4.3 Article

Exposure Assessment of Environmental Tobacco Aerosol from Heated Tobacco Products: Nicotine and PM Exposures under Two Limited Conditions

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228536

关键词

heated tobacco products (HTPs); secondhand aerosol; policy; nicotine; particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5); exposure assessment

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare under the Fund for Tobacco Research and Analysis Project
  2. National Cancer Center [H29-30, H31/R1, H31/R2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is too early to provide a clear answer on the impact of exposure to the second-hand aerosol of heated tobacco products (HTPs) in the planning of policy for smoke-free indoors legislation. Here, we conducted a preliminary study to evaluate indoor air quality with the use of HTPs. We first measured the concentration of nicotine and particulate matter (PM2.5) in the air following 50 puffs in the use of HTPs or cigarettes in a small shower cubicle. We then measured these concentrations in comparison with the use equivalent of smoking 5.4 cigarettes per hour in a 25 m(3) room, as a typical indoor environment test condition. In the shower cubicle test, nicotine concentrations in indoor air using three types of HTP, namely IQOS, glo, and ploomTECH, were 25.9-257 mu g/m(3). These values all exceed the upper bound of the range of tolerable concentration without health concerns, namely 3 mu g/m(3). In particular, the indoor PM2.5 concentration of about 300 to 500 mu g/m(3) using IQOS or glo in the shower cubicle is hazardous. In the 25 m(3) room test, in contrast, nicotine concentrations in indoor air with the three types of HTP did not exceed 3 mu g/m(3). PM2.5 concentrations were below the standard value of 15 mu g/m(3) per year for IQOS and ploomTECH, but were slightly high for glo, with some measurements exceeding 100 mu g/m(3). These results do not negate the inclusion of HTPs within a regulatory framework for indoor tolerable use from exposure to HTP aerosol, unlike cigarette smoke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据