Secondhand smoke exposure and risk following the Irish smoking ban: an assessment of salivary cotinine concentrations in hotel workers and air nicotine levels in bars

被引:147
作者
Mulcahy, M
Evans, DS
Hammond, SK
Repace, JL
Byrne, M
机构
[1] Hlth Serv Execut, Western Area, Galway, Ireland
[2] Merlin Pk Hosp, Western Area, Hlth Serv Execut, Dept Publ Hlth, Galway, Ireland
[3] Univ Calif Berkeley, Sch Publ Hlth, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[4] Tufts Univ, Sch Med, Repace Associates Inc, Bowie, MD USA
[5] Natl Univ Ireland Univ Coll Galway, Dept Expt Phys, Galway, Ireland
关键词
D O I
10.1136/tc.2005.011635
中图分类号
R194 [卫生标准、卫生检查、医药管理];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To investigate whether the Irish smoking ban has had an impact on secondhand smoke (SHS) exposures for hospitality workers. Design, setting, and participants: Before and after the smoking ban a cohort of workers (n = 35) from a sample of city hotels (n = 15) were tested for saliva cotinine concentrations and completed questionnaires. Additionally, a random sample (n = 20) of city centre bars stratified by size ( range 400-5000 square feet), were tested for air nicotine concentrations using passive samplers before and after the ban. Main outcome measures: Salivary cotinine concentrations (ng/ml), duration of self reported exposures to secondhand smoke, air nicotine (mg/cubic metre). Results: Cotinine concentrations reduced by 69%, from 1.6 ng/ml to 0.5 ng/ml median (SD 1.29; p < 0.005). Overall 74% of subjects experienced decreases (range 16-99%), with 60% showing a halving of exposure levels at follow up. Self reported exposure to SHS at work showed a significant reduction from a median 30 hours a week to zero (p < 0.001). There was an 83% reduction in air nicotine concentrations from median 35.5 mg/m(3) to 5.95 mg/m3 (p < 0.001). At baseline, three bars (16%) were below the 6.8 mg/m(3) air nicotine significant risk level for lung cancer alone; at follow up this increased to 10 (53%). Conclusions: Passive smoking and associated risks were significantly reduced but not totally eliminated. Exposure to SHS is still possible for those working where smoking is still allowed and those working where smoke may migrate from outdoor areas. Further research is required to assess the true extent and magnitude of these exposures.
引用
收藏
页码:384 / 388
页数:5
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Al-Delaimy W, 2001, NEW ZEAL MED J, V114, P80
  • [2] Allwright S, 2002, REPORT HLTH EFFECTS
  • [3] [Anonymous], QUANTITATIVE SURVEY
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2004, WHO IARC, P83
  • [5] Biomarkers of environmental tobacco smoke exposure
    Benowitz, NL
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 1999, 107 : 349 - 355
  • [6] Designated "no smoking'' areas provide from partial to no protection from environmental tobacco smoke
    Cains, T
    Cannata, S
    Poulos, R
    Ferson, MJ
    Stewart, BW
    [J]. TOBACCO CONTROL, 2004, 13 (01) : 17 - 22
  • [7] *CAL EPA, 2004, PROP ID ENV TOB SMOK
  • [8] Analysis of nicotine and cotinine in the hair of hospitality workers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke
    DimichWard, H
    Gee, H
    Brauer, M
    Leung, V
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, 1997, 39 (10) : 946 - 948
  • [9] Bartenders' respiratory health after establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns
    Eisner, MD
    Smith, AK
    Blanc, PD
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (22): : 1909 - 1914
  • [10] A RAPID GAS-LIQUID-CHROMATOGRAPHIC METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF COTININE AND NICOTINE IN BIOLOGICAL-FLUIDS
    FEYERABEND, C
    RUSSELL, MAH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 1990, 42 (06) : 450 - 452