Difference Of Fetal Weight Between Conventional vs Electric Smoke Exposure in Mice (Mus Musculus)

  • Kusumastuti N
  • Haeriyah S
  • Susilowati Y
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The increase in tobacco excise rates (CHT) or cigarette excise in early 2020 is a reason for smokers to switch to using e-cigarettes. WHO reports that about 64.9% of adult men in Indonesia are smokers, while in women it is 2.1%. This shows that Indonesia is ranked first in the world. Exposure to e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes will affect pregnancy and the fetus it contains. However, in reality, most people have the perception that e-cigarettes are safer than conventional cigarettes because their nicotine content is much lower than conventional cigarettes. The purpose of this study was to analyze differences in exposure to e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes on fetal weight in mice (mus musculus).Subjects and Method: This study used a true experimental design which was divided into two groups, namely 16 female mice as a group given exposure to e-cigarettes and 16 female mice as a group being exposed to conventional cigarettes. The dependent variable is the weight of the fetus. The independent variables were exposure to e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes. The instrument in this study used a digital gold scale with an accuracy of 0.01 gram. Data were analyzed using the Mann Whitney test.Results: On average, exposure to e-cigarettes had a greater fetal weight (Mean= 1.61; SD= 0.64) than exposure to conventional cigarettes (Mean= 1.48; SD= 1.19), and this result was statistically significant (p < 0.001).Conclusion: There are differences in exposure to e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes on fetal weight in mice (Mus musculus).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kusumastuti, N. A., Haeriyah, S., & Susilowati, Y. (2021). Difference Of Fetal Weight Between Conventional vs Electric Smoke Exposure in Mice (Mus Musculus). Journal of Maternal and Child Health, 6(5), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.26911/thejmch.2021.06.05.07

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free