Fine particulate matter concentrations in smoking households: just how much secondhand smoke do you breathe in if you live with a smoker who smokes indoors?

Semple, Sean; Apsley, Andrew; Ibrahim, Tengku Azmina; Turner, Steven; Cherrie, John W.

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051635

Cited by 56 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is particularly relevant if we consider that there are more common sources of pollution that are not accounted for. For example, living with a smoker exposes an individual to levels of toxicants that are comparable with those of a heavily polluted city [Semple et al 2014].…”

Section: Air Quality and Respiratory Allergiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of air quality on lung health: myth or reality?

Marino

Caruso

Campagna

et al. 2015

Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The respiratory system is a primary target of the harmful effects of key air pollutants of health concern. Several air pollutants have been implicated including particulate matter (PM), ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It is well known that episodes of exposure to high concentrations of outdoor air pollutants can cause acute respiratory exacerbations. However, there is now increasing evidence suggesting that significant exposure to outdoor air pollutants may be also associated with development of lung cancer and with incident cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory allergies. Here we provide a critical appraisal of the impact of air pollution on respiratory diseases and discuss strategies for preventing excessive exposure to harmful air pollutants. However, the evidence that significant exposure to air pollutants is causing COPD, lung cancer or respiratory allergies is not conclusive and therefore regulators must be aware that execution of clean air policies may not be that cost-effective and may lead to unintended consequences. Addressing the lung health effects of air pollution must be considered work in progress. Keywords

show abstract

Section: Air Quality and Respiratory Allergiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of air quality on lung health: myth or reality?

Marino

Caruso

Campagna

et al. 2015

Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Semple et al [49] said that median PM 2.5 concentrations from 93 smoking homes were 31 μg/m 3 (ranged between 10 and 111 μg/m 3 ) and 3 μg/m 3 (ranged between 2 and 6.5) μg/m 3 for the 17 non-smoking homes and still showed that non-smokers living with smokers typically have average PM 2.5 exposure levels more than three times higher than the WHO guidance for annual exposure to PM 2.5 (10 μg/m 3 ). So, PM 2.5 pollution in indoor ambient where smokers live is approximately 10 times higher than that of non-smoking.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Indoor Air Pollution and Comparison With The Umentioning

confidence: 99%

Air Pollution in High-Risk Sites–Risk Analysis and Health Impact

Ferrante¹,

Fiore²,

Copat³

et al. 2015

Current Air Quality Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

of quantity and cost. In order to assess the related risk of air pollution, it is certainly very important to establish the effects of pollution on human health, but it is also needful to consider some health determinants such as genetic factors, age, sex, and lifestyle habits. Considering all these aspects, our proposal includes a chapter about atmospheric and urban pollution describing their relative and assessed effects on human health, with a detailed regard on risk assessment. In the last decades, a large number of legislations have been issued accepting international subscribed agreement, such as the Kyoto protocol, to save public health and restrict the effects of pollution on climate change. We will also focus on indoor pollution, with its insufficient data and relative problems and difficulties in management, on methodologies of study, and on some case reports. 2. Description of air pollution and characterization of monitored atmospheric pollutants Air pollution, both for indoor or outdoor environments, is caused by several causes like chemical, physical, or biological modification of the natural characteristics of the atmosphere. Most common household combustion devices, motor vehicles, and industrial process are anthropogenic sources of air pollution, but also natural sources are very important for air pollution assessment as the forest fires and volcanoes emissions. Particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulphur dioxide today are the most important pollutants for their serious health risks [1]. In Europe, emissions of many air pollutants have decreased significantly the last 30 years, and air quality has improved across the region. However, excess of air quality standards still occurs, especially in metropolitan areas, and air pollutants released in one country may be transported in the atmosphere, polluting or degrading the air quality in neighbouring countries. On the basis of this statement, air pollution can be considered as a local, pan-European, and hemispheric issue [2]. At present, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and ground-level ozone are recognized as the three most dangerous pollutants that affect human health, ranging in severity of impact according to long-term and peak exposures. Moreover, benzo(a)pyrene is a carcinogenic substance of increasing concern, as its concentrations are above the threshold set to protect human health in several urban areas, especially in central and eastern Europe. Air pollution could also represent a danger for the environment, producing acidification, eutrophication, and damage to agriculture. There are various sources of air pollution, both anthropogenic and of natural origin, in turn divided in stationary and mobile sources. The most common anthropogenic sources of pollutants are combustion processes used for electricity generation, transport, industry and households, industrial processes and solvent use, agricultural crops and livestock, waste incinerator and landfill. A stationary source of air pollution, also known as a p...

show abstract

“…SHS can sensitise children to nicotine, possibly increasing risk of smoking in adolescence 15 16. Children’s greatest risk of SHS exposure is in the home 17–19…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomised controlled trial of real-time feedback and brief coaching to reduce indoor smoking

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious secondhand smoke (SHS) reduction interventions have provided only delayed feedback on reported smoking behaviour, such as coaching, or presenting results from child cotinine assays or air particle counters.DesignThis SHS reduction trial assigned families at random to brief coaching and continuous real-time feedback (intervention) or measurement-only (control) groups.ParticipantsWe enrolled 298 families with a resident tobacco smoker and a child under age 14.InterventionWe installed air particle monitors in all homes. For the intervention homes, immediate light and sound feedback was contingent on elevated indoor particle levels, and up to four coaching sessions used prompts and praise contingent on smoking outdoors. Mean intervention duration was 64 days.MeasuresThe primary outcome was ‘particle events’ (PEs) which were patterns of air particle concentrations indicative of the occurrence of particle-generating behaviours such as smoking cigarettes or burning candles. Other measures included indoor air nicotine concentrations and participant reports of particle-generating behaviour.ResultsPEs were significantly correlated with air nicotine levels (r=0.60) and reported indoor cigarette smoking (r=0.51). Interrupted time-series analyses showed an immediate intervention effect, with reduced PEs the day following intervention initiation. The trajectory of daily PEs over the intervention period declined significantly faster in intervention homes than in control homes. Pretest to post-test, air nicotine levels, cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use decreased more in intervention homes than in control homes.ConclusionsResults suggest that real-time particle feedback and coaching contingencies reduced PEs generated by cigarette smoking and other sources.Trial registration numberNCT01634334; Post-results.

show abstract

Fine particulate matter concentrations in smoking households: just how much secondhand smoke do you breathe in if you live with a smoker who smokes indoors?

Cited by 56 publications

References 21 publications

Impact of air quality on lung health: myth or reality?

Impact of air quality on lung health: myth or reality?

Air Pollution in High-Risk Sites–Risk Analysis and Health Impact

Randomised controlled trial of real-time feedback and brief coaching to reduce indoor smoking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About