|
Nicotine KiWine & Tobacco Research Advance Access published October 1, 2010
<br />8.A. - Page 19
<br />Original Investigation
<br />Secondhand Smoke Transfer in Multiunit
<br />Housing
<br />Brian A. King, Ph.D., M.P.H., Mark J. Travers, Ph.D., K. Michael Cummings, Ph.D., M.P.H,
<br />Martin C. Mahoney, M.D., Ph.D., & Andrew J. Hyland, Ph.D.
<br />Department of Health Behavior, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton
<br />Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263
<br />Corresponding author: Andrew J. Hyland, Ph.D., Department of Health Behavior, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population
<br />Sciences, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA. Telephone: 716-845-8391;
<br />Fax: 716-845-1265; E-mail: andrew.hyland@roswellpark.org
<br />Received May 17, 2010; accepted August 31, 2010
<br />Introduction: The home can represent a significant source of
<br />secondhand smoke (SHS), especially for individuals who live in
<br />close proximity to one another in multiunit housing (MUH).
<br />The objective of this study was to quantify real-time SHS trans-
<br />fer between smoke -permitted and smoke-free living units with-
<br />in the same MUH structure.
<br />Methods: Air monitors were used to assess PM2,, an environ-
<br />mental marker for SHS, in 14 smoke-free living units and 16
<br />smoke -permitted units within 11 MUH buildings in the Buffalo,
<br />New York, area between July 2008 and August 2009. Air moni-
<br />tors were operated concurrently in both smoke -permitted and
<br />smoke-free units within each building. When feasible, additional
<br />monitors were stationed in shared hallways and on outdoor
<br />patios. Participants completed logs to document activities that
<br />could affect air quality.
<br />Results: Evidence of SHS transfer from smoke -permitted units
<br />was detected in 2 of the 14 smoke-free units and 6 of the 8 hall-
<br />ways. Real-time PMZ 5 plots and participant logs suggest that SHS
<br />transfer is a function of many determinants, including ventilation
<br />and proximity between units. Following stratification by time of day,
<br />median PMZ 5 levels were greatest between 4:00 PM and 11:59 PM
<br />but varied by location: 10.2 gg/m3 in smoke-free units,18.9 gg/m3
<br />in hallways, and 29.4 µg/m3 in smoke -permitted units.
<br />Conclusions: This study documents SHS incursions from
<br />smoke -permitted units into smoke-free units and adjacent hall-
<br />ways within the same building. Since many factors appear to
<br />impact the amount of SHS transfer between these areas, the
<br />implementation of a smoke-free building policy represents
<br />the most effective way to ensure that residents of MUH units are
<br />not exposed to SHS.
<br />Secondhand smoke (SHS), or tobacco smoke pollution, consists
<br />of a mixture of gases and particulate matter generated from the
<br />mouth of a smoker after taking a puff on a cigarette (main-
<br />stream smoke) or from the burning end of a smoldering ciga-
<br />rette (sidestream smoke) (National Toxicology Program [NTP],
<br />2005). SHS has been shown to cause significant morbidity and
<br />mortality among both adults and children who do not smoke
<br />(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS],
<br />1986, 2006). Each year, SHS accounts for an estimated 50,000
<br />deaths among adult nonsmokers, including approximately
<br />3,400 from lung cancer and between 22,700 and 69,600 from
<br />heart disease (California Environmental Protection Agency,
<br />2005). SHS has also been classified as a human carcinogen by
<br />the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NTP,
<br />U.S. Surgeon General, and International Agency for Research
<br />on Cancer (IARC) (IARC, 2004; NTP, 2005; USDHHS, 2006;
<br />USEPA, 1992). The health effects of SHS are believed to be de-
<br />pendent upon both intensity and length of exposure (Davis,
<br />1998), where intensity is a function of smoking rate, ventilation,
<br />and the size of the microenvironment (USDHHS).
<br />Public advocacy and scientific inquiry have prompted many
<br />municipalities to adopt bans on smoking in public areas (Eriksen
<br />and Cerak, 2008). As of April 2010, an estimated 74.2% of the
<br />U.S. population was covered by either a state or a local law that
<br />prohibits smoking inside workplaces, bars, or restaurants
<br />(Americans for Non -Smokers' Rights, 2010). However, rela-
<br />tively few regulatory entities have instituted restrictions on
<br />smoking in personal living areas (Center for Social Gerontology,
<br />2009), which represent an increasing and significant source
<br />of SHS exposure for many individuals (Klepeis et al., 2001;
<br />USDHHS, 2006).
<br />The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Healthy
<br />Homes has stressed the importance of instituting smoke-free
<br />home policies (USDHHS, 2009). Such policies have been shown
<br />to reduce SHS exposure in the home (USDHHS, 2006), increase
<br />cessation among smokers, and decrease relapse among former
<br />smokers (Hyland et al., 2009; Mills, Messer, Gilpin, and Pierce,
<br />2009). Although the prevalence of smoke-free home policies
<br />varies by region, approximately 40% of U.S. smokers and 80%
<br />of nonsmokers report that smoking is prohibited in their home
<br />(Giovino et al., 2009). Nonetheless, the potential for exposure in
<br />doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq 162
<br />© The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.
<br />All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail. journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
<br />0
<br />0
<br />n
<br />0
<br />6
<br />m
<br />N
<br />0
<br />0
<br />
|