3.9 Article

UK Smoke-Free Legislation: Changes in PM2.5 Concentrations in Bars in Scotland, England, and Wales

期刊

ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 272-280

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mep094

关键词

deprivation; hospitality sector; inhalation exposure; legislation; PM2.5; public health; second-hand smoke

资金

  1. Department of Health Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Design: Air quality was measured in 106 randomly selected bars in Scotland, England, and Wales before and after the introduction of smoking restrictions. Methods: PM2.5 concentrations were measured covertly for 30-min periods before smoke-free legislation was introduced, again at 1-2 months post-ban (except Wales) and then at 12-months post-baseline (except Scotland). In Scotland and England, overt measurements were carried out to assess bar workers' full-shift personal exposures to PM2.5. Postcode data were used to determine socio-economic status of the bar location. Results: PM2.5 levels prior to smoke-free legislation were highest in Scotland (median 197 mu g m(-3)), followed by Wales (median 184 mu g m(-3)) and England (median 92 mu g m(-3)). All three countries experienced a substantial reduction in PM2.5 concentrations following the introduction of the legislation with the median reduction ranging from 84 to 93%. Personal exposure reductions were also within this range. There was evidence that bars located in more deprived postcodes had higher PM2.5 levels prior to the legislation. Conclusions: Prior to legislation PM2.5 concentrations within bars across the UK were much higher than the 65 mu g m(-3) 'unhealthy' threshold for outdoor air quality as set by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Concentrations in Scottish and Welsh bars were, on average, two or more times greater than in English bars for which seasonal influences may be responsible. Legislation in all three countries produced improvements in indoor air quality that are consistent with other international studies.

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

3.9
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