Angela Jackson-Morris1, Kayleigh Bleymann2, Elaine Lyall3, Fouad Aslam2, Tara Singh Bam2, Ishrat Chowdhury2, Elhadj Adam Daouda2, Mariana Espinosa2, Jonathan Romo2, Rana J Singh2, Sean Semple4. 1. Department of Tobacco Control, The International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Edinburgh, Scotland; ajackson-morris@theunion.org. 2. Department of Tobacco Control, The International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Edinburgh, Scotland; 3. Scottish Centre for Indoor Air, Respiratory Group, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland; 4. Scottish Centre for Indoor Air, Respiratory Group, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland; Center for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have enacted legislation banning smoking in public places, yet enforcement remains challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using a validated low-cost methodology (the Dylos DC1700) to provide objective evidence of smoke-free (SF) law compliance in hospitality venues in urban LMIC settings, where outdoor air pollution levels are generally high. METHODS: Teams measured indoor fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations and systematically observed smoking behavior and SF signage in a convenience sample of hospitality venues (bars, restaurants, cafes, and hotels) covered by existing SF legislation in Mexico, Pakistan, Indonesia, Chad, Bangladesh, and India. Outdoor air PM2.5 was also measured on each sampling day. RESULTS: Data were collected from 626 venues. Smoking was observed during almost one-third of visits with substantial differences between countries-from 5% in India to 72% in Chad. After excluding venues where other combustion sources were observed, secondhand smoke (SHS) derived PM2.5 was calculated by subtracting outdoor ambient PM2.5 concentrations from indoor measurements and was, on average, 34 µg/m(3) in venues with observed smoking-compared to an average value of 0 µg/m(3) in venues where smoking was not observed (P < .001). In over one-quarter of venues where smoking was observed the difference between indoor and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations exceeded 64 µg/m(3). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that low-cost air quality monitoring is a viable method for improving knowledge about environmental SHS and can provide indicative data on compliance with local and national SF legislation in hospitality venues in LMICs. IMPLICATIONS: Air quality monitoring can provide objective scientific data on SHS and air quality levels in venues to assess the effectiveness of SF laws and identify required improvements. Equipment costs and high outdoor air pollution levels have hitherto limited application in LMICs. This study tested the feasibility of using a validated low-cost methodology in hospitality venues in six LMIC urban settings and suggests this is a viable method for improving knowledge about SHS exposure and can provide indicative data on compliance with SF legislation.
INTRODUCTION: Many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have enacted legislation banning smoking in public places, yet enforcement remains challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using a validated low-cost methodology (the Dylos DC1700) to provide objective evidence of smoke-free (SF) law compliance in hospitality venues in urban LMIC settings, where outdoor air pollution levels are generally high. METHODS: Teams measured indoor fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations and systematically observed smoking behavior and SF signage in a convenience sample of hospitality venues (bars, restaurants, cafes, and hotels) covered by existing SF legislation in Mexico, Pakistan, Indonesia, Chad, Bangladesh, and India. Outdoor air PM2.5 was also measured on each sampling day. RESULTS: Data were collected from 626 venues. Smoking was observed during almost one-third of visits with substantial differences between countries-from 5% in India to 72% in Chad. After excluding venues where other combustion sources were observed, secondhand smoke (SHS) derived PM2.5 was calculated by subtracting outdoor ambient PM2.5 concentrations from indoor measurements and was, on average, 34 µg/m(3) in venues with observed smoking-compared to an average value of 0 µg/m(3) in venues where smoking was not observed (P < .001). In over one-quarter of venues where smoking was observed the difference between indoor and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations exceeded 64 µg/m(3). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that low-cost air quality monitoring is a viable method for improving knowledge about environmental SHS and can provide indicative data on compliance with local and national SF legislation in hospitality venues in LMICs. IMPLICATIONS: Air quality monitoring can provide objective scientific data on SHS and air quality levels in venues to assess the effectiveness of SF laws and identify required improvements. Equipment costs and high outdoor air pollution levels have hitherto limited application in LMICs. This study tested the feasibility of using a validated low-cost methodology in hospitality venues in six LMIC urban settings and suggests this is a viable method for improving knowledge about SHS exposure and can provide indicative data on compliance with SF legislation.
Authors: Lidia Morawska; Phong K Thai; Xiaoting Liu; Akwasi Asumadu-Sakyi; Godwin Ayoko; Alena Bartonova; Andrea Bedini; Fahe Chai; Bryce Christensen; Matthew Dunbabin; Jian Gao; Gayle S W Hagler; Rohan Jayaratne; Prashant Kumar; Alexis K H Lau; Peter K K Louie; Mandana Mazaheri; Zhi Ning; Nunzio Motta; Ben Mullins; Md Mahmudur Rahman; Zoran Ristovski; Mahnaz Shafiei; Dian Tjondronegoro; Dane Westerdahl; Ron Williams Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Frederico M Bublitz; Arlene Oetomo; Kirti S Sahu; Amethyst Kuang; Laura X Fadrique; Pedro E Velmovitsky; Raphael M Nobrega; Plinio P Morita Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Arti Singh; Gabriel Okello; Sean Semple; Fiona Dobbie; Tarja I Kinnunen; Kwabena F Lartey; Divine D Logo; Linda Bauld; Sampson T Ankrah; Ann McNeill; Ellis Owusu-Dabo Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.600
Authors: Temitope Oluwadairo; Lawrence Whitehead; Elaine Symanski; Cici Bauer; Arch Carson; Inkyu Han Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nurul Nadia H W Luntungan; M Justin Byron; Melbourne F Hovell; Laura J Rosen; Annisa Anggraeni; Vaughan W Rees Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kristie Foley; Lorand Ferencz; Cristian Meghea; Zoltan Abram; Melinda Pénzes; Andrea Fogarasi-Grenczer; Peter Balazs; Lorand Schmidt Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 3.390