Air quality assessment of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 under simulated residential conditions

Abstract

Despite the growing popularity of new alternatives to traditional tobacco products, there is still limited evidence on their indoor effect in particular in residential spaces as specific environments where enforcement of air quality standards is difficult. Hence, the impact of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS, marketed as IQOS®) on indoor air quality was assessed under controlled experimental conditions using ventilation representative of residential buildings with natural ventilation. Smoking of cigarettes (Marlboro Gold®) at the same ventilation conditions and consumption rates was used as positive control. Before each THS 2.2 or Marlboro Gold session, a background session with the same volunteers as for the product-use session was held. In the high-load simulated residential environment, out of the 24 measured airborne constituents, only the increase of the indoor concentrations of nicotine, acetaldehyde, and glycerin above the background was attributable to the use of THS 2.2. The quantified concentrations of these three airborne compounds were significantly below the harmful levels defined in the air quality guidelines. Smoking Marlboro Gold resulted in much greater increases in the concentrations of all measured indoor air constituents, except for glycerin, and the indoor concentrations of several constituents exceeded the exposure levels set forth by cognizant authorities. Based on these data, it is reasonable to conclude that the use of THS 2.2 in environments where norms for indoor exposure in terms of adequate ventilation are respected does not adversely affect the overall indoor air quality.

The Dynamics of Exhaled Aerosol Following the Usage of Heated Tobacco Product, Electronic Cigarette, and Conventional Cigarette

“…Since no tobacco burning takes place, the primary source of pollution results from the exhaled breath of a product user. The composition of exhaled breath differs largely from the mainstream aerosol: the majority of exhaled particles are water based, while most of nicotine is being absorbed in users body (O'Connell et al, 2015;Mitova et al, 2019). However, a number of studies (as presented below)…”

Comparison of the effects of three types of heating tobacco system and conventional cigarettes on indoor air quality

“…The impact of cigarette on IAQ can be normalized using ventilated air volume per cigarette (m 3 /cigarette) because the constituent concentrations are the same when the number of cigarettes burned in the total volume of ventilated air is the same. Previously reported environmental simulations with ventilated air volumes closest to that used in this study ("Residential" at 9.00 m 3 /cigarette) were "Residential category III" at 6.17 m 3 /cigarette [9] and "office" at 10.2 m 3 /cigarette [11]. These studies used the same types of cigarette (6 or 7 mg tar/ cigarette) as this study (6 mg tar/cigarette; Supplementary Table S17).…”

“…Previous studies have investigated the impact of novel types of tobacco products on IAQ by measuring indoor air pollutants, such as ETS markers and tobacco constituents of concern to health [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. However, most of these studies, including our previous study [10], have measured and evaluated a limited number of the indoor air concentrations of constituents.…”

Real-time Monitoring of Suspended Particulate Matter in Indoor Air: Validation and Application of a Light-scattering Sensor

“…Patterned backslash bars correspond to ambient calibration (PCF = 0.38), and the empty bar corresponds to factory calibration settings (PCF = 1.0). -Akhtarieva et al, 2019;Mitova et al, 2019). Likewise, extreme values were reported in some studies using laser-operated aerosol mass analyzers to measure PM concentrations during EVP consumption due to use of unadjusted numbers (SidePak) (Melstrom et al, 2017), and calibration with Arizona Road Dust (DustTrak) (Volesky et al, 2018).…”

“…Similarly, an unsuitable calibration procedure might have been one of the explanations for extreme indoor concentrations of PM 2.5 found in experiments with EVPs (Protano et al, 2018), EHTPs and cigarettes (Protano et al, 2020). Currently, PCF values of 0.32 (Soule et al, 2017;Kaufman et al, 2018) and 0.38 (Mitova et al, 2019) considered suitable and applied in laser-operated aerosol mass analyzers for evaluation of environmental aerosols of EVPs and EHTPs. Measurements of the ETS by the DustTrak DRX when using correct photometric calibration (PCF = 0.38) is valid only for this type of aerosol; for other type of matrices, it has to be evaluated if it is still appropriate.…”