Laboratory determination of gravimetric correction factors for real-time area measurements of electronic cigarette aerosols

Sousan, Sinan; Pender, Jack; Streuber, Dillon; Haley, Meaghan; Shingleton, Will; Soule, Eric K.

doi:10.1080/02786826.2022.2047152

Cited by 10 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it is not surprising to see different values between these devices, given the different calibration methods between the optical sensors and the different sciences between the optical sensors and the SMPS and APS monitors. Previous work performed by Sousan et al (2022a) with ECIG aerosol measurements also showed that the optical sensors provided different values among the optical monitors and the SMPS monitor.…”

Section: Real-time Mass Concentrationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This could be due to the volatilization of particles larger than 1 µm at higher PG ratios or the particles generated are 1 µm and smaller. Differences in PM1 and PM2.5 mass concentrations between aerosol monitors are attributed to the different sciences used to measure aerosol mass concentrations (Sousan et al, 2016a(Sousan et al, , 2016b(Sousan et al, , 2022a. Instruments based on optics are usually less accurate than monitors based on differential mobility or Time-Of-Flight measurements.…”

Section: Real-time Mass Concentrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the filter correction factor pushes the real-time measurements toward the true concentrations. Sousan et al (2022aSousan et al ( , 2023 measured the gravimetric analysis for several ECIGs and optical aerosol monitors and determined that the filter correction factors are specific to different aerosol monitors and ECIG brands.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Real-time Mass Concentrationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Real-time Mass Concentrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…A correction factor was developed that is unique to JUUL-generated aerosol by collecting real-time and discrete filter measurements using the pDR-1500 in the same experimental setup described above for a runtime of 60 min to exceed the limit of detection of the filter. The correction factor was then calculated by dividing the filter concentration by the average real-time concentration measured . This correction factor (0.59) was applied to all PM 2.5 concentration measurements.…”

Section: Juul Device Puffing Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The correction factor was then calculated by dividing the filter concentration by the average real-time concentration measured. 14 This correction factor (0.59) was applied to all PM 2.5 concentration measurements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased JUUL Emissions from Initial Puffs after Removing and Reinserting Pod

Soule

Sousan

Streuber

et al. 2022

Chem. Res. Toxicol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard laboratory electronic cigarette (ECIG) puffing protocols that do not consider user behaviors, such as removing and resinserting a pod, may underestimate emissions. This study compared JUUL emissions from four 10-puff bout procedures. We generated ECIG aerosol in a chamber using a JUUL device and measured concentrations of particulate matter ≤2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5). The JUUL pod was removed and reinserted 0 times, 1 time, 4 times, and 9 times in experiments 1–4, respectively. Mean real-time PM2.5 concentration was 65.06 μg/m3 (SD = 99.53) for experiment 1, 375.50 μg/m3 (SD = 346.45) for experiment 2, 501.94 μg/m3 (SD = 450.00) for experiment 3, and 834.69 μg/m3 (SD = 578.34) for experiment 4. In this study, removing and reinserting a JUUL pod resulted in greater PM2.5 concentrations compared to puffing protocols in which the JUUL pod was not removed and reinserted. ECIGs should be examined and evaluated based on ECIG users’ real-world behaviors.

show abstract