Cargando…

A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes

Background: Although some studies have identified hazardous substances in electronic cigarette (EC) liquids and emissions, there is limited information about the health risks of using ECs. Methods: In this study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health risk assessment model and finding...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Jinsong, Bullen, Chris, Dirks, Kim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5409583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28379177
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040382
_version_ 1783232496174891008
author Chen, Jinsong
Bullen, Chris
Dirks, Kim
author_facet Chen, Jinsong
Bullen, Chris
Dirks, Kim
author_sort Chen, Jinsong
collection PubMed
description Background: Although some studies have identified hazardous substances in electronic cigarette (EC) liquids and emissions, there is limited information about the health risks of using ECs. Methods: In this study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health risk assessment model and findings of a literature review were used to determine and profile hazards. Focus was put on the toxicants reported in the literature on conventional cigarette (CC) smoke that most strongly associated with adverse health effects. To evaluate their health risks, dose-response relationships and standard-use conditions were used to estimate average hazard exposures and to calculate the overall health risks of ECs and CCs, benchmarked against international guideline levels for each hazard. Results: Four hazards (acrolein, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol and cadmium) reported in EC emissions and seven hazards (acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, cadmium, CO, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), N′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN)) reported in CC emissions had maximum exposure levels higher than the guideline levels. Two hazards (acrolein, propylene glycol) in EC emissions and five hazards (acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, cadmium, NNN) in CC emissions had average exposure levels higher than the guideline levels. Conclusions: Based on the conditions of use, ECs should be a safer nicotine-delivery product than CCs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5409583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54095832017-05-03 A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes Chen, Jinsong Bullen, Chris Dirks, Kim Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Background: Although some studies have identified hazardous substances in electronic cigarette (EC) liquids and emissions, there is limited information about the health risks of using ECs. Methods: In this study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health risk assessment model and findings of a literature review were used to determine and profile hazards. Focus was put on the toxicants reported in the literature on conventional cigarette (CC) smoke that most strongly associated with adverse health effects. To evaluate their health risks, dose-response relationships and standard-use conditions were used to estimate average hazard exposures and to calculate the overall health risks of ECs and CCs, benchmarked against international guideline levels for each hazard. Results: Four hazards (acrolein, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol and cadmium) reported in EC emissions and seven hazards (acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, cadmium, CO, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), N′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN)) reported in CC emissions had maximum exposure levels higher than the guideline levels. Two hazards (acrolein, propylene glycol) in EC emissions and five hazards (acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, cadmium, NNN) in CC emissions had average exposure levels higher than the guideline levels. Conclusions: Based on the conditions of use, ECs should be a safer nicotine-delivery product than CCs. MDPI 2017-04-05 2017-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5409583/ /pubmed/28379177 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040382 Text en © 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Chen, Jinsong
Bullen, Chris
Dirks, Kim
A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes
title A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes
title_full A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes
title_fullStr A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes
title_short A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes
title_sort comparative health risk assessment of electronic cigarettes and conventional cigarettes
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5409583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28379177
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040382
work_keys_str_mv AT chenjinsong acomparativehealthriskassessmentofelectroniccigarettesandconventionalcigarettes
AT bullenchris acomparativehealthriskassessmentofelectroniccigarettesandconventionalcigarettes
AT dirkskim acomparativehealthriskassessmentofelectroniccigarettesandconventionalcigarettes
AT chenjinsong comparativehealthriskassessmentofelectroniccigarettesandconventionalcigarettes
AT bullenchris comparativehealthriskassessmentofelectroniccigarettesandconventionalcigarettes
AT dirkskim comparativehealthriskassessmentofelectroniccigarettesandconventionalcigarettes