Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Mar 28;33(1):43-52.
doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0075.

Electronic cigarettes: a systematic review of available studies on health risk assessment

Affiliations
Review

Electronic cigarettes: a systematic review of available studies on health risk assessment

Aziemah Zulkifli et al. Rev Environ Health. .

Abstract

Objective: This paper primarily aimed to review articles which specifically quantified the risk of electronic cigarette's (e-cigarette) usage via the health risk assessment (HRA) approach.

Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted using PubMed search engine databases. Search terms such as "electronic cigarette", "e-cigarette", "electronic nicotine delivery systems", "electronic cigarette liquid", "electronic cigarette vapors", and "health risk assessment" were used to identify the relevant articles to be included in this review. To enable comparison, hazard quotient (HQ) and lifetime cancer risk (LCR) for the chemicals measured in the selected articles were calculated for three of the articles using the formula: [1] HQ=average daily dose (ADD)/reference dose (RfD) or exposure air concentration (EC)/reference concentration (RfC); [2] LCR=lifetime average daily dose (LADD) × cancer slope factor (CSF) or exposure air concentration (EC) × inhalation unit risk (IUR).

Results: Four articles pertaining to HRA of e-cigarettes were critically reviewed, three of the papers focused on specific chemicals namely nicotine, propylene glycol (PG), glycerol and 1,2-propanediol, while one article evaluated the health risks posed by heavy metals contained in e-cigarettes. The calculated HQs for the chemicals in this review had large variations. HQs of the six chemicals, i.e. nicotine, PG, glycerol, cadmium, ethylene glycol, nickel, aluminum and titanium, were found to have the potential to contribute to non-carcinogenic health risks. None of the LCR calculated had risks exceeding the acceptable limit.

Conclusion: There are limited HRA studies and the ones that were available provided inconsistent scientific evidences on the health risk characterization arising from the usage of e-cigarettes. As such, there is a need to perform more studies on HRA of e-cigarettes by using uniformed and comprehensive steps and similar reference threshold levels of exposures.

Keywords: e-liquid; electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes); hazard quotient; health risk assessment (HRA); margin of exposure; risk characterization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dawkins L, Turner J, Roberts A, Soar K. “Vaping” profiles and preferences: an online survey of electronic cigarette users. Addiction 2013;108(6):1115–25.
    1. Dockrell M, Morrison R, Bauld L, McNeill A. E-cigarettes: prevalence and attitudes in Great Britain. Nicotine Tob Res 2013;15(10):1737–44.
    1. Adkison SE, O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Hyland A, Borland R, et al. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey. Am J Prev Med 2013;44(3):207–15.
    1. Basis S, Regulation TP, Report T, Group WHOS. WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation. Report on the scientific basis of tobacco product regulation: third report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 2009;(955):1–41.
    1. Regan K, Promoff G, Dube SR, Arrazola R. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: adult use and awareness of the “e-cigarette” in the USA. Tob Control 2011:19–23.

LinkOut - more resources