Table VII.
Simulated Incremental Daily Average PM2.5 Exposures Associated with ETS for Selected Geographic Areasa
| Location (County, State) |
Proportion of Smokers (%) |
50th Percentileb (μg/m3) |
90th Percentile (μg/m3) |
99th Percentile (μg/m3) |
Mean (μg/m3) |
Std.Dev.c (μg/m3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jefferson, KY | 25.2 | 1.8 | 22 | 71 | 7.7 | 20 |
| Wake, NC | 22.1 | 1.4 | 21 | 72 | 7.0 | 20 |
| New York, NYd |
16.8 | 1.6 | 20 | 69 | 6.8 | 21 |
| Los Angeles, CAd |
14.0 | 1.3 | 17 | 61 | 6.0 | 18 |
| Salt Lake, UT | 9.3 | 1.1 | 13 | 45 | 4.6 | 14 |
Simulation assumptions: 10,000 individuals per census tract, 10 census tracts simulated for each of Jefferson County (KY), Wake County (NC), New York County (NY), Los Angeles County (CA), and Salt Lake County (UT); ambient PM2.5 concentration: 10 μg/m3; proportions of smokers are different for each state based on (CDC, 2009).(35)
For each percentile and for the mean, incremental exposure is calculated by the difference between exposures with and without smoking.
Incremental standard deviation is calculated by the square root of the difference between the variance of exposure with and without smoking.
Smoking was banned in restaurants and bars in NY and CA before 2008; therefore, ETS was not modeled in these two geographic areas in restaurants and bars.