LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Harmful effects from one puff of shisha-pen vapor: methodological and interpretational problems in the risk assessment analysis
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Cardiology, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Kallithea, Greece
 
2
Department of Pharmacy, University of Patras, Rio, Greece
 
3
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
 
 
Submission date: 2015-07-08
 
 
Acceptance date: 2016-06-06
 
 
Publication date: 2016-07-07
 
 
Corresponding author
Konstantinos E. Farsalinos   

Department of Cardiology, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Sygrou 356, Kallithea 17674, Greece
 
 
Tobacco Induced Diseases 2016;14(July):22
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
With this letter we express our concerns about the applicability of the proposed Margin of Exposure analysis as a method of risk assessment for propylene glycol and glycerol exposure from a shisha-pen type electronic cigarette. The studies used to determine the Margin of Exposure were evaluating the effects in humans or animals of continuous exposure to these chemicals in every single breath, whereas electronic cigarettes are used intermittently by consumers, resulting in lower and discontinuous exposure. Moreover, the authors make no clear distinction between irritation and harm, neither do they discuss the effects of exposure compared to continuous smoking.
 
REFERENCES (7)
1.
Kienhuis AS, Soeteman-Hernandez LG, Bos PM, Cremers HW, Klerx WN, Talhout R. Potential harmful health effects of inhaling nicotine-free shisha-pen vapor: a chemical risk assessment of the main components propylene glycol and glycerol. Tob Induc Dis. 2015;13(1):15.
 
2.
Wieslander G, Norback D, Lindgren T. Experimental exposure to propylene glycol mist in aviation emergency training: acute ocular and respiratory effects. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58(10):649–55.
 
3.
Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Evaluation of electronic cigarette use (vaping) topography and estimation of liquid consumption: implications for research protocol standards definition and for public health authorities' regulation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(6):2500–14.
 
4.
Suber RL, Deskin R, Nikiforov I, Fouillet X, Coggins CR. Subchronic nose-only inhalation study of propylene glycol in Sprague–Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 1989;27(9):573–83.
 
5.
Robertson OH, Loosli CG, Puck TT, Wise H, Lemon HM, Lester Jr W. Tests for the chronic toxicity of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol on monkeys and rats by vapor inhalation and oral administration. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1947;91(1):52–76.
 
6.
Werley MS, McDonald P, Lilly P, Kirkpatrick D, Wallery J, Byron P, Venitz J. Non-clinical safety and pharmacokinetic evaluations of propylene glycol aerosol in Sprague-Dawley rats and Beagle dogs. Toxicology. 2011;287(1–3):76–90.
 
7.
Adriaens K, Van Gucht D, Declerck P, Baeyens F. Effectiveness of the electronic cigarette: an eight-week flemish study with six-month follow-up on smoking reduction, craving and experienced benefits and complaints. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:11220–48.
 
 
CITATIONS (2):
1.
Analytical Assessment of E-Cigarettes
K.E. Farsalinos
 
2.
Toxicological Risk Assessment and Multi-System Health Impacts from Exposure
Konstantinos Farsalinos
 
eISSN:1617-9625
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top