|
station with the intent of confirming the validity of the levels
<br />measured on the patios.
<br />All participants were instructed to keep a daily activity log
<br />detailing occurrences that could affect air quality levels, includ-
<br />ing smoking, cooking, pyrolosis (candle burning or non -tobacco
<br />smoking event), use of electrical appliances, and window or
<br />door placement. After approximately 72 hr, research staff re-
<br />trieved the equipment and provided participants with a $50
<br />compensation check. All research procedures were approved by
<br />the Institutional Review Board at Roswell Park Cancer Institute.
<br />Equipment
<br />TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitors (TSI, Inc.,
<br />St. Paul, MN; Figure 1) were used to assess RSP levels in real
<br />time. This device is a scientifically validated tool that has previ-
<br />ously been used to quantify SHS exposure in both public (Alpert,
<br />Carpenter, Travers, and Connolly, 2007; Jones et al., 2006;
<br />Repace, 2004; Travers et al., 2004) and personal living (Van
<br />Deusen et al., 2009) areas. The SidePak functions via a built-in
<br />sampling pump which draws continuously streaming aerosol
<br />into a sensing chamber where it is illuminated by a laser light.
<br />Particles in the aerosol stream scatter the light, which is quanti-
<br />fied by a photometer and converted to the mass concentration
<br />of the aerosol. The specific class of RSP assessed was PM25, or
<br />particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 µm; particles of
<br />this size are released in significant quantities from burning ciga-
<br />rettes and can easily be inhaled into the lungs (Travers et al.).
<br />Prior to each assessment, the SidePak was calibrated in accor-
<br />dance with the manufacturer's specifications, the flow rate was
<br />set at 1.7 L/min, and the logging interval was set to 1 min.
<br />For the validation assessment, vapor phase nicotine was
<br />evaluated in 2 units of a 3 -unit building (Building 11), using an
<br />AirChek 52 air sampling pump (SKC Inc., Eight Four, PA) and
<br />XAD-4 sorbent tube set at a flow rate of 1.0 L/min. Calibration
<br />standards were analyzed before and after data collection and
<br />nicotine levels were assessed relative to a field blank. Resultant
<br />30 -
<br />n=413 cigarettes n=75 cigarettes
<br />p -trend: <0.001 p -trend: <0.001
<br />25-
<br />Nicotine & Tobacco Research
<br />8.A. - Page 21
<br />nicotine concentrations were then compared to expected
<br />concentrations derived from PMZ 5 levels observed in the units
<br />during the same time period (Repace and Lowrey, 1993).
<br />Definition of Measure
<br />The primary outcome of interest was SHS transfer between
<br />smoke -permitted and smoke-free units. Transfer was defined as
<br />any instance in which tobacco combustion was documented on
<br />the activity log of a smoke -permitted unit and corresponding
<br />temporal increases in PMZ 5, which could not be attributed to an
<br />exogenous source, were observed in both the smoke -permitted
<br />unit and the smoke-free unit or hallway within the same build-
<br />ing. An exogenous source was defined as appliance use (includ-
<br />ing cooking) or pyrolosis (candle burning or non -tobacco
<br />smoking event) recorded in the activity logs.
<br />Data Analysis
<br />Data were downloaded for analysis using TrakPro software
<br />(TSI, Inc., St. Paul, MN), and a calibration factor reflective of
<br />SHS particles (0.32) was subsequently applied (Travers et al.,
<br />2004; Van Deusen et al., 2009). Median PM25 levels (micro-
<br />grams per cubic meter) were calculated both overall and by 8 -hr
<br />increments (12:00 AM to 7:59 AM, 8:00 AM to 3:59 PM, 4:00 PM
<br />to 11:59 PM), while linear regression was used to assess trends
<br />in PMZ 5 across monitor locations. Monitoring time, household
<br />volume, and quantity of cigarettes were used to ascertain the
<br />cigarette density of each smoke -permitted unit (cigarettes/
<br />hr/ 100 m3).
<br />Real-time data plots were constructed, and daily activity
<br />logs were matched with PM25 data to assess transfer between
<br />monitor locations and the relative contribution of smoking,
<br />ventilation, and other sources of particulate matter. In an effort
<br />to explore the temporal dynamics of particulate transfer, the
<br />correlation between PM25 levels in smoke -permitted and
<br />smoke-free units was examined using varying lag times between
<br />monitor locations. The lag time required to achieve the greatest
<br />n=157 cigarettes n=181 cigarel
<br />p -trend: <0.001 p -trend: <0.01
<br />M
<br />20.2
<br />20.5
<br />20-
<br />18.2
<br />m
<br />16.6
<br />16.0
<br />m
<br />„ 15
<br />13.8
<br />a
<br />10.9
<br />9.9
<br />10.2
<br />0 10
<br />8.6 8.3 } f ; I
<br />��':j:;:
<br />9.0 —
<br />7.0 7.0
<br />5 -
<br />29.4
<br />Overall 12:00 AM - 7:59 AM 8:00 AM - 3:49 PM 4:00 PM - 11:59 PM
<br />❑ Outdoor (n=3) 0 Smoke -Free (n=14) ❑ Hallway (n=8) ■ Smoke -Permitted (n=16)
<br />Figure 1. Median PM, levels in smoke -permitted units, hallways, smoke-free units, and outdoor patios by time of day.
<br />3
<br />0
<br />O
<br />n
<br />0
<br />6
<br />n)
<br />N
<br />O
<br />O
<br />
|