Search

We provide an extensive review of 14 studies (11 independent and three industry-funded) on emissions generated by Electronic Cigarettes (ECs), specifically focusing on the evaluation of carbonyls present in these emissions and emphasizing a meticulous evaluation of their analytical methods and experimental procedures. Since the presence of carbonyl by-products in EC aerosol is concerning, it is important to evaluate the reliability of emission studies quantifying these compounds by verifying their compliance with the following criteria of experimental quality: authors must 1) supply sufficient information on the devices and experimental procedures to allow for potentially reproducing or replicating the experiments, 2) use of appropriate puffing protocols that approach consumer usage as best as possible, 3) use of appropriate analytical methods and 4) usage of blank samples to avoid false positive detection. Outcomes were classified in terms of the fulfilment of these conditions as reliable in seven studies, partially reliable in five studies, and unreliable in two studies. However, only five studies used blank samples and six studies failed the reproducibility criterion. Carbonyl yields were far below their yields in tobacco smoke in all reproducible studies, even in the partially reliable ones, thus supporting the role of ECs (when properly tested and operated) as harm reduction products. This review highlights the necessity to evaluate the quality of laboratory standards in testing EC emissions to achieve an objective assessment of the risk profile of ECs., Competing Interests: Author SS was employed by Ingésciences. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Sussman, Sipala, Ronsisvalle and Soulet.)

We provide an extensive review of 17 independent and industry-funded studies targeting carbonyls in aerosol emissions of Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs), focusing on quality criteria based on the reproducibility of experiments, appropriate analytic methods, and puffing regimes. Most revised studies complied with these requirements, but some were unreproducible, while others failed to consider analytical variables that may have affected the results and/or produced unrealistic comparisons. We also provide a review of the literature on the physicochemical properties of heated tobacco and HTP aerosols, as well as the evaluation of HTPs by regulatory agencies, addressing various critiques of their relative safety profile. The outcomes from the revised studies and regulatory evaluations tend to agree with and converge to a general consensus that HTP aerosols expose users to significantly lower levels of toxicity than tobacco smoke.

It is well known that airborne transmission of COVID-19 in indoor spaces occurs through various respiratory activities: breathing, vocalizing, coughing, and sneezing. However, there is a complete lack of knowledge of its possible transmission through exhalations of e-cigarette aerosol (ECA), which is also a respiratory activity. E-cigarettes have become widely popular among smokers seeking a much safer way of nicotine consumption than smoking. Due to restrictive lockdown measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, many smokers and vapers (e-cigarette users) were confined to shared indoor spaces, making it necessary to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus aerial transmission through their exhalations. We summarize inferred knowledge of respiratory particles emission and transport through ECA, as well as a theoretical framework for explaining the visibility of exhaled ECA, which has safety implications and is absent in other respiratory activities (apart from smoking). We also summarize and briefly discuss the effects of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccination rates, and environmental factors that may influence the spread of COVID-19. To estimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus aerial transmission associated with vaping exhalations, we adapt a theoretical risk model that has been used to analyze the risks associated with other respiratory activities in shared indoor spaces. We consider home and restaurant scenarios, with natural and mechanical ventilation, with occupants wearing and not wearing face masks. We consider as "control case" or baseline risk scenario an indoor space (home and restaurant) where respiratory droplets and droplet nuclei are uniformly distributed and aerial contagion risk might originate exclusively from occupants exclusively rest breathing, assuming this to be the only (unavoidable) respiratory activity they all carry on. If an infected occupant uses an e-cigarette in a home or restaurant scenarios, bystanders not wearing face masks exposed to the resulting ECA expirations face a [Formula: see text] increase of risk of contagion with respect the control case. This relative added risk with respect to the control case becomes [Formula: see text] for high-intensity vaping, [Formula: see text], and over [Formula: see text] for speaking for various periods or coughing (all without vaping). Infectious emissions are significantly modified by mechanical ventilation, face mask usage, vaccination, and environmental factors, but given the lack of empiric evidence, we assume as a working hypothesis that all basic parameters of respiratory activities are equally (or roughly equally) affected by these factors. Hence, the relative risk percentages with respect to the control state should remain roughly the same under a wide range of varying conditions. By avoiding direct exposure to the visible exhaled vaping jet, wearers of commonly used face masks are well protected from respiratory droplets and droplet nuclei directly emitted by mask-less vapers. Compared to the control case of an already existing (unavoidable) risk from continuous breathing, vaping emissions in shared indoor spaces pose just a negligible additional risk of COVID-19 contagion. We consider that it is not necessary to take additional preventive measures beyond those already prescribed (1.5 m separation and wearing face masks) in order to protect bystanders from this contagion., (© 2022. The Author(s).)