Yaping Zhang1, Walton Sumner, Da-Ren Chen. 1. School of Engineering & Applied Science, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 633110, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette users ("vapers") inhale aerosols of water, nicotine, and propylene glycol (PG) or vegetable glycerin (VG). Aerosol particle sizes should affect deposition patterns in vapers and bystanders. METHODS: Aerosols were generated by a smoking machine and an electronic cigarette filled with 16mg/ml nicotine in aqueous PG or VG solution. A scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) counted particles of 10-1,000 nm diameters. A single puff experiment counted particles immediately and after aging 10 and 40 s. A steady-state experiment counted particles emitted from a collection chamber, untreated and after desiccation or organic vapor removal. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) human respiratory tract model was used to estimate deposition. Results were compared to similar data from reference cigarettes. RESULTS: Puffs generated peak particle counts at (VG) 180 nm and (PG) 120 nm. Steady-state peaks occurred around 400 nm. Organic vapor removal eliminated small particles and reduced the size and number of large particles. Desiccation reduced the total volume of particles by 70% (VG, small PG) to 88% (large PG). The ICRP model predicted 7%-18% alveolar delivery; 9%-19% venous delivery, mostly in the head; and 73%-80% losses by exhalation. Reference cigarettes generated more particles initially, but were otherwise similar; however, in vivo smoke particle deposition is higher than the model predicts. CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine delivery may depend on vaping technique, particle evolution, and cloud effects. Predicted 10% arterial and 15% venous delivery may describe bystander exposure better than vapers exposure.
INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette users ("vapers") inhale aerosols of water, nicotine, and propylene glycol (PG) or vegetable glycerin (VG). Aerosol particle sizes should affect deposition patterns in vapers and bystanders. METHODS: Aerosols were generated by a smoking machine and an electronic cigarette filled with 16mg/ml nicotine in aqueous PG or VG solution. A scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) counted particles of 10-1,000 nm diameters. A single puff experiment counted particles immediately and after aging 10 and 40 s. A steady-state experiment counted particles emitted from a collection chamber, untreated and after desiccation or organic vapor removal. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) human respiratory tract model was used to estimate deposition. Results were compared to similar data from reference cigarettes. RESULTS: Puffs generated peak particle counts at (VG) 180 nm and (PG) 120 nm. Steady-state peaks occurred around 400 nm. Organic vapor removal eliminated small particles and reduced the size and number of large particles. Desiccation reduced the total volume of particles by 70% (VG, small PG) to 88% (large PG). The ICRP model predicted 7%-18% alveolar delivery; 9%-19% venous delivery, mostly in the head; and 73%-80% losses by exhalation. Reference cigarettes generated more particles initially, but were otherwise similar; however, in vivo smoke particle deposition is higher than the model predicts. CONCLUSIONS:Nicotine delivery may depend on vaping technique, particle evolution, and cloud effects. Predicted 10% arterial and 15% venous delivery may describe bystander exposure better than vapers exposure.
Authors: Jan Czogala; Maciej L Goniewicz; Bartlomiej Fidelus; Wioleta Zielinska-Danch; Mark J Travers; Andrzej Sobczak Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Arunava Ghosh; Raymond D Coakley; Andrew J Ghio; Marianne S Muhlebach; Charles R Esther; Neil E Alexis; Robert Tarran Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Maurizio Manigrasso; Giorgio Buonanno; Fernanda Carmen Fuoco; Luca Stabile; Pasquale Avino Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Xuesi M Shao; Siyu Liu; Eon S Lee; David Fung; Hua Pei; Jing Liang; Ross Mudgway; Jingxi Zhang; Jack L Feldman; Yifang Zhu; Stan Louie; Xinmin S Xie Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2018-09-20
Authors: Vladimir B Mikheev; Marielle C Brinkman; Courtney A Granville; Sydney M Gordon; Pamela I Clark Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jong-Sang Youn; Janae Csavina; Kyle P Rine; Taylor Shingler; Mark Patrick Taylor; A Eduardo Sáez; Eric A Betterton; Armin Sorooshian Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Alison Breland; Eric Soule; Alexa Lopez; Carolina Ramôa; Ahmad El-Hellani; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 5.691