| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
===2020: Article: [https://filtermag.org/native-american-reservations-new-york-vape-shops/ Native American Reservations a Haven for New York Vape Shops]=== | ===2020: Article: [https://filtermag.org/native-american-reservations-new-york-vape-shops/ Native American Reservations a Haven for New York Vape Shops]=== | ||
*New York State’s 20 percent excise tax on vapor products and nearly 9 percent sales tax also do not apply to the Shinnecock and other tribes. Essentially, Silva said, patrons can spend almost 30 percent less than they normally spend, and nobody has to worry about breaking the law. | *New York State’s 20 percent excise tax on vapor products and nearly 9 percent sales tax also do not apply to the Shinnecock and other tribes. Essentially, Silva said, patrons can spend almost 30 percent less than they normally spend, and nobody has to worry about breaking the law. | ||
===2016: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877178/ A Qualitative Study of Vape Shop Operators' Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarette Use and Attitude Toward Their Potential Regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or North Carolina, 2015]=== | |||
*Most expressed concern that complying with potential regulations, including banning flavors or tax increases, would jeopardize their business. Some felt that ENDS should not be regulated as tobacco products and felt that big tobacco was behind these proposed regulations. Most owners supported age restrictions and quality controls for e-liquid. | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
=Second Hand Vapor= | =Second 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]=== | |||
*Acetaldehyde and acrolein were not detectable after use of any of the test products. | |||
*When these data were used as inputs to a computational room air level and non-user intake model, the ambient concentrations of exhaled nicotine and formaldehyde predicted that non-user intakes were substantially reduced for test product use compared to conventional cigarette use. | |||
*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... | |||
===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 46: | Line 57: | ||
*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]=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 62: | ||
*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 57: | Line 70: | ||
*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 87: | Line 99: | ||
===2018: [https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-018-0307-z A qualitative assessment of business perspectives and tactics of tobacco and vape shop retailers in three communities in Orange County, CA, 2015–2016]=== | ===2018: [https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-018-0307-z A qualitative assessment of business perspectives and tactics of tobacco and vape shop retailers in three communities in Orange County, CA, 2015–2016]=== | ||
*Tobacco shops’ reasons for carrying e-cigarettes were business oriented... In comparison, vape shops opened because of the owner’s positive experiences with e-cigarettes and belief in the potential of e-cigarettes to help people quit or reduce smoking. | *Tobacco shops’ reasons for carrying e-cigarettes were business oriented... In comparison, vape shops opened because of the owner’s positive experiences with e-cigarettes and belief in the potential of e-cigarettes to help people quit or reduce smoking. | ||
===2016: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877178/ A Qualitative Study of Vape Shop Operators' Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarette Use and Attitude Toward Their Potential Regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or North Carolina, 2015]=== | |||
*Most owners were former smokers and used ENDS to quit. Vape shop owners are in a unique position to serve as frontline consumer educators. | |||
*Vape shop owners perceived ENDS to be less harmful and more economical than conventional cigarettes and indicated that most of their customers used ENDS as a smoking cessation tool | |||
edits