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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |