Air monitoring at large public electronic cigarette events

Johnson, Jona; Naeher, Luke P.; Yu, Xiaozhong; Rathbun, Stephen L.; Muilenburg, Jessica L.; Wang, Jiasheng

doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.02.003

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study was conducted at four e-cigarette events in the Southeastern United States between April 2016 and March 2017 described previously (Johnson et al, 2018b). Event 1 was held in a large convention center in Daytona Beach, Florida in April 2016.…”

Section: Study Locationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A biomonitoring assessment of secondhand exposures to electronic cigarette emissions

Johnson

Naeher

et al. 2019

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) conventions regularly bring together thousands of users around the world. In these environments, secondhand exposures to high concentrations of ecigarette emissions are prevalent. Some biomarkers for tobacco smoke exposure may be used to characterize secondhand e-cigarette exposures in such an environment. Methods: Participants who did not use any tobacco product attended four separate e-cigarette events for approximately six hours. Urine and saliva samples were collected from participants prior to the event, immediately after the event, 4-h after the event, and the next morning (first void). Urine samples from 34 participants were analyzed for cotinine, trans-3′-hydroxycotinine, S-(3-hydroxypropyl)-N-acetylcysteine (3-HPMA), S-carboxyethyl-N-acetylcysteine (CEMA), select tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), and 8-isoprostane. Saliva samples were analyzed for cotinine and trans-3′-hydroxycotinine. Results: Data from 28 of 34 participants were used in the data analysis. Creatinine-adjusted urinary cotinine concentrations increased up to 13-fold and peaked 4-h after completed exposure (range of adjusted geometric means [AGMs] = 0.352-2.31 μg/g creatinine). Salivary cotinine concentrations were also the highest 4-h after completed exposure (range of AGMs = 0.0373-0.167 ng/mL). Salivary cotinine and creatinine-corrected concentrations of urinary cotinine, *

show abstract

Section: Study Locationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A biomonitoring assessment of secondhand exposures to electronic cigarette emissions

Johnson

Naeher

et al. 2019

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the extent to which these chemicals are delivered to the fetus and the newborn remains unknown, in utero exposures are a valid concern, with a murine model identifying alterations in the hippocampus of offspring exposed to nicotine-free flavored e-cigarettes during gestation [14]. Additionally, flavoring chemicals that are not effectively retained in the user’s lungs would be exhaled by e-cigarette users, leading to concerns for secondhand exposure of newborn and infants in proximity of caregivers who vape [35,36,37].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vitro Consequences of Electronic-Cigarette Flavoring Exposure on the Immature Lung

Berkelhamer

Helman

Gugino

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The developing lung is uniquely susceptible and may be at increased risk of injury with exposure to e-cigarette constituents. We hypothesize that cellular toxicity and airway and vascular responses with exposure to flavored refill solutions may be altered in the immature lung. Methods: Fetal, neonatal, and adult ovine pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (PASMC) were exposed to popular flavored nicotine-free e-cigarette refill solutions (menthol, strawberry, tobacco, and vanilla) and unflavored solvents: propylene glycol (PG) or vegetable glycerin (VG). Viability was assessed by lactate dehydrogenase assay. Brochodilation and vasoreactivity were determined on isolated ovine bronchial rings (BR) and pulmonary arteries (PA). Results: Neither PG or VG impacted viability of immature or adult cells; however, exposure to menthol and strawberry flavored solutions increased cell death. Neonatal cells were uniquely susceptible to menthol flavoring-induced toxicity, and all four flavorings demonstrated lower lethal doses (LD50) in immature PASMC. Exposure to flavored solutions induced bronchodilation of neonatal BR, while only menthol induced airway relaxation in adults. In contrast, PG/VG and flavored solutions did not impact vasoreactivity with the exception of menthol-induced relaxation of adult PAs. Conclusion: The immature lung is uniquely susceptible to cellular toxicity and altered airway responses with exposure to common flavored e-cigarette solutions.

show abstract

“…18,19, and that bystanders are subject to secondhand and thirdhand exposures. [50][51][52][53] Although communication campaigns promoting tobaccofree policies must consider a variety of factors, findings from this study suggest that e-cigarette emissions should be clearly described as "aerosol" or "chemicals" and not as "vapor." The selection of these words is important because they can directly influence perceptions of harm and possibly indirectly affect support for tobacco control policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Research demonstrates that e-cigarette generated aerosol includes harmful chemicals including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, furans, chloropropanols, and TSNAs. 36,[47][48][49] Furthermore, research has documented that ecigarette use in natural settings (ie, locations where e-cigarette use is common such as in homes, vaping conventions, or vape shops) results in secondhand exposures 35,50 and thirdhand exposures [51][52][53] (ie, chemical residue that collects on surfaces). Thus, there is a need for public policy designed to protect nonusers of e-cigarettes from the products' emissions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy

Rossheim

Zhao

Soule

et al. 2020

Journal of American College Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study is the first to examine the influence of e-cigarette emission phrasing on perceived harm of secondhand exposure, and whether harm perception was associated with support for a tobacco-free campus policy. Participants: In the fall 2018 and spring 2019 semesters, 52 sections of a college English course (N ¼ 791 students) were cluster randomized to one of three conditions ("vapor," "aerosol," or "chemicals") assessing harm of secondhand exposure to e-cigarette emissions. Methods: Regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics, tobacco use, and other potential confounders. Results: Compared to the "vapor" condition, "chemicals" and "aerosol" conditions were associated with increased odds of perceiving secondhand exposure to e-cigarettes to be harmful/very harmful (AOR ¼ 2.0, p < 0.01). Greater perceived harm of secondhand e-cigarette exposure was associated with increased odds of supporting a tobacco-free campus policy (AOR ¼ 2.22, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.

show abstract

Air monitoring at large public electronic cigarette events

Cited by 19 publications

References 21 publications

A biomonitoring assessment of secondhand exposures to electronic cigarette emissions

A biomonitoring assessment of secondhand exposures to electronic cigarette emissions

In Vitro Consequences of Electronic-Cigarette Flavoring Exposure on the Immature Lung

Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About