Breathing Pattern during and after Smoking Cigarettes

Tobin, Martin J.; Schneider, A; Sackner, Marvin A.

doi:10.1042/cs0630473

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As with vaping, the most common cigarette smoking topography is MTL, an expected outcome since most vapers are either ex-smokers or current smokers of cigarettes. While a sizable minority of 10-20% of vapers (see Section 2.1.2) follow the DLT style, the vast majority of smokers avoid direct lung inhalation because it is too irritant Tobin et al (1982b) (and is consistently associated with airways narrowing Higenbottam et al (1980)). In fact, avoidance of the direct lung inhalation of DTL style is very likely an organic response to minimize to a tolerable level the irritant quality of tobacco smoke Higenbottam et al (1980); Tobin et al (1982b,a).…”

Section: Methods: Inferences On Respiratory Droplets Spread By Ecamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While a sizable minority of 10-20 % of vapers (see Section 3.1.2) follow the DLT pattern, the vast majority of smokers avoid direct lung inhalation because it is too irritant (and is consistently associated with airways narrowing [61]). Among 10 smokers examined by Tobin et al [62] only one inhaled directly to the lungs as revealed by expansion of the abdomen at the same time as puffing. In fact, preference for the "normal" MTL pattern is very likely an organic response to minimize to a tolerable level the irritant quality of tobacco smoke [61,62,63].…”

Section: Respiratory Parameters Of Smokingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among 10 smokers examined by Tobin et al [52] only one inhaled directly to the lungs as revealed by expansion of the abdomen at the same time as puffing. In fact, preference for the “normal” MTL pattern is very likely an organic response to minimize to a tolerable level the irritant quality of tobacco smoke [51, 52, 53]. Also, it is likely that the demographic preference for the MTL style among vapers follows from the fact that most are either recent ex-smokers or current cigarette smokers who simply vape following a familiar usage pattern.…”

Section: Vaping As a Respiratory Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modeling aerial transmission of pathogens (including the SARS-CoV-2 virus) through aerosol emissions from e-cigarettes

Sussman¹,

Golberstein²,

Polosa

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the plausibility, scope and risks of aerial transmission of pathogens (including the SARS-CoV-2 virus) through respiratory droplets carried by exhaled e–cigarette aerosol (ECA). Observational and laboratory data suggests considering cigarette smoking and mouth breathing through a mouthpiece as convenient proxies to infer the respiratory mechanics and droplets sizes and their rate of emission that should result from vaping. We model exhaled ECA flow as an intermittent turbulent jet evolving into an unstable puff, estimating for low intensity vaping (practiced by 80-90% of vapers) ECA expirations the emission of 2-230 respiratory submicron droplets per puff a horizontal distance spread of 1-2 meters, with intense vaping possibly carrying hundreds and up to 1000 droplets per puff in the submicron range a distance spread over 2 meters. Bystanders exposed to low intensity expirations from an infectious vaper in indoor spaces (home and restaurant scenarios) face a 1% increase of risk with respect to a “control case” scenario defined by exclusively rest breathing without vaping. This relative added risk becomes 5−17% for high intensity vaping, 40 − 90% and over 200% for speaking or coughing (without vaping). We estimate that disinfectant properties of glycols in ECA are unlikely to act efficiently on pathogens carried by vaping expirations under realistic conditions.

show abstract

Section: Methods: Inferences On Respiratory Droplets Spread By Ecamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Respiratory Parameters Of Smokingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Vaping As a Respiratory Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling aerial transmission of pathogens (including the SARS-CoV-2 virus) through aerosol emissions from e-cigarettes

Sussman¹,

Golberstein²,

Polosa

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…( 94 ) Others have been unable to measure any alterations in inhalation behavior. ( 86, 95 ) A 2001 review of the controversy over compensation indicated that deeper inhalation with low‐yield cigarettes was probable, although it had not been specifically adequately measured. ( 96 ) Several industry documents indicate interest in determining whether deeper inhalations and breath‐hold times could increase nicotine dose to smokers, ( 97–100 ) suggesting that industry believes inhalation depth could be manipulated.…”

Section: Part C: Compensation During Smoking: How Puffing and Inhamentioning

confidence: 99%

CSP Deposition to the Alveolar Region of the Lung: Implications of Cigarette Design

Gower

Hammond

2007

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ventilated cigarettes were designed to reduce the levels of smoke under machine testing conditions; however, smokers alter their smoking pattern to compensate for the reduction in yields. A relative shift in incidence of lung cancer from the more central lung airways to the alveolar region has also been associated with ventilated cigarette use. Validated mathematical models indicate that particle deposition patterns in the lung depend on particle size and inhalation behavior, including inhalation volume, flow rate, and breath-hold time. This article finds that most mathematical models underpredict total cigarette smoke particulate (CSP) deposition in the lung, likely because they do not account for coagulation, hygroscopicity, and cloud dynamics, which may increase the effective particle diameter of CSP reaching the lung tissue. The models that include these processes indicate that puff volume would be unlikely to affect particle deposition in the lung, but puff time, inhalation depth, breath-hold time, and exhalation time may affect total deposition. Most compensation appears to occur through a combination of increased puff volume and puff flow, with possible increases in inhalation depth and breath-hold time. The complex interaction between the extent of cigarette ventilation, which can affect puffing/inhalation behavior, CSP concentration, and CSP size with CSP dose to the alveolar versus more central lung airways is described. Deposition efficiency in the alveoli could plausibly be increased through compensation, but it is still unclear whether compensation could sufficiently alter patterns of CSP deposition in the lung to elicit a shift in lung cancer sites.

show abstract

“…Low powered devices (ciga-likes, second generation clearomizers, cartridge and refillable pods, tank stating kits) typically operate at powers well below 20-25 W, have narrow mouthpieces and thus involve lower puffing volumes under high air resistance, similar to smoking. Beginner vapers (many of whom are still current smokers) tend to adopt the MTL style that is close to the puffing habits and puff volumes of cigarette smoking [57,58]. Typically, vapers using low powered devices for MTL style use PG dominated e-liquid solutions with higher nicotine concentrations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Review of the Recent Literature on Organic Byproducts in E-Cigarette Aerosol Emissions

Soulet

Sussman

2022

Toxics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the literature on laboratory studies quantifying the production of potentially toxic organic byproducts (carbonyls, carbon monoxide, free radicals and some nontargeted compounds) in e-cigarette (EC) aerosol emissions, focusing on the consistency between their experimental design and a realistic usage of the devices, as determined by the power ranges of an optimal regime fulfilling a thermodynamically efficient process of aerosol generation that avoids overheating and “dry puffs”. The majority of the reviewed studies failed in various degrees to comply with this consistency criterion or supplied insufficient information to verify it. Consequently, most of the experimental outcomes and risk assessments are either partially or totally unreliable and/or of various degrees of questionable relevance to end users. Studies testing the devices under reasonable approximation to realistic conditions detected levels of all organic byproducts that are either negligible or orders of magnitude lower than in tobacco smoke. Our review reinforces the pressing need to update and improve current laboratory standards by an appropriate selection of testing parameters and the logistical incorporation of end users in the experimental design.

show abstract

Breathing Pattern during and after Smoking Cigarettes

Cited by 11 publications

References 23 publications

Modeling aerial transmission of pathogens (including the SARS-CoV-2 virus) through aerosol emissions from e-cigarettes

Modeling aerial transmission of pathogens (including the SARS-CoV-2 virus) through aerosol emissions from e-cigarettes

CSP Deposition to the Alveolar Region of the Lung: Implications of Cigarette Design

Critical Review of the Recent Literature on Organic Byproducts in E-Cigarette Aerosol Emissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About