Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Jayes, Leah R.; Ratschen, Elena; Murray, Rachael L.; Dymond-White, Suzy; Britton, John (2016)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Public Health
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Research Article, Smoking, Passive smoking, Air pollution, Tobacco, Smoke-free, Prison, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: complex mixtures
BACKGROUND: To measure levels of indoor pollution in relation to smoking in four English prisons. \ud METHODS: TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitors were used to measure concentrations of particulate matter less than 2.5 mum in diameter (PM2.5) for periods of up to 9 h in selected smoking and non-smoking areas, and personal exposure monitoring of prison staff during a work shift, in four prisons. \ud RESULTS: PM2.5 data were collected for average periods of 6.5 h from 48 locations on 25 wing landings where smoking was permitted in cells, on 5 non-smoking wings, 13 prisoner cells, and personal monitoring of 22 staff members. Arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations were significantly higher on smoking than non-smoking wing landings (43.9 mug/m(3) and 5.9 mug/m(3) respectively, p < 0.001) and in smoking than non-smoking cells (226.2 mug/m(3) and 17.0 mug/m(3) respectively, p < 0.001). Staff members wore monitors for an average of 4.18 h, during which they were exposed to arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentration of 23.5 mug/m(3). \ud CONCLUSIONS: The concentration of PM2.5 pollution in smoking areas of prisons are extremely high. Smoking in prisons therefore represents a significant health hazard to prisoners and staff members.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke. Atlanta, GA: A Report of the Surgeon General; 2006.
    • 2. Royal College of Physicians. Going smoke-free: the medical case for clean air in the home, at work and in public places. London: A report on passive smoking by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians; 2005.
    • 3. Royal College of Physicians. Passive smoking and children. London: A report by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians; 2010.
    • 4. HM Government. Health Act 2006. Chapter 28. Great Britain: Smoking; 2006.
    • 5. Callinan JE, Clarke A, Doherty K, et al. Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;14:4.
    • 6. Mackay D, Haw S, Ayres JG, et al. Smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for childhood asthma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1139-45.
    • 7. Mackay DF, Irfan MO, Haw S, et al. Meta-analysis of the effect of comprehensive smoke-free legislation on acute coronary events. Heart. 2010;96(19):1525-30.
    • 8. Millett C, Lee JT, Laverty AA, et al. Hospital admissions for childhood asthma after smoke-free legislation in England. Pediatrics. 2013;131(2):495-501.
    • 9. HM Prison Service. Prison Service Instruction 09/2007. London: Smoke free legislation: prison service application; 2007.
    • 10. Singleton N, Farrell M, Meltzer H. Substance misuse among prisoners in England and Wales. International review of psychiatry. 1999;15(1-2):150-2.
    • 11. Sureda X, Fernandez E, Lopez MJ, et al. Secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in open and semi-open settings: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(7):766-73.
    • 12. Hyland A, Travers MJ, Dresler C, et al. A 32-country comparison of tobacco smoke derived particle levels in indoor public places. Tob Control. 2008; 17(3):159-65.
    • 13. Semple S, Apsley A, Galea KS, et al. Secondhand smoke in cars: assessing children's potential exposure during typical journey conditions. Tob Control. 2012.
    • 14. World Health Organisation. WHO air quality guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: Global Update; 2005.
    • 15. Ritter C, Huynh CK, Etter JF, et al. Exposure to tobacco smoke before and after a partial smoking ban in prison: indoor air quality measures. Tob Control. 2012;21(5):488-91.
    • 16. Proescholdbell SK, Foley KL, Johnson J, et al. Indoor air quality in prisons before and after implementation of a smoking ban law. Tob Control. 2008;17(2):123-7.
    • 17. Thornley S, Dirks KN, Edwards R, et al. Indoor air pollution levels were halved as a result of a national tobacco ban in a New Zealand prison. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(2):343-7.
    • 18. Semple S, van Tongeren M, Galea KS, et al. UK smoke-free legislation: changes in PM2.5 concentrations in bars in Scotland, England, and Wales. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010;54(3):272-80.
    • 19. Jiang RT, Acevedo-Bolton V, Cheng KC, et al. Determination of response of real-time SidePak AM510 monitor to secondhand smoke, other common indoor aerosols, and outdoor aerosol. J Environ Monit. 2011;13(6):1695-702.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article