Dataset Information

Secondhand tobacco smoke: an occupational hazard for smoking and non-smoking bar and nightclub employees.

ABSTRACT: In the absence of comprehensive smoking bans in public places, bars and nightclubs have the highest concentrations of secondhand tobacco smoke, posing a serious health risk for workers in these venues.To assess exposure of bar and nightclub employees to secondhand smoke, including non-smoking and smoking employees.Between 2007 and 2009, the authors recruited approximately 10 venues per city and up to five employees per venue in 24 cities in the Americas, Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Air nicotine concentrations were measured for 7 days in 238 venues. To evaluate personal exposure to secondhand smoke, hair nicotine concentrations were also measured for 625 non-smoking and 311 smoking employees (N=936).Median (IQR) air nicotine concentrations were 3.5 (1.5-8.5) ?g/m(3) and 0.2 (0.1-0.7) ?g/m(3) in smoking and smoke-free venues, respectively. Median (IQR) hair nicotine concentrations were 6.0 (1.6-16.0) ng/mg and 1.7 (0.5-5.5) ng/mg in smoking and non-smoking employees, respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, education, living with a smoker, hair treatment and region, a twofold increase in air nicotine concentrations was associated with a 30% (95% CI 23% to 38%) increase in hair nicotine concentrations in non-smoking employees and with a 10% (2% to 19%) increase in smoking employees.Occupational exposure to secondhand smoke, assessed by air nicotine, resulted in elevated concentrations of hair nicotine among non-smoking and smoking bar and nightclub employees. The high levels of airborne nicotine found in bars and nightclubs and the contribution of this exposure to employee hair nicotine concentrations support the need for legislation measures that ensure complete protection from secondhand smoke in these venues.

SUBMITTER: Jones MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3701027 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Secondhand tobacco smoke: an occupational hazard for smoking and non-smoking bar and nightclub employees.

Jones Miranda R MR Wipfli Heather H Shahrir Shahida S Avila-Tang Erika E Samet Jonathan M JM Breysse Patrick N PN Navas-Acien Ana A

Tobacco control 20120124 5

<h4>Background</h4>In the absence of comprehensive smoking bans in public places, bars and nightclubs have the highest concentrations of secondhand tobacco smoke, posing a serious health risk for workers in these venues.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess exposure of bar and nightclub employees to secondhand smoke, including non-smoking and smoking employees.<h4>Methods</h4>Between 2007 and 2009, the authors recruited approximately 10 venues per city and up to five employees per venue in 24 cities in th ...[more]

PMID: 22273689

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith an increase in indoor smoking bans, many smokers smoke outside establishments and near their entrances, which has become a public health concern.ObjectivesWe characterized the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke (SHS) outside a restaurant and bar in Athens, Georgia, where indoor smoking is banned, using salivary cotinine and urinary 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL).MethodsIn a crossover study, we assigned 28 participants to outdoor patios of a restaurant and a bar and an open-air site with no smokers on three weekend days; participants visited each site once and stayed for 3 hr. We collected saliva and urine samples immediately before and after the visits (postexposure) and on the following morning and analyzed samples for cotinine and total NNAL, respectively. Regression models were fitted and changes in biomarkers were contrasted between locations.ResultsPostexposure and preexposure geometric mean salivary cotinine concentrations differed by 0.115 ng/mL [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.105, 0.126)] and by 0.030 ng/mL (95% CI: 0.028, 0.031) for bar and restaurant visits, respectively. There were no significant post- and preexposure differences in cotinine levels after control site visits, and changes after bar and restaurant site visits were significantly different from changes after control site visits (p < 0.001). Results comparing next-day and preexposure salivary cotinine levels were similar. Next-day creatinine-corrected urinary NNAL concentrations also were higher than preexposure levels following bar and restaurant visits [1.858 pg/mg creatinine higher (95% CI: 0.897, 3.758) and 0.615 pg/mg creatinine higher (95% CI: 0.210, 1.761), respectively], and were significantly different from changes after the control visits (p = 0.005).ConclusionSalivary cotinine and urinary NNAL increased significantly in nonsmokers after outdoor SHS exposure. Our findings indicate that such exposures may increase risks of health effects associated with tobacco carcinogens.

Project description:ImportanceWhile rates of cigarette use are declining, more US adults are using cannabis. Perceptions of safety are important drivers of substance use and public policy; however, little is known about the comparative views of US adults on tobacco and cannabis safety.ObjectiveTo compare public perceptions of safety of cannabis vs tobacco smoke and evaluate how perceptions may be changing over time.Design, setting, and participantsThis longitudinal survey study was conducted using a web-based survey administered in 2017, 2020, and 2021. US adults participating in Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative, population-based survey panel, were included. Data were analyzed from March 2021 through June 2023.Main outcomes and measuresTwo questions directly compared the perception of safety of cannabis vs tobacco in terms of daily smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. Additional questions assessed perceptions of safety of secondhand tobacco smoke for adults, children, and pregnant women, with an analogous set of questions for secondhand cannabis smoke.ResultsA total of 5035 participants (mean [SD] age, 53.4 [16.2] years; 2551 males [50.7%]) completed all 3 surveys and provided responses for tobacco and cannabis risk questions. More than one-third of participants felt that daily smoking of cannabis was safer than tobacco, and their views increasingly favored safety of cannabis vs tobacco over time (1742 participants [36.7%] in 2017 vs 2107 participants [44.3%] in 2021; P < .001). The pattern was similar for secondhand cannabis smoke, with 1668 participants (35.1%) responding that cannabis was safer than tobacco in 2017 vs 1908 participants (40.2%) in 2021 (P < .001). Participants who were younger (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for ages 18-29 years vs ≥60 years, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1-1.8]; P = .01) or not married (aOR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0-1.4]; P = .01) were more likely to move toward safer views of cannabis use over time, while those who were retired (aOR vs working, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.7-0.9]; P = .01) were less likely to move toward a safer view of cannabis. Participants were also more likely to rate secondhand smoke exposure to cannabis vs tobacco as completely or somewhat safe in adults (629 participants [12.6%] vs. 119 participants [2.4%]; P < .001), children (238 participants [4.8%] vs. 90 participants [1.8%]; P < .001), and pregnant women (264 participants [5.3%] vs. 69 participants [1.4%]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that US adults increasingly perceived daily smoking and secondhand exposure to cannabis smoke as safer than tobacco smoke from 2017 to 2021. Given that these views do not reflect the existing science on cannabis and tobacco smoke, the findings may have important implications for public health and policy as the legalization and use of cannabis increase.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Monitoring disparities in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is important for tailoring smoke-free policies to the needs of different groups. We examined disparity and trends in SHS exposure among both nonsmokers and smokers at Japanese workplaces between 2002 and 2012. METHODS:A total of 32,940 employees in nationally representative, population-based, repeated cross-sectional surveys in 2002, 2007 and 2012 in Japan was analyzed. Adjusted rate ratios for workplace SHS exposure from other people ("everyday" and "everyday or sometimes") were calculated according to covariates, using log-binomial regression models with survey weights. In this survey, employees who do not smoke at workplace are defined as workplace-nonsmokers; and those smoke at workplace are used as workplace-smokers. SHS exposure for smokers does not involve their own SHS. RESULTS:While everyday SHS exposure prevalence in workplace-nonsmokers decreased markedly (33.2% to 11.4%), that in workplace-smokers decreased only slightly (63.3% to 55.6%). Workplace-smokers were significantly more likely to report everyday SHS exposure than workplace-nonsmokers, and the degree of association increased over time: compared with the nonsmokers (reference), covariates-adjusted rate ratio (95% confidence interval) for the smokers increased from 1.70 (1.62-1.77) in 2002 to 4.16 (3.79-4.56) in 2012. Similar results were observed for everyday or sometimes SHS exposure. Compared with complete workplace smoking bans, partial and no bans were consistently and significantly associated with high SHS exposure among both nonsmokers and smokers. We also observed disparities in SHS exposure by employee characteristics, such as age group and worksite scale. CONCLUSIONS:Although overall SHS exposure decreased among Japanese employees between 2002 and 2012, the SHS exposure disparity between nonsmokers and smokers widened. Because smokers reported more frequent SHS exposure than nonsmokers, subsequent mortality due to SHS exposure may be higher in smokers than in nonsmokers. This information may be useful for advocating workplace smoke-free policies.

Project description:BackgroundAirports may represent significant sources of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure for both travelers and employees. While previously common smoking rooms have largely disappeared from US airports, smoking continues to occur outdoors at terminal entrances. SHS may be especially high at arrival areas, since they oftentimes are partially enclosed by overhead departures, creating stagnant microenvironments. This study assessed particulate matter <2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), a common surrogate for SHS, at airport terminal locations to evaluate both outdoor exposure risk and possible indoor drift of SHS from outdoor sources.MethodsA convenience sample of nine airport terminal arrival areas in the US state of Florida was surveyed between February and July 2018. PM2.5 levels were assessed outdoors and indoors at terminal entrances and at control areas far into terminal interiors. We also examined the impact of smoking location on SHS exposure by correlating cigarette and passing vehicle counts with PM2.5 levels at terminals with contrasting proximity of designated smoking locations to terminal entrances.ResultsAlthough outdoor PM2.5 levels (mean 17.9, SD 6.1 µg/m3) were significantly higher than indoors (p < 0.001), there was no difference between indoor areas directly inside terminal entrances and areas much further interior (mean 8.8, SD 2.6 vs mean 8.5, SD 3.0 µg/m3, p=0.49). However, when smoking areas were in close proximity to terminal entrances, the number of lit cigarettes and vehicular traffic per minute predicted 70% of the variance of PM2.5 levels (p < 0.001), which was attributable mostly to the cigarette number (β = 0.83; 95% CI (0.55 to 1.11); p < 0.001). This effect was not observed at smoking areas further away.ConclusionPM2.5 data did not suggest indoor drift from outside smoking. Nevertheless, absolute exposure outdoors was high and correlated with the location of designated smoking areas. Further studies are needed to examine the effect of microclimate formation on exposure risk.

Dataset Information

Secondhand tobacco smoke: an occupational hazard for smoking and non-smoking bar and nightclub employees.

Publications

Secondhand tobacco smoke: an occupational hazard for smoking and non-smoking bar and nightclub employees.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets