Designated “no smoking” areas provide from partial to no protection from environmental tobacco smoke

Abstract

Objective:To determine the efficacy of designated “no smoking” areas in the hospitality industry as a means of providing protection from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and whether certain design features assist in achieving this end.Methodology:In the greater metropolitan region of Sydney, a representative group of 17 social and gaming clubs, licensed to serve alcoholic beverages and in which, apart from designated areas, smoking occurs, agreed to participate. In each establishment, simultaneous single measurements of atmospheric nicotine, particulate matter (10 μm; PM10) and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were measured in a general use area and in a designated “no smoking” area during times of normal operation, together with the levels in outdoor air (PM10 and CO2only). Analyses were made of these data to assess the extent to which persons using the “no smoking” areas were protected from exposure to ETS.Results:By comparison with levels in general use areas, nicotine and particulate matter levels were significantly less in the “no smoking” areas, but were still readily detectable at higher than ambient levels. For nicotine, mean (SD) levels were 100.5 (45.3) μg/m3in the areas where smoking occurred and 41.3 (16.1) μg/m3in the “no smoking” areas. Corresponding PM10 levels were 460 (196) μg/m3and 210 (210) μg/m3, while outdoor levels were 61 (23) μg/m3. The reduction in pollutants achieved through a separate room being designated “no smoking” was only marginally better than the reduction achieved when a “no smoking” area was contiguous with a smoking area. CO2levels were relatively uninformative.Conclusion:Provision of designated “no smoking” areas in licensed (gaming) clubs in New South Wales, Australia, provides, at best, partial protection from ETS—typically about a 50% reduction in exposure. The protection afforded is less than users might reasonably have understood and is not comparable with protection afforded by prohibiting smoking on the premises.

Air Contamination Due to Smoking in German Restaurants, Bars, and Other Venues--Before and After the Implementation of a Partial Smoking Ban

“…The increased levels of PM 2.5 measured in nonsmoking rooms of venues with separate smoking room are also consistent with previous studies demonstrating that in venues with designated smoking rooms, tobacco smoke penetrates into adjoining rooms (Cains, Cannata, Poulos, Ferson, & Stewart, 2004;Huss et al, 2010).…”

Second-hand smoke exposure in different types of venues: before and after the implementation of smoke-free legislation in Guangzhou, China

“…A study in Swiss restaurants, cafes and bars showed that PM2.5 levels in non-smoking areas were considerably increased if smoking was allowed anywhere in the same location, and were more than double those in completely smoke-free areas 21. Another study in clubs of Australia found that spatially separated non-smoking rooms had only marginally reduced PM10 and CO 2 22. In addition, several longitudinal studies indicated that a partial smoking ban provides no protection to SHS exposure in hospitals and workplaces 7 23 24.…”

Comparison of Indoor Air Quality in Smoke-Permitted and Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing: Findings From the Boston Housing Authority

“…[2][3][4] Children living in multiunit housing have more exposure to secondhand smoke than those living in free-standing homes. 5 Furthermore, people living in multiunit housing have little control over their exposure to secondhand smoke since much of the air entering their apartments originates somewhere else in the building.…”