A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes
1
National Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
2
School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Zubair Kabir
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14(4), 382; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040382
Received: 27 February 2017
/
Revised: 27 March 2017
/
Accepted: 30 March 2017
/
Published: 5 April 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Global Health)
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.
View Full-Text
▼
Show Figures
Figure 1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
MDPI and ACS Style
Chen, J.; Bullen, C.; Dirks, K. A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040382
AMA Style
Chen J, Bullen C, Dirks K. A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017; 14(4):382. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040382
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Jinsong, Chris Bullen, and Kim Dirks. 2017. "A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 4: 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040382
Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
