Secondhand smoke assessment in the first African country adopting a comprehensive smoke-free law (Mauritius)

Assessing exposure to secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars 2 years after the smoking regulations in Beijing, China

“…Peak‐time SHS PM concentrations in smoking restaurants and bars or in designated smoking sections reported in this study were lower than concentrations reported in some other studies, which reported median (or geometric mean, GM) PM 2.5 concentrations ranging from 50 to 663 μ g/m 3 in smoking restaurants (Akbar‐Khanzadeh, ; Alfaro, ; Branis et al., ; Brauer and Mannetje, ; Carrington et al., ; Gleich et al., ; Huss et al., ; Lai et al., ; Lambert et al., ; Proescholdbell et al., ; Travers, ) and 40–465 μ g/m 3 in smoking bars (Bolte et al., ; Daly et al., ; Ellingsen et al., ; Gleich et al., ; Goodman et al., ; Lee et al., ; Maskarinec et al., ; Repace et al., ; Rosen et al., ; Semple et al., ; Siegel, ; Travers, ; Valente et al., ; Vardavas et al., ; Waring and Siegel, ). However, for non‐smoking venues, SHS PM concentrations were higher in this study than in some other studies, which reported median PM 2.5 concentrations below 20 μ g/m 3 (Lopez et al., ; Proescholdbell et al., ; Travers, ; Wilson et al., ). Similarly for airborne nicotine, the median of week‐long time‐weighted average levels was lower in smoking venues in this study than those reported in most of other countries (median or GM ranging from 0.58 to 35.5 μ g/m 3 ) (Barnoya et al., ; Gorini et al., ; Jane et al., ; Jones et al., ; Lopez et al., ; Mulcahy et al., ; Navas‐Acien et al., ; Nebot et al., ; Ochir et al., ), but they were higher in non‐smoking venues in this study than in other countries (median or GM ranging from 0.03 to 0.90 μ g/m 3 ) (Barnoya et al., ; Gorini et al., ; Jones et al., ; Lopez et al., , ; Nebot et al., ).…”

“…However, for non‐smoking venues, SHS PM concentrations were higher in this study than in some other studies, which reported median PM 2.5 concentrations below 20 μ g/m 3 (Lopez et al., ; Proescholdbell et al., ; Travers, ; Wilson et al., ). Similarly for airborne nicotine, the median of week‐long time‐weighted average levels was lower in smoking venues in this study than those reported in most of other countries (median or GM ranging from 0.58 to 35.5 μ g/m 3 ) (Barnoya et al., ; Gorini et al., ; Jane et al., ; Jones et al., ; Lopez et al., ; Mulcahy et al., ; Navas‐Acien et al., ; Nebot et al., ; Ochir et al., ), but they were higher in non‐smoking venues in this study than in other countries (median or GM ranging from 0.03 to 0.90 μ g/m 3 ) (Barnoya et al., ; Gorini et al., ; Jones et al., ; Lopez et al., , ; Nebot et al., ). SHS concentrations in smoking restaurants and bars are lower in Beijing than in other countries, which might be attributed to the different sampling seasons and/or different physical features of the venues, such as window/door opening and ventilation applications.…”

Negotiating Change: Ideas, Institutions, and Political Actors in Tobacco Control Policy Making in Mauritius

“…It is against this backdrop that this article seeks to explain how tobacco control rose to prominence in the government policy agenda. The existing literature either evaluates the efficacy of a specific tobacco control instrument or examines the negative health effects of smoking on the Mauritian people (see Azagba et al 2015;Cox et al 2000;López et al 2011;Ross et al 2018;Sun, Erriah, and Ramasawmy 2014;Tumwine 2011). Burhoo, Mohee, and Moussa (2011) have attempted a political economic explanation of Mauritius's tobacco control policies; however, their explanation was conducted with no theoretical discussion of the policy-making process.…”