Table 3.

Articles on passive exposure to e-cigarettes (second hand vaping).

Year	Authors	Location	Brands	Flavorings	Nicotine (mg/mL)	Findings
2012	McAuley et al.	United States	[unidentified, 4 “popular e-liquid brands”]	Tobacco	24 and 26	No vapor sample exceeded defined risk limits, tobacco smoke approached, but did not exceed, defined risk limits
2012	Ingebrethsen et al.	United States	[unidentified, 1 rechargeable and 1 disposable]	[none reported]	[not reported]	Undiluted e-cig vapors found to have particle diameters of average mass in the 250–450 nm range and particle number concentration in the 109particles/cm3range
2013	Schripp et al.	Germany	[unidentified, tank and cotton delivery systems]	Apple and Tobacco	0, 18	Increases in volatile organic compounds and (ultra)fine particles identified in passive vapor; exhaled particles are smaller than inhaled
2013	Zhang et al.	United States	Bloog MaxX Fusion, Propylene (PG) or Vegetable (VG) vehicle	[none reported]	16	Peak particle counts at 180 nm (VG) and 120 nm (PG). Small particles were eliminated and large particles were reduced in both size and number by organic vapor removal
2014	Fuoco et al.	Italy	[unidentified, two rechargeable models (tank and atomizer) and one disposable]	Selene, Strawberry, Menthol, Camel	0, 8–9, 12–18	Particle number distributions of e-cig vapor were similar (4.39±0.42 part. cm−3) to tobacco cigarette smoke (3.14±0.61 part. cm−3)