Communicating accurate and complete information

Estimation of Health Risks Caused by Metals Contained in E-Cigarette Aerosol through Passive Vaping

It is expected that secondary exposure to e-cigarette aerosol (passive vaping) will soon become an issue of public health. Passive vaping inhales e-cigarette aerosol containing similar harmful substances as active vaping. However, parallel studies on passive vaping are minimal. Therefore, there is a need for passive vaping-related health risk studies to assess the impact of vaping on public health. This research conducted a series of experiments in a room using a puffing machine and the Mobile Aerosol Lung Deposition Apparatus (MALDA) to study e-cigarette aerosol respiratory deposition through passive vaping. The experimental data acquired were applied to estimate the deposited mass and health risks caused by toxic metals contained in e-cigarette aerosol. Five popular e-cigarette products were used in this study to generate e-cigarette aerosol for deposition experiments. In addition, size-segregated e-cigarette aerosol samples were collected, and metal compositions in the e-cigarette aerosol were analyzed. Results obtained showed that estimated non-cancer risks were all acceptable, with hazard quotient and hazard index all less than 1.0. The calculated cancer risks were also found acceptable, with lifetime excess cancer risk generally less than 1E-6. Therefore, the e-cigarettes tested and the passive vaping exposure scenarios studied do not seem to induce any potential for metal-related respiratory health effects.

Disposable E-Cigarettes and Associated Health Risks: An Experimental Study

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), including disposable e-cigarettes, has been prevalent. Existing chemical analyses of ENDS focused on e-liquids rather than aerosols and failed to consider particle sizes and aerosol respiratory deposition fractions, which are key factors for inhalation doses. This study investigated the organic chemical and metal constituents in size-segregated ENDS aerosol and assessed the deposited doses and health risks of these substances. Aerosol chemical analyses were conducted on two popular disposable ENDS products: Puff Bar (Grape) and Air Bar (Watermelon Ice). An ENDS aerosol was generated and delivered into a Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactor to collect size-segregated aerosol samples, in which organic chemicals and metals were analyzed. Daily and lifetime doses for each chemical were estimated. Cancer and non-cancer risk assessments were conducted based on the deposited doses. We found that e-cigarette aerosol contains certain harmful organic chemicals and metals documented to result in respiratory problems. Estimated respiratory cancer risks corresponding to chromium from both ENDS products and nickel from Air Bar (Watermelon Ice) were substantially above the conventionally acceptable risk. The method, findings, and implications can contribute to the extant literature of ENDS toxicity studies as well as inform tobacco regulation and future large-scale studies.

Health warning labels describing snus as less harmful than smoking: effects on perceptions of risk

Background

Using snus (Swedish moist snuff) is less harmful than smoking, but health warning labels (HWLs) on snus products do not reflect this relation. There are few studies on the effects of comparative risk information in snus warning labels. The purpose of this experiment is to examine whether risk perceptions differ after exposure to non-comparative vs. comparative risk information in snus warning labels.

Methods

A total of 254 Norwegians aged 19–69 were exposed to pictures of snus packages in one of four HWL conditions: non-comparative EU-based (“Snus is damaging to your health”), control (the text “Snus” only), general comparative risk (“Snus is less damaging to your health than smoking”), or percentage comparative risk (“Snus is 90% less damaging to your health than smoking”). Perceptions of risk from snus use and smoking were measured before (pre) and during (post) exposure to the HWL. Changes from pre to post in (1) perceptions of risk from snus use and (2) perceptions of risk differences from snus use versus smoking were tested in repeated measures ANOVAs with current snus and cigarette use as covariates.

Results

Both the perceived risks from snus use and its perceived risk difference to smoking decreased more in the control and the percentage HWL conditions than in the EU-based HWL condition. When comparing the general comparative risk and the EU-based HWL, a similar difference was found for the perceived risk difference, but not for the separate measure of snus risk. Both the snus risk and risk difference perception decreased more for the percentage than for the general relative risk HWL.

Conclusions

The non-comparative EU-based HWL claiming that “Snus is health damaging” maintains a high level of perceived risk from snus use, while no HWL and the suggested comparative HWLs adjust perceptions of risk in the direction of lower harm from snus use. An HWL describing snus as 90% less harmful than smoking was more effective than a general claim.

Did E-Cigarette Users Notice the New European Union's E-Cigarette Legislation? Findings from the 2015-2017 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey

This study examined to what extent e-cigarette users noticed the European Union's new legislation regarding e-cigarettes, and whether this may have influenced perceptions regarding addictiveness and toxicity. Data were obtained from yearly surveys (2015-2017) of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey. Descriptive statistics and Generalized Estimating Equations were applied. About a third of the e-cigarette users noticed the text warning (28%) and the leaflet (32%). When compared to tobacco-only smokers, e-cigarette users showed greater increases in perceptions regarding addictiveness (β = 0.457, p = 0.045 vs. β = 0.135, p < 0.001) and toxicity (β = 0.246, p = 0.055 vs. β = 0.071, p = 0.010). In conclusion, the new legislation's noticeability should be increased.

Psychological distress and responses to comparative risk messages about electronic and combusted cigarettes

BACKGROUND

People with mental illness suffer disproportionately high health burdens of smoking. Communicating to these smokers that electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a less harmful alternative to combusted cigarettes might help them reduce their health risks by encouraging complete switching to e-cigarettes. However, such messages might also cause unintended consequences (e.g., dual use of both combusted and e-cigarettes). Our study examined how smokers with vs. without serious psychological distress (SPD) responded to messages communicating reduced harm of e-cigarettes in relation to cigarettes.

METHOD

In an online experiment, 1400 U.S. adult smokers with and without SPD viewed 1 of 6 messages about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes or a control message. Then participants reported e-cigarette- and cigarette-related beliefs, and behavioral intentions.

RESULTS

Message type (comparative risk messages vs. control) did not interact with SPD status to produce differential impacts on smokers with and without SPD. Regardless of being exposed to a comparative risk message or a control message, smokers with SPD reported greater perceived absolute risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, greater support for tobacco control, greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help with quitting, and were less likely to report e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes compared to smokers without SPD.

DISCUSSION

Smokers with SPD had greater intentions to switch to e-cigarettes completely and seek help quitting compared to smokers without SPD, which indicates that smokers with SPD may be optimistic about e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking.