Impact of Electronic Alternatives to Tobacco Cigarettes on Indoor Air Particular Matter Levels

Abstract

An aerosol study was carried out in a test room measuring particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 10, 4, 2.5 and 1 µm (PM10, PM4, PM2.5, PM1) before and during the use of electronic alternatives to tobacco cigarettes (EATC) IQOS®, GLO®, JUUL®, with different kinds of sticks/pods, as well as during the smoking of a conventional tobacco cigarette. The aerosol was mainly in the PM1 size range (>95%). All studied EATCs caused lower indoor PM1 concentrations than conventional tobacco cigarettes. Nevertheless, they determined a worsening of indoor-PM1 concentration that ranged from very mild for JUUL®—depending on the pod used—to considerably severe for IQOS® and GLO®. Median values ranged from 11.00 (Iqos3 and Juul2) to 337.5 µg m−3 (Iqos4). The high variability of particle loadings was attributed both to the type of stick/pod used and to the different way of smoking of volunteers who smoked/vaped during the experiments. Moreover, during vaping IQOS® and GLO® indoor PM1 concentrations reach levels by far higher than outdoor concentrations that range from 14 to 21 µg m−3, especially during the exhalation of the smoke. From these results emerge an urgent need of a legislative regulation limiting the use of such devices in public places.

Comparative Indoor Pollution from Glo, Iqos, and Juul, Using Traditional Combustion Cigarettes as Benchmark: Evidence from the Randomized SUR-VAPES AIR Trial

“…Details of the methodology of the SUR-VAPES AIR (Sapienza University of Rome-Vascular Assessment of Proatherosclerotic Effects of Smoking Ambient Indoor) randomized trial have been provided elsewhere [ 24 ], including the institutional funding and ethical approval (Sapienza University of Rome Identifier 3520). Briefly, after generating a randomization list with blocking based on MRP type, 7 current smokers were assigned one of the products to smoke in standardized conditions according to a 2-block set of 15 sessions each, for a total of 30 sessions (thus, yielding 15 device/flavoring combinations repeated twice).…”

“…Glo2 was smoked by smoker 1, Iqos3 by smoker 2, Glo4 by smoker 3, Iqos6 by smoker 4, Iqos1 by smoker 5, Glo3 by smoker 6, Juul4 by smoker 7, and so on. Notably, part of the experiments hereby reported have already been described in Protano et al, where, however, only data from 3 smokers were included [ 24 ]. In particular, the chosen TCC is characterized by a mean content/yield of 0.5 mg nicotine, 6 mg tar, and 7 mg carbon monoxide per cigarette according to Braun et al [ 28 ].…”

“…Emissions of PM with diameter ≤10 µm (PM 10 ), ≤4 µm (PM 4 ), ≤2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ), and ≤1 µm (PM 1 ) were continuously measured in real use conditions 5 min before, during, and 5 min after smoking each product in a room of 53 m 3 , with temperature and relative humidity ranging between 20 and 23 °C and 36 and 40%, respectively ( Figure S1 ). The air exchange rate (λ = 0.69 h −1 ) of the test room was calculated using the CO 2 tracer gas technique, as previously reported [ 24 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. During each experiment, windows and doors were maintained closed.…”

“…The instrument was placed approximately 1.5 m above the floor level and approximately 1.5 m from the smoker, accruing hundreds of measurements for each smoking session ( Figure S1 ). Twelve puffs were made for each session that lasted about 5.5 min (1 puff each thirty seconds), since the common way of smoking typically consists of 10–12 puffs of a cigarette, for a period of about 5–6 min [ 24 ].…”

“…Moreover, few if any reports have compared MRP at large, and then, focused on MRP flavors, which may impact on short and long-term safety [ 23 ]. Recently, we have described results of a randomized trial which showed significantly lower indoor emissions of PM when using Glo (British American Tobacco, London, UK), or Iqos (Altria, Richmond, VA, USA) as HNBC and Juul (Juul Labs, San Francisco, CA, USA) as EVC, in comparison to TCC [ 24 ]. PM, a well-known toxic and carcinogen independently from its physical status (solid or liquid) and chemical composition [ 25 ], was used in such study as a global indicator of indoor air pollution.…”