Characterization of an Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Aerosol Generation Platform to Determine Exposure Risks

Abstract

Evaluating vaping parameters that influence electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) emission profiles and potentially hazardous exposure levels is essential to protecting human health. We developed an automated multi-channel ENDS aerosol generation system (EAGS) for characterizing size-resolved particle emissions across pod- and mod-type devices using real-time monitoring instruments, an exposure chamber, and vaping parameters including different ventilation rates, device type and age, e-liquid formulation, and atomizer setup. Results show the ENDS device type, e-liquid flavoring, and nicotine content can affect particle emissions. In general, pod-type devices have unimodal particle size distributions and higher number emissions, while mod-type devices have bimodal size distributions and higher mass emissions. For pod-type devices, later puff fractions emit lower aerosols, which is potentially associated with the change of coil resistance and power during ageing. For a mod-type device, an atomizer with a lower resistance coil and higher power generates larger particle emissions than an atomizer with a greater resistance coil and lower power. The unventilated scenario produces higher particle emission factors, except for particle mass emission from pod-type devices. The data provided herein indicate the EAGS can produce realistic and reproducible puff profiles of pod- and mod-type ENDS devices and therefore is a suitable platform for characterizing ENDS-associated exposure risks.

The Role of Puff Volume in Vaping Emissions, Inhalation Risks, and Metabolic Perturbations: A Pilot Study

“…6). Current studies of potential impact of secondhand vaping on indoor air quality are primarily focusing on compositional analysis of the emission, while this study is one of the few that demonstrates real-life personal exposure scenarios by conducting a comparative analysis between rsthand and secondhand with pu ng topography pro le-matched data (10,20,55) and metabolomic outcomes associated with each exposure scenario. Moreover, the calculated vital capacity (VC) and forced vital capacity (FVC) did not show signi cant differences among the low, medium, and high puff volume groups (Fig.…”

“…Collected real-time pu ng topography information was utilized to establish pu ng topography pro les for each participant and these parameters were further applied to produce rsthand exposure scenarios from their purchased device via the EAGS platform as described below (IES Technologies, Morgantown, WV) (10).…”

“…Surgeon General published reports calling for research to characterize ENDS aerosol constituents, which are largely unknown due to the lack of U.S. FDA regulation before 2016 and no current testing standards for acceptable emissions (6, 7). Since then, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, and ultra ne particles have been detected in ENDS emissions across multiple devices and e-liquids (1,(8)(9)(10). Importantly, ENDS have been shown to release higher concentrations of ultra ne particles relative to conventional cigarettes, and at levels exceeding health-based limits (8, [11][12][13].…”

Toxicological Assessment of Particulate and Metal Hazards Associated with Vaping Frequency and Device Age

“…For instance, our inhalation dosimetry analysis showed a significant increase in particle mass deposition and deposited surface area as the device ages, which is shown to be highly affected by changes in particle sizes and concentrations. Although there are other factors that may have contributed to particle size growth, such as condensation or coagulation that occurs from minor variations in temperature, relative humidity, and exposure chamber air exchange rates, the changes in particle size distribution observed in this study may also suggest compositional changes of the particles in the emitted aerosols as the device ages [ 36 , 46 ]. Therefore, compositional analysis of the emitted aerosol is essential for further evaluation of the potential health risks of using ENDS devices.…”

“…A scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS, models TSI 3080 and 3786) was used to determine the aerosol size distribution and concentration for sizes ranging from 7–300 nm and an optical particle sizer (OPS, model TSI 3330) was used for sizes ranging from 0.3–10 µm. Details of EAGS and exposure chamber setups and aerosol characterization methods were previously described [ 36 ]. Importantly, the disposable pod-type ENDS (JUUL ® ) utilized in this study contain sufficient e-liquid for 200 puffs.…”