No abstract

AbstractObjective:This paper primarily aimed to review articles which specifically quantified the risk of electronic cigarette’s (e-cigarette) usage via the health risk assessment (HRA) approach.Methods:Systematic literature searches were conducted using PubMed search engine databases. Search terms such as “electronic cigarette”, “e-cigarette”, “electronic nicotine delivery systems”, “electronic cigarette liquid”, “electronic cigarette vapors”, and “health risk assessment” were used to identify the relevant articles to be included in this review. To enable comparison, hazard quotient (HQ) and lifetime cancer risk (LCR) for the chemicals measured in the selected articles were calculated for three of the articles using the formula: [1] HQ=average daily dose (ADD)/reference dose (RfD) or exposure air concentration (EC)/reference concentration (RfC); [2] LCR=lifetime average daily dose (LADD) × cancer slope factor (CSF) or exposure air concentration (EC) × inhalation unit risk (IUR).Results:Four articles pertaining to HRA of e-cigarettes were critically reviewed, three of the papers focused on specific chemicals namely nicotine, propylene glycol (PG), glycerol and 1,2-propanediol, while one article evaluated the health risks posed by heavy metals contained in e-cigarettes. The calculated HQs for the chemicals in this review had large variations. HQs of the six chemicals, i.e. nicotine, PG, glycerol, cadmium, ethylene glycol, nickel, aluminum and titanium, were found to have the potential to contribute to non-carcinogenic health risks. None of the LCR calculated had risks exceeding the acceptable limit.Conclusion:There are limited HRA studies and the ones that were available provided inconsistent scientific evidences on the health risk characterization arising from the usage of e-cigarettes. As such, there is a need to perform more studies on HRA of e-cigarettes by using uniformed and comprehensive steps and similar reference threshold levels of exposures.

Objective: The primary aim of this study is to examine the effects of a backrest: using a prototype of a lumbar support presented in author's earlier study on the discomfort rating of the body parts of motorcyclist. Methods: One hundred motorcyclists participated in this study, all in good physical condition and with no immediate complaint of musculoskeletal disorders. Each participant was asked to sit for 2 hours on a motorcycle in two different sessions (with and without the lumbar support) in a controlled room environment. At every 15 minutes interval the participants were required to rate their discomfort level on the Borg's CR-10 questionnaire. Results: The rate of discomfort level (in all body parts) decreased over time during the testing period with the prototype. In terms of the discomfort 'break point', participants identified low back and upper back as the most affected body parts prior to comfort changes during the testing period with the use of the prototype. Conclusions: The use of this prototype provides a protective mechanism for the motorcyclist's musculoskeletal system, particularly the spinal column. Therefore, this prototype is capable of providing ideal posture while simultaneously enhancing the comfortability of the motorcyclist during the riding process (by reducing discomfort).

There is very little (or no) information about the riding discomfort of motorcyclists in Malaysia. Therefore, this study was done with the intention of highlighting the relationship of the discomfort on the motorcyclist's body parts during the riding process concerning factors such as body mass index (BMI), riding experience, riding hours, and preferred riding posture. This study (questionnaire survey) was done by using 957 respondents (481 males and 476 females) with an age range from 18 years to 24 years, which was collected from a previous study. The results indicate that the majority of motorcyclists who participated in this study are in the normal BMI category. However, the majority of these motorcyclists suffer discomfort in their body parts during the riding process. It is noticeable that the majority of female motorcyclists started with higher discomfort symptoms concerning the corresponding factors (BMI, riding hours, and riding experience) compared with male motorcyclists. Most male discomfort symptoms were focused on the buttock and upper body parts, whereas the female motorcyclists experienced discomfort in all of their body parts (lower, buttocks, and upper body parts). Furthermore, the results also highlight that the motorcyclists' discomfort was correlated with riding posture. Therefore, this study clearly identified that motorcyclists experience discomfort in their body parts during the riding process. The findings also highlight that the current interaction of humans (motorcyclists) and machine (motorcycle) is not an ideal ergonomic philosophy. However, further detailed study (laboratory and field study) needs to be done to uncover fully the parameters or factors that constrain the ergonomic comfortability in the motorcycle riding process. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

AbstractObjective:This paper is primarily aimed to review articles on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) focusing on indoor air quality (IAQ) assessment that were conducted using human volunteers under natural settings that mimic actual vaping scenarios. Such studies may give a better representation of the actual potential exposure towards e-cigarettes emissions in indoor settings.Methods:A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed search engine database. Search terms such as “electronic cigarette”, “e-cigarette”, “electronic nicotine delivery system”, and “indoor air quality” were used to identify the relevant articles to be included in this review. Articles that involved human volunteers who were asked to vape in natural settings or settings that mimic the actual vaping scenario were chosen to be reviewed. The search yielded a total of 15 published articles. Eleven articles were excluded due to 1) unavailability of its full-text (n=1), 2) did not involve human volunteers (n=5) and 3) did not involve an IAQ study (n=5). Four articles were critically reviewed in this paper.Results:From the four selected articles, two of the papers focused on the determination of nicotine level released by e-cigarettes whereas the other two covered IAQ parameters namely; particulate matters (PM), propylene glycols, formaldehyde, metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Only two of the studies involved determination of biomarkers of exposure. The level of chemical contents released varied between studies. The differences in the brands of e-cigarette used, number of vapers recruited and the sensitivity of the methodologies employed in these studies may be the possible causes for such differences. However, studies using human volunteers conducted in a natural setting are more relevant to portray the actual exposure to vapors among e-cigarettes users and non-users compared to studies using a smoking machine/an exposure chamber. This is because such studies take into account the behavior of consumers and individual retention of nicotine. Such method will therefore avoid the possibility of overestimation in terms of exposures toward e-cigarettes users and non-users.Conclusion:There are limited e-cigarette studies on the impact of IAQ performed using human volunteers in natural settings. The available studies however, provided inconsistent scientific evidence on the actual exposure towards the vapor contents as unstandardized methodology were used in conducting such research. Therefore, there is a need to conduct IAQ studies in natural settings by using a standardized protocol in terms of the number of vapers recruited, the size of the indoor settings, the methods used in detecting and quantifying the contents and levels of emissions and the sensitivity of the equipment used in analyzing the contents. This will help in better utilization of the findings from such studies for the use of risk assessment of the exposures towards e-cigarette emissions. There is also a need to emphasize that it is the onus of the manufacturers in providing and proving scientifically sound safety claims for their products prior to commercializing it in the market.