A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes

Jinsong Chen, Chris Bullen and Kim Dirks
Additional contact information
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

IJERPH, 2017, vol. 14, issue 4, 1-10

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.

Keywords: tobacco control; electronic cigarettes; toxicology; comparative risk; risk assessment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/4/382/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/4/382/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:4:p:382-:d:94994

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().