The impact of smoke-free legislation on indoor air quality in bars in ...

Table 6.2: Comparison <strong>of</strong> PM2.5 levels in countries that have introduced
<strong>legislation</strong> prohibiting smoking in the workplace *
Country PM2.5 levels after
<strong>legislation</strong> (μg/m 3)
Author Sample Mean Median
Northern Ireland Grimley et al 76 bars in 2 cities and 2 towns
22.3 14.27
(current study) (2008)
(3 months after <strong>legislation</strong>) 15.5 (GM**)
Northern Ireland Grimley et al 59 bars in 1 city and 2 towns
30.6 17.07
(current study) (2008)
(12 months after <strong>legislation</strong>) 19.6 (GM**)
Scotland Semple
(2007b)
et al 41 bars in 2 cities 20.0 15.0
Republic <strong>of</strong>
Ireland
Connolly et al
(2006), Hyland et al
(2008)
25 bars in 3 cities and 1 town 29
22 (GM**)
England Gotz et al (2008) 49 venues (public houses, bars
clubs, bingo halls, private
member clubs, cafes and betting
shops) across 4 regions
New Zealand Wilson et al (2007) 34 pubs, restaurants and bars in
1 city
New Zealand Hyland et al (2008) 44 venues (bars, restaurants,
transportation and „other‟)
Uraguay Hyland et al (2008) 66 venues (bars, restaurants,
transportation and „other‟)
* Used TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitor
** GM = Geometric mean
11
8 (GM**)
18 (GM**)
16 14
Although most studies in table 6.2 exhibit PM2.5 concentrations after national workplace bans
which are well below the minimum standards set by the World Health Organisation (2006)
and by the United Kingdom (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs et al,
2007) for outdoor air (25 μg/m 3 ), and are also classified as good by the US EPA Air Quality
Index for outdoor air (EPA, 2003), it must be noted that there is no threshold concentration
level <strong>of</strong> particulate matter that has no effect on health (World Health Organisation, 2005). It
is therefore important that attempts are made to further reduce PM2.5 levels. In terms <strong>of</strong> the
US EPA Air Quality Index (EPA, 2003) PM2.5 levels in two <strong>of</strong> the bars were classified as
unhealthy 12 months after the <strong>legislation</strong> (198.9 μg/m 3 and 289.7 μg/m 3 ). Observational data
obtained during sampling suggests that the location <strong>of</strong> a smoking shelter may have been the
source <strong>of</strong> the problem in one bar, with no clear explanation for the other bar. However, in a
number <strong>of</strong> bars, tobacco <strong>smoke</strong> was noted drifting inside through open doors and windows.
In addition, other factors which are known to contribute to increased PM2.5 levels including
traffic and cooking were observed. Exposure to PM2.5 can be from a number <strong>of</strong> sources, and
it would be important to ensure that such exposure is minimised in workplaces through
effective control <strong>of</strong> sources where possible due to the adverse health consequences (Pope et
al, 2002). Currently, indoor workplaces are not routinely monitored for particulate matter in
Northern Ireland. A programme <strong>of</strong> monitoring needs to be developed and standards set to
minimise exposure to air particulates in the workplace. <strong>The</strong> results also highlight the issue <strong>of</strong>
exposure to ETS from people smoking immediately outside bars and in designated smoking
shelters. This is an area that may require further <strong>legislation</strong> (see section 6.3).
21