ArticleChemistry Central journal2014
Assessment of nicotine for second hand smoke exposure in some public places in Romania by UPLC-MS.
Article in Chemistry Central journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAir nicotine monitoring is a well-known procedure for estimation of exposure to second hand smoke. Few research studies were realized in Romania to evaluate environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure of humans in different public places. The levels of airborne nicotine from environmental tobacco smoke and urinary cotinine and nicotine levels of some subjects were analyzed. In order to better implement/enforce the European legislation regarding the interdiction of smoking in the public places the national authorities need a rapid and reliable analytical method to quickly asses the state of the pollution with cigarette smoke of these populated areas.
resultsThe nicotine concentration in the air from different types of public buildings was determined. The median concentration of nicotine in the air from 32 pubs where the smoking was allowed was 590 ng · L(-1), comparing with the pubs where the smoking was not permitted (22 locations) where the median concentration of nicotine was only 32 ng · L(-1). Similarly, the median concentration of nicotine in restaurants where the smoking was allowed (23 locations) was 510 ng · L(-1), in comparison with the restaurants where the smoking was prohibited (11 places) where the median value was 19 ng · L(-1). The lowest concentrations of nicotine were found in high schools (8 locations, median concentration 7.4 ng · L(-1)), universities (5 locations, 23 ng · L(-1)) and hospitals (6 locations, 16 ng · L(-1)).
conclusionsThe method was validated and gave good linearity, precision, accuracy and limit of detection. The buildings included hospitals, high schools, universities, pubs and restaurants. The presence of air nicotine was recorded in all buildings studied. The highest median levels of air nicotine were found in pubs and restaurants. The presence of air nicotine in indoor public buildings indicates weak implementation of the smoke free law in Romania.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.