The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality
Abstract
CONTEXT: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have earned considerable attention recently as an alternative to smoking tobacco, but uncertainties about their impact on health and indoor air quality have resulted in proposals for bans on indoor e-cigarette use. OBJECTIVE: To assess potential health impacts relating to the use of e-cigarettes, a series of studies were conducted using e-cigarettes and standard tobacco cigarettes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four different high nicotine e-liquids were vaporized in two sets of experiments by generic 2-piece e-cigarettes to collect emissions and assess indoor air concentrations of common tobacco smoke by products. Tobacco cigarette smoke tests were conducted for comparison. RESULTS: Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m³ room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed "No Significant Risk" of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of "Significant Risk" of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure. CONCLUSIONS: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
E-Cigarettes: A Scientific Review
Grana, R., Benowitz, N., & Glantz, S. A. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667 · Cited by 1,194
Farsalinos, K. E., & Polosa, R. (2014) · Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety · doi:10.1177/2042098614524430 · Cited by 594
Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes
Cheng, T. (2014) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482 · Cited by 555
Hajek, P., Etter, J., Benowitz, N., Eissenberg, T., & McRobbie, H. (2014) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.12659 · Cited by 546
An updated overview of e-cigarette impact on human health
Marques, P., Piqueras, L., & Sanz, M.-J. (2021) · Respiratory Research · doi:10.1186/s12931-021-01737-5 · Cited by 470
Metadata
- Authors
- McAuley, T. R., Hopke, P. K., Zhao, J., & Babaian, S.
- Venue
- Inhalation Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 850-857
- ISSN
- 0895-8378 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7691
- OpenAlex
- W2067266652
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728
- The paper
- McAuley, T. R., Hopke, P. K., Zhao, J., & Babaian, S. (2012). Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality. Inhalation Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.