Alisha Eversole1, Sarah Maloney1, Soha Talih1, Rola Salman1, Nareg Karaoghlanian1, Thokozeni Lipato1, Thomas Eissenberg1, Alison Breland1. 1. Alisha Eversole, Graduate Student, Virginia Commonwealth University, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond VA. Sarah Maloney, Graduate Student, Virginia Commonwealth University, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond VA. Soha Talih, Maroun Semaan Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. Rola Salman, Maroun Semaan Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. Nareg Karaoghlanian, Maroun Semaan Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. Thokozeni Lipato, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Thomas Eissenberg, Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond VA. Alison Breland, Associate Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to characterize the nicotine delivery profile of a variable voltage, tank-style electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS). METHODS: Ten cigarette smokers (8 men, 2 women) completed this within-subject study assessing effects of 2 device power settings (15 W, 45 W) and 3 liquid nicotine concentrations (0, 3, and 6 mg/ml) using a tank-style ENDS. Participants completed one directed (10 puffs) and one ad libitum use period for each condition, with blood sampled throughout. RESULTS: Plasma nicotine concentration did not increase significantly at 15 W regardless of liquid nicotine concentration. At 45 W, mean plasma nicotine increased (not significantly compared to 0 mg/ml) from 2.24 ng/ml (SD=0.2) at baseline to 3.4 ng/ml (SD=0.6) in the 3 mg/ml condition. In the 6 mg/ml, 45 W condition, mean plasma nicotine increased significantly (compared to 0 mg/ml) from 2.0 ng/ml (SD=0) at baseline to 5.96 ng/ml (SD=1.3) after 10 puffs. In general, puff duration and volume decreased as device power and nicotine concentration increased. CONCLUSIONS: Despite using a variable wattage, tank-style device, nicotine delivery was minimal. These results, when combined with results from other studies using tank-style devices, highlight ENDS performance heterogeneity. Regulation may play a role in standardizing ENDS nicotine delivery.
OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to characterize the nicotine delivery profile of a variable voltage, tank-style electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS). METHODS: Ten cigarette smokers (8 men, 2 women) completed this within-subject study assessing effects of 2 device power settings (15 W, 45 W) and 3 liquid nicotine concentrations (0, 3, and 6 mg/ml) using a tank-style ENDS. Participants completed one directed (10 puffs) and one ad libitum use period for each condition, with blood sampled throughout. RESULTS: Plasma nicotine concentration did not increase significantly at 15 W regardless of liquid nicotine concentration. At 45 W, mean plasma nicotine increased (not significantly compared to 0 mg/ml) from 2.24 ng/ml (SD=0.2) at baseline to 3.4 ng/ml (SD=0.6) in the 3 mg/ml condition. In the 6 mg/ml, 45 W condition, mean plasma nicotine increased significantly (compared to 0 mg/ml) from 2.0 ng/ml (SD=0) at baseline to 5.96 ng/ml (SD=1.3) after 10 puffs. In general, puff duration and volume decreased as device power and nicotine concentration increased. CONCLUSIONS: Despite using a variable wattage, tank-style device, nicotine delivery was minimal. These results, when combined with results from other studies using tank-style devices, highlight ENDS performance heterogeneity. Regulation may play a role in standardizing ENDS nicotine delivery.
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: Sze Lin Yoong; Emily Stockings; Li Kheng Chai; Flora Tzelepis; John Wiggers; Christopher Oldmeadow; Christine Paul; Armando Peruga; Melanie Kingsland; John Attia; Luke Wolfenden Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Melissa D Blank; Jennifer Pearson; Caroline O Cobb; Nicholas J Felicione; Marzena M Hiler; Tory R Spindle; Alison Breland Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 7.552
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: Theodore L Wagener; Evan L Floyd; Irina Stepanov; Leslie M Driskill; Summer G Frank; Ellen Meier; Eleanor L Leavens; Alayna P Tackett; Neil Molina; Lurdes Queimado Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 7.552
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
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