Literature DB >> 28766331

Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes: Assessing Vapers' Intake of Toxic Compounds, Secondhand Exposures, and the Associated Health Impacts.

Jennifer M Logue1, Mohamad Sleiman1,2, V Nahuel Montesinos3, Marion L Russell1, Marta I Litter3,4, Neal L Benowitz5, Lara A Gundel1, Hugo Destaillats1.   

Abstract

E-cigarettes likely represent a lower risk to health than traditional combustion cigarettes, but they are not innocuous. Recently reported emission rates of potentially harmful compounds were used to assess intake and predict health impacts for vapers and bystanders exposed passively. Vapers' toxicant intake was calculated for scenarios in which different e-liquids were used with various vaporizers, battery power settings and vaping regimes. For a high rate of 250 puff day-1 using a typical vaping regime and popular tank devices with battery voltages from 3.8 to 4.8 V, users were predicted to inhale formaldehyde (up to 49 mg day-1), acrolein (up to 10 mg day-1) and diacetyl (up to 0.5 mg day-1), at levels that exceeded U.S. occupational limits. Formaldehyde intake from 100 daily puffs was higher than the amount inhaled by a smoker consuming 10 conventional cigarettes per day. Secondhand exposures were predicted for two typical indoor scenarios: a home and a bar. Contributions from vaping to air pollutant concentrations in the home did not exceed the California OEHHA 8-h reference exposure levels (RELs), except when a high emitting device was used at 4.8 V. In that extreme scenario, the contributions from vaping amounted to as much as 12 μg m-3 formaldehyde and 2.6 μg m-3 acrolein. Pollutant concentrations in bars were modeled using indoor volumes, air exchange rates and the number of hourly users reported in the literature for U.S. bars in which smoking was allowed. Predicted contributions to indoor air levels were higher than those in the residential scenario. Formaldehyde (on average 135 μg m-3) and acrolein (28 μg m-3) exceeded the acute 1-h exposure REL for the highest emitting vaporizer/voltage combination. Predictions for these compounds also exceeded the 8-h REL in several bars when less intense vaping conditions were considered. Benzene concentrations in a few bars approached the 8-h REL, and diacetyl levels were close to the lower limit for occupational exposures. The integrated health damage from passive vaping was derived by computing disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to exposure to secondhand vapor. Acrolein was the dominant contributor to the aggregate harm. DALYs for the various device/voltage combinations were lower than-or comparable to-those estimated for exposures to secondhand and thirdhand tobacco smoke.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28766331     DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00710

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  22 in total

Review 1.  How close are we to definitively identifying the respiratory health effects of e-cigarettes?

Authors:  Alexsandra Ratajczak; Wojciech Feleszko; Danielle M Smith; Maciej Goniewicz
Journal:  Expert Rev Respir Med       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 3.772

2.  Generation of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol by a Third-Generation Machine-Vaping Device: Application to Toxicological Studies.

Authors:  Alexandra Noël; Christina M Verret; Farhana Hasan; Slawomir Lomnicki; John Morse; Annette Robichaud; Arthur L Penn
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-08-25       Impact factor: 1.355

3.  Electronic cigarette chemicals transfer from a vape shop to a nearby business in a multiple-tenant retail building.

Authors:  Careen Khachatoorian; Peyton Jacob Iii; Neal L Benowitz; Prue Talbot
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  Rules about smoking and vaping in the home: findings from the 2016 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

Authors:  Georges J Nahhas; David Braak; K Michael Cummings; Bryan W Heckman; Anthony J Alberg; Hua-Hie Yong; Geoffrey T Fong; Christian Boudreau; Sara C Hitchman; Ann McNeill
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 6.526

5.  Electronic cigarettes disrupt lung lipid homeostasis and innate immunity independent of nicotine.

Authors:  Matthew C Madison; Cameron T Landers; Bon-Hee Gu; Cheng-Yen Chang; Hui-Ying Tung; Ran You; Monica J Hong; Nima Baghaei; Li-Zhen Song; Paul Porter; Nagireddy Putluri; Ramiro Salas; Brian E Gilbert; Ilya Levental; Matthew J Campen; David B Corry; Farrah Kheradmand
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 14.808

6.  Do the Benefits of Electronic Cigarettes Outweigh the Risks?

Authors: 
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb

Review 7.  Biochemical Verification of Tobacco Use and Abstinence: 2019 Update.

Authors:  Neal L Benowitz; John T Bernert; Jonathan Foulds; Stephen S Hecht; Peyton Jacob; Martin J Jarvis; Anne Joseph; Cheryl Oncken; Megan E Piper
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 4.244

8.  Tracing the movement of electronic cigarette flavor chemicals and nicotine from refill fluids to aerosol, lungs, exhale, and the environment.

Authors:  Careen Khachatoorian; Kevin J McWhirter; Wentai Luo; James F Pankow; Prue Talbot
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 7.086

9.  Reasons to use e-cigarettes among adults and youth in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study.

Authors:  Nicole E Nicksic; L Morgan Snell; Andrew J Barnes
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 3.913

10.  Long-term cerebrovascular dysfunction in the offspring from maternal electronic cigarette use during pregnancy.

Authors:  E N Burrage; E Aboaziza; L Hare; S Reppert; J Moore; W T Goldsmith; E E Kelley; A Mills; D Dakhlallah; P D Chantler; I M Olfert
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 5.125

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.