(Added content) |
(Added content) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=Studies= | =Studies= | ||
===2021: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213260021000229 Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery system with 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL liquid nicotine versus a cigarette substitute on tobacco-related toxicant exposure: a four-arm, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial]=== | |||
Use of an ENDS with cigarette-like nicotine delivery can reduce exposure to a major pulmonary carcinogen, NNAL, even with concurrent smoking. | |||
| Line 106: | Line 110: | ||
The e-cig may help smokers with asthma to reduce their cigarette consumption or remain abstinent and hence reduce the burden of smoking-related asthma symptoms. The positive findings observed with e-cigs allows us to advance the hypothesis that these products may be valuable for smoking cessation and/or tobacco harm reduction also in asthma patients who smoke. | The e-cig may help smokers with asthma to reduce their cigarette consumption or remain abstinent and hence reduce the burden of smoking-related asthma symptoms. The positive findings observed with e-cigs allows us to advance the hypothesis that these products may be valuable for smoking cessation and/or tobacco harm reduction also in asthma patients who smoke. | ||
By substantially reducing number of cigarettes smoked per day and exposure to their hazardous toxicants, e-cigs may not only improve asthma symptoms and pulmonary function but may also confer an overall health advantage in smokers with asthma [13]. Therefore, e-cig use in asthmatic smokers unable or unwilling to quit should be exploited as a safer alternative approach to harm-reversal (i.e., specific reversal of asthma-related outcomes) and, in general, to harm-reduction (i.e., overall reduction of smoke-related diseases). | By substantially reducing number of cigarettes smoked per day and exposure to their hazardous toxicants, e-cigs may not only improve asthma symptoms and pulmonary function but may also confer an overall health advantage in smokers with asthma [13]. Therefore, e-cig use in asthmatic smokers unable or unwilling to quit should be exploited as a safer alternative approach to harm-reversal (i.e., specific reversal of asthma-related outcomes) and, in general, to harm-reduction (i.e., overall reduction of smoke-related diseases). | ||
=Video= | |||
===2021: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PT1TRo3b4M Vaping Demystified]=== | |||
Yorkshire Cancer Research | |||
Through research and interviews with experts, we explore the truth about vaping and whether misconceptions are preventing us from reducing the largest preventable cause of cancer in Yorkshire. | |||
=2nd Hand Vapor= | |||
===2018: 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. | |||
===2017 [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0107-3279.pdf?fbclid=IwAR37EOr5p5EwptMhuyrIwEDkfi4qbMh0nRwu6yz2VkY0Um-q138f3LfK64Y Evaluation of Chemical Exposures at a Vape Shop]=== | |||
*We collected air samples for flavoring chemicals (diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, acetaldehyde, and acetoin), nicotine, formaldehyde, and propylene glycol. | |||
*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 2015-0107-3279 | |||
===2017 Dr. Michael Siegel - 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 adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks. | |||
===2014: 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. | |||
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. | |||
===2012: 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. | |||
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. | |||
edits