Abstract
Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is a serious threat to public health, and a significant cause of lung cancer and heart disease among non-smokers. Even though Greek hospitals have been declared smoke free since 2002, smoking is still evident. Keeping the above into account, the aim of this study was to quantify the levels of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and to estimate the attributed lifetime excess heart disease and lung cancer deaths per 1000 of the hospital staff, in a large Greek public hospital. Environmental airborne respirable suspended particles (RSP) of PM2.5 were performed and the personnpel’s excess mortality risk was estimated using risk prediction formulas. Excluding the intensive care unit and the operating theatres, all wards and clinics were polluted with environmental tobacco smoke. Mean SHS-RSP measurements ranged from 11 to 1461 μg/m3 depending on the area. Open wards averaged 84 μg/m3 and the managing wards averaged 164 μg/m3 thus giving an excess lung cancer and heart disease of 1.12 (range 0.23–1.88) and 11.2 (range 2.3–18.8) personnel in wards and 2.35 (range 0.55–12.2) and 23.5 (range 5.5–122) of the managing staff per 1000 over a 40-year lifespan, respectively. Conclusively, SHS exposure in hospitals in Greece is prevalent and taking into account the excess heart disease and lung cancer mortality risk as also the immediate adverse health effects of SHS exposure, it is clear that proper implementation and enforcement of the legislation that bans smoking in hospitals is imperative to protect the health of patients and staff alike.
Keywords: tobacco smoke pollution, lung cancer, hospital, ETS, occupational exposure, risk analysis, air pollution
Introduction
Second Hand Smoke (SHS), emitted from cigarettes is a known human toxin and carcinogen. It contains over 3000 chemicals out of which at least 50 are known or suspected to be carcinogenic, whilst over 200 are regarded as poisonous [1–2]. Its adverse effects on human health have been well documented and it is generally accepted that there is no safe level of exposure to cigarette smoke [3]. Tumor genesis, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases amongst others have been shown to develop and worsen in populations exposed to SHS [4–8]. It is also common knowledge that there is no lower threshold for tobacco carcinogenesis, either regarding lung cancer or tumors in other tissues that are indirectly exposed, since carcinogens absorbed in the lung are distributed throughout the body and have been proven to create or aggravate tumor genesis [9–10].
In Greece it is estimated that 40% of the adult population are smokers and as stated in previous articles, and even though legislation regarding tobacco use exists, it is inadequately enforced and in certain cases bluntly ignored by the population [11–13]. One law, which is perceived to be correctly enforced, is the implementation of a smoking ban in health-care service centers such as public and private hospitals, health centers and pharmacies (Health Law 76017) [14]. According to the legislation (in force since August 2002) smoking is allowed only in designated areas, which should be provided with adequate air circulation for those who wish to smoke. The legislation also covered public services, educational institutions and public transport stations / public vehicles. To date, there is little information regarding the exact extent of exposure to SHS in Greece, especially in areas where health services are provided. Therefore, the purpose of our study was firstly to measure SHS exposure in different areas throughout a large Greek public hospital and furtherly to estimate the excess lung-cancer and heart disease mortality risk of the hospital personnel due to their occupational exposure to SHS.
Methods
Aerosol Measurements and Questionnaire Procedures
A TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitor (TSI, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) was used to sample and record the levels of respirable suspended particles (RSP) in the air. The SidePak uses a built-in sampling pump to draw air through the device and the particulate matter in the air scatters the light from a laser to assess the real-time concentration of particles less than 2.5 μm in micrograms per cubic meter, or PM2.5. Particles of this size are released in significant amounts from burning cigarettes, are easily inhaled deep into the lungs, and are associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and mortality [15]. SHS is not the only source of indoor particulate matter since dust, cooking and vehicle fumes also of this size. However, PM2.5 monitoring is highly sensitive to SHS and elevated levels of such particles can be attributed almost solely to SHS [16,17]. Taking into account the background hospital ambient aerosol levels one can calculate the PM2.5 levels which are attributed to SHS, following the formula: SHS-RSP levels = measured RSP – B, where B is the background aerosol level.
The SidePak was calibrated against a light scattering instrument, which had been previously calibrated and used in similar studies. The equipment was set to a ten-second sampling interval, which averages the measurements of the previous 10 seconds. The SidePak’s flow rate was set to 1.7 litres per minute to ensure proper operation of the attached 2.5-micron impactor. In accordance with the Global Air Monitoring Study Protocol, a calibration factor of 0.32, which is suitable for tobacco smoke, was applied to all data [18].
Observational information was also recorded regarding evidence of current or previous smoking in the area, air volume and other factors that might affect the data (such as the use of solvents, and other chemicals). The monitor was strapped on the observer’s shoulder, so that the air being sampled was within the occupants’ normal breathing zone and sampling was discreet in order not to disturb the patients’ and personnel normal behavior. For each clinic or ward, the first and last twenty seconds of logged data were removed because they were averaged with waiting room and stairway air. A total of fifteen minutes were spent in each area or ward inside the hospital throughout which the remaining data points were averaged to provide a mean PM2.5 concentration. Measurements took place on weekdays during April 2006, during the morning shift (9 am–3 pm). The University Hospital of Crete, which is located in Heraklion Greece, provides primary and secondary care to the population of Heraklion and tertiary care to the population of Crete and the nearby islands. The study was approved and acknowledged by the management of the Heraklion University Hospital but kept unknown from the staff and patients so as not to temporarily modify their smoking behavior.
Calculating Airborne Nicotine and Excess Lung Cancer Mortality Risk
According to the equations introduced by Repace et al., ambient aerosol nicotine levels (AANL) can be calculated from SHS-RSP levels (SHS-RSP: nicotine ratio = 10:1) and a workplace airborne nicotine concentration of 7.5 ug/m3 gives an excess heart disease and lung cancer risk of 10/1000 and 1/1000 respectively in a linear dose-response relationship over the 40-year working lifetime [19–20]. The developed formula successfully has predicted actual mortality risk in population based studies and has been used previously to estimate excess occupational lung cancer risk and heart disease among hospitality workers [21–23].
Results
Indoor Air Concentrations of SHS-RSP
Table 1 depicts the state of occupational exposure to SHS inside the hospital. The exact SHS-RSP levels differed drastically between each area. No levels of SHS-RSP were measured in only the intensive care unit and in operating theatres with mean SHS-RSP levels of 11 ug/m3, even lower than the outdoor reference level of 27 ug/m3. On the other hand, in most wards smoking was either noticed or evident. The mean SHS-RSP level of open wards was estimated at 84 ug/m3 and ranged between 17 and 141 ug/m3 with the lower readings found in children’s wards (general paediatrics, paediatric haematology etc).
Table 1:
Area | Mean levels (μg/m3) | Range (μg/m3) |
---|---|---|
Open wards | 84 | 17 – 141 |
Closed wards | ||
Intensive Care Unit | 12 | 2 – 23 |
Operating theatres | 11 | 8 – 21 |
Staff rest rooms | ||
Smoking during measurements | 628 | 453 –1842 |
Smoking prior to measurements | 169 | 11 – 919 |
Smoking not noticed | 17 | 10 – 42 |
Management wards | 164 | 29 – 901 |
Waiting Rooms | 211 | 91 – 331 |
Main Lobby | 57 | 25 – 84 |
Stairwells | 147 | 24 – 253 |
Changing rooms | ||
Smoking noticed | 1461 | 1374 – 2123 |
Smoking not noticed2 | 84 | 17 – 141 |
Corridors | ||
Main | 79 | 47 – 94 |
Secondary | 59 | 19 – 98 |
Personnel only | 50 | 7 – 104 |
Smoking room | 1448 | 1051 – 2084 |
Outdoor reference | 27 | - |
Staff rest rooms also were measured to have elevated SHS-RSP levels, depending on whether smoking was evident during or before the measurements were taken. In staff rest rooms, in which smoking was evident, SHS-RSP levels averaged 628 ug/m3 and in those were smoking was not noticed 17 ug/m3. Stairwells and waiting rooms also were found to have elevated SHS-RSP levels of 147 and 211 ug/m3, respectively. Inside the hospital premises smoking is permitted only in the smoking room, which has inadequate air ventilation. There, exposure to SHS-RSP was inevitably high, averaging 1448 ug/m3. Even higher levels of SHS-RSP exposure, averaging 1461 ug/m3, were found in certain changing rooms in which smoking, although prohibited, was observed.
Calculated Nicotine Levels and Estimates of Excess Heart Disease and Lung Cancer Mortality
Taking into account the average levels of SHS one is exposed to while working in the hospital one can calculate the excess occupational lifetime risk of heart disease and lung cancer due to passive smoke exposure in the hospital.
According to the ambient aerosol to ambient aerosol nicotine level (AANL) transformation formulas, the mean AANL was 8.4 ug/m3 (range 1.7 to 14.1 ug/m3) in open wards and 16.4 ug/m3 (range 2.9 to 90.1 ug/m3) in the hospital management wards. Table 2 depicts the estimated excess heart disease and lung cancer mortality risk due to SHS exposure in the hospital. On average 1.12 (0.23 to 1.88) workers per 1000 in open wards and 2.35 per 1000 (0.55–12.2) of management staff will die of lung cancer due to hospital SHS exposure. The excess lung cancer mortality risk in the ICU or operating theatres was not calculated because ambient aerosol measurements were even lower than outdoor baseline measurements and therefore could not be attributed to SHS. Excess heart disease mortality was calculated as tenfold that of the excess lung cancer cases and the accumulation of both led to the total excess mortality cases of 12.3 (2.5 to 20.7) and 25.9 per 1000 (6 – 134) of cases per 1000 per 40 years in open and management wards respectively.
Table 2:
Open wards | Closed wards | Management wards | |
---|---|---|---|
Mean nicotine concentrations3 in (ug/m3) | 8.4 | N/a | 17.6 |
Range in (ug/m3) | 1.7 – 14.1 | N/a | 4.1 – 91.3 |
Excess lung cancer deaths | 1.12 | N/a | 2.35 |
Range | 0.23 – 1.88 | N/a | 0.55 – 12.2 |
Excess heart disease deaths | 11.2 | N/a | 23.5 |
Range | 2.3 – 18.8 | N/a | 5.5 – 122 |
Total excess mortality | 12.3 | N/a | 25.9 |
Range | 2.5 – 20.7 | N/a | 6 – 134 |
Units of deaths per 1000 persons per 40 years
Mean nicotine concentrations were calculated by using the data from Table 1 SHS-RSP: nicotine ratio of 10:1
Total excess mortality = Lung cancer mortality + cardiovascular disease mortality
Discussion
The levels of SHS exposure recorded in most areas of the hospital are alarming. It is evident that regulations for tobacco control are not being followed since exposure to SHS was evident in almost all areas. Patients, their relatives and friends, but also personnel were observed smoking during the days the measurements took place. Although waiting rooms and stairways do not have ashtrays and have prominent no-smoking signs, smoking was evident and exposure to SHS for those in waiting rooms was elevated. Personnel were found smoking in their rest rooms and also in their changing rooms so as to avoid being seen and reprimanded. The effects of SHS exposure on human health have been well documented and in this instance would not only affect the state of personnel health but also patients under treatment. Second-hand smoke has been found to worsen asthma attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, childhood cancer, adult cancer treatment and outcome, and even fertility among women who have undergone recent IVF [24–28].
SHS can now be added to the plethora of health hazards that doctors and nursing staff face. Back pain, long hours and exposure to radiation, latex, nitrous oxide and biological pathogens are just a few dangers that can reduce work efficiency and the health of the practitioners themselves [29–34]. In contrary to the above though, exposure to SHS can be completely avoided if legislated tobacco control measures are followed as designed.
Exposure to SHS in the workplace is not uncommon, especially for workers in hospitality venues, such as bars, cafes and restaurants. Regarding excess lung cancer mortality, similar levels of risk to those found in our study have been noted among workers in betting parlours and bowling alleys in the U.S (1–1.4 per 1000) and in cafes and bars in Spain [21–22]. In comparison to our findings workers in US bars ran a much higher excess risk of up to 14 per 1000 (before the smoking ban), while Hong Kong hospitality workers have also been estimated at running an almost three times higher lung cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality risk in comparison to hospital personnel of our study but one should take into account the completely different setting between hospitality services and health provision services [23]. Globally, certain populations and specific working groups (as are employees in bars, cafes, casinos, pubs and restaurants) are exposed and subsequently affected by SHS. Implementing smoking bans has been found to reduce both occupational respiratory symptoms and population based risk of acute myocardial infarction and other cardiovascular events and the necessity of their implementation is scientifically warranted [35–36]. To our knowledge this is the first study that clearly demonstrates the connection between non-compliance to tobacco control measures for SHS exposure and mortality risk among workers in a hospital setting.
Certain assumptions were made during aerosol measurements and excess heart disease and lung cancer calculations. It is possible that lifetime exposure to SHS in the hospital differs due to our short window of measurements. It is possible that SHS levels during the afternoon and night shifts might be lower due to the reduction in personnel and visitors. However, the excess mortality risk might not necessarily be lower as we have not taken into account movement between wards and the time spent in staff rest rooms that provide a brief but extremely high exposure to SHS. Although it is difficult to extract generalizable conclusions in regards to other hospitals in Greece this study shows that PM2.5 measurements are a valid tool for measuring and monitoring SHS exposure in hospitals and an important means of surveillance of tobacco control legislations.
From our study, we are able to conclude that SHS in a typical hospital in Greece is prevalent and poses a threat to the health of patients and hospital personnel. Even though a policy that bans smoking in hospitals does exist, it is flagrantly ignored. When one considers the excess mortality risk and the immediate adverse health effects of SHS, it is imperative that the legislation that bans smoking within hospitals in Greece be enforced to protect not only patients but also medical and nursing staff from involuntary exposure to SHS and its ramifications.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the staff of the University Hospital of Crete, Greece for their cooperation and Prof Manolis Kogevinas, from the Department of Social Medicine for his constant support. CIV is currently funded by a Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute Award Grant, (FAMRI) for research on secondhand smoke. We have no conflict of interest to declare.
References
- 1.IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Tobacco smoking and involuntary smoking. ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol. 83. Lyon, France: 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 2.NCI (National Cancer Institute) Fact sheet on environmental tobacco smoke. Feb 2, 2000. Available at: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_18.htm.
- 3.EHIS (Environmental Health Information Service) ninth report on Carcinogens . US department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. National Toxicology Program; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zhu BQ, Heeschen C, Sievers RE, et al. Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth. Cancer Cell. 2003;4(3):191–6. doi: 10.1016/s1535-6108(03)00219-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gammon MD, Eng SM, Teitelbaum SL, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and breast cancer incidence. Environ Res. 2004;96(2):176–85. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2003.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Moffatt RJ, Chelland SA, Pecott DL, et al. Acute exposure to environmental tobacco smoke reduces HDL-C and HDL2-C. Prev Med. 2004;38(5):637–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Eisner MD, Balmes J, Katz PP, et al. Lifetime environmental tobacco smoke exposure and the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Environ Health. 2005;4(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-4-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Maziak W, Ward KD, Rastam S, et al. Extent of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and its dose-response relation to respiratory health among adults. Respir Res. 2005;6(1):13. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-6-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Alberg A, Samet J. Epidemiology of Lung Cancer. J Am Col Chest Phy. 2003;123:21s–49s. doi: 10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Trimble CL, Genkinger JM, Burke AE, et al. Active and passive cigarette smoking and the risk of cervical neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:174–181. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000148268.43584.03. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Huisman M, Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP. Inequalities in the prevalence of smoking in the European Union: comparing education and income. Prev Med. 2005;40:756–764. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.09.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Vardavas CI, Kafatos A. Greece’s tobacco policy: another myth? The Lancet. 2006;367(9521):1485–1486. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68646-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Vardavas CI, Kafatos A. Tobacco policy and smoking prevalence in Greece. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(2):211–3. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckl094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Health Law 76017 Legislation Newspaper of the Government of the Hellenic Democracy. 2002 Aug 1;:1001. [Google Scholar]
- 15.US Environmental Protection Agency, Fine Particle (PM 2.5) Designations Accessed 4/12/06 from http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/
- 16.Ott W, Switzer P, Robinson J. Particle concentrations inside a tavern before and after prohibition of smoking: evaluating the performance of an indoor air quality model. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1996;46:1120–1134. doi: 10.1080/10473289.1996.10467548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Repace JL. Respirable particles and carcinogens in the air of Delaware hospitality venues before and after a smoking ban. JOEM. 2004;46:887–905. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000141644.69355.52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hyland A, Travers MJ, Dresler C, Higbee C, Carpenter C, Connolly G, Cummings KM. A 24-Country Comparison of Levels of Indoor Air Pollution in Different Workplaces: Roswell Park Cancer Institute, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Harvard School of Public Health. Sep, 2006. ( http://www.tobaccofreeair.org/downloads/GAMS%20report.v7_Sept_06.pdf)
- 19.Repace J, Al-Delaimy WK, Bernert JT. Correlating atmospheric and biological markers in studies of secondhand tobacco smoke exposure and dose in children and adults. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48(2):181–94. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000184883.72902.d4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Repace J, Lowrey A. An enforceable indoor air quality standard for environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace. Risk Analysis. 1993;13:463–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00747.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lopez MJ, Nebot M, Juarez O, et al. Estimation of the excess of lung cancer mortality risk associated to environmental tobacco smoke exposure of hospitality workers. Med Clin (Barc) 2006;126(1):13–4. doi: 10.1157/13083324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Siegel M, Skeer M. Exposure to secondhand smoke and excess lung cancer mortality risk among workers in the “5 B’s”: bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting establishments, and bingo parlours. Tob Control. 2003;12(3):333–8. doi: 10.1136/tc.12.3.333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Hedley Aj, McGhee Sm, Repace JL, Wong L-C, Yu Ysm, Wong TW, Lam TW. Risks for heart disease and lung cancer from passive smoking by workers in the catering industry. Toxicological Sciences. 2006;90(2):539–548. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfj110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Eisner MD, Balmes J, Yelin EH, et al. Directly measured second-hand smoke exposure and COPD health outcomes. BMC Pulm Med. 2006;6:12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2466-6-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Teach SJ, Crain EF, Quint DM, et al. Indoor environmental exposures among children with asthma seen in an urban emergency department. Pediatrics. 2006;117:S152–8. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2000M. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Neal MS, Hughes EG, Holloway AC, et al. Side stream smoking is equally as damaging as mainstream smoking on IVF outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(9):2531–5. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dei080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Tyc VL, Throckmorton-Belzer L, Klosky JL, et al. Smoking among parents of pediatric cancer patients and children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. J Child Health Care. 2004;8(4):288–300. doi: 10.1177/1367493504047319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Gritz ER, Dresler C, Sarna L. Smoking, the missing drug interaction in clinical trials: ignoring the obvious. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14(10):2287–93. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mohseni-Bandpei MA, Fakhri M, Bagheri-Nesami M, et al. Occupational back pain in Iranian nurses: an epidemiological study. Br J Nurs. 2006;15(17):914–7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2006.15.17.21904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Tarantola A, Abiteboul D, Rachline A. Infection risks following accidental exposure to blood or body fluids in health care workers: a review of pathogens transmitted in published cases. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34(6):367–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Berney B, Needleman J. Impact of nursing overtime on nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in New York hospitals, 1995–2000. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2006;7(2):87–100. doi: 10.1177/1527154406291132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Pant GS, Sharma SK, Rath GK. Finger doses for staff handling radiopharmaceuticals in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006;34(3):169–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Marriott CJ, Webber CE, Gulenchyn KY. Radiation exposure for ‘Caregivers’ during high-dose outpatient radioiodine therapy. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2007;123(1):62–7. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncl084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Amr S, Suk WA. Latex allergy and occupational asthma in health care workers: adverse outcomes. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(3):378–81. doi: 10.1289/ehp.6612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Wakefield M, Cameron M, Inglis G, Letcher T, Durkin S. Secondhand smoke exposure and respiratory symptoms among casino, club, and office workers in Victoria, Australia. J. Occup Environ Med. 2005;47(7):698–703. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000167285.33870.f9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Dinno A, Glantz S. Clean indoor air laws immediately reduce heart attacks. Prev Med. 2007;45(1):9–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.03.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]