| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
===2018: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/21/10/1371/5040053 Characterization of the Spatial and Temporal Dispersion Differences Between Exhaled E-Cigarette Mist and Cigarette Smoke]=== | ===2018: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/21/10/1371/5040053 Characterization of the Spatial and Temporal Dispersion Differences Between Exhaled E-Cigarette Mist and Cigarette Smoke]=== | ||
For both product categories, the particle concentrations registered following each puff were in the same order of magnitude. However, for e-cigarettes the particle concentration returned rapidly to background values within seconds; for conventional cigarettes it increased with successive puffs, returning to background levels after 30–45 minutes. Unlike for the e-cigarette devices tested, such temporal variation was dependent on the room ventilation rate. Particle size measurements showed that exhaled e-cigarette particles were smaller than those emitted during smoking conventional cigarettes and evaporated almost immediately after exhalation, thus affecting the removal of particles through evaporation rather than displacement by ventilation. | *For both product categories, the particle concentrations registered following each puff were in the same order of magnitude. However, for e-cigarettes the particle concentration returned rapidly to background values within seconds; for conventional cigarettes it increased with successive puffs, returning to background levels after 30–45 minutes. Unlike for the e-cigarette devices tested, such temporal variation was dependent on the room ventilation rate. Particle size measurements showed that exhaled e-cigarette particles were smaller than those emitted during smoking conventional cigarettes and evaporated almost immediately after exhalation, thus affecting the removal of particles through evaporation rather than displacement by ventilation. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
===2017 Dr. Michael Siegel - [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/05/vape-shop-air-sampling-by-california.html Vape Shop Air Sampling by California State Health Department Suggests that Second Hand Vape Exposure is Minimal]=== | ===2017 Dr. Michael Siegel - [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/05/vape-shop-air-sampling-by-california.html Vape Shop Air Sampling by California State Health Department Suggests that Second Hand Vape Exposure is Minimal]=== | ||
This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were also not detected by the standard method. | *This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were also not detected by the standard method. | ||
This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks. | This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks. | ||
===2014: [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-18 Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks]=== | ===2014: [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-18 Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks]=== | ||
Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), were conducted under “worst case” assumptions about both chemical content of aerosol and liquids as well as behavior of vapers. | *Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), were conducted under “worst case” assumptions about both chemical content of aerosol and liquids as well as behavior of vapers. | ||
There was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures. | *There was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures. | ||
Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern. | *Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern. | ||
===2012: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=iiht20 Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality]=== | ===2012: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=iiht20 Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality]=== | ||
Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. | *Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. | ||
Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids. | *Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids. | ||
With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. | *With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
edits