Introduction: Some electronic cigarette (ECIG) users attain tobacco cigarette-like plasma nicotine concentrations while others do not. Understanding the factors that influence ECIG aerosol nicotine delivery is relevant to regulation, including product labeling and abuse liability. These factors may include user puff topography, ECIG liquid composition, and ECIG design features. This study addresses how these factors can influence ECIG nicotine yield. Methods: Aerosols were machine generated with 1 type of ECIG cartridge (V4L CoolCart) using 5 distinct puff profiles representing a tobacco cigarette smoker (2-s puff duration, 33-ml/s puff velocity), a slow average ECIG user (4 s, 17 ml/s), a fast average user (4 s, 33 ml/s), a slow extreme user (8 s, 17 ml/s), and a fast extreme user (8 s, 33 ml/s). Output voltage (3.3-5.2 V or 3.0-7.5 W) and e-liquid nicotine concentration (18-36 mg/ml labeled concentration) were varied. A theoretical model was also developed to simulate the ECIG aerosol production process and to provide insight into the empirical observations. Results: Nicotine yields from 15 puffs varied by more than 50-fold across conditions. Experienced ECIG user profiles (longer puffs) resulted in higher nicotine yields relative to the tobacco smoker (shorter puffs). Puff velocity had no effect on nicotine yield. Higher nicotine concentration and higher voltages resulted in higher nicotine yields. These results were predicted well by the theoretical model (R 2 = 0.99). Conclusions: Depending on puff conditions and product features, 15 puffs from an ECIG can provide far less or far more nicotine than a single tobacco cigarette. ECIG emissions can be predicted using physical principles, with knowledge of puff topography and a few ECIG device design parameters.

Periodic surveying of characteristics of ECIG products available in the marketplace is valuable for understanding population-wide changes in ECIG use patterns over time.

IntroductionJUUL is an electronic cigarette (ECIG) with a compact form factor. It is prefilled with a liquid that is advertised to contain a high concentration of nicotine salt. JUUL commands 50% of the US ECIG market share, and its wide popularity with underage users has triggered unprecedented actions by the US FDA. Apart from its nicotine salt-containing liquid and compact form, a salient advertised design feature is a control circuit that limits the heating coil temperature, presumably reducing unwanted toxicants. In this study, several tobacco-flavoured JUUL devices were reverse engineered, and their aerosol emissions were studied.MethodsTotal nicotine and its partitioning (freebase and protonated), propylene glycol/vegetable glycerin (PG/VG) ratio, and carbonyls were quantified by gas chromatography (GC) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The temperature control functionality of JUUL was investigated using a temperature-controlled bath in which the coil was submerged.ResultsThe liquid nicotine concentration was found to be 69 mg/mL, and the liquid and aerosol PG/VG ratio was found to be 30/70. In 15 puffs, JUUL emitted 2.05 (0.08) mg of nicotine, overwhelmingly in the protonated form. Carbonyl yields were significantly lower than those reported for combustible cigarettes, but similar to other closed-system ECIG devices. The heating coil resistance was 1.6 (0.66) Ohm, while the maximum power delivered by the JUUL device was 8.1 W. The control circuit limited the peak operating temperature to approximately 215C.ConclusionsJUUL emits a high-nicotine concentration aerosol predominantly in the protonated form. JUUL’s nicotine-normalised formaldehyde and total aldehyde yields are lower than other previously studied ECIGs and combustible cigarettes.

Introduction Reliable characterization of the nicotine content and emissions from electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) is crucial for product regulation. Understanding nicotine delivery, and therefore efficacy and abuse potential, from ECIG products requires quantifying the total nicotine contained or emitted, as well as the partitioning between its free-base and protonated forms. To date, studies reporting nicotine content and emissions of ECIGs have not addressed whether the reported values correspond to the total nicotine or only one of its forms, making the reported results difficult to compare across studies, or to correlate against blood exposure measurements. In this study we investigate whether nicotine in ECIGs is indeed present in more than one form, whether measurements are affected by sampling media, and report a validated method for determining total, free-base (Nic) and protonated nicotine (NicH+) in ECIG liquids and aerosol emissions. Methods We developed an analytical method based on liquid-liquid extraction coupled with GC analysis to assess the respective amounts of Nic and NicH+. The method was first verified on pH-controlled solutions (5 < pH < 10) and then was applied to several ECIG liquids and aerosols generated using a smoking machine. Results The method showed high repeatability and efficiency, and the results were in agreement with theoretical predictions based on measured pH of the standard nicotine solutions. ECIG liquids and aerosols contained both Nic and NicH+, and their relative proportions varied widely. Free-base nicotine was found to account for 18-95% of the total nicotine depending on the product in question. Conclusions The wide variation in nicotine partitioning across products suggests that studies of nicotine delivery from ECIGs should account for this factor. A convenient method for analyzing nicotine fractions in electronic cigarettes has been demonstrated.