Alyssa K Rudy1, Adam M Leventhal2, Nicholas I Goldenson2, Thomas Eissenberg3. 1. Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States. 2. University of Southern California, Health, Emotion, and Addiction Laboratory, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States. 3. Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States. Electronic address: teissenb@vcu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) aerosolize liquids for user inhalation that usually contain nicotine. ECIG nicotine emission is determined, in part, by user behavior, liquid nicotine concentration, and electrical power. Whether users are able to report accurately nicotine concentration and device electrical power has not been evaluated. This study's purpose was to examine if ECIG users could provide data relevant to understanding ECIG nicotine emission, particularly liquid nicotine concentration (mg/ml) as well as battery voltage (V) and heater resistance (ohms, Ω) - needed to calculate power (watts, W). METHODS: Adult ECIG users (N=165) were recruited from Los Angeles, CA for research studies examining the effects of ECIG use. We asked all participants who visited the laboratory to report liquid nicotine concentration, V, and Ω. RESULTS: Liquid nicotine concentration was reported by 89.7% (mean=9.5mg/ml, SD=7.3), and responses were consistent with the distribution of liquids available in commonly marketed products. The majority could not report voltage (51.5%) or resistance (63.6%). Of the 40 participants (24.8%) who reported voltage and resistance, there was a substantial power range (2.2-32,670W) the upper limit of which exceeds that of the highest ECIG reported by any user to our knowledge (i.e., 2512W). If 2512W is taken as the upper limit, only 30 (18.2%) reported valid results (mean 237.3W, SD=370.6; range=2.2-1705.3W). CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory, survey, and other researchers interested in understanding ECIG effects to inform users and policymakers may need to use methods other than user self-report to obtain information regarding device power.
BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) aerosolize liquids for user inhalation that usually contain nicotine. ECIG nicotine emission is determined, in part, by user behavior, liquid nicotine concentration, and electrical power. Whether users are able to report accurately nicotine concentration and device electrical power has not been evaluated. This study's purpose was to examine if ECIG users could provide data relevant to understanding ECIG nicotine emission, particularly liquid nicotine concentration (mg/ml) as well as battery voltage (V) and heater resistance (ohms, Ω) - needed to calculate power (watts, W). METHODS: Adult ECIG users (N=165) were recruited from Los Angeles, CA for research studies examining the effects of ECIG use. We asked all participants who visited the laboratory to report liquid nicotine concentration, V, and Ω. RESULTS: Liquid nicotine concentration was reported by 89.7% (mean=9.5mg/ml, SD=7.3), and responses were consistent with the distribution of liquids available in commonly marketed products. The majority could not report voltage (51.5%) or resistance (63.6%). Of the 40 participants (24.8%) who reported voltage and resistance, there was a substantial power range (2.2-32,670W) the upper limit of which exceeds that of the highest ECIG reported by any user to our knowledge (i.e., 2512W). If 2512W is taken as the upper limit, only 30 (18.2%) reported valid results (mean 237.3W, SD=370.6; range=2.2-1705.3W). CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory, survey, and other researchers interested in understanding ECIG effects to inform users and policymakers may need to use methods other than user self-report to obtain information regarding device power.
Authors: Andrea R Vansickel; Caroline O Cobb; Michael F Weaver; Thomas E Eissenberg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Beth A Reboussin; Beata Debinski; Kimberly G Wagoner; John Spangler; Mark Wolfson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Soha Talih; Zainab Balhas; Thomas Eissenberg; Rola Salman; Nareg Karaoghlanian; Ahmad El Hellani; Rima Baalbaki; Najat Saliba; Alan Shihadeh Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Corby K Martin; John B Correa; Hongmei Han; H Raymond Allen; Jennifer C Rood; Catherine M Champagne; Bahadir K Gunturk; George A Bray Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 5.002
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: Ashley E Douglas; Margaret G Childers; Katelyn F Romm; Nicholas J Felicione; Jenny E Ozga; Melissa D Blank Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Cosima Hoetger; Rose S Bono; Augustus M White; Andrew J Barnes; Caroline O Cobb Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Brian V Fix; Ann McNeill; Maciej L Goniewicz; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings; Sara Hitchman; Ron Borland; David Hammond; David Levy; Shannon Gravely; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Úrsula Martínez; Víctor Martínez-Loredo; Vani N Simmons; Lauren R Meltzer; David J Drobes; Karen O Brandon; Amanda M Palmer; Thomas Eissenberg; Christopher R Bullen; Paul T Harrell; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244