ArticleHuman and ecological risk assessment : HERA2016
Has the mist been peered through? Revisiting the building blocks of human health risk assessment for electronic cigarette use.
Article in Human and ecological risk assessment : HERA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating E-Cigarette Particle Emissions and Human Airway Depositions under Various E-Cigarette-Use Conditions.Chemical research in toxicology · 2020Trial
- Evaluation of carbonyl collection methods in electronic cigarette aerosols.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Article
- The Impact of Device Settings, Use Patterns, and Flavorings on Carbonyl Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Carbonyls and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes Affected by Device Type and Use Patterns.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Hydroxyl Radicals in E-Cigarette Vapor and E-Vapor Oxidative Potentials under Different Vaping Patterns.Chemical research in toxicology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of E-Vapor Nicotine and Nicotyrine Concentrations under Various E-Liquid Compositions, Device Settings, and Vaping Topographies.Chemical research in toxicology · 2018Article
- Comparing the cytotoxicity of electronic cigarette fluids, aerosols and solvents.Tobacco control · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Electronic cigarettes, battery-powered nicotine delivery devices, have been increasingly used in the past decade. However, human health risks associated with E-vapor inhalation have not been fully characterized. Aims: This critical review aims at revisiting the building blocks of human health risk assessment, summarizing the state of the science, and identifying major knowledge gaps in exposure assessment and toxicity assessment. Approach: A qualitative research synthesis was conducted based on scientific findings reported to date in peer-reviewed publications and our own preliminary experimental results. Results: There are a limited number of studies across all lines of evidence on E-vapor exposure and the health impacts of E-vapor inhalation. E-cigarette may be as efficient as traditional cigarettes in nicotine delivery, especially for experienced users, and studies suggest lower emissions of air toxics from E-cigarette vapor and lower second- and third-hand vapor exposures. But some toxic emissions may surpass those of traditional cigarettes, especially under high voltage vaping conditions. Experimentally, E-vapor/E-liquid exposures reduce cell viability and promote pro-inflammatory cytokine release. User vulnerability to concomitant environmental agent exposures, such as viruses and bacteria, may potentially be increased. Conclusion: While evidence to date suggests that e-cigarettes release fewer toxins and carcinogens and compared to cigarettes, E-vapor is not safe and might adversely affect human immune functions. Major knowledge gaps hinder risk quantification and effective regulation of E-cigarette products including: 1) lack of long-term exposure studies; 2) lack of understanding of biological mechanisms associated with exposure; and 3) lack of integration of exposure and toxicity assessments.,. Better data are needed to inform human health risk assessments and to better understand the public health impact of E-vapor exposures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.