4.6 Article

Italy and Austria before and after study:: second-hand smoke exposure in hospitality premises before and after 2 years from the introduction of the Italian smoking ban

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 328-334

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00534.x

关键词

second-hand smoke; smoking ban; before and after study; Italy; Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this paper was to compare nicotine concentration in 28 hospitality premises (HPs) in Florence and Belluno, Italy, where a smoking ban was introduced in 2005, and in 19 HPs in Vienna, Austria, where no anti-smoking law entered into force up to now. Airborne nicotine concentrations were measured in the same HPs in winter 2002 or 2004 (pre-ban measurements) and winter 2007 (post-ban measurements). In Florence and Belluno, medians decreased significantly (P < 0.001) from 8.86 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.41-45.07)] before the ban to 0.01 mu g/m(3) (IQR: 0.01-0.41) afterwards. In Austria (no smoking ban) the medians collected in winters 2004 and 2007 were, respectively, 11.00 (IQR: 2.53-30.38) and 15.76 mu g/m(3) (IQR: 2.22-31.93), with no significant differences. Measurements collected in winter 2007 in 28 HPs located in Naples, Turin, Milan (0.01 mu g/m(3); IQR: 0.01-0.16) confirmed post-ban results in Florence and Belluno. The medians of nicotine concentrations in Italy and Austria before the Italian ban translates, using the risk model of Repace and Lowery, into a lifetime excess lung cancer mortality risk for hospitality workers of 11.81 and 14.67 per 10,000, respectively. Lifetime excess lung cancer mortality risks for bar and disco-pub workers were 10-20 times higher than that calculated for restaurant workers, both in Italy and Austria. In winter 2007, it dropped to 0.01 per 10,000 in Italy, whereas in Austria it remained at the same levels. The drop of second-hand smoke exposure indicates a substantial improvement in air quality in Italian HPs even after 2 years from the ban.

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

4.6
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