2016
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164038
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Week Long Topography Study of Young Adults Using Electronic Cigarettes in Their Natural Environment

Abstract: Results of an observational, descriptive study quantifying topography characteristics of twenty first generation electronic nicotine delivery system users in their natural environment for a one week observation period are presented. The study quantifies inter-participant variation in puffing topography between users and the intra-participant variation for each user observed during one week of use in their natural environment. Puff topography characteristics presented for each user include mean puff duration, f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
51
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(24 reference statements)
2
51
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown in one of our previous studies, the mean PNC per puff was determined by both the puff duration and puff flow rate (Zhao et al 2016). Robinson et al (2016) reported significant intra-subject and intersubject variabilities of both the puff duration and puff flow rate by comparing the puff flow rate and puff duration of 21 subjects under natural puffing conditions for a week. In our study, although we instructed each subject to puff exactly at 3 s intervals, the variances of puff flow rates within and across subjects is likely to result in the large variance in mean PNC per puff as observed in Figure 4.…”
Section: Individual Differencementioning
confidence: 55%
“…As shown in one of our previous studies, the mean PNC per puff was determined by both the puff duration and puff flow rate (Zhao et al 2016). Robinson et al (2016) reported significant intra-subject and intersubject variabilities of both the puff duration and puff flow rate by comparing the puff flow rate and puff duration of 21 subjects under natural puffing conditions for a week. In our study, although we instructed each subject to puff exactly at 3 s intervals, the variances of puff flow rates within and across subjects is likely to result in the large variance in mean PNC per puff as observed in Figure 4.…”
Section: Individual Differencementioning
confidence: 55%
“…More recent topography data have revealed that puffing behaviour is highly heterogeneous with significant interā€ and intraā€user variation. For instance, puff duration can range from as low as 0.6 seconds up to 3.4 seconds (Robinson et al, ). Taken from this, a puff duration of 1.5 seconds as used in our study is still reasonable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, human exposure is active. In the natural environment, puff duration and other puff parameters (e.g., number of puffs, inter-puff interval, flow rate, volume) are controlled by the user (Robinson et al, 2015; Robinson et al, 2016), although manipulation of these parameters through controlled vaping bouts has occurred in laboratory settings (Spindle et al, 2016). In humans, average puff duration for e-cigarettes (ā€œcigalikesā€ and tank-based systems) appeared dependent upon nicotine concentration (Lopez et al, 2016; Ramoa et al, 2016; Spindle et al, 2016) and showed considerable variability, ranging from 1.8 to 6.1 s (Cunningham et al, 2016; Ramoa et al, 2016; Robinson et al, 2015; Spindle et al, 2016).…”
Section: 0 Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%