Smoking conventional cigarettes has been around for centuries. Electronic cigarettes and their flavored vapor were invented relatively recently to serve as an alternative for conventional nicotine smoking. Much research has been conducted to identify the harmful substances inhaled when smoking traditional cigarettes whereas there is very little research conducted to identify the harmful substances in electronic cigarettes. The focus of this research study was to identify which form of smoking nicotine poses the least amount of risk in developing an adverse health effects. The PICOt research question that was used to guide this study is “By identifying the risk factors of electronic cigarettes and traditional cigarettes, can individuals who smoke determine the less harmful form of smoking?” A total of eight articles were obtained using the databases Cochrane, NCBSN, and Ebscohost along with the key phrases: risk factors for smoking electronic cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, safer alternatives to smoking, safest option between smoking nicotine and electronic cigarettes, physiological effects of smoking nicotine, and identifying harmful chemicals in electronic and conventional cigarettes. The major findings of the study were electronic cigarettes put users at lower risk than conventional cigarettes for developing adverse health effects such as cancer and respiratory problems. Electronic cigarettes expose users to four chemicals higher than guidelines levels whereas conventional cigarette users are exposed to seven chemicals higher than guidelines levels. Lastly, conventional cigarettes carry four more level 1 carcinogen toxins in their smoke than electronic cigarettes. This can be used in experiments in the future to evaluate which form of nicotine smoking is most beneficial in obtaining nicotine or to evaluate the adverse cardiac and respiratory health effects. Additionally, this information can be used in healthcare settings to help an individual stop smoking by informing them of the different nicotine-smoking alternatives or in evaluating the adverse effects that smoking poses on different bodily systems.
Authors: Jeremy Grove and Kaitlyn Wade
Faculty Advisor: Eyad Musallam, Department of Nursing
You must be logged in to post a comment.