the tobacco industry denies the risks of exposure, opposes smoking bans, promotes ventilation as a panacea for ETS control, and works for a return to laissez-faire concerning smoking in the hospitality industry. Smoking bans remain the only viable control measure to ensure that workers and patrons of the hospitality industry are protected from exposure to the toxic wastes from tobacco combustion

Can Ventilation Control Secondhand Smoke in the Hospitality Industry?

A panel of ventilation experts assembled by OSHA and ACGIH concluded that dilution ventilation, used in virtually all mechanically ventilated buildings, will not control secondhand smoke in the hospitality industry (e.g., restaurants, bars, casinos). The panelists asserted that a new and unproved technology, displacement ventilation, offered the potential for up to 90% reductions in ETS levels relative to dilution technology. However, this assertion was not substantiated by any supporting data. Air cleaning was judged to be somewhere between dilution and displacement ventilation in efficacy, depending on the level of maintenance. The panel also failed to quantify the ETS exposure or risk for workers or patrons either before or after the application of the new technology. Panelists observed that building ventilation codes are not routinely enforced. They also noted the lack of recognized standards for acceptable ETS exposure as well as the lack of information on typical exposure levels. However, indoor air quality standards for ETS have been proposed in the scientific literature, and reliable mathematical models exist for predicting pollutant concentrations from indoor smoking. These proposed standards and models permit application of an indoor air quality procedure for determining ventilation rates as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 62. Using this procedure, it is clear that dilution ventilation, air cleaning, or displacement ventilation technology even under moderate smoking conditions cannot control ETS risk to de minimis levels for workers or patrons in hospitality venues without massively impractical increases in ventilation. Although there is a scientific consensus that ETS is a known cause of cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases, although ETS contains 5 regulated hazardous air pollutants, 47 regulated hazardous wastes, 60 known or suspected carcinogens, and more than 100 chemical poisons, the tobacco industry denies the risks of exposure, opposes smoking bans, promotes ventilation as a panacea for ETS control, and works for a return to laissez-faire concerning smoking in the hospitality industry. Smoking bans remain the only viable control measure to ensure that workers and patrons of the hospitality industry are protected from exposure to the toxic wastes from tobacco combustion