second hand smoke in minnesota muli-unit housing
Post on 24-May-2015
97 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
SECONDHAND SMOKE IN MINNESOTA
MULTI-UNIT HOUSING :
Using physicochemical properties of tobacco
smoke to identify SHS incursion in multi-unit
housing
Zheng Zhou, S.D., David Bohac, P.E., Martha Hewett, Joshua Novacheck Lara A. Gundel, Ph.D. (LBNL)
October 15, 2014
Pg. 2
Introduction
• 26% of U.S. households live in multi-unit housing (34 million households)
• Nearly half report SHS incursions in the past 12 months (King et al. 2010, Hewett et al. 2007)
• Air moves between units: • Bohac et al. (2011) found upper floor units in 6 Minnesota
buildings got 2-65% of their air from other units (median 16%)
• Residents in multi-unit housing have little control over their exposure to SHS
• Households in smoking-permitted buildings had higher PM2.5 concentration than households in smoke-free buildings (Russo et al. 2014)
Pg. 3
Measuring SHS Exposure at Homes
• Fine particle (PM2.5) • Pros:
• easy to measure
• real-time
• Cons:
• not specific to tobacco smoke
• rely on resident’s activity log
• Nicotine • Pros:
• highly specific to tobacco smoke
• Cons:
• not very sensitive at low concentration,
• time-weighted average,
• may not transfer at the same rate as other SHS constitutes
Pg. 4
Objectives
• Develop a cost-effective approach to
identify and quantify SHS transfer in multi-
unit housing
• Assess non-smokers’ exposure to SHS in
multi-unit housing in the Minneapolis-St.
Paul metropolitan area
Pg. 5
Ultraviolet-absorbing Particulate Matter
(UVPM)
• Combustion-derived
• Contains organic compounds (e.g. PAHs)
and black carbon
• (UVPM-BC)/UVPM distinguish tobacco
smoke from other common indoor sources
Pg. 6
Study Design
• Chamber test • Cigarette smoke, wood smoke, stick incense,
candle and cooking activities
• Field test • Three units (1 smoker’s; 1 adjacent non-smoker’s,
and 1 above non-smoker’s)
• Field monitoring • 65 nonsmoker’s units in smoking-permitted
buildings in winter (42 were re-monitored in mild weather)
• 14 nonsmoker’s units in smoke-free buildings in winter (8 were re-monitored in mild weather)
Pg. 7
Measurements
• Real-time UVPM and BC (1 min interval)
• Dual-Channel Aethalometer (Magee Scientific)
• Wavelengths: 880 nm for BC, 370 nm for UVPM
• Real-time PM2.5 (1 min interval)
• Sidepak AM510 (TSI)
• Integrated gas phase sample
• Active sampling in Tenax TA sorbent tube
• Nicotine, 3-Ethenylpyridine (3-EP)
Pg. 8
Other Measurements
• Room temperature and relative humidity
• Hobo logger (Onset)
• Pressure difference between units and hallway/outdoor
• APT digital micromanometer (TEC)/Rabbit
• Range/oven use
• iButton logger (Maxim)
• Toaster, microwave oven use
• Current transducer w/logger
• Resident’s hourly activity log
Pg. 9
Chamber Test: a Smolder-smoked
Cigarette
16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00
PM
UVPM
BC
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
PM
2.5
, U
VP
M a
nd B
C (m
g/m
3)
(UV
PM
-BC
)/UV
PM
PM
UVPM
BC
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
Pg. 10
Chamber Test: Cooking (Frying Bacon)
15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00
PM
UVPM
BC
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
(UV
PM
-BC
)/UV
PM
PM
UVPM
BC
(UVPM-BC)/UVPM
PM
2.5
, U
VP
M a
nd B
C (m
g/m
3)
Pg. 11
Chamber Test Results
0.9
(UV
PM
-BC
)/U
VP
M A
ve
rage
PM
2.5 (m
g/m
3)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Can
dle_
0828
Can
dle_
0824
Pop
corn
_070
9
Ham
burger_0
904
Onion
_090
4
Frie
dEgg
_082
8
Pop
tart_0
904
Bac
on_0
828
Bread
_083
1
BurntBread
_082
5
BurntPop
corn_0
719
Woo
dSmok
e_12
28
Woo
dSmok
e_12
30
Woo
dSmok
e_12
31
Ince
nse_
0903
Ince
nse_
0821
Cigarette_1
116
Cigarette_1
229
Cigarette_1
023
Cigarette_1
028
Cigarette_1
029
Cigarette_1
014
Cigarette_1
015
Cigarette_1
026
Cigarette_1
027
Cigarette_1
113
0
200
400
600
800
Tobacco smoke
Wood smoke, Incense, burnt food
Pg. 12
Field Test
• Three units in a two-floor smoking-permitted
building for 10 days
• One smoker’s unit in the first floor
• One non-smoker’s unit above the smoker’s unit
• One non-smoker’s unit adjacent to the smoker’s unit
Pg. 13
Example: 24-hour Measurements
Self-reported Smoking
Ratio: 0.9 to 0.96
Self-reported Smoking + Candle + Burnt food
Ratio: 0.8 to 0.9
Ratio: 0.9
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
Smoker unit
Above NS unit
Ratio: 0.81
Sm
oke
r’s u
nit P
M2.5
(m
g/m
3) N
on-s
mo
ke
r’s u
nit P
M2.5 (m
g/m
3)
Pg. 14
PM Events in Smoker’s Unit
0.9
(UV
PM
-BC
)/U
VP
M
Self-reported Smoking
Ave
rage
PM
2.5
(mg/m
3)
Self-reported smoking + Other
Unknown
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Burnt food + candle
cooking
Pg. 15
PM Events in Above Non-smoker’s Unit
(UV
PM
-BC
)/U
VP
M
0.9
Ave
rage
PM
2.5
(mg/m
3)
Burnt food
Burnt food
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Suspected SHS transfer from the smoker’s unit
Self-reported non-smoking activities
Unknown
Stove & toaster
Pg. 16
Field Test Results
UNIT
# OF PM2.5
EVENTS
# OF SHS EVENTS
TOTAL SHS EXPOSURE* (mg/m3•hr)
3-EP (ng/m3)
NICOTINE
(ng/m3)
SMOKER’S UNIT 31 26 6093 472.8 530.0
ABOVE NON-SMOKER’S UNIT
18 11 1492 203.8 88.5
ADJACENT NON-SMOKER’S UNIT
25 10 220 49.1 140.1
* SHS Exposure is quantified using PM2.5 concentration
Pg. 17
Field Monitoring
• 65 nonsmoker's units in smoking-permitted
buildings in winter (of which 42 were re-
monitored in mild weather)
• 14 nonsmoker's units in smoke-free
buildings in winter (of which 8 were re-
monitored in mild weather)
Pg. 18
Field Monitoring Results
Building # of units
Average # of SHS events per unit (6
days)
Average SHS exposure per unit
in 6 days * (mg/m3•hr)
Average 3-EP level (ng/m3)
Average Nicotine level (ng/m3)
Smoke-permitted (winter)
65 2.4 245.4 52.4 41.1
Smoke-free (winter) 14 0.9 36.7 17.0 12.8
Smoke-permitted (mild)
42 1.1 94.3 52.5 33.5
Smoke-free (mild)
8 0.4 48.9 16.4 28.5
* SHS Exposure is quantified using PM2.5 concentration
Pg. 19
Conclusion
• Findings • Non-smoker resident’s activity log often miss SHS
incursion
• (UVPM – BC)/UVPM > 0.9 indicates tobacco smoke
• Many determinants affect SHS transfer
• SHS incursion and exposure were lower in smoke-free buildings than in smoking-permitted buildings
• Limitations • Mix of sources
• Potential confounders: burning wood and incense, grilling or charring food
top related