scholarly journals National and State Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Infiltration Among U.S. Multiunit Housing Residents

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1316-1321 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. A. King ◽  
S. D. Babb ◽  
M. A. Tynan ◽  
R. B. Gerzoff
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 110S-117S
Author(s):  
Kristen E. Ortega ◽  
Holly Mata

Tobacco use remains the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Almost 500,000 people die every year in the United States because of tobacco use; approximately one in eight of those deaths are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. Significant disparities exist in terms of which groups bear the greatest burden of tobacco-related illness and mortality. Reducing tobacco use and exposure in groups most affected and most at risk is a national public health priority. Tobacco control advocates can promote health equity by prioritizing policies that are likely to decrease tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure and improve access to tobacco cessation resources among populations most at risk for tobacco-related disparities, including people who live in subsidized multiunit housing. In this article, we share the context, process, key milestones, and lessons learned as stakeholders in El Paso, Texas explored and implemented smoke-free policy in subsidized public housing. Partners including the local housing authority, a nonprofit health foundation, the local public health department, and a local university facilitated a thoughtful and community-engaged process that acknowledged the right of residents to breathe clean air in their own homes, potential challenges residents who choose to smoke may face in adapting to smoke-free policy, and the need for support for those who choose to quit. We conclude with five key lessons learned and share resources for other communities, health professionals, and coalitions advocating for and supporting smoke-free housing policy in their communities.


Author(s):  
Georg E Matt ◽  
Penelope J E Quintana ◽  
Eunha Hoh ◽  
Joy M Zakarian ◽  
Nathan G Dodder ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Toxic tobacco smoke residue, also known as thirdhand smoke (THS), can persist in indoor environments long after tobacco has been smoked. This study examined the effects of different cleaning methods on nicotine in dust and on surfaces. Aims and Methods Participants had strict indoor home smoking bans and were randomly assigned to: dry/damp cleaning followed by wet cleaning 1 month later (N = 10), wet cleaning followed by dry/damp cleaning (N = 10) 1 month later, and dry/damp and wet cleaning applied the same day (N = 28). Nicotine on surfaces and in dust served as markers of THS and were measured before, immediately after, and 3 months after the cleaning, using liquid chromatography with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Results Over a 4-month period prior to cleaning, surface nicotine levels remained unchanged (GeoMean change: −11% to +8%; repeated measures r = .94; p < .001). Used separately, dry/damp and wet cleaning methods showed limited benefits. When applied in combination, however, we observed significantly reduced nicotine on surfaces and in dust. Compared with baseline, GeoMean surface nicotine was 43% lower immediately after (z = −3.73, p < .001) and 53% lower 3 months later (z = −3.96, p < .001). GeoMean dust nicotine loading declined by 60% immediately after (z = −3.55, p < .001) and then increased 3 months later to precleaning levels (z = −1.18, p = .237). Conclusions Cleaning interventions reduced but did not permanently remove nicotine in dust and on surfaces. Cleaning efforts for THS need to address persistent pollutant reservoirs and replenishment of reservoirs from new tobacco smoke intrusion. THS contamination in low-income homes may contribute to health disparities, particularly in children. Implications Administered sequentially or simultaneously, the tested cleaning protocols reduced nicotine on surfaces by ~50% immediately after and 3 months after the cleaning. Nicotine dust loading was reduced by ~60% immediately after cleaning, but it then rebounded to precleaning levels 3 months later. Cleaning protocols were unable to completely remove THS, and pollutants in dust were replenished from remaining pollutant reservoirs or new secondhand smoke intrusion. To achieve better outcomes, cleaning protocols should be systematically repeated to remove newly accumulated pollutants. New secondhand smoke intrusions need to be prevented, and remaining THS reservoirs should be identified, cleaned, or removed to prevent pollutants from these reservoirs to accumulate in dust and on surfaces.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea S Gentzke ◽  
Andrew Hyland ◽  
Marc Kiviniemi ◽  
Mark J Travers

BackgroundGiven that higher smoking rates persist among lower socioeconomic populations, multiunit housing (MUH) environments may result in higher secondhand smoke (SHS) exposures among subsidised MUH residents. This cross-sectional assessment compares experiences with SHS and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate MUH residents living in six US communities.MethodsMUH residents (n=1565) were surveyed regarding their smoke-free rules (home and building), SHS exposures and preferences towards smoke-free policies. Binary logistic regression identified predictors of each outcome, focusing on differences by subsidised housing status (subsidised vs market rate).ResultsAmong residents enforcing smoke-free home rules (76%, overall), 50% reported SHS incursions into their unit. Only 23% reported living in a smoke-free building; 56% of those living in smoking-allowable buildings reported preferences towards smoke-free building policies. Among market-rate housing residents, smoke-free home (OR=4.18) and building (OR=2.26) rules were significantly higher when children were present. Smoke-free building rules reduced the odds of SHS incursions among market-rate housing residents (OR=0.50), but no association was observed among subsidised housing residents. Non-smoking subsidised housing residents exhibited stronger preferences for smoke-free policies compared with those in market-rate housing.DiscussionSmoke-free home rules may not protect MUH residents from SHS exposures, particularly in subsidised MUH. Although strong preferences towards smoke-free policies were present overall, subsidised MUH residents may have fewer alternative smoke-free housing options available. Therefore, all publicly funded housing should be smoke free to protect these vulnerable populations. However, continued efforts to encourage privately owned MUH operators to adopt smoke-free policies are also necessary.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 1133-1141 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. A. King ◽  
M. J. Travers ◽  
K. M. Cummings ◽  
M. C. Mahoney ◽  
A. J. Hyland

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 682-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly H. Nguyen ◽  
Yessica Gomez ◽  
David M. Homa ◽  
Brian A. King

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. S82-S90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lourdes A. Baezconde-Garbanati ◽  
Kimberly Weich-Reushé ◽  
Lilia Espinoza ◽  
Cecilia Portugal ◽  
Rosa Barahona ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document