Fine particulate matter measurements in Swiss restaurants, cafés and bars: what is the effect of spatial separation between smoking and non-smoking areas?

We performed 124 measurements of particulate matter (PM(2.5)) in 95 hospitality venues such as restaurants, bars, cafés, and a disco, which had differing smoking regulations. We evaluated the impact of spatial separation between smoking and non-smoking areas on mean PM(2.5) concentration, taking relevant characteristics of the venue, such as the type of ventilation or the presence of additional PM(2.5) sources, into account. We differentiated five smoking environments: (i) completely smoke-free location, (ii) non-smoking room spatially separated from a smoking room, (iii) non-smoking area with a smoking area located in the same room, (iv) smoking area with a non-smoking area located in the same room, and (v) smoking location which could be either a room where smoking was allowed that was spatially separated from non-smoking room or a hospitality venue without smoking restriction. In these five groups, the geometric mean PM(2.5) levels were (i) 20.4, (ii) 43.9, (iii) 71.9, (iv) 110.4, and (v) 110.3 microg/m(3), respectively. This study showed that even if non-smoking and smoking areas were spatially separated into two rooms, geometric mean PM(2.5) levels in non-smoking rooms were considerably higher than in completely smoke-free hospitality venues. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PM(2.5) levels are considerably increased in the non-smoking area if smoking is allowed anywhere in the same location. Even locating the smoking area in another room resulted in a more than doubling of the PM(2.5) levels in the non-smoking room compared with venues where smoking was not allowed at all. In practice, spatial separation of rooms where smoking is allowed does not prevent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in nearby non-smoking areas.

Spatial and temporal patterns of greenness on the Yamal Peninsula, Russia: interactions of ecological and social factors affecting the Arctic normalized difference vegetation index

The causes of a greening trend detected in the Arctic using the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) are still poorly understood. Changes in NDVI are a result of multiple ecological and social factors that affect tundra net primary productivity. Here we use a 25 year time series of AVHRR-derived NDVI data (AVHRR: advanced very high resolution radiometer), climate analysis, a global geographic information database and ground-based studies to examine the spatial and temporal patterns of vegetation greenness on the Yamal Peninsula, Russia. We assess the effects of climate change, gas-field development, reindeer grazing and permafrost degradation. In contrast to the case for Arctic North America, there has not been a significant trend in summer temperature or NDVI, and much of the pattern of NDVI in this region is due to disturbances. There has been a 37% change in early-summer coastal sea-ice concentration, a 4% increase in summer land temperatures and a 7% change in the average time-integrated NDVI over the length of the satellite observations. Gas-field infrastructure is not currently extensive enough to affect regional NDVI patterns. The effect of reindeer is difficult to quantitatively assess because of the lack of control areas where reindeer are excluded. Many of the greenest landscapes on the Yamal are associated with landslides and drainage networks that have resulted from ongoing rapid permafrost degradation. A warming climate and enhanced winter snow are likely to exacerbate positive feedbacks between climate and permafrost thawing. We present a diagram that summarizes the social and ecological factors that influence Arctic NDVI. The NDVI should be viewed as a powerful monitoring tool that integrates the cumulative effect of a multitude of factors affecting Arctic land-cover change.

Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice

In this article, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) Task Force on Publication and Research Practices offers a brief statistical primer and recommendations for improving the dependability of research. Recommendations for research practice include (a) describing and addressing the choice of N (sample size) and consequent issues of statistical power, (b) reporting effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), (c) avoiding “questionable research practices” that can inflate the probability of Type I error, (d) making available research materials necessary to replicate reported results, (e) adhering to SPSP’s data sharing policy, (f) encouraging publication of high-quality replication studies, and (g) maintaining flexibility and openness to alternative standards and methods. Recommendations for educational practice include (a) encouraging a culture of “getting it right,” (b) teaching and encouraging transparency of data reporting, (c) improving methodological instruction, and (d) modeling sound science and supporting junior researchers who seek to “get it right.”