Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality

Abstract

Context: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have earned considerable attention recently as an alternative to smoking tobacco, but uncertainties about their impact on health and indoor air quality have resulted in proposals for bans on indoor e-cigarette use.

Objective: To assess potential health impacts relating to the use of e-cigarettes, a series of studies were conducted using e-cigarettes and standard tobacco cigarettes.

Methods and materials: Four different high nicotine e-liquids were vaporized in two sets of experiments by generic 2-piece e-cigarettes to collect emissions and assess indoor air concentrations of common tobacco smoke by products. Tobacco cigarette smoke tests were conducted for comparison.

Results: Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m³ room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of “Significant Risk” of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure.

Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.

Keywords::

• E-cigarette
• e-cig
• ecigarette
• ecig
• emissions
• vaping
• nicotine vaporizer
• SHS
• secondhand vapor
• SHV
• eliquid
• e-liquid
• vapor
• TSNA
• VOC
• PAH
• DEG
• PG
• carbonyl
• glycerine
• cancer risk
• risk estimate
• exposure assessment
• tobacco smoke
• risk assessment
• toxicity
• indoor air quality
• inhalation

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to recognize that this research would not have been possible without many contributions made by key individuals who brought additional expertise to this research. They would like to thank Peter W. Woodman, Ph.D. for the toxicological risk analysis, Mary Bielaska, Esq. for her legal counseling, Murray Laugesen, FNZCPHM for his suggestions on methodology, Yolanda Villa, Esq. for her consulting support, Janet Andersen for her administrative support, Vicki Vasconcellos and others listed at www.IVAQS.com for their financial support as well as hundreds of National Vapers Club supporters who provided individual financial contributions.

Declaration of interest

National Vapers Club (NVC) has spent more than 3 years educating people about electronic cigarettes. This research was necessary to have more thorough information to present to scientific and political bodies who are struggling with regulation of a new product about which there is very little published scientific data. Funding was obtained by fundraising events held by NVC as well as individual donations by NVC members, and in part by e-cigarette retailers who contacted NVC to offer contributions. Although NVC funded this study, it had no control over the results. The scientists and independent contractors hired by the principal investigator were entirely responsible for collecting, analyzing and interpreting the data. Prior to data collection, no author or independent contractor who worked on this project had any financial interest in the outcome of this study. Subsequent to data collection, S. Babaian became part owner in a retail e-cigarette company.