Monique Williams1, Sanjay Ghai2, Prue Talbot3. 1. Environmental Toxicology Program, University of California, Riverside, CA; Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, CA. 2. Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, CA. 3. Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, CA talbot@ucr.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to characterize the performance of disposable button-activated and disposable airflow-activated electronic cigarettes (EC) and electronic hookahs (EH). METHODS: The airflow rate required to produce aerosol, pressure drop, and the aerosol absorbance at 420 nm were measured during smoke-outs of 9 disposable products. Three units of each product were tested in these experiments. RESULTS: The airflow rates required to produce aerosol and the aerosol absorbances were lower for button-activated models (3 mL/s; 0.41-0.55 absorbance) than for airflow-activated models (7-17 mL/s; 0.48-0.84 absorbance). Pressure drop was also lower across button-activated products (range = 6-12 mm H2O) than airflow-activated products (range = 15-67 mm H20). For 25 of 27 units tested, airflow did not have to be increased during smoke-out to maintain aerosol production, unlike earlier generation models. Two brands had uniform performance characteristics for all parameters, while 3 had at least 1 product that did not function normally. While button-activated models lasted 200 puffs or less and EH airflow-activated models often lasted 400 puffs, none of the models produced as many puffs as advertised. Puff number was limited by battery life, which was shorter in button-activated models. CONCLUSION: The performance of disposable products was differentiated mainly by the way the aerosol was produced (button vs airflow-activated) rather than by product type (EC vs EH). Users needed to take harder drags on airflow-activated models. Performance varied within models, and battery life limited the number of puffs. Data suggest quality control in manufacturing varies among brands.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to characterize the performance of disposable button-activated and disposable airflow-activated electronic cigarettes (EC) and electronic hookahs (EH). METHODS: The airflow rate required to produce aerosol, pressure drop, and the aerosol absorbance at 420 nm were measured during smoke-outs of 9 disposable products. Three units of each product were tested in these experiments. RESULTS: The airflow rates required to produce aerosol and the aerosol absorbances were lower for button-activated models (3 mL/s; 0.41-0.55 absorbance) than for airflow-activated models (7-17 mL/s; 0.48-0.84 absorbance). Pressure drop was also lower across button-activated products (range = 6-12 mm H2O) than airflow-activated products (range = 15-67 mm H20). For 25 of 27 units tested, airflow did not have to be increased during smoke-out to maintain aerosol production, unlike earlier generation models. Two brands had uniform performance characteristics for all parameters, while 3 had at least 1 product that did not function normally. While button-activated models lasted 200 puffs or less and EH airflow-activated models often lasted 400 puffs, none of the models produced as many puffs as advertised. Puff number was limited by battery life, which was shorter in button-activated models. CONCLUSION: The performance of disposable products was differentiated mainly by the way the aerosol was produced (button vs airflow-activated) rather than by product type (EC vs EH). Users needed to take harder drags on airflow-activated models. Performance varied within models, and battery life limited the number of puffs. Data suggest quality control in manufacturing varies among brands.
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Lauren Collins; Jennifer L Pearson; Haneen Abudayyeh; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.043