Community

Economic Information

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.

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

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.

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.

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.