Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Public Health

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Continuous weeklong measurements of indoor particle levels in a Minnesota Tribal Casino Resort

BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:870

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3553-4

Received: 27 April 2016

Accepted: 18 August 2016

Published: 24 August 2016

Abstract

Background

Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure for workers and patrons in hospitality venues is a persistent and significant public health concern. We designed this study to provide a comprehensive assessment of SHS exposure inside an Indian Tribal Casino in Minnesota.

Methods

Real-time fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations were measured at multiple locations for up to 7 days. The field monitoring provided information on the day of week and time of day variation of SHS exposure, as well as comparisons between smoking and non-smoking areas.

Results

Indoor PM2.5 level was nearly 13 times the concurrent outdoor PM2.5 level. Gaming floor hourly PM2.5 level was highest on Saturday night, averaged at 62.9 μg/m3. Highest PM2.5 concentration was observed in smoking-permitted employee break room, reaching 600 μg/m3. PM2.5 readings in non-smoking sections exhibited same temporal pattern as the readings in smoking sections.

Conclusions

The results show that indoor concentration of PM2.5 is substantially higher than the outdoor level, posing health risks to casino workers and patrons. SHS can migrate into adjacent non-smoking areas very quickly. The casino’s ventilation system did not fully eliminate SHS. A completely smoke-free casino would be the only way to fully protect non-smoking patrons and employees from the dangers of tobacco smoke.

Keywords

Secondhand smokeFine particulate matterReal-time monitoringIndoor air pollutionTribal casino

Background

Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a mixture of gases and particles that consist of more than 7,000 chemical compounds. Previous U.S. Surgeon General reports confirm that SHS is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, coronary heart disease, respiratory illness, and other diseases [1, 2]. Studies have shown that even short-term exposure to SHS can be harmful. In a controlled laboratory setting, Junker et al. [3] reported that odor sensation can be perceived at low levels of SHS exposure (0.6–1.4 μg/m3), and that people start to feel eye, nasal, and throat irritations at 4.4 μg/m3. In another study, Pope et al. [4] found a decline of 12 % in heart rate variability after 1.75-h exposure to 53 μg/m3 of suspended respirable particles from SHS.

Indoor smoking bans have been introduced by many states and countries to protect workers and the public from SHS exposure. As of July 1, 2016, 41 states in the U.S. have smoke-free laws in non-hospitality workplaces, including restaurants and/or bars [5]. However, many states exempt casino venues from their indoor smoking bans. In addition, American Indian casinos are controlled by tribal sovereign nations and are not subject to prevailing smoking bans.

Workers and patrons in smoking-allowed casinos are often exposed to elevated level of SHS, which can be determined by measuring concentrations of tobacco smoke components such as nicotine and fine particles (<2.5 μm in diameter; PM2.5). A study of 66 U.S. casinos found that short-term (0.5–1 h) average PM2.5 concentrations had a geometric mean of 53.8 μg/m3 (range 18.5–205 μg/m3), more than 10 times the outdoor levels (4.3 μg/m3, range 0.26–29.7 μg/m3) [6]. Siegel and Skeer [7] reported that nicotine concentrations in casino venues were 2.4–18.5 times higher than in offices or residences, and 1.5–11.7 times higher than in restaurants. In a review of recently published studies on SHS exposure and health effects in casinos, Babb et al. [8] concluded that SHS is a significant, preventable health risk for workers and patrons in casinos that allow smoking.

There are currently 18 tribal casinos in Minnesota. One of them, Shooting Star Casino, is owned and operated by the White Earth Nation, which is located in northwestern Minnesota and is one of six member reservations of the Minnesota Chippewa. With an enrolled population of more than 20,000, White Earth is the largest tribe in Minnesota. Since 2003, the Tribal Health Education program has organized a Tobacco Coalition to address tobacco use and SHS exposure among members of the White Earth Nation. In September 2012, the Shooting Star Casino Facilities Manager, who is a member of the Tobacco Coalition, attended the Clean & Healthy Tribal Casinos workshop, held by U.S. EPA in Grand Portage, Minnesota. Following the conference, the coalition and the health department obtained approval from tribal leadership to pursue a study of SHS exposure in the casino and other indoor spaces. The White Earth Health Department approached ClearWay Minnesota, asking for support and technical assistance in assessing SHS exposure at the Shooting Star Casino. ClearWay Minnesota is a nonprofit tobacco control organization that has provided funding to White Earth to support smoke-free events and spaces in the community. As part of this process, the Center for Energy and Environment, a Minnesota nonprofit with a research department that conducts building energy and indoor air quality (IAQ) studies, was invited to perform an IAQ study at the Shooting Star Casino. Field monitoring was conducted at the end of December 2013.

Although a number of studies have measured air quality inside casinos that permit smoking, almost all of these studies have been based on limited access by time and location [6, 7, 9, 10]. Specifically, these studies have been based on: 1) a short measurement period (0.5–1 h); 2) a single visit to venues during peak occupancy periods; 3) monitoring limited to only one or two locations; and 4) no information on the casino ventilation system.

The study reported here is the result of the collaboration between White Earth and ClearWay Minnesota to address shortcomings of previous studies and to assess the contribution of SHS to indoor PM2.5 in multiple locations of a tribal casino resort. The specific research objectives were: 1) to determine the proportion of casino patrons smoking and to contrast this with the Minnesota state-wide smoking prevalence; 2) to contrast indoor air quality with outside air; 3) to contrast indoor air quality in smoking-permitted areas compared to non-smoking areas; and 4) to determine if ventilation and separation of the non-smoking area had any effect on indoor air quality.

Methods

Study site

The shooting star casino has a gaming floor of approximately 72,000 square-feet, including nearly 1,100 slot machines, 12 blackjack tables, and a 365-sear bingo hall. The gaming floor is divided into smoking and non-smoking areas. There is no physical barrier (e.g. door or wall) between the two areas. The size of the designated non-smoking gaming area is about 25 % of the gaming floor. There are four on-site restaurants, including a fine dining restaurant, 2 ONE 8, and casual dining options at the Whispering Winds, Deli Cafe, and Traditions Buffet. 2-one-8 is fully enclosed from gaming area and has a door, while the other three restaurants are semi-enclosed and have open doorway between the restaurants and the gaming area. One of our focus areas is employee break room, which has smoking and non-smoking sections. A wall with an open door separates the two sections. There are five air handlers serving the casino. Traditions Buffet and 2 ONE 8 each has its own air handler. One air handler serves the non-smoking gaming floor. The other two air handlers serve the smoking gaming floor as well as the Whispering Winds and Deli Café.

Study design

Air quality monitoring was designed to provide comprehensive information on the day of week and time of day variation of fine particle (PM2.5) exposure as well as spatial differentiation. We conducted one week long monitoring of PM2.5 levels at multiple locations inside the casino. The monitoring locations included: 1) outdoor air and return air from the gaming floor (7 days), 2) fixed sites on the gaming floor (5 days), 3) restaurants (~30 min), and 4) employee break room (~10 h).

Outdoor air PM2.5 concentration was measured in a fresh air supply duct, while indoor PM2.5 level was measured in a return air duct for the smoking gaming area. In addition, we measured surface level PM2.5 concentrations at fixed sites in smoking and non-smoking gaming areas. Measurements in restaurants were short-term, taken for about 30 min during dinnertime. Three locations were monitored in or near each restaurant. One was located right outside the restaurant, the second was inside but close to the entrance, and the third one was further inside near dining tables. The employee break room is divided into smoking and non-smoking sections that are connected by an open doorway. PM2.5 levels were measured simultaneously in the two sections between 3 PM and 8 AM on one of the monitoring days.

In addition to the PM2.5 monitoring, the number of casino patrons and active smokers were counted between 7 and 9 PM on 3 days. An investigator walked through the entire smoking-permitted gaming area and counted the number of active smokers and total patrons. Multiple sets of counts were conducted and each count took about 20 min. The active smoking prevalence (total number of active smokers/total number of casino patrons × 100 %) is reported.

Study instrument

SidePak™ AM510 Aerosol Monitors (TSI, Inc, St. Paul, MN) were used for continuous, real-time monitoring of PM2.5. The unit has a laser photometer that uses a 90° light scattering system with a 670-nm laser diode to indicate the particle total mass concentration. The manufacturer-specified minimum resolution is 1 μg/m3 with a particle measurement range from 0.1 to 10 μm. The zero stability is ±1 μg/m3 over 24 h, and it has a temperature coefficient of +0.5 μg/m3 per °C. For the monitoring conducted for this study the logging interval was set to 1 min and the unit was fitted with a 2.5 μm 50 % cut point impactor with the flow rate adjusted to 1.7 l per minute. PM concentrations measured by laser photometry method are subject to error due to the use of specific aerosols for factory calibration, whose characteristics (e.g., shape, size, density and refractive index) may differ from those in our study. The manufacturer recommends that users determine the calibration factor for the specific monitoring application. A calibration factor of 0.31 was used based on previous studies that reported factors from 0.295 to 0.328 for SHS [1113]. In order to make direct comparison we applied the calibration factor (0.31) to both indoor and outdoor measurements. In general, outdoor PM2.5 levels are very low and their absolute values are therefore less affected by the calibration factor.

Data analysis

PM2.5 data were averaged at 1-min interval. Mean PM2.5 concentrations are reported to compare SHS exposure at different locations and different time in the casino. T-test was used to test the difference between the means at a statistical significance level of 0.05. All analyses were conducted using the open-source statistical analysis package R version 3.0.

Results

Observation data on active smokers

Consistent with gaming establishments, the number of patrons was greater on the weekends (see Table 1). There were 57 % more patrons on the Friday evening (330 people) than the previous day (210 people), and 104 % more than the following Thursday (162 people). On average, active smokers accounted for 13–5 % of casino patrons in the smoking-permitted gaming area.
Table 1

Observation data on the number of casino patrons and active smokers in the smoking-permitted gaming area during peak hours

Date

Timea

# Patrons

# Active smokers

% Active smokers

Thu Dec. 12

7:40–8:40 pm

210

28

13.3 %

Fri Dec. 13

7:40–8:40 pm

330

43

13.0 %

Thu Dec. 19

7:30–8:10 pm

162

25

15.4 %

aCounts recorded every 20 min, average numbers were reported

Outdoor vs. indoor air quality

In the casino the mean level of indoor PM2.5 during the weeklong monitoring period was 20.1 μg/m3, nearly 13 times of the average outdoor PM2.5 level (1.6 μg/m3). This outdoor level is consistent with low concentrations for the rural northern Minnesota location of the resort. Figure 1 presents a clear diurnal pattern of indoor PM2.5 concentration, with the indoor level rising in the early morning, reaching a peak between 8 and 9 PM, and then gradually declining after midnight to a level close to the outdoor level. This pattern was similar to the daily business cycle for the casino where late night is the busiest time. Differences in PM2.5 level are also found between weekend and weekday, which matches our observation of the total number of casino patrons and active smokers. 24-h average indoor PM2.5 levels ranged from 13.4 μg/m3 (Thursday) to 28.4 μg/m3 (Saturday). Peak PM2.5 concentration (1-h maximum) during the weeklong monitoring ranged from 26.7 μg/m3 (Thursday night) to 62.9 μg/m3 (Saturday night). All these results suggest that smoking is the major pollution source inside the casino.
Fig. 1

Time series of hourly PM2.5 concentrations measured in fresh air supply duct (outdoor air) and return air duct (indoor air) for the smoking gaming area

Smoking vs non-smoking areas

Air quality monitoring was conducted simultaneously in the adjacent smoking and non-smoking sections of the gaming floor and the employee break room. Figure 2a shows that PM2.5 concentrations measured in smoking and non-smoking sections of the gaming floor had similar temporal patterns. The correlation coefficient is 0.58 (0.74 after log-transformation) for the PM2.5 levels in the smoking and non-smoking areas. In comparison, the correlation between the levels in the non-smoking gaming area and the outdoor air was only 0.17. The average PM2.5 level in the smoking gaming area over the 5-day monitoring was 24.7 μg/m3, while the average level in the non-smoking gaming area was 3.4 μg/m3, which is higher than the outdoor level (1.6 μg/m3). The difference between smoking and non-smoking area PM2.5 levels is statistically significant (P < 0.001).
Fig. 2

Concurrent PM2.5 concentrations measured in smoking-permitted and non-smoking areas in the casino: a hourly average PM2.5 concentrations on gaming floor; and b minute average PM2.5 concentrations in employee break room

Figure 2b displays the time series of PM2.5 levels inside the employee break room. The 1-min readings for the smoking section exhibit many short-interval “spikes”, and the non-smoking section reading closely resembles the pattern at a lower level. A high correlation (correlation coefficient: 0.78) was observed between the two measurement locations. The PM2.5 level in the smoking section reached a peak of 670 μg/m3 and averaged 164 μg/m3, statistically significantly (p < 0.001) higher than the level in the non-smoking section (23 μg/m3) and nearly 5 times the EPA 24-h standard. This strongly indicates SHS rapidly penetrates from the smoking area into the adjacent non-smoking area.

The effect of ventilation and physical isolation on eliminating SHS in non-smoking areas

An argument is often made that using higher ventilation rates can remove particles from smoking. We measured PM2.5 levels outside, at the entrance, and inside the 4 non-smoking on-site restaurants to examine how well the casino’s ventilation system and the physical isolation of the restaurant areas from smoking-permitted areas protects people in non-smoking areas. Figure 3 compares average PM2.5 levels in or near the restaurants, and concurrent PM2.5 levels in outside air and return air from the gaming area. For all 4 restaurants, indoor PM2.5 levels were higher than the concurrent outdoor levels, indicating that ventilation and isolation was not able to eliminate SHS exposure.
Fig. 3

Average PM2.5 levels in restaurants, gaming area and outside air around dinnertime

The difference in the gaming area PM2.5 level is due to different measurement times. In general, lower PM2.5 levels were observed in 2 One 8 and Traditions Buffet compared to the Deli Café and Whispering Winds. Inside-by-table PM2.5 levels in 2 One 8 and Traditions Buffet were 2.3 and 1.7 μg/m3, about 1/10 of the concurrent PM2.5 levels in the smoking gaming area. In contrast, the inside-by-table PM2.5 levels in the Deli Cafe and Whispering winds were 8.1 and 12.6 μg/m3, nearly 1/2 of the concurrent gaming area levels. The results suggest that the ventilation systems and the degree of separation for 2 One 8 and Traditions Buffet are more effective in removing SHS than with the other two restaurants. Indeed, 2 One 8 and Traditions Buffet each has its own air handler, while Deli Café and Whispering Winds share air handlers with the gaming area, therefore receiving SHS recycled from ventilation system.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of secondhand smoke exposure in a Minnesota tribal casino, and it may motivate other casinos to take actions to protect the health of workers and patrons.

The observed percent of active smokers in the casino is similar to the active smoker prevalence reported in 36 California Indian casinos of 11 % (range, 5–25 %) [9], and the prevalence reported in 7 Reno casinos of 9.3 % (range, 7–12 %) [6]. Klepeis et al. [10] found a somewhat lower active smoker proportion of 7 % (range, 5–10 %) in 11 southern California casinos. The observed percent of active smokers is also similar to the smoking prevalence of Minnesota adults (14.4 %, Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey) [14]. However, previous studies found that the number of smokers is about three times the number of active smokers in gaming establishments [15, 16]. This suggests the percent of smokers inside the casino might be higher than the state prevalence of smoking.

A number of studies have reported higher PM2.5 concentrations inside casinos than our study. Jiang et al. [9] found that the mean PM2.5 concentration over 0.5–1 h in smoking sections was 63 μg/m3 (range 18–183 μg/m3) in 36 California Indian casinos. Repace et al. [6] reported a mean of 45.2 μg/m3 (95 % CI 37.7–52.7 μg/m3) in 21 Reno and Las Vegas smoking casinos. The main difference is that previous studies only measured PM2.5 level for a short period (30 mins to a few hour) during casino peak times. The Peak PM2.5 concentrations in our study are comparable to the findings of those studies. It is also worth noting that our study was conducted during a non-holiday week, thus it is expected that the number of casino patrons and smokers would be higher during busier times (e.g. Christmas, New Year), likely resulting in higher SHS exposure inside the casino. Although daily average PM2.5 levels during the monitoring week in the gaming area were lower than 35 μg/m3, the U.S. EPA 24-h ambient PM2.5 standard, 24 out of 167 h had hourly average PM2.5 concentration above the standard.

The study found that fine particle concentrations varied substantially across different locations inside the casino, highest in the employee break room and lowest inside the non-smoking restaurant 2 One 8. The SHS exposure in two of the non-smoking restaurants was reduced by 90 % due to the use of separate air handlers. In contrast, the non-smoking restaurants that share an air handler with the smoking gaming area led to SHS being drawn into non-smoking areas through the ventilation system.

In March 2014, we presented the study results to the tribal council of White Earth Nation. We illustrated that a completely smoke-free casino would be the only way to fully protect non-smoking patrons and employees from the dangers of tobacco smoke. After reviewing the results, the council decided to make the employee break room smoke-free and created a separate outdoor space for employees to smoke.

The most common concern raised by the gaming industry is that smoking bans will lead to less gaming and therefore lower revenue. Previous studies that have examined the economic impact of smoke-free policies on casinos have found mixed results [8]. Recently, Klepeis et al. [17] reported a case where a California tribal casino switched from 100 % smoke-free to 70 % smoke-free due to reduced revenue. However, the study suggests that the revenue loss may be due to other factors besides smoke-free policies. Further research is needed to address financial concern on the adoption of smoke-free policy in casinos.

Conclusions

Our collaboration with Shooting Star casino enabled us to explore temporal and spatial variability of SHS exposure inside a casino and dining facilities. The results suggest that indoor concentration of PM2.5 is substantially higher than the outdoor level, posing health risks to casino workers and patrons. The results also demonstrate that SHS can migrate into adjacent non-smoking areas very quickly, especially when there is no physical barrier. The casino’s ventilation system did not fully eliminate SHS.

Abbreviations

SHS: 

Secondhand smoke

PM2.5

Fine particulate matter

IAQ: 

Indoor air quality

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from ClearWay Minnesota (RC 2014–0011). We would like to thank the Shooting Star Casino staff for their help and hospitality, especially Julie Doerfler for coordination and logistical arrangement, Dan Gunther for valuable assistance in data collection, and Mike Smith for supporting the study from the beginning. In addition, Gina Bourdreau and the White Earth Tobacco Coalition were instrumental in organizing the project. We are also indebted to CoCo Villaluz, Jaime Martinez and Joanne D’Silva of ClearWay Minnesota staff who made this study happen and contributed greatly to this study.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included as a Additional file 1.

Authors’ contributions

ZZ and DB designed the study. ZZ collected data, conducted data analyses, and drafted the manuscript. DB and RGB helped draft and edited the manuscript. All the authors contributed to interpretation of results. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

Dr. Boyle is the director of research for ClearWay Minnesota, which is the funding agency for this work. Dr. Zhou and Mr. Bohac declare no competing interest.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University
(2)
Center for Energy and Environment
(3)
Clearway Minnesota SM

References

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US Surgeon General: 2006.Google Scholar
  2. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: US Surgeon General; 2014.Google Scholar
  3. Junker MH, Danuser B, Monn C, Koller T. Acute sensory responses of nonsmokers at very low environmental tobacco smoke concentrations in controlled laboratory settings. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109:1045–52.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Pope CA, Eatough DJ, Gold DR, Pang YB, Nielsen KR, Nath P, et al. Acute exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and heart rate variability. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109:711–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Overview List – How Many Smokefree Laws. http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/mediaordlist.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2016.
  6. Repace JL, Jiang RT, Acevedo-Bolton V, Cheng KC, Klepeis NE, Ott WR, et al. Fine particle air pollution and secondhand smoke exposures and risks inside 66 U.S. casinos. Environ Res. 2011;111:473–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Siegel M, Skeer M. Exposure to secondhand smoke and excess lung cancer morality risk among workers in the “5B’s”, bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting establishments and bingo pariours. Tob Control. 2003;12(3):333–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Babb S, McNeil C, Kruger J, Tynan MA. Secondhand smoke and smoking restrictions in casinos: a review of the evidence. Tob Control. 2015;24:11–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jiang RT, Cheng KC, Acevedo-Bolton V, Klepeis NE, Repace JL, Ott WR, et al. Measurement of fine particles and smoking activity in a statewide survey of 36 California Indian casinos. J Exp Sci Env Epidemiol. 2011;21:31–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Klepeis NE, Omoto J, Ong SL, Omoto HS, Dhaliwal N. Small proportions of actively-smoking patrons and high PM2.5 levels in southern California tribal casinos: Support for smoking bans or designated smoking areas. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:819.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Jenkins RA, Ilgner RH, Tomkins BA, Peters DW. Development and application of protocols for the determination of response of real-time particle monitors to common indoor aerosols. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2004;54:229–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer P. Real-time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2007;57:522–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang RT, Acevedo-Bolton V, Cheng KC, Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Hildemann LM. Determination of response of real-time SidePak AM510 monitor to secondhand smoke, other common indoor aerosols, and outdoor aerosol. J Environ Monit. 2011;13:1695–702.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyle RG, Amato MS, Rode P, Kinney AM, St Claire AW, Taylor K. Tobacco Use among Minnesota Adults, 2014. Am J Health Behav. 2015;39(5):674–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke, and public health. Science. 1980;208:464–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pristos CA, Pristos KL, Spears KE. Smoking rates among gamblers at Nevada casinos mirror U.S. smoking rate. Tob Control. 2008;17:82–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Klepeis NE, Dhaliwal N, Hayward G, Acevedo-Bolton V, Ott WR, Read N, et al. Measuring Indoor Air Quality and Engaging California Indian Stakeholders at the Win-River Resort and Casino: Collaborative Smoke-Free Policy Development. Intl J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:143.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement