Loading…

Insights from two industrial hygiene pilot e-cigarette passive vaping studies

While several reports have been published using research methods of estimating exposure risk to e-cigarette vapors in nonusers, only two have directly measured indoor air concentrations from vaping using validated industrial hygiene sampling methodology. Our first study was designed to measure indoo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene 2016-04, Vol.13 (4), p.275-283
Main Authors: Maloney, John C., Thompson, Michael K., Oldham, Michael J., Stiff, Charles L., Lilly, Patrick D., Patskan, George J., Shafer, Kenneth H., Sarkar, Mohamadi A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-87b5e6c2beaf5b4408e94c420f39344d7f8cee4d75f03ea7874af2f8aad919003
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-87b5e6c2beaf5b4408e94c420f39344d7f8cee4d75f03ea7874af2f8aad919003
container_end_page 283
container_issue 4
container_start_page 275
container_title Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene
container_volume 13
creator Maloney, John C.
Thompson, Michael K.
Oldham, Michael J.
Stiff, Charles L.
Lilly, Patrick D.
Patskan, George J.
Shafer, Kenneth H.
Sarkar, Mohamadi A.
description While several reports have been published using research methods of estimating exposure risk to e-cigarette vapors in nonusers, only two have directly measured indoor air concentrations from vaping using validated industrial hygiene sampling methodology. Our first study was designed to measure indoor air concentrations of nicotine, menthol, propylene glycol, glycerol, and total particulates during the use of multiple e-cigarettes in a well-characterized room over a period of time. Our second study was a repeat of the first study, and it also evaluated levels of formaldehyde. Measurements were collected using active sampling, near real-time and direct measurement techniques. Air sampling incorporated industrial hygiene sampling methodology using analytical methods established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Active samples were collected over a 12-hr period, for 4 days. Background measurements were taken in the same room the day before and the day after vaping. Panelists (n = 185 Study 1; n = 145 Study 2) used menthol and non-menthol MarkTen prototype e-cigarettes. Vaping sessions (six, 1-hr) included 3 prototypes, with total number of puffs ranging from 36-216 per session. Results of the active samples were below the limit of quantitation of the analytical methods. Near real-time data were below the lowest concentration on the established calibration curves. Data from this study indicate that the majority of chemical constituents sampled were below quantifiable levels. Formaldehyde was detected at consistent levels during all sampling periods. These two studies found that indoor vaping of MarkTen prototype e-cigarette does not produce chemical constituents at quantifiable levels or background levels using standard industrial hygiene collection techniques and analytical methods.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/15459624.2015.1116693
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1768562279</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3982247401</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-87b5e6c2beaf5b4408e94c420f39344d7f8cee4d75f03ea7874af2f8aad919003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1PGzEQhi1UBCnwE1qt1EsvG_z9cWuFCo0UxAXOlrM7Tox216ntBeXfd6MEDj20vcyMRs-8lvUg9IngOcEaXxPBhZGUzykmYk4IkdKwEzTb72sjGf3wPlN-jj7m_IwxlYTJM3ROpVBSMz5D94shh_Wm5Mqn2FflNVZhaMdcUnBdtdmtAwxQbUMXSwV1E9YuQSnTxuUcXqB6cdswrKtcxjZAvkSn3nUZro79Aj3d_ni8-VkvH-4WN9-XdcMlLrVWKwGyoStwXqw4xxoMbzjFnhnGeau8bgCmLjxm4JRW3HnqtXOtIQZjdoG-HnK3Kf4aIRfbh9xA17kB4pgtUQYbRtVU_o1qZbTCjPwHKrWQlKp96pc_0Oc4pmH680QpyqkSnE-UOFBNijkn8HabQu_SzhJs9xbtm0W7t2iPFqe7z8f0cdVD-371pm0Cvh2AMPiYevcaU9fa4nZdTD65oQnZsr-_8RuZZKq2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1772427544</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Insights from two industrial hygiene pilot e-cigarette passive vaping studies</title><source>Taylor and Francis Science and Technology Collection</source><creator>Maloney, John C. ; Thompson, Michael K. ; Oldham, Michael J. ; Stiff, Charles L. ; Lilly, Patrick D. ; Patskan, George J. ; Shafer, Kenneth H. ; Sarkar, Mohamadi A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Maloney, John C. ; Thompson, Michael K. ; Oldham, Michael J. ; Stiff, Charles L. ; Lilly, Patrick D. ; Patskan, George J. ; Shafer, Kenneth H. ; Sarkar, Mohamadi A.</creatorcontrib><description>While several reports have been published using research methods of estimating exposure risk to e-cigarette vapors in nonusers, only two have directly measured indoor air concentrations from vaping using validated industrial hygiene sampling methodology. Our first study was designed to measure indoor air concentrations of nicotine, menthol, propylene glycol, glycerol, and total particulates during the use of multiple e-cigarettes in a well-characterized room over a period of time. Our second study was a repeat of the first study, and it also evaluated levels of formaldehyde. Measurements were collected using active sampling, near real-time and direct measurement techniques. Air sampling incorporated industrial hygiene sampling methodology using analytical methods established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Active samples were collected over a 12-hr period, for 4 days. Background measurements were taken in the same room the day before and the day after vaping. Panelists (n = 185 Study 1; n = 145 Study 2) used menthol and non-menthol MarkTen prototype e-cigarettes. Vaping sessions (six, 1-hr) included 3 prototypes, with total number of puffs ranging from 36-216 per session. Results of the active samples were below the limit of quantitation of the analytical methods. Near real-time data were below the lowest concentration on the established calibration curves. Data from this study indicate that the majority of chemical constituents sampled were below quantifiable levels. Formaldehyde was detected at consistent levels during all sampling periods. These two studies found that indoor vaping of MarkTen prototype e-cigarette does not produce chemical constituents at quantifiable levels or background levels using standard industrial hygiene collection techniques and analytical methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1545-9624</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-9632</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1116693</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26576834</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>Air Pollutants - analysis ; Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis ; Atmosphere concentrations ; Constituents ; e-cigarette ; Electronic cigarettes ; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems ; Formaldehyde - analysis ; Glycerol - analysis ; Health ; Health risk assessment ; Human exposure ; Hygiene ; Industrial health and safety ; Mathematical analysis ; Measurement techniques ; Menthol ; Menthol - analysis ; Nicotine - analysis ; Occupational Health ; Occupational safety ; Particulate Matter - analysis ; passive vaping ; Pilot Projects ; Propylene Glycol - analysis ; Prototypes ; Sampling ; Studies ; Vaping</subject><ispartof>Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2016-04, Vol.13 (4), p.275-283</ispartof><rights>2016 JOEH, LLC 2016</rights><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Group 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-87b5e6c2beaf5b4408e94c420f39344d7f8cee4d75f03ea7874af2f8aad919003</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-87b5e6c2beaf5b4408e94c420f39344d7f8cee4d75f03ea7874af2f8aad919003</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26576834$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maloney, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Michael K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oldham, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stiff, Charles L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lilly, Patrick D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patskan, George J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shafer, Kenneth H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarkar, Mohamadi A.</creatorcontrib><title>Insights from two industrial hygiene pilot e-cigarette passive vaping studies</title><title>Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene</title><addtitle>J Occup Environ Hyg</addtitle><description>While several reports have been published using research methods of estimating exposure risk to e-cigarette vapors in nonusers, only two have directly measured indoor air concentrations from vaping using validated industrial hygiene sampling methodology. Our first study was designed to measure indoor air concentrations of nicotine, menthol, propylene glycol, glycerol, and total particulates during the use of multiple e-cigarettes in a well-characterized room over a period of time. Our second study was a repeat of the first study, and it also evaluated levels of formaldehyde. Measurements were collected using active sampling, near real-time and direct measurement techniques. Air sampling incorporated industrial hygiene sampling methodology using analytical methods established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Active samples were collected over a 12-hr period, for 4 days. Background measurements were taken in the same room the day before and the day after vaping. Panelists (n = 185 Study 1; n = 145 Study 2) used menthol and non-menthol MarkTen prototype e-cigarettes. Vaping sessions (six, 1-hr) included 3 prototypes, with total number of puffs ranging from 36-216 per session. Results of the active samples were below the limit of quantitation of the analytical methods. Near real-time data were below the lowest concentration on the established calibration curves. Data from this study indicate that the majority of chemical constituents sampled were below quantifiable levels. Formaldehyde was detected at consistent levels during all sampling periods. These two studies found that indoor vaping of MarkTen prototype e-cigarette does not produce chemical constituents at quantifiable levels or background levels using standard industrial hygiene collection techniques and analytical methods.</description><subject>Air Pollutants - analysis</subject><subject>Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis</subject><subject>Atmosphere concentrations</subject><subject>Constituents</subject><subject>e-cigarette</subject><subject>Electronic cigarettes</subject><subject>Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems</subject><subject>Formaldehyde - analysis</subject><subject>Glycerol - analysis</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Human exposure</subject><subject>Hygiene</subject><subject>Industrial health and safety</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Measurement techniques</subject><subject>Menthol</subject><subject>Menthol - analysis</subject><subject>Nicotine - analysis</subject><subject>Occupational Health</subject><subject>Occupational safety</subject><subject>Particulate Matter - analysis</subject><subject>passive vaping</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Propylene Glycol - analysis</subject><subject>Prototypes</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Vaping</subject><issn>1545-9624</issn><issn>1545-9632</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkU1PGzEQhi1UBCnwE1qt1EsvG_z9cWuFCo0UxAXOlrM7Tox216ntBeXfd6MEDj20vcyMRs-8lvUg9IngOcEaXxPBhZGUzykmYk4IkdKwEzTb72sjGf3wPlN-jj7m_IwxlYTJM3ROpVBSMz5D94shh_Wm5Mqn2FflNVZhaMdcUnBdtdmtAwxQbUMXSwV1E9YuQSnTxuUcXqB6cdswrKtcxjZAvkSn3nUZro79Aj3d_ni8-VkvH-4WN9-XdcMlLrVWKwGyoStwXqw4xxoMbzjFnhnGeau8bgCmLjxm4JRW3HnqtXOtIQZjdoG-HnK3Kf4aIRfbh9xA17kB4pgtUQYbRtVU_o1qZbTCjPwHKrWQlKp96pc_0Oc4pmH680QpyqkSnE-UOFBNijkn8HabQu_SzhJs9xbtm0W7t2iPFqe7z8f0cdVD-371pm0Cvh2AMPiYevcaU9fa4nZdTD65oQnZsr-_8RuZZKq2</recordid><startdate>20160402</startdate><enddate>20160402</enddate><creator>Maloney, John C.</creator><creator>Thompson, Michael K.</creator><creator>Oldham, Michael J.</creator><creator>Stiff, Charles L.</creator><creator>Lilly, Patrick D.</creator><creator>Patskan, George J.</creator><creator>Shafer, Kenneth H.</creator><creator>Sarkar, Mohamadi A.</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis LLC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U2</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160402</creationdate><title>Insights from two industrial hygiene pilot e-cigarette passive vaping studies</title><author>Maloney, John C. ; Thompson, Michael K. ; Oldham, Michael J. ; Stiff, Charles L. ; Lilly, Patrick D. ; Patskan, George J. ; Shafer, Kenneth H. ; Sarkar, Mohamadi A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-87b5e6c2beaf5b4408e94c420f39344d7f8cee4d75f03ea7874af2f8aad919003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Air Pollutants - analysis</topic><topic>Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis</topic><topic>Atmosphere concentrations</topic><topic>Constituents</topic><topic>e-cigarette</topic><topic>Electronic cigarettes</topic><topic>Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems</topic><topic>Formaldehyde - analysis</topic><topic>Glycerol - analysis</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Human exposure</topic><topic>Hygiene</topic><topic>Industrial health and safety</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Measurement techniques</topic><topic>Menthol</topic><topic>Menthol - analysis</topic><topic>Nicotine - analysis</topic><topic>Occupational Health</topic><topic>Occupational safety</topic><topic>Particulate Matter - analysis</topic><topic>passive vaping</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Propylene Glycol - analysis</topic><topic>Prototypes</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Vaping</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maloney, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Michael K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oldham, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stiff, Charles L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lilly, Patrick D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patskan, George J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shafer, Kenneth H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarkar, Mohamadi A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><jtitle>Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maloney, John C.</au><au>Thompson, Michael K.</au><au>Oldham, Michael J.</au><au>Stiff, Charles L.</au><au>Lilly, Patrick D.</au><au>Patskan, George J.</au><au>Shafer, Kenneth H.</au><au>Sarkar, Mohamadi A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Insights from two industrial hygiene pilot e-cigarette passive vaping studies</atitle><jtitle>Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene</jtitle><addtitle>J Occup Environ Hyg</addtitle><date>2016-04-02</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>275</spage><epage>283</epage><pages>275-283</pages><issn>1545-9624</issn><eissn>1545-9632</eissn><abstract>While several reports have been published using research methods of estimating exposure risk to e-cigarette vapors in nonusers, only two have directly measured indoor air concentrations from vaping using validated industrial hygiene sampling methodology. Our first study was designed to measure indoor air concentrations of nicotine, menthol, propylene glycol, glycerol, and total particulates during the use of multiple e-cigarettes in a well-characterized room over a period of time. Our second study was a repeat of the first study, and it also evaluated levels of formaldehyde. Measurements were collected using active sampling, near real-time and direct measurement techniques. Air sampling incorporated industrial hygiene sampling methodology using analytical methods established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Active samples were collected over a 12-hr period, for 4 days. Background measurements were taken in the same room the day before and the day after vaping. Panelists (n = 185 Study 1; n = 145 Study 2) used menthol and non-menthol MarkTen prototype e-cigarettes. Vaping sessions (six, 1-hr) included 3 prototypes, with total number of puffs ranging from 36-216 per session. Results of the active samples were below the limit of quantitation of the analytical methods. Near real-time data were below the lowest concentration on the established calibration curves. Data from this study indicate that the majority of chemical constituents sampled were below quantifiable levels. Formaldehyde was detected at consistent levels during all sampling periods. These two studies found that indoor vaping of MarkTen prototype e-cigarette does not produce chemical constituents at quantifiable levels or background levels using standard industrial hygiene collection techniques and analytical methods.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><pmid>26576834</pmid><doi>10.1080/15459624.2015.1116693</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1545-9624
ispartof Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2016-04, Vol.13 (4), p.275-283
issn 1545-9624
1545-9632
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1768562279
source Taylor and Francis Science and Technology Collection
subjects Air Pollutants - analysis
Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis
Atmosphere concentrations
Constituents
e-cigarette
Electronic cigarettes
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
Formaldehyde - analysis
Glycerol - analysis
Health
Health risk assessment
Human exposure
Hygiene
Industrial health and safety
Mathematical analysis
Measurement techniques
Menthol
Menthol - analysis
Nicotine - analysis
Occupational Health
Occupational safety
Particulate Matter - analysis
passive vaping
Pilot Projects
Propylene Glycol - analysis
Prototypes
Sampling
Studies
Vaping
title Insights from two industrial hygiene pilot e-cigarette passive vaping studies
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T16%3A24%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Insights%20from%20two%20industrial%20hygiene%20pilot%20e-cigarette%20passive%20vaping%20studies&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20occupational%20and%20environmental%20hygiene&rft.au=Maloney,%20John%20C.&rft.date=2016-04-02&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=275&rft.epage=283&rft.pages=275-283&rft.issn=1545-9624&rft.eissn=1545-9632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/15459624.2015.1116693&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3982247401%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-87b5e6c2beaf5b4408e94c420f39344d7f8cee4d75f03ea7874af2f8aad919003%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1772427544&rft_id=info:pmid/26576834&rfr_iscdi=true