You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Effects of electronic cigarettes and hookah (waterpipe) use on home air quality
  1. Jenni A Shearston1,
  2. James Eazor2,3,
  3. Lily Lee4,
  4. M J Ruzmyn Vilcassim5,
  5. Taylor A Reed6,
  6. Deborah Ort7,
  7. Michael Weitzman2,8,
  8. Terry Gordon3,8
  1. 1 Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
  3. 3 Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
  4. 4 State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  5. 5 Department of Environmental Health Sciences, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
  6. 6 Department of Social Welfare, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  7. 7 Nemours Children's Urgent Care, Orlando, Florida, USA
  8. 8 New York University College of Global Public Health, New York, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Jenni A Shearston, Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY 10032, USA; js5431{at}cumc.columbia.edu

Abstract

Introduction A major site of secondhand smoke exposure for children and adults is the home. Few studies have evaluated the impact of e-cigarette or hookah use on home air quality, despite evidence finding toxic chemicals in secondhand e-cigarette aerosols and hookah smoke. We assessed the effect of e-cigarette and hookah use on home air quality and compared it with air quality in homes where cigarettes were smoked and where no smoking or e-cigarette use occurred.

Methods Non-smoking homes and homes where e-cigarettes, hookah or cigarettes were used were recruited in the New York City area (n=57) from 2015 to 2019. Particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), black carbon and carbon monoxide (CO) were measured during a smoking or vaping session, both in a ‘primary’ smoking room and in an adjacent ‘secondary’ room where no smoking or vaping occurred. Log transformed data were compared with postanalysis of variance Tukey simultaneous tests.

Results Use of hookah significantly increased PM2.5 levels compared with non-smoking homes, in both the primary and secondary rooms, while use of e-cigarettes increased PM2.5 levels only in primary rooms. Additionally, in-home use of hookah resulted in greater CO concentrations than the use of cigarettes in primary rooms.

Conclusions Use of e-cigarettes or hookah increases air pollution in homes. For hookah, increases in PM2.5 penetrated even into rooms adjacent to where smoking occurs. Extending smoke-free rules inside homes to include e-cigarette and hookah products is needed to protect household members and visitors from passive exposure to harmful aerosols and gases.

  • electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • non-cigarette tobacco products
  • secondhand smoke
  • environment

Data availability statement

No data are available. Data are protected under the Institutional Review Board of New York University School of Medicine. Use of the data for purposes other than that expressly approved by the Board would require further approvals.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056437

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    No data are available. Data are protected under the Institutional Review Board of New York University School of Medicine. Use of the data for purposes other than that expressly approved by the Board would require further approvals.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors TG and MW conceptualised the study design and oversaw the study. JAS, JE, LL and TAR were responsible for data management. MJRV and LL conducted statistical analyses. JAS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. JAS, JE, LL, TAR and DO collected data. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding This research was supported by National Institute of Health (NIH) grants 1R21ES026996 and 1R01HL139239. JAS was also supported by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant 2T32ES007322-19.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.