The anti-tobacco legislation’s impact on air pollution in Romanian foster care homes

Nimród Tubák; Lorand Kocsis; Péter Balázs; Valentin Nădăşan; Iozsef Lorand Ferencz; Ágnes Tamás; Zoltán Ábrám

doi:10.2478/amma-2020-0019

Nimród Tubák Department of Hygiene, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mures, Romania
Lorand Kocsis 2Student, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mures, Romania
Péter Balázs Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
Valentin Nădăşan Department of Hygiene, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mures, Romania
Iozsef Lorand Ferencz Department of Hygiene, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mures, Romania
Ágnes Tamás Department of Hygiene, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mures, Romania
Zoltán Ábrám 1Department of Hygiene, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mures, Romania

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amma-2020-0019

Keywords: air pollution, foster care home, PM2.5, anti-tobacco legislation

Abstract

Objective: The research aimed to investigate the impact of the anti-tobacco legislation (2016) on air quality in Romanian foster care homes.

Methods: The measurements took place in foster care homes from three Romanian counties. We recorded data three times (2014, 2016 – six months after the implementation of the anti-tobacco legislation, 2019). In 41 foster care homes were measured the indoor and outdoor Particular Matter (PM_2.5) level in the air, using the TSI Aerosol Monitor Side Pak AM device. Descriptive statistics and t-test were used for data analysis (significant difference if p < 0.05).

Results: The indoor PM_2.5 values were higher in each year than outdoor values. Analyzing the anti-smoking legislation’s impact on air quality, we found no difference between the indoor measured 2014 and 2016 data, but there was a significant difference in the outdoor values (higher in 2016). Comparing the values measured after the implementation of the legislation (2016 vs. 2019) we found no difference in either of the indoor or outdoor values.

Conclusions: The anti-tobacco legislation has not influenced the indoor air pollution (PM_2.5) level. The increased outdoor PM_2.5values suggest that the residents of the foster care homes are smoking more in front of the house after the introduction of the 2016 anti-tobacco legislation.