INTRODUCTION: Secondhand smoke (SHS) from combustible cigarettes causes numerous diseases. Policies have been developed to prevent SHS exposure from indoor cigarette use to reduce health risks to non-smokers. However, fewer policies have been implemented to deter electronic cigarette (ECIG) use indoors, and limited research has examined the impact of secondhand exposure to ECIG aerosol. METHODS: Indoor air quality was measured at a 2-day ECIG event held in a large room at a hotel. Fine particulate matter (PM) was measured using 2 devices that measured concentrations of PM 2.5 μm aerodynamic diameter or smaller (PM2.5). Measurements were taken before the event, over 2 days when the event was ongoing, and the day after the event. PM2.5 measurements were also taken from the restaurant at the hotel hosting the event and a restaurant at a nearby hotel. RESULTS: During 6 time points when the event was ongoing, between 59 and 86 active ECIG users were present in the event room (room volume=4023 m3). While the event was ongoing, median PM2.5 concentrations in the event room increased from a baseline of 1.92-3.20 μg/m3 to concentrations that ranged from 311.68 μg/m3 (IQR 253.44-411.84 μg/m3) to 818.88 μg/m3 (IQR 760.64-975.04 μg/m3). CONCLUSIONS: PM2.5 concentrations observed at the ECIG event were higher than concentrations reported previously in hookah cafés and bars that allow cigarette smoking. This study indicates that indoor ECIG use exposes non-users to secondhand ECIG aerosol. Regulatory bodies should consider establishing policies that prohibit ECIG use anywhere combustible cigarette use is prohibited. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
INTRODUCTION: Secondhand smoke (SHS) from combustible cigarettes causes numerous diseases. Policies have been developed to prevent SHS exposure from indoor cigarette use to reduce health risks to non-smokers. However, fewer policies have been implemented to deter electronic cigarette (ECIG) use indoors, and limited research has examined the impact of secondhand exposure to ECIG aerosol. METHODS: Indoor air quality was measured at a 2-day ECIG event held in a large room at a hotel. Fine particulate matter (PM) was measured using 2 devices that measured concentrations of PM 2.5 μm aerodynamic diameter or smaller (PM2.5). Measurements were taken before the event, over 2 days when the event was ongoing, and the day after the event. PM2.5 measurements were also taken from the restaurant at the hotel hosting the event and a restaurant at a nearby hotel. RESULTS: During 6 time points when the event was ongoing, between 59 and 86 active ECIG users were present in the event room (room volume=4023 m3). While the event was ongoing, median PM2.5 concentrations in the event room increased from a baseline of 1.92-3.20 μg/m3 to concentrations that ranged from 311.68 μg/m3 (IQR 253.44-411.84 μg/m3) to 818.88 μg/m3 (IQR 760.64-975.04 μg/m3). CONCLUSIONS: PM2.5 concentrations observed at the ECIG event were higher than concentrations reported previously in hookah cafés and bars that allow cigarette smoking. This study indicates that indoor ECIG use exposes non-users to secondhand ECIG aerosol. Regulatory bodies should consider establishing policies that prohibit ECIG use anywhere combustible cigarette use is prohibited. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic nicotine delivery devices; Public policy; Secondhand smoke
Authors: Kiyoung Lee; Ellen J Hahn; Nick Pieper; Chizimuzo T C Okoli; James Repace; Adewale Troutman Journal: J Environ Health Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 1.179
Authors: Robert C McMillen; Mark A Gottlieb; Regina M Whitmore Shaefer; Jonathan P Winickoff; Jonathan D Klein Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Caroline Oates Cobb; Andrea Rae Vansickel; Melissa D Blank; Kade Jentink; Mark J Travers; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-03-24 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Wolfgang Schober; Katalin Szendrei; Wolfgang Matzen; Helga Osiander-Fuchs; Dieter Heitmann; Thomas Schettgen; Rudolf A Jörres; Hermann Fromme Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: René A Arrazola; Linda J Neff; Sara M Kennedy; Enver Holder-Hayes; Christopher D Jones Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Lauren Collins; Jennifer L Pearson; Haneen Abudayyeh; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Markus Hilpert; Vesna Ilievski; Maxine Coady; Maria Andrade-Gutierrez; Beizhan Yan; Steven N Chillrud; Ana Navas-Acien; Norman J Kleiman Journal: Inhal Toxicol Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 2.724