Indoor Air Quality, Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and Patron Perception: A Three Restaurant Case Study
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Indoor Air Quality,
Environmental Tobacco Smoke,
and Patron Perception:
A Three Restaurant Case Study
Roger A. Jenkins1, Douglas W. Peters2, and Beth Wilson3
1Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2 Environmental Health
Management, 3Analytic Insight, Inc.
This research was sponsored by the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company, Louisville, KY,
under contract no. ERD-99-01736 with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp., Oak Ridge, TN,
for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC05-84OR9622464.
Presented at the 53rd Tobacco Science Research Conference, Montreal, Quebec, September 12 - 15, 1999
Objective X Assess public perception to indoor air quality in three similar restaurants with somewhat different demographics. X Measure common parameters for IAQ assessment. X Determine extent to which IAQ could be improved with cost effective ventilation changes.
Experimental Design
X Measure IAQ/ETS components on
five consecutive evenings, each of
three facilities:
smoking/non-smoking sections,
selected components outside.
X Conduct interviews of patrons,
determine perception of air quality
Sampling System is Same as ETS
Personal Sampler
Particle phase
collected on Teflon
membrane filter
Gas phase collected
on XAD-4 resin
ETS Markers Used and
Analytical Methods
X Particulate Phase
X RSP (
Additional Measurements X Temperature, relative humidity X Real time carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. X Inside and outside
“Challenges” “Recycled” air External Sources
Data Generated X 80 Particulate samples, 80 vapor samples. X 60 + hours of real time CO, CO2, temperature, RH measurements. X 597 patron interviews
Smoking Status of those Interviewed
60
Percent of Interviewed Subjects
50
40 Current Smoker
Former Smoker
30
Never Smoker
20 Don’t know
10
0
Glendale Ahwatukee Scottsdale
Compares with Arizona 1996 adult current smoking fraction: 23.8%More than 10% of Interviewees Claimed
Allergies to Smoke/Cigarette Smoke
Percent Claiming "Smoke" Allergy
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Glendale Ahwatukee ScottsdaleSampling System in Use
Limits of Quantification
Constituent Limit of Fraction of Real,
Quantification, Blank Corrected
µg/m3 Samples at or Below
LOQ
RSP 35* 50%
UVPM 11 6%
FPM 1.82 1%
Sol-PM 6.06 48%
3-EP 0.17 4%**
Nicotine 0.56 35%**
*Problems with establishing LOQ for blanks **No measurable blanksCO2 Levels Do Exceed Standards
Friday, February 19th
1800
1600
CO2 Concentration, ppm
1400
1200
1000
Inside CO2 Level
800
Outside CO2 level
600
400
200
0
17:00 18:12 19:24 20:36
TimeCumulative Distribution: FPM
100
Cumulative Distribtution, %
90
80
70
60
Median: 22 Median: 41 Non-smoking
50
40 Smoking
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
FPM, ug/m3Cumulative Distribution - SolPM
100
90
Cumulative Distribution, %
80
70
Median: 4.2
60
Median: 8.5 Non-smoking
50
Smoking
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100
SolPM, ug/m3Cumulative Distribution, 3-EP
100
90
80
Cumulative Distribution, %
70
Median: 0.34
60
Median: 0.57 Non-smoking
50
40 Smoking
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
3-EP, ug/m3Cumulative Distribution, Nicotine
100
Percent Cumulative Distribution
90
80
70
60
Median: 0.41 Median: 1.23 Non-smoking
50
40 Smoking
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Nicotine, ug/m3SolPM vs 3-EP in Smoking Sections
120
100
R = 0.876
80
SolPM, ug/m3
60
40
20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
3-EP, ug/m3SolPM vs 3-EP in Smoking Sections
120
100
R = 0.902
80
SolPM, ug/m3
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Nicotine, ug/m3Are the Phoenix Facilities Different?
Glendale Knoxville
Smoking Multiroom
Section Restaurant-Bars
Median 3-EP, µg/m3 0.66 0.59
90th %ile 3-EP, µg/m3 1.38 3.09
Median Sol-PM:FPM 0.32 0.57
Ratio
Median Nicotine, µg/m3 1.25 1.15Ratings of Overall Air Quality
70
94% 96% 96%
60
Percent of Respondants
50
Excellent
40 Good
30 Fair
Poor
20
10
0
Glendale Ahwatukee ScottsdaleResponses to: “Were you bothered by cigarette smoke
at any time during your stay in the restaurant?”
% of Interviewees Responding "Yes"
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Glendale Ahwatukee ScottsdaleContribution from Other Sources?
X ETS-derived particles as a fraction of all combustion
derived particles: 25 - 40%
X Levels of outside and inside CO are so low that trends
can not be observed.
X CO2: background not variable, and anthropogenic
sources indoors have greatest influenceObservations and Conclusions
X “Alteration” of smoking/non-smoking physical locations during
tests complicates interpretation.
X Large fraction of some ETS markers below LOQ.
X ETS concentrations low: Median nicotine < 2 µg/m3 Median 3-
EP < 1 µg/m3 Median SolPM < 10 µg/m3.
X Patron perception of air quality was so good that it was deemed
unnecessary to “improve” ventilation because an “improvement”
was not likely to be detectable.
X Presence of wood smoke may “mask” other odors.You can also read
