Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Volume 12, Number 6 (June 2010) 665–668

Brief Report

Air quality in and around airport enclosed

smoking rooms
Kiyoung Lee, Sc.D., C.I.H.,1,2 Ellen J. Hahn, Ph.D., R.N.,2 Heather E. Robertson, M.P.A.,2 Laura Whitten, B.A.,2
Laura K. Jones, M.S., M.A.,2 & Brendan Zahn, B.S.N.2
1
Graduate School of Public Health and Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
2
Tobacco Policy Research Program, College of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Corresponding Author: Kiyoung Lee, Sc.D., C.I.H., Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, 599 Gwanak-ro,
Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-742, Korea. Telephone: +82-2-880-2735; Fax: +82-2-762-2888; E-mail: cleanair@snu.ac.kr
Received December 31, 2009; accepted March 14, 2010

Downloaded from http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 8, 2016

Abstract
Introduction: Smoking rooms have been installed in some
airports to allow indoor smoking. There have been few field
studies to measure fine particle leakage in operational smoking
rooms. The objective of the research was to assess air quality
inside and outside the 4 smoking rooms located within a medium-
sized, regional commercial airport.
all the poisons, toxins, gases, and particles found in SHS (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services). Scientific evidence
suggests that the only means of effectively eliminating health
risks associated with indoor exposure to SHS is to prohibit
indoor smoking even in smoking rooms that are enclosed and
ventilated (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], 2005; U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services).

Methods: Particulate matter less than 2.5-mm (PM2.5) concen-
trations were simultaneously measured inside and outside the 4
smoking rooms in the airport and in the public lobby. The
monitoring was conducted during normal hours of operation.
Numbers of people and smokers were counted. The airport had
separate ventilation systems for all 4 rooms checked by the
airport prior to monitoring, and they were operating properly.
Results: Although there were few smokers in each room,
average PM2.5 concentrations inside the smoking rooms were
significantly higher than the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for 24 hr (35 mg/m3). Fine particles from secondhand
smoke (SHS) leaked to the outside in 3 of the 4 smoking rooms,
exposing workers and the public.
Discussion: Although the ventilation systems in the smoking
rooms were operating properly, fine particles from SHS leaked
to the surrounding smoke-free areas in the airport. Indoor space
inside airports should be completely nonsmoking, and enclosed
smoking rooms are not recommended.
Introduction
Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is the third leading cause of
preventable death in the United States (U.S. National Cancer
Institute, 1999). The U.S. Surgeon General recommends total
elimination of smoking indoors to reduce exposure to SHS
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). Fur-
thermore, separating smokers from nonsmokers, air cleaning
technologies, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate SHS
exposure, and conventional air cleaning systems cannot remove
doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq054
Advance Access published on April 21, 2010
© The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Several European countries have implemented nationwide
smoke-free policies, and effectiveness of such policies has
been well documented (Fong et al., 2006; Haw & Gruer, 2007;
Hyland et al., 2008). Comprehensive public smoke-free policies
have been adopted beyond Europe, including Africa, Asia, and
Central and South Americas. Currently in the United States,
19 states, along with Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, have
100% smoke-free laws in workplaces, restaurants, and bars
(Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, 2010), covering 41% of the
U.S. population. Comprehensive smoke-free policy covering all
workplaces with no exceptions is the best way to protect all
workers and the public from the dangers of SHS (Lee et al.,
2009). However, there are many local ordinances or regulations
that restrict smoking in only some workplaces with exceptions
across the United States and Washington, DC (Americans for
Nonsmokers’ Rights).
Installation of enclosed smoking rooms is allowed by some
local and state laws, although comprehensive smoke-free policy
is more effective. More convincing research is needed to examine
the effectiveness of these smoking rooms in protecting the air
quality in adjacent nonsmoking areas from smoke contami-
nants. Despite efforts by airport personnel and ventilation
companies to minimize leakage from enclosed smoking rooms,
significant levels of nicotine were perceptible at 35 feet from an
enclosed smoking area that had direct ventilation to the outside
of the airport buildings (Pion & Givel, 2004). Leakage of an en-
closed smoking area was demonstrated by much higher airborne
nicotine levels in adjacent nonsmoking areas of California office
buildings (Liu, Alevantis, & Offermann, 2001).
Airports are used by millions of people every day, and travel-
ers and airport employees are at risk for being exposed to SHS

665
Air quality in smoking room
if airport buildings are not completely smoke free. In 2002,
38.1% of 198 randomly selected U.S. airports did not have a
smoke-free policy (Pevzner et al., 2004). There have been few
field studies to measure fine particle leakage in operational
smoking rooms. The purposes of this study were to assess the air
quality inside and outside the four smoking rooms located within
a medium-sized, regional commercial airport and compare the
fine particulate levels inside and outside the smoking rooms with
control areas within the airport that do not allow smoking.
Methods
Between August 11 and 22, 2008, indoor air quality was assessed
in five indoor locations including four enclosed smoking rooms
and one public nonsmoking area located outside of security in a
medium-sized (defined as serving 1–5 million passengers per
year), regional commercial airport in the United States. The air-
port serves over one million passengers each year and occupies
approximately 1,000 acres. The four smoking rooms had an
average volume of 57.5 ± 4.8 m3, and all except one had a swing
door at the entry to the room. One room was open to another
space and had an air curtain system with a motion sensor.
Indoor air quality was monitored using an aerosol spec-
trometer (Sidepak Model AM510; TSI Inc., St. Paul, MN). The
Sidepak is a portable battery operated aerosol monitor that mea-
sures mass concentration of certain size, including particulate
matter less than 2.5 mm (PM2.5). The device was used with a
2.5-mm impactor to measure PM2.5. Prior to each experiment, the
device was zero calibrated with a high efficiency particulate air
filter according to manufacturer’s specifications. The flow rate
was set to 1.7 L/min and calibrated before the experiment. The
devices were set to record the average PM2.5 concentration every
minute. The measurement was corrected by a conversion factor
of 0.295 obtained from calibration against gravimetric measure-
ment (Lee et al., 2008).
Two aerosol spectrometers were simultaneously used to
sample and record PM2.5 levels. One monitor was placed inside
the smoking rooms in a corner location away from the seats.
The other monitor was placed outside each smoking room. The
outside monitor was attached to the wall and approximately
12 inches from the door and 30 inches from the floor.
The smoking rooms were assessed on separate days, for an
average of 15.2 hr inside and outside each room (range 13.3–16.1
hr) simultaneously. Data collection occurred from about 5 a.m.
to about 9 p.m., the full operation hours of the airport. Research
assistants sat outside the smoking rooms to record numbers of
Table 1. Indoor air quality by airport smoking room
Range of PM2.5 (mg/m3) Range of PM2.5 (mg/m3)
Smoking room inside room (mean) outside room (mean)
A 1–952 (55) 1–39 (3)
B 3–640 (102) 2–22 (5)
C 2–325 (13) 2–34 (7)
D 9–697 (68) 5–80 (13)
Smoke-free area 8–24 (10)
Note. Room C had an air curtain.
666
people inside and smokers every 5 min during the data collection
period. Any additional activities that could generate fine parti-
cles were noted (i.e., vacuum cleaner use, aerosol cleaners). As a
control condition, fine particle concentration was measured for
4 hr in a public lobby at a distance from the smoking rooms.
Results
Fine particle concentrations inside and outside the smoking
rooms were simultaneously measured on four different days.
There was a range of 0–6 patrons present in the smoking rooms
and 0–4 burning cigarettes observed, as shown in the Table 1. In
Room A, the average number of burning cigarettes was 0.39.
The average indoor PM2.5 concentration was 55 mg/m3, and
maximum concentration was 952 mg/m3. In Room B, the average
number of burning cigarettes was 0.73. The average indoor
PM2.5 concentration was 102 mg/m3, and maximum concentra-
Downloaded from http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 8, 2016
tion was 640 mg/m3. In Room C (lounge with air curtain), the
average number of burning cigarettes was only 0.08. The aver-
age indoor PM2.5 concentration was 13 mg/m3, and maximum
concentration was 325 mg/m3. In Room D, the average number
of burning cigarettes was 0.13. The average indoor PM2.5 con-
centration was 68 mg/m3, and maximum concentration was
697 mg/m3. All enclosed smoking rooms had average PM2.5 concen-
trations higher than the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS; 35 mg/m3) for 24 hr, except Room C. In the smoke-
free airport area (control), the average PM2.5 level was 10 mg/m3.
In Rooms C and D (Room C with air curtain and Room D
with swing door), temporal profiles of outside PM2.5 levels
showed substantial leakage of PM2.5. The Figure 1 shows the
levels of PM2.5 measured inside and outside the two smoking
rooms. Whenever there were smokers inside, the inside PM2.5
level increased substantially. Since the room was ventilated at its
maximum capacity, the level decreased as soon as the cigarette
was extinguished. The PM2.5 levels outside the smoking rooms
had a similar temporal profile of the inside PM2.5, as shown in
the Figure 1. The temporal profile of outside PM2.5 levels in
Room A showed leakage of PM2.5, although the peak was associ-
ated with opening doors rather than smoking inside the room.
In Room B, the outside PM2.5 was stable at 10 mg/m3 and was not
associated with inside PM2.5.
Discussion
Measurement of fine particle levels inside and outside enclosed
smoking rooms in one medium-sized, regional commercial
airport demonstrated that leakage of fine particles is a potential
Average number of Room Average number Air exchange
burning cigarettes size (m3) of people rate (ACH)
0.39 57 0.54 5.6
0.73 54 0.96 5.2
0.08 54 0.22 17.3
0.13 64 0.17 1.7
 Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Volume 12, Number 6 (June 2010)
Figure 1.  Fine particulate levels inside and outside two smoking rooms. (a) Room C with air curtain. (b) Room D with swing door.
threat to patrons outside the smoking rooms but also the workers
who enter the rooms on a regular basis. Fine particle concentra-
tions in three smoking rooms (A, B, and D) were significantly
higher than the NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. Although one room (C)
did not exceed the NAAQS, it is likely because very few smokers
used the smoking room during the study period. However, the
indoor fine particle level of Room C was as high as 325 mg/m3,
when smokers presented in the room.
High PM2.5 concentration inside the smoking rooms may
be obvious. Although the smoking rooms are mainly used by
smokers, impact of such high levels can affect more than those
who visit the rooms to smoke. Airport workers have to enter
these rooms to clean them and can have significant occupational
exposure to SHS. In addition, parents may take their children
with them inside the smoking rooms or leave them directly out-
side the rooms.
Downloaded from http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 8, 2016
This is the first scientific report of simultaneous measurement
of fine particle air pollution in smoking rooms by continuous moni-
tors inside and outside the rooms. When airborne nicotine was
measured adjacent to a smoking room in an airport, the concentra-
tion was 3–4.8 times higher than the level in a smoke-free airport
(Pion & Givel, 2004). In our study, temporal profiles of fine parti-
cles inside and outside smoking rooms clearly demonstrated the
leakage of fine particles from three of the four smoking rooms.
Prior to measurement inside and outside the smoking rooms,
the ventilation systems were evaluated by the airport and found
to be functioning properly. Based on the air exchange rate equa-
tion of smoking density and respirable particle concentration (air
exchange rate = 650 × smoking density/respirable particle by
SHS; Repace, 2004), ventilation rates in the four smoking rooms
were estimated to be 5.6, 5.2, 17.3, and 1.7 air exchange rate
(ACH). There is no ASHRAE standard for ventilation rate in
667
Air quality in smoking room
smoking areas. The ASHRAE (2007) standard recommends an
air exchange rate of 7.5 cfm/person + 0.06 cfm/ft2 at a default oc-
cupancy of 100 persons/1000 ft2 for transportation waiting rooms.
Although the standard is for nonsmoking facilities, the ventila-
tion rate should be about 1.5 ACH, considering the maximum
number of people in the smoking room and average area of the
rooms. Despite high ventilation rates, three smoking rooms mea-
sured in this study showed leakage of fine particles.
The study has several limitations. Although many studies
measure PM2.5 for SHS, PM2.5 is not specific to SHS. There are
many potential sources of PM2.5. During the monitoring, addi-
tional potential sources of PM2.5 were observed and the airport
building did not have obvious indoor sources (i.e., airport
shuttles inside the terminal). Although temporal profiles of
PM2.5 levels outside and inside the smoking rooms were gener-
ally similar, the data showed some unexplained and relatively
small peaks. For example, a marked increase in outside PM2.5
was observed in Room D at 1.30 p.m., but the increase was not
associated with inside smoking, and we could not explain the
peak from our observation data.
The U.S. Surgeon General recommends complete non-
smoking in indoor spaces and does not recommend enclosed
smoking rooms at all (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2006). Our findings support this recommendation.
Neither dilution ventilation nor air cleaning technologies can
mitigate health risks from SHS exposure in spaces where smoking
occurs (ASHRAE, 2005). Even if the room is separately venti-
lated, the pumping action of swing doors as they are opened and
closed further exacerbates contaminant leakage from smoking
rooms (Wagner et al., 2004). As much as 10% of smoking room
air can enter nonsmoking areas when a swing type entry door is
opened and closed (Wagner et al.).
Funding
There was no extramural funding for this project.
Declaration of Interests
None declared.
Acknowledgments
Authors appreciate Mark Day whose assistance was critical to
collect the data from airport.
References
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers. (2005). ASHRAE position document on environmen-
tal tobacco smoke. Retrieved 6 April 2010, from http://www
.ashrae.org/doclib/20058211239_347.pdf
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers. (2007). Standard 62.1-2007, ventilation for acceptable
indoor air quality. Retrieved 6 April 2010, from http://www
.ashrae.org/doclib/20058211239_347.pdf
668
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. (2010). Berkeley, CA:
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. Retrieved 31 January
2010, from http://www.no-smoke.org/
Fong, G. T., Hyland, A., Borland, R., Hammond, D., Hastings, G.,
McNeill, A., et al. (2006). Reductions in tobacco smoke pol-
lution and increases in support for smoke-free public places
following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free
workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: Findings from
the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tobacco Control, 15, 51–58.
Haw, S. J., & Gruer, L. (2007). Changes in exposure of adult
non-smokers to secondhand smoke after implementation of
smoke-free legislation in Scotland: National cross sectional
survey. British Medical Journal, 335, 549–552.
Hyland, A., Higbee, C., Hassan, L., Fong, G. T., Borland, R.,
Cummings, K. M., et al. (2008). Does smoke-free Ireland have
Downloaded from http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 8, 2016
more smoking inside the home and less in pubs than the United
Kingdom? Findings from the international tobacco control policy
evaluation project. European Journal of Public Health, 18, 63–65.
Lee, K., Hahn, E. J., Pieper, N., Okoli, C. T. C., Repace, J., &
Troutman, A. (2008). Differential impacts of smoke-free laws
on indoor air quality. Journal of Environmental Health, 70(8),
24–30.
Lee, K., Hahn, E. J., Robertson, H. E., Lee, S., Vogel, S. L., &
Travers, M. J. (2009). Strength of smoke-free air laws and
indoor air quality. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11, 381–386.
Liu, K. S., Alevantis, L. E., & Offermann, F. J. (2001). A survey
of environmental tobacco smoke controls in California office
buildings. Indoor Air, 11, 26–34.
Pevzner, E., Davis, R., Pan, W., Husten, C., Pechacek, T., &
Malarcher, A. (2004). Survey of airport smoking policies-
United States 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53,
1175–1178.
Pion, M., & Givel, M. S. (2004). Airport smoking rooms don’t
work. Tobacco Control, 13, 37–40.
Repace, J. (2004). Respirable particles and carcinogens in the air
of Delaware hospitality venues before and after a smoking ban.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46, 887–905.
U.S. National Cancer Institute. (1999). Health effects of exposure
to environment tobacco smoke. Smoking and Tobacco Control
Volume Monograph No. 10. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health,
National Cancer Institute.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). The
health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A
report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease
and Prevention and Promotion, Office of Smoking and Health.
Wagner, J., Sullivan, D. P., Faulkner, D., Fisk, W. J., Alevantis, L. E.,
Dod, R. L., et al. (2004). Environmental tobacco smoke leakage
from smoking rooms. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene, 1, 110–118.