Secondhand smoke exposure in public and private high-rise multiunit housing serving low-income residents in New York City prior to federal smoking ban in public housing, 2018

[Display omitted] •SFH policies have been implemented across PHAs nationwide.•We measured self-reported and objective SHS incursions in low-income MUH in NYC.•Most stairwells (88%) and hallways (74%) had detectable levels of nicotine.•Substantial variation in nicotine and PM2.5 was observed between...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Science of the total environment Vol. 704; p. 135322
Main Authors Anastasiou, Elle, Feinberg, Alexis, Tovar, Albert, Gill, Emily, Ruzmyn Vilcassim, M.J., Wyka, Katarzyna, Gordon, Terry, Rule, Ana M., Kaplan, Sue, Elbel, Brian, Shelley, Donna, Thorpe, Lorna E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Netherlands Elsevier B.V 20.02.2020
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:[Display omitted] •SFH policies have been implemented across PHAs nationwide.•We measured self-reported and objective SHS incursions in low-income MUH in NYC.•Most stairwells (88%) and hallways (74%) had detectable levels of nicotine.•Substantial variation in nicotine and PM2.5 was observed between and within buildings.•SFH policies may help in successfully reducing SHS exposure in public housing. Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, with 41,000 deaths attributable to secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. On July 30, 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development passed a rule requiring public housing authorities to implement smoke-free housing (SFH) policies. Prior to SFH policy implementation, we measured self-reported and objective SHS incursions in a purposeful sample of 21 high-rise buildings (>15 floors) in New York City (NYC): 10 public housing and 11 private sector buildings where most residents receive federal housing subsidies (herein ‘Section 8’ buildings). We conducted a baseline telephone survey targeting all residents living on the 3rd floor or higher of selected buildings: NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents were surveyed in April-July 2018 (n = 559), and residents in ‘Section 8’ buildings in August-November 2018 (n = 471). We invited non-smoking household participants to enroll into a longitudinal air monitoring study to track SHS exposure using: (1) nicotine concentration from passive, bisulfate-coated nicotine filters and (2) particulate matter (PM2.5) from low-cost particle monitors. SHS was measured for 7-days in non-smoking households (NYCHA n = 157, Section 8 n = 118 households) and in building common areas (n = 91 hallways and stairwells). Smoking prevalence among residents in the 21 buildings was 15.5%. Two-thirds of residents reported seeing people smoke in common areas in the past year (67%) and 60% reported smelling smoke in their apartments coming from elsewhere. Most stairwells (88%) and hallways (74%) had detectable nicotine levels, but nicotine was detected in only 9.9% of non-smoking apartments. Substantial variation in nicotine and PM2.5 was observed between and within buildings; on average nicotine concentrations were higher in NYCHA apartments and hallways than in Section 8 buildings (p < 0.05), and NYCHA residents reported seeing smokers in common areas more frequently. SFH policies may help in successfully reducing SHS exposure in public housing, but widespread pre-policy incursions suggest achieving SFH will be challenging.
Bibliography:EA, AF and LT made substantial contributions to the conception, design, drafts, and revision of this manuscript up until its submission. LT and DS are the Co-Principal Investigators of this study and conceptualized the initial project protocol, guided overall study design and implementation, and engaged substantially in the revising of this manuscript. SK, BE, AR, and TG contributed to the conceptual development of the study and edited the original grant protocol and manuscript. AT, EG and MV led the development of data collection protocols and quality control procedures. LT and TG reviewed the data analysis plan for clarity and accuracy. KW led the drafting and revision of the data analysis sections. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Author Contributions
ISSN:0048-9697
1879-1026
DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135322