Skip to main content
. 2020 Aug 17;23(2):364–372. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa151

Table 2.

Dust nicotine loading before and after the cleaning interventions

Change
GeoMean µg/m2 95% Confidence Interval vs. BL1 vs. BL2
Group 1 (N = 10)
Baseline 1 1.23a,b,c [0.31; 2.82] Ref
Dry/damp cleaning
Posttest 1 0.82 [0.30; 1.53] −34%
Baseline 2 0.78a,d [0.19; 1.64] −37% Ref
Wet cleaning
Posttest 2 0.33b,d [0.07; 0.65] −58%
Follow-up month 3 0.47c [0.23; 0.76] −39%
Group 2 (N = 10)
Baseline 1 1.05 [0.05; 3.00] Ref
Wet cleaning
Posttest 1 0.58 [0.05; 1.62] −45%
Baseline 2 0.89 [0.16; 2.06] −15% Ref
Dry/damp cleaning
Posttest 2 0.91 [0.23; 1.96] 2%
Follow−up month 3 0.93 [0.34; 1.78] 5%
Group 3 (N = 18)
Baseline 1 1.33a [0.46; 2.72] Ref
Combination dry/damp and wet cleaning
Posttest 1 0.42b [0.04; 0.95] −68%
Follow-up month 3 1.19a,b [0.51; 2.17] −11%

Ref: reference group for the calculation of the percent change in GeoMean.

a,b,c,d Within each of the cleaning groups, pairs of letters indicate significant differences between GeoMeans (p < .05).