Increased JUUL Emissions from Initial Puffs after Removing and Reinserting Pod

Soule, Eric K.; Sousan, Sinan; Streuber, Dillon; Fresquez, Sarah; Mooring, Ronald; Salman, Rola; Talih, Soha; Pender, Jack

doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00017

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The emissions return to normal when the bubbles are detached from the wick by flicking, removing and reinstalling, or squeezing the pod. 21,22 We also observed that toxicant emissions from aftermarket pods generally exhibited higher variability than JUUL pods (Table 1). This variability was the most pronounced for W01 (RSD: 57% for ROS compared to 14% for JUUL and 104% for CCs compared to 38% for JUUL), and we suspect it stems from looser manufacturing tolerances.…”

Section: ■ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…The buildup of bubbles can prevent full wetting of the coil by the liquid, leading to decreased emissions. The emissions return to normal when the bubbles are detached from the wick by flicking, removing and reinstalling, or squeezing the pod. , …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The emissions return to normal when the bubbles are detached from the wick by flicking, removing and reinstalling, or squeezing the pod. 21 , 22 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Aftermarket Electronic Cigarette Pods on Device Power Output and Nicotine, Carbonyl, and ROS Emissions

Talih,

Karaoghlanian,

Salman

et al. 2023

Chem. Res. Toxicol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aftermarket pods designed to operate with prevalent electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products such as JUUL are marketed as low-cost alternatives that allow the use of banned flavored liquids. Subtle differences in the design or construction of aftermarket pods may intrinsically modify the performance of the ENDS device and the resulting nicotine and toxicant emissions relative to the original equipment manufacturer's product. In this study, we examined the electrical output of a JUUL battery and the aerosol emissions when four different brands of aftermarket pods filled with an analytical-grade mixture of propylene glycol, glycerol, and nicotine were attached to it and puffed by machine. The aerosol emissions examined included total particulate matter (TPM), nicotine, carbonyl compounds (CCs), and reactive oxygen species (ROS). We also compared the puff-resolved power and TPM outputs of JUUL and aftermarket pods. We found that all aftermarket pods drew significantly greater electrical power from the JUUL battery during puffing and had different electrical resistances and resistivity. In addition, unlike the case with the original pods, we found that with the aftermarket pods, the power provided by the battery did not vary greatly with flow rate or puff number, suggesting impairment of the temperature control circuitry of the JUUL device when used with the aftermarket pods. The greater power output with the aftermarket pods resulted in up to three times greater aerosol and nicotine output than the original product. ROS and CC emissions varied widely across brands. These results highlight that the use of aftermarket pods can greatly modify the performance and emissions of ENDS. Consumers and public health authorities should be made aware of the potential increase in the level of toxicant exposure when aftermarket pods are employed.

show abstract

Section: ■ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Aftermarket Electronic Cigarette Pods on Device Power Output and Nicotine, Carbonyl, and ROS Emissions

Talih,

Karaoghlanian,

Salman

et al. 2023

Chem. Res. Toxicol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Particle size distribution and concentration are essential factors in estimating the potential adverse health effects of vaping [ 35 ]. However, these variables are highly influenced by device usage behavior [ 3 , 36 , 37 ], and monitoring conditions like air change rate, temperature, and relative humidity [ 3 , 7 ]. Therefore, the characterizations of ENDS emissions tend to be dependent on study design, which could lead to uncomparable or inconsistent results among studies [ 19 , 38 , 39 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Zhang¹,

Jeon²,

Goldsmith

et al. 2023

Toxics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…ECIG devices utilize an atomizer to produce the airborne contaminants containing particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) ( Fernández et al ., 2015 ; Tzortzi et al ., 2018 ; Marcham and Springston, 2019 ). Much of the current laboratory research on ECIGs is conducted using an airborne exposure chamber, which allows the measurement of aerosol emissions generated from ECIGs in a controlled environment ( Czogala et al ., 2014 ; Geiss et al ., 2015 ; Cunningham et al ., 2020 ; Soule et al ., 2022 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of E-Cigarette Liquid Ratios on the Gravimetric Filter Correction Factors and Real-Time Measurements

Close,

Blackerby,

Tunnell

et al. 2023

Aerosol Air Qual. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) generate high concentrations of particulate matter (PM), impacting the air quality inhaled by humans through secondhand exposure. ECIG liquids are available commercially and some users create their own "do-it-yourself" liquids, and these liquids often vary in the amounts of their chemical ingredients, including propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG). Previous studies have quantified PM concentrations in ECIG aerosol generated from liquids containing different PG/VG ratios. However, the effects of these ratios on aerosol instrument filter correction factors needed to measure PM concentrations accurately have not been assessed. Thus, ECIG aerosol filter correction factors for multiple aerosol instruments (SMPS + APS, MiniWRAS, pDR, and SidePak) were determined for five different PG/VG ratios 1) 0PG/100VG, 2) 15PG/85VG, 3) 50PG/50VG, 4) 72PG/28VG, and 5) 90PG/10VG and two different PM sizes, PM1 (1 µm and smaller) and PM2.5 (2.5 µm and smaller). ECIG aerosols were generated inside a controlled exposure chamber using a diaphragm pump and a refillable ECIG device for all the ratios. In addition, the aerosol size distribution and mass median diameter were measured for all five ECIG ratios. PM2.5 correction factors (5-7.6) for ratios 1, 2, 3, and 4 were similar for the SMPS + APS combined data, and ratios 1, 2, 3 were similar for the MiniWRAS (~2), pDR (~0.5), and SidePak (~0.24). These data suggest different correction factors may need to be developed for aerosol generated from ECIGs with high PG content. The higher correction factor values for the 90PG/10VG ratio may have resulted from greater PG volatility relative to VG and sensor losses. The correction factors (ratios 1-4) for PM2.5 were SMPS + APS data (4.96-7.62), MiniWRAS (2.02-3.64), pDR (0.50-1.07), and SidePak (0.22-0.40). These data can help improve ECIG aerosol measurement accuracy for different ECIG mixture ratios.

show abstract

Increased JUUL Emissions from Initial Puffs after Removing and Reinserting Pod

Cited by 4 publications

References 15 publications

Effects of Aftermarket Electronic Cigarette Pods on Device Power Output and Nicotine, Carbonyl, and ROS Emissions

Effects of Aftermarket Electronic Cigarette Pods on Device Power Output and Nicotine, Carbonyl, and ROS Emissions

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

Effects of E-Cigarette Liquid Ratios on the Gravimetric Filter Correction Factors and Real-Time Measurements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About