4.7 Review

Critical Review of the Recent Literature on Organic Byproducts in E-Cigarette Aerosol Emissions

Journal

TOXICS
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxics10120714

Keywords

e-cigarettes; vaping; aerosol emissions; puffing protocols; organic byproducts

Funding

  1. region Nouvelle Aquitaine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laboratory studies have shown that the production of potentially toxic organic byproducts in e-cigarette aerosol emissions is significantly lower than in tobacco smoke. However, most studies did not meet the consistency criterion with realistic usage conditions, leading to questionable reliability of experimental outcomes and risk assessments.
We review the literature on laboratory studies quantifying the production of potentially toxic organic byproducts (carbonyls, carbon monoxide, free radicals and some nontargeted compounds) in e-cigarette (EC) aerosol emissions, focusing on the consistency between their experimental design and a realistic usage of the devices, as determined by the power ranges of an optimal regime fulfilling a thermodynamically efficient process of aerosol generation that avoids overheating and dry puffs. The majority of the reviewed studies failed in various degrees to comply with this consistency criterion or supplied insufficient information to verify it. Consequently, most of the experimental outcomes and risk assessments are either partially or totally unreliable and/or of various degrees of questionable relevance to end users. Studies testing the devices under reasonable approximation to realistic conditions detected levels of all organic byproducts that are either negligible or orders of magnitude lower than in tobacco smoke. Our review reinforces the pressing need to update and improve current laboratory standards by an appropriate selection of testing parameters and the logistical incorporation of end users in the experimental design.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available