ENDS Vape Shops

Economic Information

2019: The Vapor industry Economic Impact Study

• The vapor industry is a dynamic part of the U.S. economy, accounting for about $24.46 billion in output or about 0.14 percent of GDP. It employs approximately 166,007 Americans who earned wages and benefits of about $7.90 billion.
• Members of the industry and their employees paid $3.31 billion in federal, state and local taxes. This does not include state and local sales taxes or excise taxes that may apply for specific retail purchases which are estimated to total $1.67 billion.
• Original link to the study

Regulations

2020: Vape shop owners/managers’ opinions about FDA regulation of e-cigarettes

• Vape shop owners/managers reported:
  • 1) entering the industry with positive intentions for their customers;
  • 2) training their personnel to adhere to regulations and provide good customer service; and
  • 3) significant concerns about the impact of FDA regulations. With regard to the latter, participants reported mistrust of the intentions of the FDA regulations, financial implications of the regulations (particularly for small businesses), difficulty understanding and interpreting the regulations, insufficient evidence to support the regulations, negative impact on customer service, negative impact on product offerings and product innovation/advancement, and negative implications of flavor bans and/or restrictions on sale of flavors.
• PDF Version

2020: Article: 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.

Second 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 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.

Training Programs For Shop Staff

SQUIRAL

• The course is called SQUIRAL (Supporting Quitting: Understanding the theory of addiction & Increasing knowledge of Replacements & remedies. An onLine course). https://squiral.net/home
• It has been designed for adults over the age of 21 who currently work as:
  • LMIC (low and low-middle income country) Community Health Workers
  • Indigenous community health workers; or
  • Vape shop staff or other retailers of THR products.
• The course may also be useful for THR advocates who regularly advise people who smoke to switch to THR alternatives.