Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Apr 5;14(4):382.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph14040382.

A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A Comparative Health Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes

Jinsong Chen et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

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: comparative risk; electronic cigarettes; risk assessment; tobacco control; toxicology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Risk comparison of maximum/average hazards’ exposure levels to guideline levels.

References

    1. Caponnetto P., Campagna D., Papale G., Russo C., Polosa R. The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes. Expert Rev. Respir. Med. 2012;6:63–74. doi: 10.1586/ers.11.92. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pepper J.K., Brewer N.T. Electronic nicotine delivery system (electronic cigarette) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs: A systematic review. Tob. Control. 2014;23:375–384. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051122. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schoenborn C.A., Gindi R.M. Electronic Cigarette Use among Adults: United States 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: United States, 2015. [(accessed on 13 February 2017)]; Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db217.pdf.
    1. Action on Smoking and Health Use of Electronic Cigarettes (Vapourisers) among Adults in Great Britain. ASH: United Kingdom. [(accessed on 13 February 2017)];2016 Available online: http://ash.org.uk/information-and-resources/fact-sheets/use-of-electroni...
    1. Electronic Cigarette Statistics. [(accessed on 10 November 2016)]; Available online: http://www.statisticbrain.com/electronic-cigarette-statistics/