ENDS Public Health: Difference between revisions

 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
*Collectively, the results predict that room air levels and exposure of the selected analytes to non-users were relatively low and several-fold below regulatory PELs and AIHA limit under the modeled space and use conditions.
*Collectively, the results predict that room air levels and exposure of the selected analytes to non-users were relatively low and several-fold below regulatory PELs and AIHA limit under the modeled space and use conditions.
*...room air levels of nicotine, formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde levels were significantly below OSHA PELs or American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) limit...
*...room air levels of nicotine, formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde levels were significantly below OSHA PELs or American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) limit...
===2020: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7504617/ Comparative Indoor Pollution from Glo, Iqos, and Juul, Using Traditional Combustion Cigarettes as Benchmark: Evidence from the Randomized SUR-VAPES AIR Trial]===
*Glo, Iqos, and Juul have significantly less intense and persistent effects on indoor pollution in comparison to combustible tobacco cigarettes.


===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]===  
Line 26: Line 29:
*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.
===2015: [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.chroma.2015.07.094 A rapid method for the chromatographic analysis of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath of tobacco cigarette and electronic cigarette smokers]===
*Tobacco cigarette smoke provided the samples containing highest concentrations of all compounds analyzed. Besides nicotine it contained benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene and naphthalene in high abundance as well as other compounds such as isoprene, pent-1-ene, n-pentane, n-hexane, n-heptane and others.
*This composition was in strong contrast with that of vapor from the e-cigarettes in which all these compounds were virtually absent except nicotine


===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]===  
Line 216: Line 223:


=Never Smokers=
=Never Smokers=
=== 2024: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-80221-8 Respiratory symptoms among e-cigarette users without an established smoking history in the VERITAS cohort] ===
* First results of VERITAS showing very small differences between non vapers and never use controls. The difference between the two groups is ‘not clinically significant’.


=== 2024: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38546715/ A Global Health Survey of People Who Vape but Never Smoked: Protocol for the VERITAS (Vaping Effects: Real-World International Surveillance) Study] ===
=== 2024: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38546715/ A Global Health Survey of People Who Vape but Never Smoked: Protocol for the VERITAS (Vaping Effects: Real-World International Surveillance) Study] ===
Line 247: Line 258:
=Pregnancy=
=Pregnancy=


 
Please visit the [[Nicotine_-_Pregnancy_-_Nursing|Nicotine - Pregnancy - Nursing]] page for more information.
 
This section has been updated and has it's own page [[ENDS Pregnancy]]


=Perception - safety vs harm - effects on use=
=Perception - safety vs harm - effects on use=
Line 326: Line 335:
=Weight=
=Weight=


===2024 Article [https://web.archive.org/web/20241204102835/https://tobaccoreporter.com/2024/12/03/slim-chances/ Harm reduction, smoking cessation and weight]===
*"Nicotine influences eating and weight in multiple ways, from hormones to microbiomes to taste perceptions. The bottom line: Nicotine raises the metabolic rate while also depressing appetite."


===2018: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29570695/ Lack of Substantial Post-Cessation Weight Increase in Electronic Cigarettes Users]===
===2018: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29570695/ Lack of Substantial Post-Cessation Weight Increase in Electronic Cigarettes Users]===
Line 342: Line 353:
===See Also===
===See Also===
*[[https://safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php/Nicotine_therapeutic_benefits#Weight_Loss_.2F_Appetite_Control_.2F_Metabolism_.2F_Obesity|Weight Weight: Nicotine Therapeutic Benefits]]
*[[https://safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php/Nicotine_therapeutic_benefits#Weight_Loss_.2F_Appetite_Control_.2F_Metabolism_.2F_Obesity|Weight Weight: Nicotine Therapeutic Benefits]]


=PAGE EDITORS - Please only add Studies, Surveys, Papers in this format to keep page organized=
=PAGE EDITORS - Please only add Studies, Surveys, Papers in this format to keep page organized=
Line 359: Line 368:


=Suggested studies to add to this page=
=Suggested studies to add to this page=
=== 2024: [https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/early/2024/10/29/tc-2024-058734.full.pdf?ijkey=SyCpuy6lOVfmORB&keytype=ref Transformation of the tobacco product market in Japan, 2011–2023] ===
* This paper updates the prior analysis to include trends in the sale of cigarettes and HTPs from 2019 to 2023 and shows that between 2011 and 2023, per capita and total cigarette sales in Japan declined by over 50%. The decline in cigarette sales was minimal from 2011 to 2015 but increased markedly after 2015 following the introduction of HTPs.
* Halving the cigarette market in Japan in just over a decade is a remarkable achievement and figuring out how to replicate this type of change elsewhere should be a priority for public health research. Clinical trials are needed to test if HTPs can help addicted cigarette smokers transition away from smoking
* K Michael Cummings, Avery Roberson, David T Levy , Rafael Meza, Kenneth E Warner, Geoffrey T Fong, Steve Shaowei Xu, Shannon Gravely, Bibha Dhungel, Ron Borland, Richard J O’Connor, Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz, David T Sweanor DOI: 10.1136/tc-2024-058734
[[File:Data reliability.png|alt=The data reliability pyramid. Shows the quality of various data from expert opinion at the bottom to systematic review at the top (lowest quality at bottom, highest at top)|center|frame|The data reliability pyramid]]
[[File:Data reliability.png|alt=The data reliability pyramid. Shows the quality of various data from expert opinion at the bottom to systematic review at the top (lowest quality at bottom, highest at top)|center|frame|The data reliability pyramid]]