Suchergebnisse

Background: Some countries have recently extended smoke-free policies to particular outdoor settings; however, there is controversy regarding whether this is scientifically and ethically justifiable. Objectives: The objective of the present study was to review research on secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in outdoor settings. Data sources: We conducted different searches in PubMed for the period prior to September 2012. We checked the references of the identified papers, and conducted a similar search in Google Scholar. Study selection: Our search terms included combinations of"secondhand smoke,""environmental tobacco smoke,""passive smoking" OR"tobacco smoke pollution" AND"outdoors" AND"PM" (particulate matter),"PM2.5" (PM with diameter ≤ 2.5 µm),"respirable suspended particles,""particulate matter,""nicotine,""CO" (carbon monoxide),"cotinine,""marker,""biomarker" OR"airborne marker." In total, 18 articles and reports met the inclusion criteria. Results: Almost all studies used PM2.5 concentration as an SHS marker. Mean PM2.5 concentrations reported for outdoor smoking areas when smokers were present ranged from 8.32 to 124 µg/m3 at hospitality venues, and 4.60 to 17.80 µg/m3 at other locations. Mean PM2.5 concentrations in smoke-free indoor settings near outdoor smoking areas ranged from 4 to 120.51 µg/m3. SHS levels increased when smokers were present, and outdoor and indoor SHS levels were related. Most studies reported a positive association between SHS measures and smoker density, enclosure of outdoor locations, wind conditions, and proximity to smokers. Conclusions: The available evidence indicates high SHS levels at some outdoor smoking areas and at adjacent smoke-free indoor areas. Further research and standardization of methodology is needed to determine whether smoke-free legislation should be extended to outdoor settings.

A partial smoke-free regulation in Spain was introduced on January 1, 2006, which was sub-sequently amended to introduce a comprehensive smoke-free policy from 2 January 2011 onward. The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of tobacco consumption in Spain and the profile of smokers before (2006) and after (2011) the comprehensive smoking ban passed in 2010.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: A smoking law was passed by the Spanish Parliament in December 2005 and was enforced by 1 January 2006. The law bans smoking in all indoor workplaces but only in some hospitality venues, because owners are allowed to establish a smoking zone (venues>100 m2) or to allow smoking without restrictions (venues<100 m2). The objective of the study is to assess the impact of the Spanish smoking law on exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in enclosed workplaces, including hospitality venues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study design is a before-and-after evaluation. We studied workplaces and hospitality venues from eight different regions of Spain. We took repeated samples of vapor-phase nicotine concentration in 398 premises, including private offices (162), public administration offices (90), university premises (43), bars and restaurants (79), and discotheques and pubs (24). RESULTS: In the follow-up period, SHS levels were markedly reduced in indoor offices. The median decrease in nicotine concentration ranged from 60.0% in public premises to 97.4% in private areas. Nicotine concentrations were also markedly reduced in bars and restaurants that became smoke-free (96.7%) and in the no-smoking zones of venues with separate spaces for smokers (88.9%). We found no significant changes in smoking zones or in premises allowing smoking, including discotheques and pubs. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study shows the positive impact of the law on reducing SHS in indoor workplaces. However, SHS was substantially reduced only in bars and restaurants that became smoke-free. Most hospitality workers continue to be exposed to very high levels of SHS. Therefore, a 100% smoke-free policy for all hospitality venues is required.

A smoke-free law came into effect in Spain on 1st January 2006, affecting all enclosed workplaces except hospitality venues, whose proprietors can choose among totally a smoke-free policy, a partial restriction with designated smoking areas, or no restriction on smoking on the premises. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the law among hospitality workers by assessing second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure and the frequency of respiratory symptoms before and one year after the ban. ; This project was funded by the Public Health Directorates of the Departments of Health of the Regional Governments of Balearic Islands, Cantabria, Catalonia, Galicia and Valencian Community, the Spanish Ministry of Health (FIS PI052072, CIBERESP CB06/02/0032, and RTICC RD06/0020/0089), and the Ministry of Universities and Research, Government of Catalonia (SGR200500646). We thank Chupa Chups Spain for providing the Smint® candies. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the ...

Background: outdoor secondhand smoke (SHS) concentrations are usually lower than indoor concentrations, yet some studies have shown that outdoor SHS levels could be comparable to indoor levels under specific conditions. The main objectives of this study were to assess levels of SHS exposure in terraces and other outdoor areas of hospitality venues and to evaluate their potential displacement to adjacent indoor areas. Methods: nicotine and respirable particles (PM2.5) were measured in outdoor and indoor areas of hospitality venues of 8 European countries. Hospitality venues of the study included night bars, restaurants and bars. The fieldwork was carried out between March 2009 and March 2011. Results: we gathered 170 nicotine and 142 PM2.5 measurements during the study. The median indoor SHS concentration was significantly higher in venues where smoking was allowed (nicotine 3.69 µg/m3, PM2.5: 120.51 µg/m3) than in those where smoking was banned (nicotine: 0.48 µg/m3, PM2.5: 36.90 µg/m3). The median outdoor nicotine concentration was higher in places where indoor smoking was banned (1.56 µg/m3) than in venues where smoking was allowed (0.31 µg/m3). Among the different types of outdoor areas, the highest median outdoor SHS levels (nicotine: 4.23 µg/m3, PM2.5: 43.64 µg/m3) were found in the semi-closed outdoor areas of venues where indoor smoking was banned. Conclusions: banning indoor smoking seems to displace SHS exposure to adjacent outdoor areas. Furthermore, indoor settings where smoking is banned but which have a semi-closed outdoor area have higher levels of SHS than those with open outdoor areas, possibly indicating that SHS also drifts from outdoors to indoors. Current legislation restricting indoor SHS levels seems to be insufficient to protect hospitality workers - and patrons - from SHS exposure. Tobacco-free legislation should take these results into account and consider restrictions in the terraces of some hospitality venues to ensure effective protection.