Measuring Indoor Air Quality and Engaging California Indian Stakeholders at the Win-River Resort and Casino: Collaborative Smoke-Free Policy Development.

Most casinos owned by sovereign American Indian nations allow smoking, even in U.S. states such as California where state laws restrict workplace smoking. Collaborations between casinos and public health workers are needed to promote smoke-free policies that protect workers and patrons from secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposure and risks. Over seven years, a coalition of public health professionals provided technical assistance to the Redding Rancheria tribe in Redding, California in establishing a smoke-free policy at the Win-River Resort and Casino. The coalition provided information to the casino general manager that included site-specific measurement of employee and visitor PM2.5 personal exposure, area concentrations of airborne nicotine and PM2.5, visitor urinary cotinine, and patron and staff opinions (surveys, focus groups, and a Town Hall meeting). The manager communicated results to tribal membership, including evidence of high SHS exposures and support for a smoke-free policy. Subsequently, in concert with hotel expansion, the Redding Rancheria Tribal Council voted to accept a 100% restriction of smoking inside the casino, whereupon PM2.5 exposure in main smoking areas dropped by 98%. A 70% partial-smoke-free policy was instituted ~1 year later in the face of revenue loss. The success of the collaboration in promoting a smoke-free policy, and the key element of air quality feedback, which appeared to be a central driver, may provide a model for similar efforts.

Small proportions of actively-smoking patrons and high PM2.5 levels in southern California tribal casinos: support for smoking bans or designated smoking areas.

BACKGROUND: Nearly all California casinos currently allow smoking, which leads to potentially high patron exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke pollutants. Some argue that smoking restrictions or bans would result in a business drop, assuming > 50% of patrons smoke. Evidence in Nevada and responses from the 2008 California tobacco survey refute this assertion. The present study investigates the proportion of active smokers in southern California tribal casinos, as well as occupancy and PM(2.5) levels in smoking and nonsmoking sections. METHODS: We measured active-smoker and total-patron counts during Friday or Saturday night visits (two per casino) to smoking and nonsmoking gaming areas inside 11 southern California casinos. We counted slot machines and table games in each section, deriving theoretical maximum capacities and occupancy rates. We also measured PM(2.5) concentrations (or used published levels) in both nonsmoking and smoking areas. RESULTS: Excluding one casino visit with extremely high occupancy, we counted 24,970 patrons during 21 casino visits of whom 1,737 were actively smoking, for an overall active- smoker proportion of 7.0% and a small range of ~5% across casino visits (minimum of 5% and maximum of 10%). The differences in mean inter-casino active-smoker proportions were not statistically significant. Derived occupancy rates were 24% to 215% in the main (low-stakes) smoking-allowed slot or table areas. No relationship was found between observed active-smoker proportions and occupancy rate. The derived maximum capacities of nonsmoking areas were 1% to 29% of the overall casino capacity (most under 10%) and their observed occupancies were 0.1 to over 3 times that of the main smoking-allowed casino areas. Seven of twelve visits to nonsmoking areas with no separation had occupancy rates greater than main smoking areas. Unenclosed nonsmoking areas don't substantially protect occupants from PM2.5 exposure. Nonsmoking areas encapsulated inside smoking areas or in a separate, but unenclosed, area had PM(2.5) levels that were 10 to 60 µg/m(3) and 6 to 23 µg/m(3) higher than outdoor levels, respectively, indicating contamination from smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Although fewer than roughly 10% of casino patrons are actively smoking on average, these individuals substantially increase PM(2.5) exposure for all patrons in smoking and unenclosed nonsmoking areas. Nonsmoking areas may be too inconvenient, small, or undesirable to serve a substantial number of nonsmoking patrons. Imposing indoor smoking bans, or contained smoking areas with a maximum capacity of up to 10% of the total patronage, would offer protection from PM2.5 exposures for nonsmoking patrons and reduce employee exposures.