Advertisement

ETS in Offices and When Smoking Is Restricted to Designated But Not Separately Ventilated Areas

  • T. D. Sterling
  • B. Mueller
Part of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Supplement book series (OCCUPATIONAL)

Summary

Nicotine, respirable suspended particles (RSP), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were measured in the smoking and nonsmoking sections of two cafeterias, a smoking lounge, and several offices.

Smoking in the offices was regulated by one of three methods:
  1. 1)

    smoking permitted ad lib,

     
  2. 2)

    smoking prohibited except in designated areas which were not separately ventilated, and

     
  3. 3)

    smoking prohibited except in designated areas which were separately ventilated.

     

Nicotine levels in the nonsmoking offices which received recirculated air from a designated smoking area were less than 1.0μg/m3. There was no difference in average RSP, CO, and CO2 concentrations between nonsmoking offices that received recirculated air from designated smoking areas and nonsmoking offices that did not receive recirulated air. The results indicate that the provision of a designated, but not separately ventilated smoking area can effectively eliminate or drastically reduce most components of environmental tobacco smoke from non-smoking offices.

Keywords

Environmental Tobacco Smoke Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure Nicotine Concentration Nicotine Level Smoking Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashrae (1986) Ashrae Standard 62-1981R, Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayer CW, Black MS (1986) Passive smoking: Survey analysis of office smoking areas vs. environmental chamber studies. Atlanta, Georgia (Proceedings, ASHRAE IAQ’ 86, pp 281–291)Google Scholar
  3. Health and Welfare Canada (1985 a) Investigation on the impact of a new smoking policy on office air quality. National Library of Canada Hull, Quebec. Occupational Health Unit Medical Services BranchGoogle Scholar
  4. Health and Welfare Canada (1985 b) Investigation on the impact of a new smoking policy on office air quality. Office of the Auditor General Ottawa, Ontario. Occupational Health Unit Medical Services BranchGoogle Scholar
  5. Health and Welfare Canada (1987) Involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. Report of the Advisory Committee, Environmental Health Directorate, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  6. Lee HK (1985) Investigation on the impact of a new smoking policy on office air quality in the National Library of Canada in Hull, Quebec. Ottawa (Proceedings of the 78th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association)Google Scholar
  7. Muramatsu M, Umemura S, Okada T, Tomita H (1984) Estimation of personal exposure to tobacco smoke with a newly developed nicotine person monitor. Environ Res 35:218–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Niosh (1977) Manual of analytical methods, 2nd ed. US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OhioGoogle Scholar
  9. Repace JL, Lowrey AH (1980) Tobacco smoke, ventilation, and indoor health. Science 208:464–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sterling TD, Collett CW, Sterling EM (1987) Environmental tobacco smoke and indoor air quality in modern office work environments. J Occup Med 29:57–62PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. D. Sterling
  • B. Mueller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations