Secondhand smoke emission levels in waterpipe cafes in Doha, Qatar

Mulla, Ahmad Al; Fanous, Nadia; Seidenberg, Andrew B.; Rees, Vaughan W.

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051717

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent studies from the Middle East region that used comparable study designs to ours have documented similarly elevated levels of one to two orders of magnitude in venues such as waterpipe cafes compared to those where tobacco smoking was banned. 16,19,20 In contrast, other studies have reported differences between venues that were slightly smaller than those in our study. For example, recent air monitoring in seven cities in the United States found PM 2.5 to be 82% lower in smoke-free hospitality settings than in venues where smoking was permitted.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

PM<SUB>2.5</SUB> as a marker of exposure to tobacco smoke and other sources of particulate matter in Cairo, Egypt

Loffredo

Tang

Momen

et al. 2016

int j tuberc lung dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Setting Cairo and Giza governorates of Egypt. Background Particulate matter under 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) arises from diverse sources, including tobacco smoke from cigarettes and waterpipes, and is recognized as a cause of acute and chronic morbidity and mortality. Objective To measure PM2.5 in workplaces with different intensities of smoking and varying levels of smoking restrictions. Design We conducted an air sampling study to measure PM2.5 levels in a convenience sample of indoor and outdoor venues in 2005–2006. Results Using a calibrated SidePak instrument, 3295 individual measurements were collected at 96 venues. Compared to indoor venues where tobacco smoking was banned (PM2.5 levels 72–81 μg/m3), places offering waterpipes to patrons of cafes (478 μg/m3) and Ramadan tents (612 μg/m3) had much higher concentrations, as did venues such as public buildings with poor enforcement of smoking restrictions (range 171–704 μg/m3). Both the number of waterpipe smokers and the number of cigarette smokers observed at each venue contributed significantly to the overall burden of PM2.5. Conclusion Such data will support smoke-free policies and programs aimed specifically at reducing environmental tobacco exposure and improving air quality in general, and will provide a baseline for monitoring the impact of tobacco control policies.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

PM<SUB>2.5</SUB> as a marker of exposure to tobacco smoke and other sources of particulate matter in Cairo, Egypt

Loffredo

Tang

Momen

et al. 2016

int j tuberc lung dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We did not identify many significant associations between venue characteristics and SHS levels. Other studies of SHS in waterpipe tobacco venues have reported positive associations between smoker density and mean PM 2.5 (Abuelaish et al, 2013; Al Mulla et al, 2014; Cobb et al, 2013; Saade et al, 2010; Zaidi et al, 2011; Zhang et al, 2013). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Environmental Protection Agency, 2013; World Health Organization, 2014). Other studies of waterpipe tobacco venues in the US (Cobb et al, 2013; Fiala et al, 2012; Zhang et al, 2013; Zhou et al, 2014), Qatar (Al Mulla et al, 2014), Lebanon (Saade et al, 2010), Pakistan (Zaidi et al, 2011), and Palestine (Abuelaish et al, 2013) have all found elevated PM 2.5 concentrations, with mean concentrations ranging from 117 μg/m 3 to 1,419 μg/m 3 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Recently, several observational studies measuring SHS in waterpipe venues have found elevated concentrations of particulate matter with an aerodynamic size of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2.5 ), CO, nicotine, and carbon (Al Mulla et al, 2014; Cobb et al, 2013; Fiala et al, 2012; Hammal et al, 2013; Saade et al, 2010; Zaidi et al, 2011; Zhang et al, 2013; Zhou et al, 2014). However, most existing studies have been conducted with small samples, limited air markers of SHS (i.e., only PM), and relatively short sampling times (less than 2 hours).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Secondhand smoke in waterpipe tobacco venues in Istanbul, Moscow, and Cairo

Moon

Magid

Torrey

et al. 2015

Environmental Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The prevalence of waterpipe tobacco smoking has risen in recent decades. Controlled studies suggest that waterpipe secondhand smoke (SHS) contains similar or greater quantities of toxicants than cigarette SHS, which causes significant morbidity and mortality. Few studies have examined SHS from waterpipe tobacco in real-world settings. The purpose of this study was to quantify SHS exposure levels and describe the characteristics of waterpipe tobacco venues. Methods In 2012-2014, we conducted cross-sectional surveys of 46 waterpipe tobacco venues (9 in Istanbul, 17 in Moscow, and 20 in Cairo). We administered venue questionnaires, conducted venue observations, and sampled indoor air particulate matter (PM2.5) (N=35), carbon monoxide (CO) (N=23), particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (p-PAHs) (N=31), 4-methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) (N=43), and air nicotine (N=46). Results Venue characteristics and SHS concentrations were highly variable within and between cities. Overall, we observed a mean (standard deviation (SD)) of 5 (5) waterpipe smokers and 5 (3) cigarette smokers per venue. The overall median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) of venue mean air concentrations was 136 (82, 213) μg/m3 for PM2.5, 3.9 (1.7, 22) ppm for CO, 68 (33, 121) ng/m3 for p-PAHs, 1.0 (0.5, 1.9) ng/m3 for NNK, and 5.3 (0.7, 14) μg/m3 for nicotine. PM2.5, CO, and p-PAHs concentrations were generally higher in venues with more waterpipe smokers and cigarette smokers, although associations were not statistically significant. Conclusion High concentrations of SHS constituents known to cause health effects indicate that indoor air quality in waterpipe tobacco venues may adversely affect the health of employees and customers.

show abstract

“…Lando et al 4 report on successful practices and communication strategies to adopt a comprehensive ban on smoking aboard US submarines. Al Mulla et al 5 and Zhou et al remind us not to forget that non-cigarette products that are burned, like waterpipe, can quickly pollute the air just like cigarettes and at levels the US Environmental Protection Agency would classify as ‘hazardous’ if it were measured outdoors. This is particularly important because some smoke-free policies have loopholes that make enforcement of these policies problematic when it comes to waterpipe smoking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the smoke-free protections glass half full or half empty?

Hyland

2015

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Secondhand smoke emission levels in waterpipe cafes in Doha, Qatar

Cited by 28 publications

References 28 publications

PM<SUB>2.5</SUB> as a marker of exposure to tobacco smoke and other sources of particulate matter in Cairo, Egypt

PM<SUB>2.5</SUB> as a marker of exposure to tobacco smoke and other sources of particulate matter in Cairo, Egypt

Secondhand smoke in waterpipe tobacco venues in Istanbul, Moscow, and Cairo

Is the smoke-free protections glass half full or half empty?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About