The effects of smoking status and ventilation on environmental tobacco smoke concentrations in public areas of UK pubs and bars

Abstract

UK public houses generally allow smoking to occur and consequently customer ETS exposure can take place. To address this, in 1999 the UK Government and the hospitality industry initiated the Public Places Charter (PPC) to increase non-smoking facilities and provide better ventilation in public houses. A study involving 60 UK pubs, located in Greater Manchester, was conducted to investigate the effects of smoking area status and ventilation on ETS concentrations. ETS markers RSP, UVPM, FPM, SolPM and nicotine were sampled and analysed using established methodologies. ETS marker concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the smoking areas compared to the non-smoking areas of pubs that contained both smoking and non-smoking sections. Median concentrations of RSP and nicotine were reduced by 18% and 68%, respectively, in non-smoking areas. UVPM, FPM and SolPM median concentrations were reduced by 27%, 34% and 39%, demonstrating the increased tobacco-specificity of the particulate markers and the impact of non-smoking areas. Levels of particulate phase ETS markers were also found to be higher in the smoking sections of pubs that allowed smoking throughout compared to the smoking sections of pubs with other areas where smoking was prohibited. The presence of a non-smoking section has the effect of reducing concentrations even in the smoking areas. This may be caused by migration of smoke into the non-smoking section thereby diluting the smoking area or by smokers tending to avoid pubs with non-smoking areas thus reducing source strengths in the smoking areas of these pubs. Nicotine concentrations were not found to be significantly different in smoking areas of the two types of establishment indicating that nicotine is not as mobile in these environments and tends to remain in the smoking areas. This result, together with the much higher reductions in nicotine concentrations between smoking and non-smoking areas compared to other markers, suggests that nicotine is not the most suitable marker to use in these environments as an indicator of the effectiveness of tobacco control policies. The use of ventilation systems (sophisticated HVAC systems and extractor fans in either the on or off mode) did not have a significant effect (P > 0.05) on ETS marker concentrations in either the smoking or non-smoking areas. The PPC aims to reduce non-smoking customers’ exposure through segregation and ventilation and provide customer choice though appropriate signs. This study indicates that although ETS levels are lower in non-smoking sections and signs will assist customers in reducing their exposure, some exposure will still occur because ETS was detected in non-smoking areas. Existing ventilation provision was not effective in reducing exposure and signs advertising ventilated premises may be misleading to customers. Improvements in the design and management of ventilation systems in pubs and bars are required to reduce customer exposure to ETS, if the aims of the PPC are to be met.