A distributed computational model for estimating room air level of constituents due to aerosol emission from e-vapor product use

Influence of puff topographies on e-liquid heating temperature, emission characteristics and modeled lung deposition of Puff Bar™

Puff Bar™, one of the latest designs of e-cigarettes, heats a mixture of liquid using a battery-powered coil at certain temperatures to emit aerosol. This study presents a mass-based characterization of emissions from seven flavors of Puff Bar™ devices by aerosolizing with three puff topographies [(puff volume: 55 < 65 < 75-mL) within 4-seconds at 30-seconds interval]. We evaluated the effects of puff topographies on heating temperatures; characterized particles using a cascade impactor; and measured volatile carbonyl compounds (VCCs). Modeled dosimetry and calculated mass median aerodynamic diameters (MMADs) were used to estimate regional, total respiratory deposition of the inhaled aerosol and exhaled fractions that could pose secondhand exposure risk. Temperatures of Puff Bar™ e-liquids increased with increasing puff volumes: 55mL (116.6 °C), 65 mL (128.3 °C), and 75mL (168.9 °C). Flavor types significantly influenced MMADs, total mass of particles, and VCCs (μg/puff: 2.15-2.30) in Puff Bar™ emissions (p < 0.05). Increasing puff volume (mL:55 < 65 < 75) significantly increased total mass (mg/puff: 4.6 < 5.6 < 6.2) of particles without substantially changing MMADs (~1μm:1.02~0.99~0.98). Aerosol emissions were estimated to deposit in the pulmonary region of e-cigarette user (41-44%), which could have toxicological importance. More than 2/3 (67-77%) of inhaled particles were estimated to be exhaled by users, which could affect bystanders. The VCCs measured contained carcinogens-formaldehyde (29.6%) and acetaldehyde (16.4%)-as well as respiratory irritants: acetone (23.9%), isovaleraldehyde (14.5%), and acrolein (4.9%). As Puff Bar™ emissions contain respirable particles and harmful chemicals, efforts should be made to minimize exposures, especially in indoor settings where people (including vulnerable populations) spend most of their life-time.

Computational modeling method to estimate secondhand exposure potential from exhalations during e-vapor product use under various real-world scenarios

Potential secondhand exposure of exhaled constituents from e-vapor product (EVP) use is a public health concern. We present a computational modeling method to predict air levels of exhaled constituents from EVP use. We measured select constituent levels in exhaled breath from adult e-vapor product users, then used a validated computational model to predict constituent levels under three scenarios (car, office, and restaurant) to estimate likely secondhand exposure to non-users. The model was based on physical/thermodynamic interactions between air, vapor, and particulate phase of the aerosol. Input variables included space setting, ventilation rate, total aerosol amount exhaled, and aerosol composition. Exhaled breath samples were analyzed after the use of four different e-liquids in a cartridge-based EVP. Nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, menthol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein levels were measured and reported based on a linear mixed model for analysis of covariance. The ranges of nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and formaldehyde in exhaled breath were 89.44-195.70 µg, 1199.7-3354.5 µg, 5366.8-6484.7 µg, and 0.25-0.34 µg, respectively. Acetaldehyde and acrolein were below detectable limits; thus, no estimated exposure to non-EVP users is reported. The model predicted that nicotine and formaldehyde exposure to non-users was substantially lower during EVPs use compared to cigarettes. The model also predicted that exposure to propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine and formaldehyde among non-users was below permissible exposure limits.

Prediction of potential passive exposure from commercial electronic nicotine delivery systems using exhaled breath analysis and computational fluid dynamic techniques

Use of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling to predict temporal and spatial constituent exposure for non-electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) users (passive exposure) provides a more efficient methodology compared to conducting actual exposure studies. We conducted a clinical study measuring exhaled breath concentrations of glycerin, propylene glycol, nicotine, benzoic acid, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, menthol and carbon monoxide from use of eight different commercial ENDS devices and a non-menthol and menthol cigarette. Because baseline adjusted levels of other constituents were not consistently above the limit of detection, the mean minimum and maximum per puff exhaled breath concentrations (N= 20/product) of glycerin (158.7-260.9µg), propylene glycol (0.941-3.58µg), nicotine (0.10-1.06µg), and menthol (0.432-0.605µg) from use of the ENDS products were used as input parameters to predict temporal and spatial concentrations in an environmental chamber, office, restaurant, and car using different ENDS use scenarios. Among these indoor locations and ENDS use scenarios, the car with closed windows resulted in the greatest concentrations while opening the car windows produced the lowest concentrations. The CFD predicted average maximum glycerin and propylene glycol concentration ranged from 0.25 to 1068µg m^-3and 1.5 pg m^-3to 13.56µg m^-3,respectively. For nicotine and menthol the CFD predicted maximum concentration ranged from 0.16 pg m^-3to 4.02µg m^-3and 0.068 pg m^-3to 2.43µg m^-3, respectively. There was better agreement for CFD-predicted nicotine concentrations than glycerin and propylene glycol with published reports highlighting important experimental and computational variables. Maximum measured nicotine levels from environmental tobacco smoke in offices, restaurants, and cars exceeded our maximum average CFD predictions by 7-97 times. For all the measured exhaled breath constituents and CFD predicted constituents, except for propylene glycol and glycerin, concentrations were less from use of ENDS products compared to combustible cigarettes. NCT number: NCT04143256.

Toxicology of flavoring- and cannabis-containing e-liquids used in electronic delivery systems

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were introduced in the United States in 2007 and by 2014 they were the most popular tobacco product amongst youth and had overtaken use of regular tobacco cigarettes. E-cigarettes are used to aerosolize a liquid (e-liquid) that the user inhales. Flavorings in e-liquids is a primary reason for youth to initiate use of e-cigarettes. Evidence is growing in the scientific literature that inhalation of some flavorings is not without risk of harm. In this review, 67 original articles (primarily cellular in vitro) on the toxicity of flavored e-liquids were identified in the PubMed and Scopus databases and evaluated critically. At least 65 individual flavoring ingredients in e-liquids or aerosols from e-cigarettes induced toxicity in the respiratory tract, cardiovascular and circulatory systems, skeletal system, and skin. Cinnamaldehyde was most frequently reported to be cytotoxic, followed by vanillin, menthol, ethyl maltol, ethyl vanillin, benzaldehyde and linalool. Additionally, modern e-cigarettes can be modified to aerosolize cannabis as dried plant material or a concentrated extract. The U.S. experienced an outbreak of lung injuries, termed e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) that began in 2019; among 2,022 hospitalized patients who had data on substance use (as of January 14, 2020), 82% reported using a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (main psychoactive component in cannabis) containing e-cigarette, or vaping, product. Our literature search identified 33 articles related to EVALI. Vitamin E acetate, a diluent and thickening agent in cannabis-based products, was strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak in epidemiologic and laboratory studies; however, e-liquid chemistry is highly complex, and more than one mechanism of lung injury, ingredient, or thermal breakdown product may be responsible for toxicity. More research is needed, particularly with regard to e-cigarettes (generation, power settings, etc.), e-liquids (composition, bulk or vaped form), modeled systems (cell type, culture type, and dosimetry metrics), biological monitoring, secondhand exposures and contact with residues that contain nicotine and flavorings, and causative agents and mechanisms of EVALI toxicity.

Identification and quantification of electronic cigarette exhaled aerosol residue chemicals in field sites

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarette (EC) users may exhale large clouds of aerosol that can settle on indoor surfaces forming ECEAR (EC exhaled aerosol residue). Little is known about the chemical composition or buildup of this residue.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to identify and quantify ECEAR chemicals in two field sites: an EC user's living room and a multi-user EC vape shop.

METHODS

We examined the buildup of ECEAR in commonly used materials (cotton, polyester, or terrycloth towel) placed inside the field sites. Materials were subjected to different lengths of exposure. Nicotine, nicotine alkaloids, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) were identified and quantified in unexposed controls and field site samples using analytical chemical techniques.

RESULTS

Nicotine and nicotine alkaloids were detected in materials inside the EC user's living room. Concentrations of ECEAR chemicals remained relatively constant over the first 5 months, suggesting some removal of the chemicals by air flow in the room approximating a steady state. ECEAR chemicals were detected in materials inside the vape shop after 6 h of exposure and levels continually increased over a month. By 1 month, the nicotine in the vape shop was 60 times higher than in the EC user's living room. ECEAR chemical concentrations varied in different locations in the vape shop. Control fabrics had either no detectable or very low concentrations of chemicals.

CONCLUSIONS

In both field sites, chemicals from exhaled EC aerosols were deposited on indoor surfaces and accumulated over time forming ECEAR. Non-smokers, EC users, and employees of vape shops should be aware of this potential environmental hazard.