Modeling Aerial Transmission of Pathogens (Including the SARS-CoV-2 Virus) through Aerosol Emissions from E-Cigarettes

Analytic modeling and risk assessment of aerial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus through vaping expirations in shared micro-environments

It is well known that airborne transmission of COVID-19 in indoor spaces occurs through various respiratory activities: breathing, vocalizing, coughing, and sneezing. However, there is a complete lack of knowledge of its possible transmission through exhalations of e-cigarette aerosol (ECA), which is also a respiratory activity. E-cigarettes have become widely popular among smokers seeking a much safer way of nicotine consumption than smoking. Due to restrictive lockdown measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, many smokers and vapers (e-cigarette users) were confined to shared indoor spaces, making it necessary to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus aerial transmission through their exhalations. We summarize inferred knowledge of respiratory particles emission and transport through ECA, as well as a theoretical framework for explaining the visibility of exhaled ECA, which has safety implications and is absent in other respiratory activities (apart from smoking). We also summarize and briefly discuss the effects of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccination rates, and environmental factors that may influence the spread of COVID-19. To estimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus aerial transmission associated with vaping exhalations, we adapt a theoretical risk model that has been used to analyze the risks associated with other respiratory activities in shared indoor spaces. We consider home and restaurant scenarios, with natural and mechanical ventilation, with occupants wearing and not wearing face masks. We consider as "control case" or baseline risk scenario an indoor space (home and restaurant) where respiratory droplets and droplet nuclei are uniformly distributed and aerial contagion risk might originate exclusively from occupants exclusively rest breathing, assuming this to be the only (unavoidable) respiratory activity they all carry on. If an infected occupant uses an e-cigarette in a home or restaurant scenarios, bystanders not wearing face masks exposed to the resulting ECA expirations face a [Formula: see text] increase of risk of contagion with respect the control case. This relative added risk with respect to the control case becomes [Formula: see text] for high-intensity vaping, [Formula: see text], and over [Formula: see text] for speaking for various periods or coughing (all without vaping). Infectious emissions are significantly modified by mechanical ventilation, face mask usage, vaccination, and environmental factors, but given the lack of empiric evidence, we assume as a working hypothesis that all basic parameters of respiratory activities are equally (or roughly equally) affected by these factors. Hence, the relative risk percentages with respect to the control state should remain roughly the same under a wide range of varying conditions. By avoiding direct exposure to the visible exhaled vaping jet, wearers of commonly used face masks are well protected from respiratory droplets and droplet nuclei directly emitted by mask-less vapers. Compared to the control case of an already existing (unavoidable) risk from continuous breathing, vaping emissions in shared indoor spaces pose just a negligible additional risk of COVID-19 contagion. We consider that it is not necessary to take additional preventive measures beyond those already prescribed (1.5 m separation and wearing face masks) in order to protect bystanders from this contagion.

A Critical Review of Recent Literature on Metal Contents in E-Cigarette Aerosol

The inhalation of metallic compounds in e-cigarette (EC) aerosol emissions presents legitimate concerns of potential harms for users. We provide a critical review of laboratory studies published after 2017 on metal contents in EC aerosol, focusing on the consistency between their experimental design, real life device usage and appropriate evaluation of exposure risks. All experiments reporting levels above toxicological markers for some metals (e.g., nickel, lead, copper, manganese) exhibited the following experimental flaws: (i) high powered sub-ohm tank devices tested by means of puffing protocols whose airflows and puff volumes are conceived and appropriate for low powered devices; this testing necessarily involves overheating conditions that favor the production of toxicants and generate aerosols that are likely repellent to human users; (ii) miscalculation of exposure levels from experimental outcomes; (iii) pods and tank devices acquired months and years before the experiments, so that corrosion effects cannot be ruled out; (iv) failure to disclose important information on the characteristics of pods and tank devices, on the experimental methodology and on the resulting outcomes, thus hindering the interpretation of results and the possibility of replication. In general, low powered devices tested without these shortcomings produced metal exposure levels well below strict reference toxicological markers. We believe this review provides useful guidelines for a more objective risk assessment of EC aerosol emissions and signals the necessity to upgrade current laboratory testing standards.

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.