4.5 Article

Residual tobacco smoke pollution in used cars for sale: Air, dust, and surfaces

期刊

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 1467-1475

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1080/14622200802279898

关键词

-

资金

  1. California Tobacco Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP) [13-1T0042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Regular tobacco use in the enclosed environment of a car raises concerns about longer-term contamination of a car's microenvironment with residual secondhand smoke pollutants. This study (a) developed and compared methods to measure residual contamination of cars with secondhand smoke, (b) examined whether cars of smokers and nonsmokers were contaminated by secondhand smoke, and (c) how smoking behavior and restrictions affected contamination levels. Surface wipe, dust, and air samples were collected in used cars sold by nonsmokers (n=20) and smokers (n=87) and analyzed for nicotine. Sellers were interviewed about smoking behavior and restrictions, and car interiors were inspected for signs of tobacco use. Cars of smokers who smoked in their vehicles showed significantly elevated levels of nicotine (p <.001) in dust, on surfaces, and in the air compared with nonsmoker cars with smoking ban. When smokers imposed car smoking bans, air nicotine levels were significantly lower (p <.01), but dust and surface contamination levels remained at similar levels. Smoking more cigarettes in the car and overall higher smoking rate of the seller were significantly associated with higher secondhand smoke contamination of the car (p <.001). Use of a cutpoint for nicotine levels from surface wipe samples correctly identified 82% of smoker cars without smoking bans, 75% of smoker cars with bans, and 100% of nonsmoker cars. Surface nicotine levels provide a relatively inexpensive and accurate method to identify cars and other indoor environments contaminated with residual secondhand smoke. Disclosure requirements and smoke-free certifications could help protect nonsmoking buyers of used cars.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据