2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.cnur.2011.10.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

E-Cigarettes: Promise or Peril?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
85
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(85 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
85
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Yet, another well-controlled study of samples from twelve brands of e-cigarettes indicates that although levels of toxicants were 9 to 450 times lower than those of cigarette smoke, they still contained significantly higher levels of many carcinogenic and toxic compounds (e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, nitrosamines, cadmium, nickel, and lead) compared with Nicorette inhaler vapor . Currently, U.S. tobacco marketers are not required to disclose the ingredients in their e-cigarette products, which have been found to deliver inconsistent levels of nicotine and contain some toxins (Riker, Lee, Darville, & Hahn, 2012). However, when the FDA implements regulations related to manufacturing standards for e-cigarettes, it should be possible to discern the level of risk of e-cigarettes relative to combustible cigarettes.…”
Section: Electronic Cigarettesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, another well-controlled study of samples from twelve brands of e-cigarettes indicates that although levels of toxicants were 9 to 450 times lower than those of cigarette smoke, they still contained significantly higher levels of many carcinogenic and toxic compounds (e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, nitrosamines, cadmium, nickel, and lead) compared with Nicorette inhaler vapor . Currently, U.S. tobacco marketers are not required to disclose the ingredients in their e-cigarette products, which have been found to deliver inconsistent levels of nicotine and contain some toxins (Riker, Lee, Darville, & Hahn, 2012). However, when the FDA implements regulations related to manufacturing standards for e-cigarettes, it should be possible to discern the level of risk of e-cigarettes relative to combustible cigarettes.…”
Section: Electronic Cigarettesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, when E-Cigs were brought to market, they appeared to be likely candidate PREPs, since they neither contain tobacco nor is the vapor produced by combustion. E-Cigs were introduced into European markets in 2006 and in the USA in 2007 (126). The first generation of E-Cigs were dubbed "cigalikes" due to their resemblance to conventional cigarettes, and they came in both rechargeable/refillable and disposable formats (126,164).…”
Section: Tissue/cell Type Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…E-Cigs were introduced into European markets in 2006 and in the USA in 2007 (126). The first generation of E-Cigs were dubbed "cigalikes" due to their resemblance to conventional cigarettes, and they came in both rechargeable/refillable and disposable formats (126,164). Subsequently, as their popularity grew, second-and third-generation E-Cigs have been developed which, although they have ceased to resemble cigarettes, have significantly improved their ability to deliver nicotine through the lung and into the bloodstream (164).…”
Section: Tissue/cell Type Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Primary concerns relate to the lack of regulation in manufacturing processes in some parts of the world. [1] There are several hundred brands of e-cigarettes and certain studies have documented e-cigarettes contaminated with diethylene glycol, nitrosamines, acetaldehyde and acetone. [1] Although, it is likely that more 'reputable' brands have stricter manufacturing controls and thus contain only what is written on the package insert, these too may not be safe.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1] There are several hundred brands of e-cigarettes and certain studies have documented e-cigarettes contaminated with diethylene glycol, nitrosamines, acetaldehyde and acetone. [1] Although, it is likely that more 'reputable' brands have stricter manufacturing controls and thus contain only what is written on the package insert, these too may not be safe. There are data showing acutely increased pulmonary resistance after smoking and there is a complete lack of long-term safety data.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%