Information on levels of secondhand smoke measured simultaneously in the smoking and nonsmoking section of bars and restaurants in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metro area, presented at the 2011 Indoor Air conference.
For more info, read an interview with CEE's Dave Bohac and Martha Hewett:
http://mncee.org/Innovation-Exchange/ie/November-2012/IAQ-and-Energy-Efficiency--Part-2/?utm_source=slideshare&utm_medium=slideshare&utm_campaign=slideshare
Best Rate (Hyderabad) Call Girls Jahanuma ⟟ 8250192130 ⟟ High Class Call Girl...
Comparison of Secondhand Smoke in Bars and Restaurant Non/smoking Sections
1. Center for Energy
and Environment
Comparison of
Secondhand Smoke
in Bars and Restaurant
Non/smoking Sections
Center for Energy and Environment
David Bohac, Martha Hewett, Kristopher Kapphahn
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Michael Apte, Lara Gundel
University of Minnesota
David Grimsrud
2. Prevalence of Nonsmoking Sections
90%
65 venues
78%
80% in Mpls/SP
70%
60% 56%
50% 45%
40%
32% 30%
30%
20%
13%
10%
0%
Drinking Place Limited Service Full Service
% with nonsmoking area nonsmoking/total floor area
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
3. Prevalence of Nonsmoking Sections
Good public health policy or good public relations??
90%
65 venues
78%
80% in Mpls/SP
70%
60% 56%
50% 45%
40%
32% 30%
30%
20%
13%
10%
0%
Drinking Place Limited Service Full Service
% with nonsmoking area nonsmoking/total floor area
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
4. Non/smoking Section Objectives
Determine level of protection from SHS
provided by nonsmoking sections in
hospitality venues where smoking is
permitted
Evaluate differences between PM2.5 and gas
phase components of SHS
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
5. Main Project Methodology
Statistically representative sample: 65 venues
• 19 drinking places (bars & taverns)
• 9 limited service restaurants
• 37 full service restaurants
Three repeat visits at 12 periods (36 total visits)
• Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Weekday (M-Th)
• Lunch, dinner, and evening
Visits at least 10 minutes recording
PM2.5, #cigarettes, #customers, and #workers
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
6. Main Project Methodology
All visits were discrete and unannounced
3 to 5 of the visits to each venue conducted
for two hours with enhanced monitoring
Bans
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Bloomington
Golden Valley
Partial Bans
Hennepin Cty
Ramsey Cty
Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area Venues within 20 mile radius of
downtown Minneapolis
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
8. Two-hour Enhanced Monitoring
Catalogue Case Briefcase
Aethalometer TSI SidePak TM
(Real-time UVPM) (Real-time Photometer PM2.5)
TSI P-Trak TM
(Real-time CPC UFPM)
PEM
(Gravimetric PM2.5 )
Tenax Tube
(integrated nicotine, 3-
Two-hour monitoring EP, pyridine)
performed with 2
person team TSI IAQCalc TM
(Real-time CO & CO2)
Just need to keep my equipment warm – no knives, guns or booze
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
9. Non/smoking Methodology
Simultaneous two-hour monitoring – one team
in smoking and 2nd in nonsmoking section
Selection criteria
• Significant fraction customers in nonsmoking
• Higher levels of PM2.5
• Franchise type business
14 venues monitored (16 visits – 2 repeats)
• 2 drinking places
• 1 limited service restaurant
• 11 full service restaurants
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
10. Previous Studies: Ratio of
Nonsmoking/smoking SHS
7 New Mexico restaurants, 24 hr samples:
• RSP: median= 0.63 (0.39 to 1.20) Lambert et al., 1993
• Nicotine: median= 0.29 (0.06 to 0.75)
Gaming hall patrons: metabolic Olshansky,1982
carboxyhemoglobin statistically identical in
nonsmoking and smoking sections
Two sandwich restaurants, consecutive
samples: 0.50 and 0.59 Repace and Lowry,1980
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
11. Results: Real-time Data
70 1,050
FL-9: average PM2.5
Smoking = 27.8
CO2 Nonsmoking = 18.5 (67%)
60 900
50 750
PM2.5
Smoking section
PM2.5 (ug/m3)
40 600
CO2 (ppm)
30 450
20 300
10 Nonsmoking section 150
0 0
9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:30 PM 11:00 PM 11:30 PM
Smoking section – solid lines, Nonsmoking section – dashed
PM2.5 Smk
Time (hh:mm)
PM2.5 NS CO2 Smk CO2 NS
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
12. Results
Smoking Section Nicotine (mg/m3)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
120 4.0 NS/Smoking
3.5
PM Nicotine
100 P25 0.46 0.11
Nonsmoking Section Nicotine (mg/m3)
Nonsmoking Section PM2.5 (mg/m3)
3.0 P50 0.62 0.26
80
2.5
Avg. 0.58 0.28
P75 0.65 0.40
60 2.0
1.5 None of the venues had
40 floor to ceiling walls
1.0 between the smoking and
20
nonsmoking sections.
0.5
0 0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Smoking Section PM2.5 (mg/m3)
Smoking section only10% of total
PM2.5 1:1 1:0.58 Nicotine 1:0.28
floor area, located adjacent to kitchen,
and high (5ach) ventilation
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
13. Results
Smoking Section Nicotine (mg/m3)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
120 4.0 NS/Smoking
3.5
PM Nicotine
100 P25 0.46 0.11
Nonsmoking Section Nicotine (mg/m3)
Nonsmoking Section PM2.5 (mg/m3)
3.0
P50 0.62 0.26
80
2.5
Avg. 0.58 0.28
P75 0.65 0.40
60 2.0
1.5 None of the venues had
40 floor to ceiling walls
1.0 between the smoking and
20
nonsmoking sections.
LOQ 0.5
0 0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Smoking Section PM2.5 (mg/m3)
Smoking section only10% of total
PM2.5 1:1 1:0.58 Nicotine 1:0.28
floor area, located adjacent to
kitchen, and high (5ach) ventilation
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
14. Results
160%
Median
140%
NS/Smoking
Nonsmoking/smoking section concentration (%)
PM2.5 0.62
120%
Pyridine 0.62
100%
3-EP 0.47
Nicotine 0.26
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
FL-12 FM-5 FM-6(2) FL-7(2) DL-5 LM-1 FL-2 FS-9 FM-6(1) FL-9 FM-9 FL-5 FL-11 DS-5 FL-7(1) FM-11
Venue ID PM2.5 Pyridine Pyrrole 3-EP Nicotine
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
15. Conclusions
Separate nonsmoking section provides minor
reduction in PM2.5 exposure (median
NS/Smoking = 0.58) (without floor/ceiling walls)
Reduction in gas phase SHS component
concentration is greater (nicotine NS/Smk= 0.28)
with higher sorbing gases >> greater reduction
Results are consistent with those from previous
studies (RSP ratio= 0.63, nicotine= 0.29;
Lambert et al. 1993)
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
16. Conclusions
Smoking ban required for adequate protection –
nonsmoking sections are NOT good public
policy
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
17. Acknowledgements
This research project was funded in part by
ClearWay Minnesota. SM
Thanks to our field monitors:
Kevin Brauer, Trent Byers, David Farrar, Matt Hruby,
Melanie Larson, Aaron Norman, Carrie Quinlan, Angie
Thomas, Jeff Thomas, Angela Vreeland, McKinzie
Woelfel, and Nate Woelfel
Center for Energy
and Environment Comparison of SHS in B & R Non/smoking Sections Bohac
Notas del editor
1st question is what was our motivation for this study? The simple answer is that nonsmoking sections have been one of the most common methods that bars and restaurants have dealt with the smoking issue. As you can see out of the 65 venues in our study, over ¾ of the full-service restaurants had nonsmoking sections and they devoted almost half of their floor area to those sections. Those fractions have been lower in bars where there has been less concern with protecting customers from SHS.
So the next question is – are nonsmoking sections good public policy or are they just good PR?
Our objectives for this study was to quantify the ratio of SHS concentration in the nonsmoking section to that of the smoking section. Or in other words, how much protection is provided by nonsmoking sections. The main motivation was that our exposure assessment needed to quantify SHS exposures for customers in both the smoking and nonsmoking sections. We found that there was fairly limited information on this issues. Also, we were interested in the ratio of SHS in the nonsmoking to smoking concentrations for not only particulates but also gaseous components of SHS.
This effort was part of a larger project to provide an assessment of bar and restaurant patrons and workers to SHS. I just want to give you some brief information about the larger project. We generated a statistically representative sample of 65 venues – including 19 drinking places or bars and 48 restaurants with those broken down into 9 limited service and 37 full service restaurants. The distinction there is that in a limited service restaurant customers order their meal at a counter and sit down w/their food while for a FS restaurant they sit down to order their food or drink. In order to make this a comprehensive assessment each venue was visited during the lunch, dinner and evening periods of four different day types – Fri, Sat, Sun and weekday. This was repeated 3 times in each period for a total of 36 visits/venue or over 2,000 visits for the entire study. For each visit the monitors stayed in the venue for at least 10 minutes and recorded the # of customers, workers, and lit cigs. They also used a photometer to record one minute averages of PM2.5 and another instrument to record carbon dioxide levels.
All of the visits were conducted without the knowledge of the venue owners or workers. The 65 venues were located within a 20 mile radius of downtownMpls. We would have liked to have a sample across the entire state, but that wasn’t feasible with the number of visits required. For those of you who live on the east or west coast and forget where Minnesota is – we are in the upper midwest – home of frostbit falls.
Our IRB was very strict so our monitors had a little problem being completely discrete.
Just kidding. The photometer was located in a backpack or brief case and we used a Palm personal assistant to record information. For 3 – 5 visits per venue we conducted more extensive monitoring over a two hour period. For these visits two people used a briefcase to bring in a TSI Sidepak photometer, PEM for gravimetric PM2.5, gas samples were collected on a tenax tube and real-time ultraviolet absorbing PM measurements were provided by an aethalometer.
To determine the ratio of the nonsmoking to smoking section SHS concentrations we sent two monitoring teams to a venue at approx. the same time and had one sit in the nonsmoking section and the other in the smoking section. This was generally done on a Friday or Sat night. We didn’t have funds or time to do this for all 65 venues so we targeted venues which previous monitoring had shown had a higher than typical number of customers in the nonsmoking section and higher levels of PM2.5. In addition, we tried to select franchise type businesses so that the information would be more broadly applicable. We were able to complete 16 visits to 14 venues. Since a higher fraction of the full-service venues had nonsmoking areas most of the venues (11 of the 14) were FS restaurants.
Before I present our results I wanted to review the information we found in the literature. The most extensive measurements were conducted by Lambert et al in 1993 – they conducted 24 hour measurements at 7 restaurants in New Mexico and found a median nonsmoking/smoking section ratio of 0.63 for RSP and 0.29 for nicotine. Olshansky reported no statistically significant difference in the metabolic carboxyhemolglobin of customers in the smoking and nonsmoking section. Finally, Repace and Lowry measured PM at two sandwich shops and found ratios of 0.5 and 0.59. The PM monitoring suggests a 35% to 50% reduction by sitting in a nonsmoking section.
Here is a sample of one-minute resolution data from two hours of monitoring for one of our 16 visits. The upper curves are the CO2 levels in the smoking and NS sections with the dashed line indicating the level in the nonsmoking section. The lower levels at the beginning and end are from outdoor monitoring. The smoking section has a floor area of about 100m2 and the nonsmoking section is about 166m2. The number of people in the smoking section varied from 20 to 54 and there were from 1 to 3 lit cigarettes counted at 15 minute intervals. There were from 6 to 34 people in the nonsmoking section. You can see that even with the higher density of customers in the smoking section the CO2 levels in the two sections are very similar which suggests that there is significant mixing between the zones or ventilation in proportion to the number of people. There are 5 – 10 minute time periods when the PM2.5 concentration is similar in the two areas, but in general the smoking area level is greater than the nonsmoking area. Over the entire two hours the average PM2.5 concentration in the nonsmoking section is 67% of that in the smoking section.
This graph shows the nonsmoking section concentrations on the vertical axis and the smoking section concentrations on the horizontal axis. The solid black line indicates 1 to 1 agreement. The blue diamonds are the average PM2.5 concentrations and the red circles the nicotine concentrations. The table on the right shows the 25th percentile, median, average, the 75th percentile nonsmoking to smoking section ratios for PM2.5 and nicotine. The median ratio for PM2.5 is 0.62 and over half of the ratios fall between 0.5 and 0.7. The dashed blue line indicates a ratio of 0.58. The one venue that has a very low ratio has a small smoking section that is located adjacent to the kitchen and had a relatively high ventilation rate of 5ach. If the kitchen exhaust fans were working properly it is possible that some of the smoking section air was being drawn into the kitchen and not mixing with the rest of the venue. I should note that for all of these venues there are no floor to ceiling walls between the two sections – for some there was a half height wall. I don’t have information on whether the same ventilation system served both areas.
By contrast, the nicotine ratios are lower and more scattered. This is to be expected because of the relatively high rate of sorption of nicotine to surfaces. Also, the nicotine measurements have a higher level of uncertainty than the PM2.5 measurements with the LOQs indicated by the error bars.
This graph shows the ratio of the nonsmoking to smoking concentrations for all 16 visits. The PM2.5 ratios are the blue diamonds and nicotine the red circles again. The ratios for pyridine, pyrrole, and 3-EP have also been included. The visits are sorted from low to high PM2.5 ratio as you go from left to right. The vertical bars indicate the relative concentration of PM2.5 in the smoking section – this was included because the uncertainty in the ratios are higher for lower levels of PM2.5. As indicated in the table to the right the median ratio for pyridine is similar to that for PM2.5 and the median ratio for 3-EP and nicotine are lower. This is to be expected since 3-EP and nicotine will tend to be absorpted to surfaces more readily as the SHS moves from the smoking to nonsmoking section.
To summarize, the median ratio of nonsmoking to smoking section PM2.5 was 0.58 for the 16 visits and the median ratio for nicotine was 0.28. The lower ratio is consistent for the higher absorbing gas. These results are consistent with those reported by Lambert for 7 restaurants.
Finally, nonsmoking sections provide only moderate protection – a smoking ban is required for adequate protection.
We would like to acknowledge ClearWay Minnesota for the project funding and thank the 13 people that we had help with the monitoring on this project.