4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Characterization of an Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Aerosol Generation Platform to Determine Exposure Risks

      , , , , ,
      Toxics
      MDPI AG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Evaluating vaping parameters that influence electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) emission profiles and potentially hazardous exposure levels is essential to protecting human health. We developed an automated multi-channel ENDS aerosol generation system (EAGS) for characterizing size-resolved particle emissions across pod- and mod-type devices using real-time monitoring instruments, an exposure chamber, and vaping parameters including different ventilation rates, device type and age, e-liquid formulation, and atomizer setup. Results show the ENDS device type, e-liquid flavoring, and nicotine content can affect particle emissions. In general, pod-type devices have unimodal particle size distributions and higher number emissions, while mod-type devices have bimodal size distributions and higher mass emissions. For pod-type devices, later puff fractions emit lower aerosols, which is potentially associated with the change of coil resistance and power during ageing. For a mod-type device, an atomizer with a lower resistance coil and higher power generates larger particle emissions than an atomizer with a greater resistance coil and lower power. The unventilated scenario produces higher particle emission factors, except for particle mass emission from pod-type devices. The data provided herein indicate the EAGS can produce realistic and reproducible puff profiles of pod- and mod-type ENDS devices and therefore is a suitable platform for characterizing ENDS-associated exposure risks.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Metal Concentrations in e-Cigarette Liquid and Aerosol Samples: The Contribution of Metallic Coils

          Background: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) generate an aerosol by heating a solution (e-liquid) with a metallic coil. Whether metals are transferred from the coil to the aerosol is unknown. Objective: Our goal was to investigate the transfer of metals from the heating coil to the e-liquid in the e-cigarette tank and the generated aerosol. Methods: We sampled 56 e-cigarette devices from daily e-cigarette users and obtained samples from the refilling dispenser, aerosol, and remaining e-liquid in the tank. Aerosol liquid was collected via deposition of aerosol droplets in a series of conical pipette tips. Metals were reported as mass fractions ( μ g / kg ) in liquids and converted to mass concentrations ( mg / m 3 ) for aerosols. Results: Median metal concentrations ( μ g / kg ) were higher in samples from the aerosol and tank vs. the dispenser (all p < 0.001 ): 16.3 and 31.2 vs. 10.9 for Al; 8.38 and 55.4 vs. < 0.5 for Cr; 68.4 and 233 vs. 2.03 for Ni; 14.8 and 40.2 vs. 0.476 for Pb; and 515 and 426 vs. 13.1 for Zn. Mn, Fe, Cu, Sb, and Sn were detectable in most samples. Cd was detected in 0.0, 30.4, and 55.1% of the dispenser, aerosol, and tank samples respectively. Arsenic was detected in 10.7% of dispenser samples (median 26.7 μ g / kg ) and these concentrations were similar in aerosol and tank samples. Aerosol mass concentrations ( mg / m 3 ) for the detected metals spanned several orders of magnitude and exceeded current health-based limits in close to 50% or more of the samples for Cr, Mn, Ni, and Pb. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that e-cigarettes are a potential source of exposure to toxic metals (Cr, Ni, and Pb), and to metals that are toxic when inhaled (Mn and Zn). Markedly higher concentrations in the aerosol and tank samples versus the dispenser demonstrate that coil contact induced e-liquid contamination. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2175
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Secondhand exposure to vapors from electronic cigarettes.

            Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are designed to generate inhalable nicotine aerosol (vapor). When an e-cigarette user takes a puff, the nicotine solution is heated and the vapor is taken into lungs. Although no sidestream vapor is generated between puffs, some of the mainstream vapor is exhaled by e-cigarette user. The aim of this study was to evaluate the secondhand exposure to nicotine and other tobacco-related toxicants from e-cigarettes. We measured selected airborne markers of secondhand exposure: nicotine, aerosol particles (PM(2.5)), carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in an exposure chamber. We generated e-cigarette vapor from 3 various brands of e-cigarette using a smoking machine and controlled exposure conditions. We also compared secondhand exposure with e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke generated by 5 dual users. The study showed that e-cigarettes are a source of secondhand exposure to nicotine but not to combustion toxicants. The air concentrations of nicotine emitted by various brands of e-cigarettes ranged from 0.82 to 6.23 µg/m(3). The average concentration of nicotine resulting from smoking tobacco cigarettes was 10 times higher than from e-cigarettes (31.60±6.91 vs. 3.32±2.49 µg/m(3), respectively; p = .0081). Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Effect of variable power levels on the yield of total aerosol mass and formation of aldehydes in e-cigarette aerosols.

              The study objective was to determine the effect of variable power applied to the atomizer of refillable tank based e-cigarette (EC) devices. Five different devices were evaluated, each at four power levels. Aerosol yield results are reported for each set of 25 EC puffs, as mass/puff, and normalized for the power applied to the coil, in mass/watt. The range of aerosol produced on a per puff basis ranged from 1.5 to 28 mg, and, normalized for power applied to the coil, ranged from 0.27 to 1.1 mg/watt. Aerosol samples were also analyzed for the production of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein, as DNPH derivatives, at each power level. When reported on mass basis, three of the devices showed an increase in total aldehyde yield with increasing power applied to the coil, while two of the devices showed the opposite trend. The mass of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein produced per gram of total aerosol produced ranged from 0.01 to 7.3 mg/g, 0.006 to 5.8 mg/g, and <0.003 to 0.78 mg/g, respectively. These results were used to estimate daily exposure to formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein from EC aerosols from specific devices, and were compared to estimated exposure from consumption of cigarettes, to occupational and workplace limits, and to previously reported results from other researchers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                TOXIC8
                Toxics
                Toxics
                MDPI AG
                2305-6304
                February 2023
                January 21 2023
                : 11
                : 2
                : 99
                Article
                10.3390/toxics11020099
                4a589ebc-5e70-42bc-9e40-62bd0830e504
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article