Carbonyl Emissions in E-cigarette aerosol: a Systematic Review and Methodological Considerations

Introduction:
This review article systematically examines the literature on carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes, which has been a topic of interest due to the potential health risks associated with these compounds. The review identifies a large diversity of methodologies used in the studies, which makes comparisons difficult and accuracy of findings questionable in some cases.

Key Points:

* The review includes 32 studies on carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes.
* a large diversity of methodologies was identified, including puffing patterns, aerosol collection, analytical methods, and reported units of measurement.
* Control for the generation of dry puffs was not performed in most studies, which could result in testing conditions and reported carbonyl levels that have no clinical relevance or context.
* When realistic use conditions were ensured, carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes were substantially lower than tobacco cigarette smoke.
* Newer generation atomizers appeared to emit minimal levels of carbonyls with questionable clinical significance in terms of health risk.
* however, extremely high levels of carbonyl emissions were reported in some studies, and all these studies need to be replicated because of potentially important health implications.

Main Message:
The review highlights the importance of standardizing methodologies for measuring carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes to ensure accurate and reliable findings. It also emphasizes the need for further research to determine the health risks associated with e-cigarette use, particularly in relation to carbonyl emissions. Overall, the review suggests that e-cigarettes have the potential to be a less harmful alternative to tobacco cigarettes, but more research is needed to confirm this and to ensure the safety of users.

Farsalinos, Konstantinos E., and Gene Gillman. “Carbonyl Emissions in E-Cigarette aerosol: a Systematic Review and Methodological Considerations.” Frontiers in Physiology 8 (January 11, 2018): 1119. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.01119.