Design Features in Multiple Generations of Electronic Cigarette Atomizers

Williams, Monique; Talbot, Prue

doi:10.3390/ijerph16162904

Cited by 94 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third generation e-cigarettes are called "Mods" that have batteries which allow the consumer to vary the power. Finally, fourth generation e-cigarettes-the Pod or Pod-Mods-are the most recent type to enter the market; these have temperature control, variable voltage, and lower electrical resistance which increases the aerosol yield [35]. To produce an aerosol, an e-cigarette user takes a puff through the mouthpiece which activates an air-flow sensor, causing the atomizer to heat the e-liquid and to form an aerosol for inhalation to the lungs.…”

Section: E-cigarette Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhalation Toxicology of Vaping Products and Implications for Pulmonary Health

Traboulsi

Cherian

Rjeili

et al. 2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E-cigarettes have a liquid that may contain flavors, solvents, and nicotine. Heating this liquid generates an aerosol that is inhaled into the lungs in a process commonly referred to as vaping. E-cigarette devices can also contain cannabis-based products including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis (marijuana). E-cigarette use has rapidly increased among current and former smokers as well as youth who have never smoked. The long-term health effects are unknown, and emerging preclinical and clinical studies suggest that e-cigarettes may not be harmless and can cause cellular alterations analogous to traditional tobacco smoke. Here, we review the historical context and the components of e-cigarettes and discuss toxicological similarities and differences between cigarette smoke and e-cigarette aerosol, with specific reference to adverse respiratory outcomes. Finally, we outline possible clinical disorders associated with vaping on pulmonary health and the recent escalation of acute lung injuries, which led to the declaration of the vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak. It is clear there is much about vaping that is not understood. Consequently, until more is known about the health effects of vaping, individual factors that need to be taken into consideration include age, current and prior use of combustible tobacco products, and whether the user has preexisting lung conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

show abstract

Section: E-cigarette Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhalation Toxicology of Vaping Products and Implications for Pulmonary Health

Traboulsi

Cherian

Rjeili

et al. 2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second is the rapid evolution of these products. Electronic cigarettes are currently on their fourth generation of development since their introduction to the United States market in 2007, having undergone changes to the atomizer unit, battery and other components, which can affect the aerosol 81 . It is highly important, therefore, to clearly identify the exact brand and generation of the device used in future research; this could also permit further breakdown of the categories for next generation devices and focus their development on reduction of risk to the user.…”

Section: Reduced Risk Nicotine Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nicotine products relative risk assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Nicotine products have been the subject of considerable innovation over the past few decades. While the health risks of combustible cigarettes and most tobacco-based products are well characterized, there is less clarity regarding newer nicotine products, and how they compare with the traditional forms. Methods: In this study, we have developed a relative risk hierarchy (RRH) of 13 nicotine products based on systematic review of the scientific literature and analysis of the best available evidence. In total, 3980 publications were identified and screened, with 320 studies being carried through to the final analysis. The health risk data for each product was extracted and the level assessed. The products were analyzed in terms of their toxin emissions and epidemiological data, which were combined on an arbitrary scale from 0 to 100 (low to high risk) to derive a combined risk score for each nicotine product. Results: Combustible tobacco products dominate the top of the RRH, with combined risk scores ranging from 40 to 100. The most frequently consumed products generally score highest. Dipping and chewing tobacco place considerably lower on the hierarchy than the combustible products with scores of 10 to 15, but significantly above heat-not-burn devices and snus, which score between 3 and 4. The lowest risk products have scores of less than 0.25 and include electronic cigarettes, non-tobacco pouches and nicotine replacement therapy. Conclusions: The RRH provides a framework for the assessment of relative risk across all categories of nicotine products based on the best available evidence regarding their toxin emissions and the observed risk of disease development in product users. As nicotine products continue to evolve, and more data comes to light, the analyses can be updated to represent the best available scientific evidence.

show abstract

“…The contribution of e-cigarettes to metal/metalloid exposure is not fully understood, particularly because of the rapidly changing nature of devices and e-liquids. E-cigarettes can be classified into three types: cig-a-like, tank, and pod devices (Williams and Talbot 2019;Williams et al 2019a;Williams et al 2019b). Cig-a-likes look similar to conventional cigarettes and have small disposable liquid cartridges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metal/Metalloid Levels in Electronic Cigarette Liquids, Aerosols, and Human Biosamples: A Systematic Review

Zhao

Aravindakshan

Hilpert

et al. 2020

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become popular, in part because they are perceived as a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes. An increasing number of studies, however, have found toxic metals/metalloids in e-cigarette emissions. OBJECTIVE: We summarized the evidence on metal/metalloid levels in e-cigarette liquid (e-liquid), aerosols, and biosamples of e-cigarette users across e-cigarette device systems to evaluate metal/metalloid exposure levels for e-cigarette users and the potential implications on health outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed/TOXLINE, Embase ® , and Web of Science for studies on metals/metalloids in e-liquid, e-cigarette aerosols, and biosamples of e-cigarette users. For metal/metalloid levels in e-liquid and aerosol samples, we collected the mean and standard deviation (SD) if these values were reported, derived mean and SD by using automated software to infer them if data were reported in a figure, or calculated the overall mean (mean ± SD) if data were reported only for separate groups. Metal/metalloid levels in e-liquids and aerosols were converted and reported in micrograms per kilogram and nanograms per puff, respectively, for easy comparison. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies on metals/metalloids in e-liquid, e-cigarette aerosols, and human biosamples of e-cigarette users. Metal/metalloid levels, including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, tin, and zinc, were present in e-cigarette samples in the studies reviewed. Twelve studies reported metal/metalloid levels in e-liquids (bottles, cartridges, open wick, and tank), 12 studies reported metal/metalloid levels in e-cigarette aerosols (from cig-a-like and tank devices), and 4 studies reported metal/metalloid levels in human biosamples (urine, saliva, serum, and blood) of e-cigarette users. Metal/metalloid levels showed substantial heterogeneity depending on sample type, source of e-liquid, and device type. Metal/metalloid levels in e-liquid from cartridges or tank/open wicks were higher than those from bottles, possibly due to coil contact. Most metal/metalloid levels found in biosamples of e-cigarette users were similar or higher than levels found in biosamples of conventional cigarette users, and even higher than those found in biosamples of cigar users. CONCLUSION: E-cigarettes are a potential source of exposure to metals/metalloids. Differences in collection methods and puffing regimes likely contribute to the variability in metal/metalloid levels across studies, making comparison across studies difficult. Standardized protocols for the quantification of metal/metalloid levels from e-cigarette samples are needed. https://doi.

show abstract

Design Features in Multiple Generations of Electronic Cigarette Atomizers

Cited by 94 publications

References 44 publications

Inhalation Toxicology of Vaping Products and Implications for Pulmonary Health

Inhalation Toxicology of Vaping Products and Implications for Pulmonary Health

Nicotine products relative risk assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Metal/Metalloid Levels in Electronic Cigarette Liquids, Aerosols, and Human Biosamples: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About