Explosions, Burn Injuries and Adverse Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Review of Current Regulations and Future Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: While there is a declining trend in the use of traditional methods of smoking tobacco, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) have gained popularity worldwide. ENDS are marketed as safe for the primary reason that they do not contain the well-established toxic ingredients found in traditional cigarettes. However, growing concerns over incidences of fire and explosion with specific types of ENDS, as well as their short and long-term effects, remain unaddressed. This review examines the under studied role of customized components such as batteries, e-liquid compositions, and methods of nicotine delivery that result in physical injuries and adverse health effects of ENDS. METHODS: Using online reference databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Medline other, Google scholar, FDA website, FDA register), we analyzed the mechanisms through which ENDS may pose significant risk to human health. RESULTS: An increase in the use and popularity of ENDS has been observed among youth and adults in the United States since 2007. The ENDS devices available to the public allow for custom alterations which can introduce incompatible components, resulting in overheating and explosion related injuries. Heavy metals have been found to leach from some devices into the e-liquid, and the heating of e-liquid ingredients can produce toxic byproducts. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the current literature demonstrates that ENDS are not a safe alternative to traditional cigarettes due to explosion risks and negative health effects including addiction, adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects, heavy metal leaching, and toxic byproducts exposure. These risks warrant regulation of ENDS devices and formulations, with urgency underscored by their increasing popularity among youth and adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".