Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers
- PMID: 25262078
- DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.09.005
Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers
Abstract
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/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 μg/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 μg/m(3) (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.
Conclusions: 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.
Keywords: Biological markers; Electronic cigarette; Electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS); Tobacco smoke pollution.
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Similar articles
-
Secondhand smoke exposure at home: assessment by biomarkers and airborne markers.Environ Res. 2014 Aug;133:111-6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.05.013. Epub 2014 Jun 7. Environ Res. 2014. PMID: 24912142
-
Exposure to secondhand aerosol from electronic cigarettes at homes: A real-life study in four European countries.Sci Total Environ. 2023 Jan 1;854:158668. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158668. Epub 2022 Sep 12. Sci Total Environ. 2023. PMID: 36099951
-
Urinary cotinine levels of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) users.Toxicol Mech Methods. 2016 Jul;26(6):414-8. doi: 10.3109/15376516.2016.1144127. Epub 2016 Jun 8. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2016. PMID: 27278718
-
[Biomarkers of tobacco smoke exposure].Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2002 May-Jun;60(3):263-72. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2002. PMID: 12050041 Review. French.
-
Importance of exposure to gaseous and particulate phase components of tobacco smoke in active and passive smokers.Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1990;62(6):459-66. doi: 10.1007/BF00379064. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1990. PMID: 2246065 Review.
Cited by
-
Determination of Selected Chemical Levels in Room Air and on Surfaces after the Use of Cartridge- and Tank-Based E-Vapor Products or Conventional Cigarettes.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Aug 28;14(9):969. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14090969. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017. PMID: 28846634 Free PMC article.
-
Use of electronic cigarettes and secondhand exposure to their aerosols are associated with asthma symptoms among adolescents: a cross-sectional study.Respir Res. 2020 Nov 16;21(1):300. doi: 10.1186/s12931-020-01569-9. Respir Res. 2020. PMID: 33198741 Free PMC article.
-
Dual Substance Use of Electronic Cigarettes and Alcohol.Front Physiol. 2020 Nov 2;11:593803. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.593803. eCollection 2020. Front Physiol. 2020. PMID: 33224040 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Nicotine and the Developing Human: A Neglected Element in the Electronic Cigarette Debate.Am J Prev Med. 2015 Aug;49(2):286-93. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.015. Epub 2015 Mar 17. Am J Prev Med. 2015. PMID: 25794473 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy.J Am Coll Health. 2022 Aug-Sep;70(6):1754-1760. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293. Epub 2020 Sep 15. J Am Coll Health. 2022. PMID: 32931725 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical