The influence of three e-cigarette models on indoor fine and ultrafine particulate matter concentrations under real-world conditions

Volesky, Karena D.; Maki, A.; Scherf, C.; Watson, Louis M; Ryswyk, Keith Van; Fraser, Bruce; Weichenthal, Scott; Cassol, Edana; Villeneuve, Paul J.

doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.069

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first relevant finding of our research is related to the evidence of PM emission during the use of all tested the devices: in all cases, PM concentrations are significantly higher than those measured before the vaping/smoking session. This is partially in line with the results reported previously on some types of e-cigs and IQOS ® [2,[26][27][28]. Volesky et al [27], for example, reported a 160-and 103-fold increase of the mean environmental PM 2.5 concentrations, respectively at 0.5 and 1 m from three different models of e-cig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…This is partially in line with the results reported previously on some types of e-cigs and IQOS ® [2,[26][27][28]. Volesky et al [27], for example, reported a 160-and 103-fold increase of the mean environmental PM 2.5 concentrations, respectively at 0.5 and 1 m from three different models of e-cig. Ruprecht et al [28] measured a consistent increase of environmental PM 10 , PM 2.5 and PM 1 levels during the smoking session of a conventional cigarette or of an IQOS ® .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Electronic Alternatives to Tobacco Cigarettes on Indoor Air Particular Matter Levels

Protano

Manigrasso

Cammalleri

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An aerosol study was carried out in a test room measuring particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 10, 4, 2.5 and 1 µm (PM10, PM4, PM2.5, PM1) before and during the use of electronic alternatives to tobacco cigarettes (EATC) IQOS®, GLO®, JUUL®, with different kinds of sticks/pods, as well as during the smoking of a conventional tobacco cigarette. The aerosol was mainly in the PM1 size range (>95%). All studied EATCs caused lower indoor PM1 concentrations than conventional tobacco cigarettes. Nevertheless, they determined a worsening of indoor-PM1 concentration that ranged from very mild for JUUL®—depending on the pod used—to considerably severe for IQOS® and GLO®. Median values ranged from 11.00 (Iqos3 and Juul2) to 337.5 µg m−3 (Iqos4). The high variability of particle loadings was attributed both to the type of stick/pod used and to the different way of smoking of volunteers who smoked/vaped during the experiments. Moreover, during vaping IQOS® and GLO® indoor PM1 concentrations reach levels by far higher than outdoor concentrations that range from 14 to 21 µg m−3, especially during the exhalation of the smoke. From these results emerge an urgent need of a legislative regulation limiting the use of such devices in public places.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Impact of Electronic Alternatives to Tobacco Cigarettes on Indoor Air Particular Matter Levels

Protano

Manigrasso

Cammalleri

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies indicate that e-cigarette aerosols contain less PM than cigarette smoke [73]. On the contrary, other studies state these aerosols contains high levels of UFP [74], reaching values of more than 2 × 10 5 particles/cm 3 [75]. Such discrepancies can be due to differences in the parameters used during the study (e.g., type of e-cigarette, brand, flavor, and voltage).…”

Section: Ultra Fine Particles (Ufp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhalation Toxicology of Vaping Products and Implications for Pulmonary Health

Traboulsi

Cherian

Rjeili

et al. 2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E-cigarettes have a liquid that may contain flavors, solvents, and nicotine. Heating this liquid generates an aerosol that is inhaled into the lungs in a process commonly referred to as vaping. E-cigarette devices can also contain cannabis-based products including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis (marijuana). E-cigarette use has rapidly increased among current and former smokers as well as youth who have never smoked. The long-term health effects are unknown, and emerging preclinical and clinical studies suggest that e-cigarettes may not be harmless and can cause cellular alterations analogous to traditional tobacco smoke. Here, we review the historical context and the components of e-cigarettes and discuss toxicological similarities and differences between cigarette smoke and e-cigarette aerosol, with specific reference to adverse respiratory outcomes. Finally, we outline possible clinical disorders associated with vaping on pulmonary health and the recent escalation of acute lung injuries, which led to the declaration of the vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak. It is clear there is much about vaping that is not understood. Consequently, until more is known about the health effects of vaping, individual factors that need to be taken into consideration include age, current and prior use of combustible tobacco products, and whether the user has preexisting lung conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

show abstract

“…Viewing people using ENDS in a smoke-free place may provide a mechanism through which ENDS use can become normalized in smoke-free places [8]. ENDS use in public smoke-free places is of immediate concern because aerosol emitted from indoor ENDS use introduces nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), fine particles, and heavy metals into the immediate environment, and although there is a wide variety of ENDS which may emit disproportionate levels of these materials, their emission in ENDS aerosol may pose a risk of passive exposure to nearby nonusers [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Further, nicotine may also be deposited on surfaces in cases where ENDS use occurs indoors [15], potentially leading to passive exposure to nicotine and other ENDS aerosol constituents [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Electronic Cigarettes in Smoke-Free Spaces by Smokers: Results from the 2014–2015 Population Assessment on Tobacco and Health Study

Dunbar

Giovino

Wei

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Smoke-free air policies exist to protect users and nonusers from exposure to tobacco smoke. Although electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) may expose passerby to nicotine and particulate matter, few US states regulate indoor use of ENDS. The purpose of this study was to investigate reported rationales for ENDS use and reported ENDS use in public smoke-free places by dual cigarette/ENDS users. Methods: A population of ENDS/cigarette co-users (n = 2051) was drawn from Wave 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) dataset (2014–2015). Harm reduction beliefs and cessation behavior of co-users were investigated as predictors of ENDS use in public smoke-free places using logistic regression. Results: Fifty-eight percent of dual users reported past 30-day ENDS use in public smoke-free places. Reported use of ENDS to cut down on cigarette smoking (OR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.86, 3.05), as an alternative to quitting tobacco (OR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.13), or because of belief that ENDS help people to quit cigarettes (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.92) were significantly associated with increased odds of ENDS use in smoke-free places. Conclusions: Beliefs that ENDS were useful as cessation tools or posed modified risk to users and nonusers were associated with elevated odds of use ENDS in locations where conventional tobacco is prohibited. Due to limitations in the survey instrument, in-home ENDS use could not be directly assessed in this analysis. However, these self-reported findings suggest that use of ENDS in public places where cigarette use is prohibited is prevalent enough to be of concern for future regulation and enforcement efforts.

show abstract

The influence of three e-cigarette models on indoor fine and ultrafine particulate matter concentrations under real-world conditions

Cited by 32 publications

References 37 publications

Impact of Electronic Alternatives to Tobacco Cigarettes on Indoor Air Particular Matter Levels

Impact of Electronic Alternatives to Tobacco Cigarettes on Indoor Air Particular Matter Levels

Inhalation Toxicology of Vaping Products and Implications for Pulmonary Health

Use of Electronic Cigarettes in Smoke-Free Spaces by Smokers: Results from the 2014–2015 Population Assessment on Tobacco and Health Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About