Use of social media to establish vapers puffing behaviour: Findings and implications for laboratory evaluation of e-cigarette emissions

McAdam, Kevin; Warrington, Anna; Hughes, Alice C.; Adams, David M.; Margham, Jennifer; Vas, Carl; Davis, Peter; Costigan, Sandra; Proctor, Christopher

doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104423

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The desire for high-power ENDS pushes designers to increasingly use coils with low resistance values, which led to the introduction of the sub-ohm devices which use coils that have a resistance of < 1 (Ω) [ 16 , 17 ]. Reducing the coil resistance to 0.068 (Ω) permits instantaneous power as high as 200 W. The sub-ohm devices are reported to satisfy several features desired by users such as intense flavor, warm vape and big clouds, which is associated with high airflow that is suitable for the direct-to-lung inhale style [ 18 , 19 ]. Sub-ohm coils are mostly available in the box-mod ENDS style; however, some pod-style ENDS started to use coils with resistances of less than 1 (Ω) such as SMOK2 pod (0.8 (Ω) and NORD2 (0.3, 0.4, 0.6 (Ω)) [ 20 ], TARGET PM80 (0.2, 0.3, 0.6, 0.8 (Ω) [ 21 ], and Z-BIIP (0.48 (Ω)) [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Method for Quantifying Variation in the Resistance of Electronic Cigarette Coils

Saleh

Hensel

Robinson

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), coil resistance is an important factor in the generation of heat energy used to change e-liquid into vapor. An accurate and unbiased method for testing coil resistance is vital for understanding its effect on emissions and reporting results that are comparable across different types and brands of ENDS and measured in different laboratories. This study proposes a robust, accurate and unbiased method for measuring coil resistance. An apparatus is used which mimics the geometric configuration and assembly of ENDS reservoirs, coils and power control units. The method is demonstrated on two commonly used ENDS devices—the ALTO by Vuse and JUUL. Analysis shows that the proposed method is stable and reliable. The two-wire configuration introduced a positive measurement bias of 0.086 (Ω), which is a significant error for sub-ohm coil designs. The four-wire configuration is far less prone to bias error and is recommended for universal adoption. We observed a significant difference in the coil resistance of 0.593 (Ω) (p < 0.001) between the two products tested. The mean resistance and standard deviation of the reservoir/coil assemblies was shown to be 1.031 (0.067) (Ω) for ALTO and 1.624 (0.033) (Ω) for JUUL. The variation in coil resistance between products and within products can have significant impacts on aerosol emissions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Method for Quantifying Variation in the Resistance of Electronic Cigarette Coils

Saleh

Hensel

Robinson

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The random smoking profile was tested in order to mimic a more realistic smoking behavior and to identify differences in the puff-bypuff behavior, 44 which, however, were not significant here.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Puff-Resolved Analysis and Selected Quantification of Chemicals in the Gas Phase of E-Cigarettes, Heat-Not-Burn Devices, and Conventional Cigarettes Using Single-Photon Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (SPI-TOFMS): A Comparative Study

Heide

Adam

Jacobs

et al. 2021

Nicotine &Amp; Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction A wide array of alternative nicotine delivery devices (ANDD) has been developed and they are often described as less harmful than combustible cigarettes. This work compares the chemical emissions of three ANDD in comparison to cigarette smoke. All the tested ANDD are characterized by not involving combustion of tobacco. Method Single photon ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (SPI-TOFMS) is coupled to a linear smoking machine, which allows a comprehensive, online analysis of the gaseous phase of the ANDD aerosol and the conventional cigarette smoke (CC). The following devices were investigated in this study: a tobacco cigarette with a glowing piece of coal as a heating source, an electric device for heating tobacco and a first-generation electronic cigarette. Data obtained from a standard 2R4F research cigarette are taken as a reference. Results The puff-by-puff profile of all products was recorded. The ANDD show a substantial reduction or complete absence of known harmful and potentially harmful substances compared to the CC. In addition, tar substances (i.e. semivolatile and low volatile aromatic and phenolic compounds) are formed to a much lower extent. Nicotine, however, is supplied in comparable amounts except for the investigated electronic cigarette. Conclusions The data shows that consumers switching from CC to ANDD are exposed to lower concentrations of harmful and potentially harmful substances. However, toxicological and epidemiological studies must deliver conclusive results if these reduced exposures are beneficial for users. Implication The comparison of puff-resolved profiles of emissions from different tobacco products, traditional and alternative, may help users switch to lower emission products. Puff-resolved comparison overcomes technical changes, use modes between products and may help in their regulation.

show abstract

“…Both of these methods reflect the longer puff duration commonly observed ( McAdam et al, 2019 ) for e-cigarette users as compared with cigarette smokers ( CORESTA 2015 ). The e-cigarette puffing regime specifies a puff volume of 55 ml, and a puff duration of 3 s, taken twice per minute ( ISO 20768, 2018a ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette

Margham

McAdam²,

Cunningham

et al. 2021

Front. Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As e-cigarette popularity has increased, there is growing evidence to suggest that while they are highly likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes, their use is not free of risk to the user. There is therefore an ongoing need to characterise the chemical composition of e-cigarette aerosols, as a starting point in characterising risks associated with their use. This study examined the chemical complexity of aerosols generated by an e-cigarette containing one unflavored and three flavored e-liquids. A combination of targeted and untargeted chemical analysis approaches was used to examine the number of compounds comprising the aerosol. Contributions of e-liquid flavors to aerosol complexity were investigated, and the sources of other aerosol constituents sought. Emissions of 98 aerosol toxicants were quantified and compared to those in smoke from a reference tobacco cigarette generated under two different smoking regimes.Results: Combined untargeted and targeted aerosol analyses identified between 94 and 139 compounds in the flavored aerosols, compared with an estimated 72–79 in the unflavored aerosol. This is significantly less complex (by 1-2 orders of magnitude) than the reported composition of cigarette smoke. Combining both types of analysis identified 5–12 compounds over and above those found by untargeted analysis alone. Gravimetrically, 89–99% of the e-cigarette aerosol composition was composed of glycerol, propylene glycol, water and nicotine, and around 3% comprised other, more minor, constituents. Comparable data for the Ky3R4F reference tobacco cigarette pointed to 58–76% of cigarette smoke “tar” being composed of minor constituents. Levels of the targeted toxicants in the e-cigarette aerosols were significantly lower than those in cigarette smoke, with 68.5–>99% reductions under ISO 3308 puffing conditions and 88.4–>99% reductions under ISO 20778 (intense) conditions; reductions against the WHO TobReg 9 priority list were around 99%.Conclusion: These analyses showed that the e-cigarette aerosols contain fewer compounds and at significantly lower concentrations than cigarette smoke. The chemical diversity of an e-cigarette aerosol is strongly impacted by the choice of e-liquid ingredients.

show abstract

Use of social media to establish vapers puffing behaviour: Findings and implications for laboratory evaluation of e-cigarette emissions

Cited by 21 publications

References 28 publications

Method for Quantifying Variation in the Resistance of Electronic Cigarette Coils

Method for Quantifying Variation in the Resistance of Electronic Cigarette Coils

Puff-Resolved Analysis and Selected Quantification of Chemicals in the Gas Phase of E-Cigarettes, Heat-Not-Burn Devices, and Conventional Cigarettes Using Single-Photon Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (SPI-TOFMS): A Comparative Study

The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About