Alexa A Lopez1, Thomas Eissenberg2. 1. Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States; Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States. 2. Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States; Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States. Electronic address: teissenb@vcu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) have continued to gain popularity among the general public since their introduction in 2003. While all ECIGs work by heating a liquid solution into an aerosol that is then inhaled by the user, there are differences in engineering characteristics and appearance of the devices as well as how the liquid is stored and heated, its nicotine concentration, its ratio of propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin, and the flavorants added to the liquid. Some of the research areas previously examined with ECIGs include aerosol toxicant yield, user puffing behavior, physiological effects, subjective effects, abuse liability, and effects on smoking cessation. CONCLUSION: Much of this work used earlier device models that delivered very little nicotine to the user, and additional research needs to be conducted using consistent and reliable devices, assays, and methodologies in order to gain a clearer understanding of ECIGs and their implications for individual and public health. Furthermore, the effects that ECIGs have on smoking cessation and among vulnerable populations must be addressed empirically.
OBJECTIVE: Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) have continued to gain popularity among the general public since their introduction in 2003. While all ECIGs work by heating a liquid solution into an aerosol that is then inhaled by the user, there are differences in engineering characteristics and appearance of the devices as well as how the liquid is stored and heated, its nicotine concentration, its ratio of propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin, and the flavorants added to the liquid. Some of the research areas previously examined with ECIGs include aerosol toxicant yield, user puffing behavior, physiological effects, subjective effects, abuse liability, and effects on smoking cessation. CONCLUSION: Much of this work used earlier device models that delivered very little nicotine to the user, and additional research needs to be conducted using consistent and reliable devices, assays, and methodologies in order to gain a clearer understanding of ECIGs and their implications for individual and public health. Furthermore, the effects that ECIGs have on smoking cessation and among vulnerable populations must be addressed empirically.
Authors: Michael D Stein; Celeste M Caviness; Kristin Grimone; Daniel Audet; Allison Borges; Bradley J Anderson Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2014-11-20
Authors: Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Jakub Knysak; Michal Gawron; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak; Jolanta Kurek; Adam Prokopowicz; Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla; Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska; Christopher Havel; Peyton Jacob; Neal Benowitz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Suzaynn F Schick; Benjamin C Blount; Peyton Jacob; Najat A Saliba; John T Bernert; Ahmad El Hellani; Peter Jatlow; R Steven Pappas; Lanqing Wang; Jonathan Foulds; Arunava Ghosh; Stephen S Hecht; John C Gomez; Jessica R Martin; Clementina Mesaros; Sanjay Srivastava; Gideon St Helen; Robert Tarran; Pawel K Lorkiewicz; Ian A Blair; Heather L Kimmel; Claire M Doerschuk; Neal L Benowitz; Aruni Bhatnagar Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Ahmad El-Hellani; Rola Salman; Rachel El-Hage; Soha Talih; Nathalie Malek; Rima Baalbaki; Nareg Karaoghlanian; Rima Nakkash; Alan Shihadeh; Najat A Saliba Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Alexa A Lopez; Ryan Redner; Allison N Kurti; Diana R Keith; Andrea C Villanti; Cassandra A Stanton; Diann E Gaalema; Janice Y Bunn; Nathan J Doogan; Antonio Cepeda-Benito; Megan E Roberts; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-03-17 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Noah R Gubner; K Blakely Andrews; Ana Mohammad-Zadeh; Nadra E Lisha; Joseph Guydish Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 3.913