Archives de catégorie : Vapeur_Vapor

Analyse de la composition de la vapeur ou des liquides
Analysis of the vapor or e-liquids composition

Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers

  • This is the first study of e-cigarette exposure at home under real-use conditions.
  • Airborne nicotine in homes with smokers were 5.7 times higher than in e-cig homes.
  • Cotinine of non-smokers exposed to e-cig and conventional cigarettes was similar.
  • Airborne nicotine in homes with e-cig users was higher than control homes.
  • Cotinine of non-smokers exposed to e-cig users was higher than in those no exposed.

Published:  27 September 2014

Positive: +/-

Link to publication: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935114003089

Dr Farsalinos comment on the study: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/184-passive-vape

Authors

Montse Ballbè
Jose M. Martínez-Sánchez
Xisca Sureda
Marcela Fu
Raúl Pérez-Ortuño
José A. Pascual
Esteve Saltó
Esteve Fernández


Summary

Background

There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes׳ vapour and conventional cigarettes׳ smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.

Methods

We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student׳s t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.

Results

The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 μg/m3 (GSD=4.05) in the smokers’ homes, 0.13 μg/m3 (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users’ homes, and 0.02 μg/m3 (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers’ homes, 0.19 ng/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users’ homes, and 0.07 ng/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette׳s vapour at home (all exposed ≥2 h/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke ≥2 h/day and in non-smokers from control homes.


Conclusion

The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes’ vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.

Continuer la lecture de Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers

Do Electronic cigarettes impart a lower potential disease burden than conventional tobacco cigarettes?: Review on e-cigarette vapor versus tobacco smoke.

Development and utilization of electronic cigarettes (ECs) resulted from the search for healthier alternatives to conventional tobacco cigarettes (TCs) and the search for alternative methods for quitting TCs. This review compares the potential disease burden presented by TC smoke to that of EC vapor.

Published: 09 October 2014

Positive: Yes

Link to publication:

Authors

Oh AY
Kacker A.


Summary

Methods

Potential disease burden of EC vapor versus TC smoke was assessed by reviewing clinical studies that measured inhaled components. Chemicals and carcinogens produced by vapor versus smoke were compared.

Results

Studies show that EC vapors contain far less carcinogenic particles than TC smoke. Whereas ECs have the ability to reach peak serum cotinine/nicotine levels comparable to that of TCs, ECs do not cause an increase in total white blood cell count; thus, ECs have the potential to lower the risk of atherosclerosis and systemic inflammation. Use of ECs has been shown to improve indoor air quality in a home exposed to TC smoke. This reduces secondhand smoke exposure, thus having the potential to decrease respiratory illness/asthma, middle-ear disease, sudden infant death syndrome, and more. However, some studies claim that propylene glycol (PG) vapor can induce respiratory irritation and increase chances for asthma. To minimize risks, EC manufacturers are replacing PG with distilled water and glycerin for vapor production.


Conclusion

Based on the comparison of the chemical analysis of EC and TC carcinogenic profiles and association with health-indicating parameters, ECs impart a lower potential disease burden than conventional TCs. Laryngoscope, 2014.

Continuer la lecture de Do Electronic cigarettes impart a lower potential disease burden than conventional tobacco cigarettes?: Review on e-cigarette vapor versus tobacco smoke.

Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between first and new-generation devices

A wide range of electronic cigarette (EC) devices, from small cigarette-like (first-generation) to new-generation high-capacity batteries with electronic circuits that provide high energy to a refillable atomizer, are available for smokers to substitute smoking. Nicotine delivery to the bloodstream is important in determining the addictiveness of ECs, but also their efficacy as smoking substitutes. In this study, plasma nicotine levels were measured in experienced users using a first- vs. new-generation EC device for 1 hour with an 18 mg/ml nicotine-containing liquid. Plasma nicotine levels were higher by 35–72% when using the new- compared to the first-generation device. Compared to smoking one tobacco cigarette, the EC devices and liquid used in this study delivered one-third to one-fourth the amount of nicotine after 5 minutes of use. New-generation EC devices were more efficient in nicotine delivery, but still delivered nicotine much slower compared to tobacco cigarettes. The use of 18 mg/ml nicotine-concentration liquid probably compromises ECs’ effectiveness as smoking substitutes; this study supports the need for higher levels of nicotine-containing liquids (approximately 50 mg/ml) in order to deliver nicotine more effectively and approach the nicotine-delivery profile of tobacco cigarettes.

Published: 26 February 2014

Positive: Yes

Link to publication:

Authors

  • Konstantinos E. Farsalinos,
  • Alketa Spyrou,
  • Kalliroi Tsimopoulou,
  • Christos Stefopoulos,
  • Giorgio Romagna
  • Vassilis Voudris

Summary

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) have been introduced to the market in recent years as alternatives to smoking. They are considered part of tobacco harm reduction, a strategy of reducing adverse health effects by providing low-risk nicotine products to substitute smoking1. They deal with both the psycho-behavioral (through motor simulation and sensory stimulation) and the chemical (through delivery of nicotine) aspects of smoking addiction2. ECs mainly consist of a lithium battery and a part called atomizer, where the liquid is stored and evaporated by applying electrical current to a resistance and wick setup. There is a substantial variability of devices; small devices, looking similar to tobacco cigarettes (commonly referred as first-generation), consist of a low-capacity batteries and polyfil-filled atomizers, while new-generation devices consist of larger-capacity batteries, larger atomizers and electronic circuits providing the ability to set the power delivery to the atomizer.

The growing popularity of ECs3, 4 has raised significant controversy in public health authorities. Organizations such as the World Health Organization and Food and Drug Administration have expressed concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes and the effects of nicotine intake. Recently, European Union has developed a new regulation which implements an upper limit of 20 mg/ml nicotine concentration in liquids that are used with ECs5. The decision was based on a study from our group, in which nicotine consumption and delivery to the user was evaluated6, 7. However, the route, speed and amount of nicotine absorption (and subsequent nicotine levels in plasma) are important determinants of the efficacy of ECs to serve as smoking substitutes and of any concerns about nicotine overdose or intoxication. Data on nicotine absorption are scarce. Initially, EC use (commonly called vaping) was found to deliver minimal amounts of nicotine to the user as measured by plasma nicotine levels8, 9. However, there has been a fast evolution of new, more efficient devices, and devices used at the time of those experiments are currently outdated and off the market. Surveys have shown that new-generation devices are more popular in dedicated EC users and a significant proportion of these users report complete smoking cessation10, 11. However, no study has evaluated nicotine absorption from such devices. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the nicotine absorption from a first- vs. a new-generation device in experienced vapers.

Results

The use of 18 mg/ml nicotine-concentration liquid probably compromises ECs’ effectiveness as smoking substitutes; this study supports the need for higher levels of nicotine-containing liquids (approximately 50 mg/ml) in order to deliver nicotine more effectively and approach the nicotine-delivery profile of tobacco cigarettes.

Continuer la lecture de Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between first and new-generation devices

Comparative In Vitro Toxicity Profile of Electronic and Tobacco Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products: E-Liquids, Extracts and Collected Aerosols

In this study,  an in vitro battery of established assays was used to examine the cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity and inflammatory responses of certain commercial e-cigs and compared to tobacco burning cigarettes, smokeless tobacco (SLT) products and a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) product. The toxicity evaluation was performed on e-liquids and pad-collected aerosols of e-cigs, pad-collected smoke condensates of tobacco cigarettes and extracts of SLT and NRT products.

Note that the study is financed by Lorillard (tobacco manufacturer)

Published: 30 October 2014

Positive: Yes

Link to publication: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11325

Comments (in French): http://www.ma-cigarette.fr/une-nouvelle-etude-revele-labsence-de-toxines-dans-les-e-cigarettes/

Authors

Manoj Misra
Robert D. Leverette
Bethany T. Cooper
Melanee B. Bennett
Steven E. Brown


Summary

The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) continues to increase worldwide in parallel with accumulating information on their potential toxicity and safety. In this study, an in vitro battery of established assays was used to examine the cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity and inflammatory responses of certain commercial e-cigs and compared to tobacco burning cigarettes, smokeless tobacco (SLT) products and a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) product.

The toxicity evaluation was performed on e-liquids and pad-collected aerosols of e-cigs, pad-collected smoke condensates of tobacco cigarettes and extracts of SLT and NRT products. In all assays, exposures with e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, at the doses tested, showed no significant activity when compared to tobacco burning cigarettes.


 

Conclusions

Results for the e-cigs, with and without nicotine in two evaluated flavor variants, were very similar in all assays, indicating that the presence of nicotine and flavors, at the levels tested, did not induce any cytotoxic, genotoxic or inflammatory effects. The present findings indicate that neither the e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, nor the extracts of the SLT and NRT products produce any meaningful toxic effects in four widely-applied in vitro test systems, in which the conventional cigarette smoke preparations, at comparable exposures, are markedly cytotoxic and genotoxic.

Continuer la lecture de Comparative In Vitro Toxicity Profile of Electronic and Tobacco Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products: E-Liquids, Extracts and Collected Aerosols

Characterisation of mainstream and passive vapours emitted by selected electronic cigarettes

Electronic cigarettes have achieved growing popularity since their introduction onto the European market. They are promoted by manufacturers as healthier alternatives to tobacco cigarettes, however debate among scientists and public health experts about their possible impact on health and indoor air quality means further research into the product is required to ensure decisions of policymakers, health care providers and consumers are based on sound science. This study investigated and characterised the impact of ‘vaping’ (using electronic cigarettes) on indoor environments under controlled conditions using a 30 m3 emission chamber. The study determined the composition of e-cigarette mainstream vapour in terms of propylene glycol, glycerol, carbonyls and nicotine emissions using a smoking machine with adapted smoking parameters. Two different base recipes for refill liquids, with three different amounts of nicotine each, were tested using two models of e-cigarettes. Refill liquids were analysed on their content of propylene glycol, glycerol, nicotine and qualitatively on their principal flavourings. Possible health effects of e-cigarette use are not discussed in this work. Electronic cigarettes tested in this study proved to be sources for propylene glycol, glycerol, nicotine, carbonyls and aerosol particulates. The extent of exposure differs significantly for active and passive ‘vapers’ (users of electronic cigarettes). Extrapolating from the average amounts of propylene glycol and glycerol condensed on the smoking machine filter pad to the resulting lung-concentration, estimated lung concentrations of 160 and 220 mg m−3 for propylene glycol and glycerol were obtained, respectively. Vaping refill liquids with nicotine concentrations of 9 mg mL−1 led to vapour condensate nicotine amounts comparable to those of low-nicotine regular cigarettes (0.15–0.2 mg). In chamber studies, peak concentrations of 2200 μg m−3 for propylene glycol, 136 μg m−3 for glycerol and 0.6 μg m−3 for nicotine were reached. Carbonyls were not detected above the detection limits in chamber studies. Particles in the size range of 20 nm to 300 nm constantly increased during vaping activity and reached final peak concentrations of 7 × 106 particles L−1. Moreover, the tested products showed design flaws such as leakages from the cartridge reservoirs. Possible long term effects of e-cigarettes on health are not yet known. E-cigarettes, the impact of vaping on health and the composition of refill liquids require therefore further research into the product characteristics. The consumers would benefit from harmonised quality and safety improvements of e-cigarettes and refill liquids.

Published: 13 October 2014

Positive:

Link to publication: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463914000972

Authors

Otmar Geiss
Ivana Bianchi
Francisco Barahona
Josefa Barrero-Moreno


Summary

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become increasingly popular since their introduction onto the European market in 2005. Use in Great Britain, for example, more than doubled from 2.7% of vapers in 2010 to 6.7% in 2012 (Dockrell et al., 2013).

They are frequently advertised by manufacturers as a healthier alternative to tobacco cigarettes (Ayers et al., 2011) and a smoking cessation tool, and have become a popular substitute for traditional tobacco because of indoor smoking restrictions on traditional tobacco cigarettes (Etter and Bullen, 2011).

Uncertainties about their impact on health and indoor air quality have caused debate among scientists and public health experts. Concerns most frequently relate to product safety in terms of product design, exposure to toxic products, potential for abuse (including dual use with tobacco products), use by young people and effectiveness in helping smokers to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes (Noel et al., 2011).

Although some studies have indicated that they are less harmful than smoking regular tobacco cigarettes (Caponetto et al., 2013 and Wagener et al., 2012), e-cigarettes and refill liquids nonetheless require further research into the detail and composition of the products, as will be required under the newly revised Tobacco Product Directive (2014/40/EU), to ensure that the decisions of policymakers, health care providers and consumers are based on sound science (Etter et al., 2011).

Only a few studies have reported on the impact of e-cigarette vaping on indoor air quality (passive vaping).Schripp et al. (2013) found that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ultrafine particles (UFP) were released from an e-cigarette while actively vaping in an 8 m3 emission chamber. Schober et al. (2014)reported on VOC, particle and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), carbonyls and metals releases into a real office environment. This study also monitored the effect of vaping on FeNO release and the urinary metabolite profile. McAuley et al. (2012) compared the effects of e-cigarettes vapour and cigarette smoke on indoor quality. In this study, vapours were generated using a smoking machine and were collected in a sampling bag for analysis. Fuoco et al. (2014) analysed e-cigarette generated aerosols in terms of particle number concentrations and size distribution.

Other studies have focused on safety and quality aspects of refill liquids. They reported inconsistent levels of nicotine (Goniewicz et al., 2013) and nicotine impurities (Trehy et al., 2011, Etter et al., 2013 and Hutzler et al., 2014) among batches/brands. Williams et al. (2013) described the possibility of metals, or chemicals from plastics in the delivery system, leaching into the vapour before inhalation. Behar et al. (2014)identified toxicants in cinnamon-flavoured e-cigarette refill liquids.

This study proposes a systematic approach to characterise e-cigarette emissions under controlled conditions using a smoking machine with adapted smoking parameters for the generation of vapours from well characterised refill-liquids. The impact of vaping on the indoor environment was investigated introducing the generated vapours into a 30 m3 walk-in emission chamber operated under defined conditions (temperature, relative humidity and ventilation rate). The composition of e-cigarette mainstream vapours in terms of propylene glycol, glycerol, low molecular carbonyls and nicotine emissions was determined applying an adapted standardised smoking protocol for regular cigarettes. Two models of e-cigarettes were used in this study, differing primarily by the way in which refill liquids are evaporated. In order to cover the widest range possible, two very different base recipes for the refill liquid, each with three different amounts of nicotine, were used for the emission testing. Possible health effects of e-cigarette use are not discussed in this work.


Conclusion

Electronic cigarettes tested in this study proved to be sources of propylene glycol, glycerol, nicotine, carbonyls and aerosol particulates. The extent to which people could be passively exposed to these depends on the ventilation rate, room size, indoor climate, room equipment and number of e-cigarettes in use. In addition to exposure to toxicants, consideration must also be given to the generally perceived air quality in microenvironments where vaping is permitted (independently of its toxicity). Sensory assessment of the acceptability of air quality or odour intensity by a human panel could answer this question and should be further explored.

In addition to considering exposure to second-hand vapour, this study shows that active vapers inhale relatively high concentrations of propylene glycol, glycerol, aerosol particulates and certain carbonyls. This exposure might require further toxicological evaluation.

Possible long term effects of e-cigarettes health are not yet known. E-cigarettes, the impact of vaping on health and the composition of refill liquids require therefore further research into the product characteristics. For the benefit of consumers, quality and safety requirements of e-cigarettes and refill liquids should be harmonised.


Continuer la lecture de Characterisation of mainstream and passive vapours emitted by selected electronic cigarettes

Particulate Metals and Organic Compounds from Electronic and Tobaccocontaining Cigarettes: Comparison of Emission Rates and Secondhand Exposure

Particulate metals and organic compounds from electronic and tobacco-containing cigarettes: comparison of emission rates and secondhand exposure

Published: 22 August 2014

Positive: No

Link to publication: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/em/c4em00415a#!divAbstract

Authors

Arian Saffari, Nancy Daher, Ario Ruprecht, Cinzia De Marco, Paolo Pozzi, Roberto Boffi, Samera H. Hamad, Martin M. Shafer, James J. Schauer, Dane Westerdahle and Constantinos Sioutas


Summary

In recent years, electronic cigarettes have gained increasing popularity as alternatives to normal (tobacco-containing) cigarettes. In the present study, particles generated by e-cigarettes and normal cigarettes have been analyzed and the degree of exposure to different chemical agents and their emission rates were quantified. Despite the 10-fold decrease in the total exposure to particulate elements in e-cigarettes compared to normal cigarettes, specific metals (e.g. Ni and Ag) still displayed a higher emission rate from e-cigarettes. Further analysis indicated that the contribution of e-liquid to the emission of these metals is rather minimal, implying that they likely originate from other components of the e-cigarette device or other indoor sources. Organic species had lower emission rates during e-cigarette consumption compared to normal cigarettes. Of particular note was the non-detectable emission of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from e-cigarettes, while substantial emission of these species was observed from normal cigarettes. Overall, with the exception of Ni, Zn, and Ag, the consumption of e-cigarettes resulted in a remarkable decrease in secondhand exposure to all metals and organic compounds. Implementing quality control protocols on the manufacture of e-cigarettes would further minimize the emission of metals from these devices and improve their safety and associated health effects.


Conclusion

Analysis of secondhand emissions from a popular and widely-used e-cigarette brand indicated a very large reduction of particle-phase emissions compared to normal tobacco-containing cigarettes in a real-life setting. BC and particle-phase PAHs, deleterious chemical species present in high concentrations in tobacco smoke, were not detected in e-cigarette’s aerosol. Emission rates of organic compounds (including alkanes and organic acids) as well as total emission of inorganic elements and metals were also significantly reduced (more than100 times for organics and 10 times for elements) in e-cigarettes compared to normal cigarettes. Analysis of elemental emissions indicated the presence of toxic metals (such as Ni, Zn and Ag) in e-cigarette’s aerosol, with Ni and Ag having higher indoor emission rates compared to normal cigarettes. Moreover,analysis of nicotine indicated that secondhand particle-phase nicotine accounted for about 0.02% of the total nicotine generation and emission during e-cigarette vaping. Based on our results, use of e-cigarettes from a public health perspective appears to be an improvement compared to normal tobacco-containing cigarettes, as exposure to most of the toxic and/or undesirable chemical species was found to be much lower than that for normal cigarettes. However, considering the lack of regulation on the manufacturing process of e-cigarettes, there appears to be a potential for utilization of toxic material (such as metals) in e-cigarettes, which could lead to their emission in e-cigarette’s vapor and aerosol.1,13Implementing quality control regulations on the design and manufacturing process of e-cigarettes is therefore necessary to prevent potential utilization of non-desirable material in e-cigarettes and e-liquids.


Complete study: Particulate metals and organic compounds from (study in pdf)

Particulate (additional information on the study in pdf)

Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol

The filament, a nickel-chromium wire, was coupled to a thicker copper wire coated with silver. The silver coating was sometimes missing. Four tin solder joints attached the wires to each other and coupled the copper/silver wire to the air tube and mouthpiece. All cartomizers had evidence of use before packaging (burn spots on the fibers and electrophoretic movement of fluid in the fibers). Fibers in two cartomizers had green deposits that contained copper. Centrifugation of the fibers produced large pellets containing tin. Tin particles and tin whiskers were identified in cartridge fluid and outer fibers. Cartomizer fluid with tin particles was cytotoxic in assays using human pulmonary fibroblasts. The aerosol contained particles >1 µm comprised of tin, silver, iron, nickel, aluminum, and silicate and nanoparticles (<100 nm) of tin, chromium and nickel. The concentrations of nine of eleven elements in EC aerosol were higher than or equal to the corresponding concentrations in conventional cigarette smoke. Many of the elements identified in EC aerosol are known to cause respiratory distress and disease.

Published: 20 March 2013

Positive: No

Link to publication: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057987

Reply from Dr Siegel: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.be/2013/04/metals-in-electronic-cigarette-vapor.html

Authors

Monique Williams
Amanda Villarreal
Krassimir Bozhilov
Sabrina Lin
Prue Talbot


Summary

We tested the hypothesis that EC aerosol contains metals derived from various components in EC.

Cartomizer contents and aerosols were analyzed using light and electron microscopy, cytotoxicity testing, x-ray microanalysis, particle counting, and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry.


Conclusions

The presence of metal and silicate particles in cartomizer aerosol demonstrates the need for improved quality control in EC design and manufacture and studies on how EC aerosol impacts the health of users and bystanders.


 

Complete study: Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol (pdf)