Article

Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality.

Consulting for Health, Air, Nature, & A Greener Environment, LLC (CHANGE), Corporate Headquarters , Queensbury, NY , USA.
Inhalation Toxicology (Impact Factor: 1.89). 10/2012; 24(12):850-7. DOI: 10.3109/08958378.2012.724728
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Context: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have earned considerable attention recently as an alternative to smoking tobacco, but uncertainties about their impact on health and indoor air quality have resulted in proposals for bans on indoor e-cigarette use. Objective: To assess potential health impacts relating to the use of e-cigarettes, a series of studies were conducted using e-cigarettes and standard tobacco cigarettes. Methods and materials: Four different high nicotine e-liquids were vaporized in two sets of experiments by generic 2-piece e-cigarettes to collect emissions and assess indoor air concentrations of common tobacco smoke by products. Tobacco cigarette smoke tests were conducted for comparison. Results: Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m(3) room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed "No Significant Risk" of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of "Significant Risk" of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure. Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.

4 Bookmarks
 · 
1,135 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimsTo 1) estimate predictors of first vs. second generation electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) choice; 2) determine whether a second generation device was i) superior for reducing urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms (WS) and ii) associated with enhanced positive subjective effects.DesignMixed effects experimental design. Phase 1: reason for e-cigarette choice was assessed via questionnaire. Phase 2: participants were randomly allocated to first or second generation e-cigarette condition. Urge to smoke and WS were measured before, and 10mins after, taking 10 e-cigarette puffs.SettingUniversity of East London, UK.Participants97 smokers (mean age 26; SD 8.7; 54% female)MeasurementsSingle item urge to smoke scale to assess craving; Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS) to assess WS. Subjective effects included: satisfaction, hit, ‘felt like smoking’ and ‘would use to stop smoking’ (Yes vs. No response).FindingsEqual numbers chose each device but none of the predictor variables (gender, age, tobacco dependence, previous e-cigarette use) accounted for choice. Only baseline urge to smoke/WS predicted urge to smoke/WS 10 minutes after use (B = 0.38; P < 0.001 and B = 0.53; P < 0.001). E-cigarette device was not a significant predictor. Those using the second generation device were more likely to report satisfaction and use in a quit attempt (χ2 = 12.10, P = 0.001 and χ2 = 5.53, P = 0.02).Conclusions First and second generation electronic cigarettes appear to be similarly effective in reducing urges to smoke during abstinence but second generation devices appear to be more satisfying to users. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Addiction 11/2014; · 4.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The research field on e-cigarettes is characterized by severe methodological problems, severe conflicts of interest, relatively few and often small studies, inconsistencies and contradictions in results, and a lack of long-term follow-up. Therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the harm of e-cigarettes, but they can hardly be called safe. Experimental studies indicate negative health effects and, amongst others, the major ingredient propylene glycol warrants concern. Growing evidence raises doubt about the efficacy of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. Unfortunately, it seems that many smokers use e-cigarettes with the intention to quit but switch to long-term use of e-cigarettes or dual use. Use is spreading rapidly to minors, ex-smokers, and never-smokers. It is questionable whether the potential health benefits obtained by some smokers outweigh the potential harm by use of non-smokers, of undermining of complete cessation, smokers' dual use, and of eventual re-normalization of smoking. Even if e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than conventional cigarettes, the product may have a very negative impact on public health if its use is spread to a large part of the population.
    BMC Medicine 01/2014; 12(1):226. · 7.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been rapid growth in the use of electronic cigarettes ("vaping") in Europe, North America and elsewhere. With such increased prevalence, there is currently a debate on whether the aerosol exhaled following the use of e-cigarettes has implications for the quality of air breathed by bystanders. Conducting chemical analysis of the indoor environment can be costly and resource intensive, limiting the number of studies which can be conducted. However, this can be modelled reasonably accurately based on empirical emissions data and using some basic assumptions. Here, we present a simplified model, based on physical principles, which considers aerosol propagation, dilution and extraction to determine the potential contribution of a single puff from an e-cigarette to indoor air. From this, it was then possible to simulate the cumulative effect of vaping over time. The model was applied to a virtual, but plausible, scenario considering an e-cigarette user and a non-user working in the same office space. The model was also used to reproduce published experimental studies and showed good agreement with the published values of indoor air nicotine concentration. With some additional refinements, such an approach may be a cost-effective and rapid way of assessing the potential exposure of bystanders to exhaled e-cigarette aerosol constituents.
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 01/2014; 12(1):282-99. · 1.99 Impact Factor