BACKGROUND: Health effects of inhaling aerosol produced by electronic cigarettes (ECs) are still uncertain. This work analyzes ECs as specific inhalation devices, which can be characterized by aerodynamic resistance, size distribution of released droplets, and predicted regional and total lung deposition as a function of inhalation maneuver. METHODS: The internal resistance of two types of EC and a conventional cigarette was evaluated by measuring ΔP-Q curves. Particle size distribution in EC-emitted mist was determined by laser diffraction. The measured data were used to calculate lung deposition based on two approaches: multipath particle dosimetry model (MPPD) and Finlay-Martin correlations. Computations were done for the set of ventilation parameters of an EC user, and also for a by-stander. RESULTS: Tested ECs had higher aerodynamic resistance (1.6-1.9 mbar(0.5) min/L) than tobacco cigarette (0.56 mbar(0.5) min/L), and these values are much above the high-resistant DPIs. The average mass median diameter of droplets emitted from ECs was 410 nm, with the average GSD = 1.6. Predicted total lung deposition of the mainstream aerosol was 15%-45% depending on the breathing scheme. An expected increase of particle size in the exhaled aerosol led to predictions of 15%-30% deposition efficiency during passive vaping. CONCLUSIONS: ECs are characterized by high inhalatory resistance, so they require stronger physical effort to transfer cloud of droplets to the lungs, as compared, for example, to DPIs. A significant amount of aerosol is then exhaled, forming an unintentional source of particles to which by-standers are exposed. From this perspective, ECs are not optimal personal aerosol delivery devices.
BACKGROUND: Health effects of inhaling aerosol produced by electronic cigarettes (ECs) are still uncertain. This work analyzes ECs as specific inhalation devices, which can be characterized by aerodynamic resistance, size distribution of released droplets, and predicted regional and total lung deposition as a function of inhalation maneuver. METHODS: The internal resistance of two types of EC and a conventional cigarette was evaluated by measuring ΔP-Q curves. Particle size distribution in EC-emitted mist was determined by laser diffraction. The measured data were used to calculate lung deposition based on two approaches: multipath particle dosimetry model (MPPD) and Finlay-Martin correlations. Computations were done for the set of ventilation parameters of an EC user, and also for a by-stander. RESULTS: Tested ECs had higher aerodynamic resistance (1.6-1.9 mbar(0.5) min/L) than tobacco cigarette (0.56 mbar(0.5) min/L), and these values are much above the high-resistant DPIs. The average mass median diameter of droplets emitted from ECs was 410 nm, with the average GSD = 1.6. Predicted total lung deposition of the mainstream aerosol was 15%-45% depending on the breathing scheme. An expected increase of particle size in the exhaled aerosol led to predictions of 15%-30% deposition efficiency during passive vaping. CONCLUSIONS: ECs are characterized by high inhalatory resistance, so they require stronger physical effort to transfer cloud of droplets to the lungs, as compared, for example, to DPIs. A significant amount of aerosol is then exhaled, forming an unintentional source of particles to which by-standers are exposed. From this perspective, ECs are not optimal personal aerosol delivery devices.
Entities:
Keywords:
deposition modeling; e-cigarette; inhaler characteristics; particle size distribution
Authors: Temperance R Rowell; Steven L Reeber; Shernita L Lee; Rachel A Harris; Rachel C Nethery; Amy H Herring; Gary L Glish; Robert Tarran Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Alexandra Noël; Christina M Verret; Farhana Hasan; Slawomir Lomnicki; John Morse; Annette Robichaud; Arthur L Penn Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 1.355
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
Authors: Rui Zhang; Myles M Jones; Ronna E Dornsife; Tongde Wu; Vijay Sivaraman; Robert Tarran; Rob U Onyenwoke Journal: Toxicol Lett Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 4.372
Authors: Yael-Natalie H Escobar; Cameron B Morrison; Yuzhi Chen; Elise Hickman; Charlotte A Love; Meghan E Rebuli; Jason D Surratt; Camille Ehre; Ilona Jaspers Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 6.011
Authors: Arunava Ghosh; Raymond C Coakley; Teresa Mascenik; Temperance R Rowell; Eric S Davis; Keith Rogers; Megan J Webster; Hong Dang; Laura E Herring; M Flori Sassano; Alessandra Livraghi-Butrico; Scott K Van Buren; Lee M Graves; Melissa A Herman; Scott H Randell; Neil E Alexis; Robert Tarran Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 30.528