Sherry Zhou1, Michael Weitzman2, Ruzmyn Vilcassim3, Jennifer Wilson4, Nina Legrand5, Eric Saunders3, Mark Travers6, Lung-Chi Chen3, Richard Peltier7, Terry Gordon3. 1. New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 4. George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. 5. Cornell University, New York, New York, USA. 6. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA. 7. Division of Environmental Health Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hookahs are increasingly being used in the USA and elsewhere. Despite the popularity of hookah bars, there is a paucity of research assessing the health effects of hookah smoke, and although New York City (NYC) bans indoor tobacco smoking, hookah lounges claim that they only use herbal products without tobacco. This study investigated levels of multiple indices of indoor air pollution in hookah bars in NYC. METHODS: Air samples were collected in 8 hookah bars in NYC. Along with venue characteristics, real-time measurements of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), black carbon (BC), and carbon monoxide (CO), and total gravimetric PM, elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), and nicotine were collected in 1-2 hour sessions. RESULTS: Overall, levels of indoor air pollution increased with increasing numbers of active hookahs smoked. The mean (SD) real time PM2.5 level was 1179.9 (939.4) µg/m(3), whereas the filter-based total PM mean was 691.3 (592.6) µg/m(3). The mean real time BC level was 4.1 (2.3) µg/m(3), OC was 237.9 (112.3) µg/m(3), and CO was 32 (16) ppm. Airborne nicotine was present in all studied hookah bars (4.2 (1.5) µg/m(3)). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that despite the ban on smoking tobacco products, at the very least, some NYC hookah bars are serving tobacco-based hookahs, and have elevated concentrations of indoor air pollutants that may present a health threat to visitors and employees. Therefore, there is an urgent need for better air quality monitoring in such establishments and policies to combat this emerging public health threat. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Hookahs are increasingly being used in the USA and elsewhere. Despite the popularity of hookah bars, there is a paucity of research assessing the health effects of hookah smoke, and although New York City (NYC) bans indoor tobacco smoking, hookah lounges claim that they only use herbal products without tobacco. This study investigated levels of multiple indices of indoor air pollution in hookah bars in NYC. METHODS: Air samples were collected in 8 hookah bars in NYC. Along with venue characteristics, real-time measurements of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), black carbon (BC), and carbon monoxide (CO), and total gravimetric PM, elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), and nicotine were collected in 1-2 hour sessions. RESULTS: Overall, levels of indoor air pollution increased with increasing numbers of active hookahs smoked. The mean (SD) real time PM2.5 level was 1179.9 (939.4) µg/m(3), whereas the filter-based total PM mean was 691.3 (592.6) µg/m(3). The mean real time BC level was 4.1 (2.3) µg/m(3), OC was 237.9 (112.3) µg/m(3), and CO was 32 (16) ppm. Airborne nicotine was present in all studied hookah bars (4.2 (1.5) µg/m(3)). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that despite the ban on smoking tobacco products, at the very least, some NYC hookah bars are serving tobacco-based hookahs, and have elevated concentrations of indoor air pollutants that may present a health threat to visitors and employees. Therefore, there is an urgent need for better air quality monitoring in such establishments and policies to combat this emerging public health threat. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Caroline Oates Cobb; Andrea Rae Vansickel; Melissa D Blank; Kade Jentink; Mark J Travers; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-03-24 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Katherine A Moon; Hoda Magid; Christine Torrey; Ana M Rule; Jacqueline Ferguson; Jolie Susan; Zhuolu Sun; Salahaddin Abubaker; Vladimir Levshin; Aslı Çarkoğlu; Ghada Nasr Radwan; Maha El-Rabbat; Joanna Cohen; Paul Strickland; Ana Navas-Acien; Patrick N Breysse Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Aruni Bhatnagar; Wasim Maziak; Thomas Eissenberg; Kenneth D Ward; George Thurston; Brian A King; Erin L Sutfin; Caroline O Cobb; Merlyn Griffiths; Larry B Goldstein; Mary Rezk-Hanna Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael Weitzman; Afzal Hussein Yusufali; Fatma Bali; M J Ruzmyn Vilcassim; Shashank Gandhi; Richard Peltier; Arthur Nadas; Scott Sherman; Lily Lee; Zhang Hong; Jenni Shearston; Su Hyun Park; Terry Gordon Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Katherine A Moon; Ana M Rule; Hoda S Magid; Jacqueline M Ferguson; Jolie Susan; Zhuolu Sun; Christine Torrey; Salahaddin Abubaker; Vladimir Levshin; Asli Çarkoglu; Ghada Nasr Radwan; Maha El-Rabbat; Joanna E Cohen; Paul Strickland; Patrick N Breysse; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Michael D Nelson; Mary Rezk-Hanna; Florian Rader; O'Neil R Mason; Xiu Tang; Sarah Shidban; Ryan Rosenberry; Neal L Benowitz; Donald P Tashkin; Robert M Elashoff; Jonathan R Lindner; Ronald G Victor Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Marielle C Brinkman; Hyoshin Kim; Stephanie S Buehler; Anna M Adetona; Sydney M Gordon; Pamela I Clark Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 7.552