Secondhand smoke exposure in bars and restaurants in Guatemala City: before and after smoking ban evaluation
- 255 Downloads
In February 2009, Guatemala implemented a comprehensive smoking ban. We assessed air nicotine levels in bars and restaurants 6 months after the ban (post-ban) and compared them with levels found in 2006 (pre-ban).
Exposure was estimated by passive sampling of vapor-phase nicotine using samplers (n = 50) placed for 7 working days in 10 bars and 11 restaurants in Guatemala City. Air nicotine was measured by gas chromatography, and the time-weighted average concentration in μg/m3 was estimated. Employees answered a survey about smoke-free workplaces (n = 32) and compared with pre-ban (n = 37) results.
Nicotine was detectable in all bars pre- and post-ban. In restaurants, it was detectable in all pre- and 73% post-ban. Median nicotine concentrations in bars significantly decreased from 4.58 μg/m3 (IQR, 1.71, 6.45) pre-ban to 0.28 μg/m3 (IQR 0.17, 0.66) post-ban (87% decrease). In restaurants, concentrations significantly decreased from 0.58 μg/m3 (IQR, 0.44, 0.71) to 0.04 μg/m3 (IQR 0.01, 0.11) (95% decrease). Employees’ support for a smoke-free workplace increased in the post-ban survey (from 32 to 81%, p < 0.001).
Six months after the implementation of a smoke-free law in Guatemala, nicotine levels were significantly decreased in bars and restaurants and workers’ support for the law substantially increased.
KeywordsTobacco Tobacco smoke pollution Smoke-free environments Environmental pollution
Financial support: Funded by the Cardiovascular Unit of Guatemala (UNICAR) with additional support from the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (FAMRI).
- 1.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) (2006) The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the surgeon general. U.S. Department of Health and Humand Services. Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
- 2.Conference of the parties to the WHO FCTC (2003) WHO framework convention on tobacco control. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2003. Available from: http://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/index.html. Accessed Sept 30, 2010
- 5.IOM (Institute of Medicine) (2010) Secondhand smoke exposure and cardiovascular effects: making sense of the evidence. IOM, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 8.Corrao MA GG, Sharme N, Shookoohi DF (eds) (2000) Tobacco control country profiles. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA Google Scholar
- 10.Gutierrez D (2008) Prevencion y control de tabaco. Libre Encuentro. Guatemala, November 2008. Televised debate. Duration: 1 hourGoogle Scholar
- 11.Larra M (2008) Humo de impacto. Prensa Libre. Junio 1: 10–11Google Scholar
- 12.Menocal C, Osorio J (2006) Espacios libres de tabaco. Prensa Libre. Agosto 13: 2–3Google Scholar
- 13.Argueta C (2008) Los Efectos del Humo. Exposición en centros publicos. Nuestro Diario. Enero 25:24–45Google Scholar
- 14.Tabacalera Centro Americana SA, Philip Morris International (2008) Comentarios sobre la iniciativa de ley 3309: “Ley de la creación de ambientes libres de humo de tabaco.”Google Scholar
- 16.Hammond S (1993) Evaluating exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. In: Winegar E, Keith L (eds) Sampling and analysis of airborne pollutants. Lewis Publishers, FloridaGoogle Scholar
- 21.Erazo M, Iglesias V, Droppelmann A et al (2010) Secondhand tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants in Santiago, Chile: evaluation of partial smoking ban legislation in public places. Tob Control. Online first doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.035402
- 29.Chavarria A (2010) Cumplimiento de la ley de ambientes libres de humo de tabaco en Guatemala. Tésis de graduación. Medicina, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. Personal communication. Sept 2, 2010Google Scholar