4.3 Article

Passive Exposure to Pollutants from a New Generation of Cigarettes in Real Life Scenarios

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103455

Keywords

indoor air quality; e-cigarettes; heat-not-burn tobacco; traditional smoking products; tobacco smoke; passenger cars

Funding

  1. LIFE Index-Air project [LIFE15 ENV/PT/000674]
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) [SFRH/BPD/102944/2014, IST-ID/098/2018, UIDB/04349/2020+UIDP/04349/2020, UIDB/50017/2020+UIDP/50017/2020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and heat-not-burn tobacco (HNBT), as popular nicotine delivery systems (NDS), has increased among adult demographics. This study aims to assess the effects on indoor air quality of traditional tobacco cigarettes (TCs) and new smoking alternatives, to determine the differences between their potential impacts on human health. Measurements of particulate matter (PM1, PM2.5 and PM10), black carbon, carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) were performed in two real life scenarios, in the home and in the car. The results indicated that the particle emissions from the different NDS devices were significantly different. In the home and car, the use of TCs resulted in higher PM10 and ultrafine particle concentrations than when e-cigarettes were smoked, while the lowest concentrations were associated with HNBT. As black carbon and CO are released by combustion processes, the concentrations of these two pollutants were significantly lower for e-cigarettes and HNBT because no combustion occurs when they are smoked. CO2 showed no increase directly associated with the NDS but a trend linked to a higher respiration rate connected with smoking. The results showed that although the levels of pollutants emitted by e-cigarettes and HNBT are substantially lower compared to those from TCs, the new smoking devices are still a source of indoor air pollutants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available