Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Never Smokers: add VERITAS) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=2nd Hand Vapor= | =2nd Hand Vapor= | ||
===2022: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11739-022-03061-2 Computational modeling method to estimate secondhand exposure potential from exhalations during e-vapor product use under various real-world scenarios]=== | ===2022: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11739-022-03061-2 Computational modeling method to estimate secondhand exposure potential from exhalations during e-vapor product use under various real-world scenarios]=== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
*...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]=== | ||
*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. | ||
===2017 [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0107-3279.pdf?fbclid=IwAR37EOr5p5EwptMhuyrIwEDkfi4qbMh0nRwu6yz2VkY0Um-q138f3LfK64Y Evaluation of Chemical Exposures at a Vape Shop]=== | ===2017 [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0107-3279.pdf?fbclid=IwAR37EOr5p5EwptMhuyrIwEDkfi4qbMh0nRwu6yz2VkY0Um-q138f3LfK64Y Evaluation of Chemical Exposures at a Vape Shop]=== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*Concentrations of vaping-related chemicals in our air samples were below occupational exposure limits. | *Concentrations of vaping-related chemicals in our air samples were below occupational exposure limits. | ||
*Citation: NIOSH 2017. Evaluation of chemical exposures at a vape shop. By Zwack LM, Stefaniak AB, LeBouf RF. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report [tel:2015-0107-3279 2015-0107-3279] | *Citation: NIOSH 2017. Evaluation of chemical exposures at a vape shop. By Zwack LM, Stefaniak AB, LeBouf RF. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report [tel:2015-0107-3279 2015-0107-3279] | ||
===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. | ||
===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 35: | Line 38: | ||
*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]=== | ||
| Line 252: | Line 254: | ||
=Pregnancy= | =Pregnancy= | ||
Please visit the [[Nicotine_-_Pregnancy_-_Nursing|Nicotine - Pregnancy - Nursing]] page for more information. | |||
=Perception - safety vs harm - effects on use= | =Perception - safety vs harm - effects on use= | ||
edits