Chemical emissions from e-cigarettes: Direct and indirect (passive) exposures

Offermann, F.J.

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.012

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 On the other hand, pollutants from secondhand e-cigarette exposure may still carry risk for non-users, albeit at rates lower than from cigarettes. [12][13][14][15][16][17] Use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free places might also make enforcement of smoke-free policies more difficult and adversely affect the social norms against smoking. 7-9 11 18 Despite ongoing debate and monitoring of public attitudes, [7][8][9] there are little empirical data about how many e-cigarette users have actually vaped in smoke-free environments and who they are.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of electronic cigarettes in smoke-free environments

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although most U.S. states prohibit cigarette smoking in public places and worksites, fewer jurisdictions regulate indoor use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Given the dramatic increase in e-cigarette use and concern about its impact on non-users, there is a need to examine the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments and related attitudes and perceptions. Methods Recruited from a nationally representative adult panel (GfK’s KnowledgePanel), 952 current users of e-cigarettes completed a cross-sectional online survey in 2014. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to examine the factors associated with ever using e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments. Results Overall, 59.5% of e-cigarette users had vaped where cigarette smoking was not allowed. Young adults (18–29 years) were most likely to do so, 74.2%. The places of first-time use most often mentioned were service venues (bar, restaurant, lounge, and club), 30.7%, followed by worksites, 23.5%. Daily e-cigarette users were more likely to have vaped in smoke-free environments than non-daily users (OR=2.08, p=.012). Only 2.5% of those who used e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments reported negative reactions from other people. Most e-cigarette users did not think e-cigarettes are harmful to themselves or to by-standers, and thus should not be banned where smoking is; those who had used e-cigarettes where smoking is banned were even more likely to hold these views. Conclusions E-cigarette use in smoke-free environments was common, suggesting that most e-cigarette users do not consider smoke-free laws to apply to e-cigarettes. Explicit laws should be considered if jurisdictions want to prohibit e-cigarette use in public places.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of electronic cigarettes in smoke-free environments

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This erroneous belief may be due to the fact that e-cigarettes have been marketed with the emphasis that they do not release harmful smoke like conventional cigarettes do (2,31,32). However, studies done so far have showed that the use of e-cigarettes exposes the users and non-users to nicotine, glycols, carbonyls, formaldehyde, nitrosamines, heavy metals and flavorings from the aerosols produced by the e-cigarettes (33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electronic cigarettes and indoor air quality: a review of studies using human volunteers

Abidin

Zulkifli

et al. 2017

Reviews on Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…2 One study also found carcinogenic nitrosamines (usually found in tobacco) in e-cigarettes during the vaporization process. 3 Besides the risk from carcinogens, e-cigarette users may alter their normal pulmonary homeostasis as a result of an immediate decrease in the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide concentration and an increase in lung flow resistance. 3 Propylene glycol and glycerol, which are the main liquid components for the vaporization of the e-liquid, are converted to formaldehyde and acrolein through a process of heating and vaporization.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Besides the risk from carcinogens, e-cigarette users may alter their normal pulmonary homeostasis as a result of an immediate decrease in the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide concentration and an increase in lung flow resistance. 3 Propylene glycol and glycerol, which are the main liquid components for the vaporization of the e-liquid, are converted to formaldehyde and acrolein through a process of heating and vaporization. Vaping e-cigarettes for only five minutes among healthy smokers can cause resistance in peripheral airway flow and oxidative stress.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have also reported a negative impact of e-cigarette vaping on indoor air quality and health. 3 Nicotine and propylene glycol in e-cigarettes can damage the health of passive smokers as it exceeds the limit of chronic Reference Exposure Level (CREL) hazard quotients (the ratio of the potential exposure to a substance to the level at which no adverse effects are expected 3 -used as an indicator for noncancer health effects). The concentration of airborne nicotine in a conventional smoker's home was found to be statistically higher than in an e-cigarette smoker's home.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation