IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i4p382-d94994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes

Author

Listed:
  • Jinsong Chen

    (National Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

  • Chris Bullen

    (National Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

  • Kim Dirks

    (School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

Abstract

Background : Although some studies have identified hazardous substances in electronic cigarette (EC) liquids and emissions, there is limited information about the health risks of using ECs. Methods : In this study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health risk assessment model and findings of a literature review were used to determine and profile hazards. Focus was put on the toxicants reported in the literature on conventional cigarette (CC) smoke that most strongly associated with adverse health effects. To evaluate their health risks, dose-response relationships and standard-use conditions were used to estimate average hazard exposures and to calculate the overall health risks of ECs and CCs, benchmarked against international guideline levels for each hazard. Results : Four hazards (acrolein, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol and cadmium) reported in EC emissions and seven hazards (acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, cadmium, CO, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), N ′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN)) reported in CC emissions had maximum exposure levels higher than the guideline levels. Two hazards (acrolein, propylene glycol) in EC emissions and five hazards (acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, cadmium, NNN) in CC emissions had average exposure levels higher than the guideline levels. Conclusions : Based on the conditions of use, ECs should be a safer nicotine-delivery product than CCs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinsong Chen & Chris Bullen & Kim Dirks, 2017. "A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-10, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:4:p:382-:d:94994
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/4/382/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/4/382/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Penelope Truman & Marewa Glover & Trish Fraser, 2018. "An Online Survey of New Zealand Vapers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Jennifer R. Mendel & Marissa G. Hall & Sabeeh A. Baig & Michelle Jeong & Noel T. Brewer, 2018. "Placing Health Warnings on E-Cigarettes: A Standardized Protocol," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Kim AGJ Romijnders & Erna JZ Krüsemann & Sanne Boesveldt & Kees de Graaf & Hein de Vries & Reinskje Talhout, 2019. "E-Liquid Flavor Preferences and Individual Factors Related to Vaping: A Survey among Dutch Never-Users, Smokers, Dual Users, and Exclusive Vapers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Kim A.G.J. Romijnders & Liesbeth van Osch & Hein de Vries & Reinskje Talhout, 2019. "A Deliberate Choice? Exploring the Decision to Switch from Cigarettes to E-Cigarettes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-11, February.
    5. Olivia A. Wackowski & David Hammond & Richard J. O’Connor & Andrew A. Strasser & Cristine D. Delnevo, 2017. "Considerations and Future Research Directions for E-Cigarette Warnings—Findings from Expert Interviews," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-10, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:4:p:382-:d:94994. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.