Effect of Puffing Behavior on Particle Size Distributions and Respiratory Depositions From Pod-Style Electronic Cigarette, or Vaping, Products.

The current fourth generation ("pod-style") electronic cigarette, or vaping, products (EVPs) heat a liquid ("e-liquid") contained in a reservoir ("pod") using a battery-powered coil to deliver aerosol into the lungs. A portion of inhaled EVP aerosol is estimated as exhaled, which can present a potential secondhand exposure risk to bystanders. The effects of modifiable factors using either a prefilled disposable or refillable pod-style EVPs on aerosol particle size distribution (PSD) and its respiratory deposition are poorly understood. In this study, the influence of up to six puff profiles (55-, 65-, and 75-ml puff volumes per 6.5 and 7.5 W EVP power settings) on PSD was evaluated using a popular pod-style EVP (JUUL® brand) and a cascade impactor. JUUL® brand EVPs were used to aerosolize the manufacturers' e-liquids in their disposable pods and laboratory prepared "reference e-liquid" (without flavorings or nicotine) in refillable pods. The modeled dosimetry and calculated aerosol mass median aerodynamic diameters (MMADs) were used to estimate regional respiratory deposition. From these results, exhaled fraction of EVP aerosols was calculated as a surrogate of the secondhand exposure potential. Overall, MMADs did not differ among puff profiles, except for 55- and 75-ml volumes at 7.5 W (p < 0.05). For the reference e-liquid, MMADs ranged from 1.02 to 1.23 µm and dosimetry calculations predicted that particles would deposit in the head region (36-41%), in the trachea-bronchial (TB) region (19-21%), and in the pulmonary region (40-43%). For commercial JUUL® e-liquids, MMADs ranged from 0.92 to 1.67 µm and modeling predicted that more particles would deposit in the head region (35-52%) and in the pulmonary region (30-42%). Overall, 30-40% of the particles aerosolized by a pod-style EVP were estimated to deposit in the pulmonary region and 50-70% of the inhaled EVP aerosols could be exhaled; the latter could present an inhalational hazard to bystanders in indoor occupational settings. More research is needed to understand the influence of other modifiable factors on PSD and exposure potential.

Modeled Respiratory Tract Deposition of Aerosolized Oil Diluents Used in Δ9-THC-Based Electronic Cigarette Liquid Products.

Electronic cigarette, or vaping, products (EVP) heat liquids ("e-liquids") that contain substances (licit or illicit) and deliver aerosolized particles into the lungs. Commercially available oils such as Vitamin-E-acetate (VEA), Vitamin E oil, coconut, and medium chain triglycerides (MCT) were often the constituents of e-liquids associated with an e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the mass-based physical characteristics of the aerosolized e-liquids prepared using these oil diluents. These characteristics were particle size distributions for modeling regional respiratory deposition and puff-based total aerosol mass for estimating the number of particles delivered to the respiratory tract. Four types of e-liquids were prepared by adding terpenes to oil diluents individually: VEA, Vitamin E oil, coconut oil, and MCT. A smoking machine was used to aerosolize each e-liquid at a predetermined puff topography (volume of 55 ml for 3 s with 30-s intervals between puffs). A cascade impactor was used to collect the size-segregated aerosol for calculating the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) and geometric standard deviation (GSD). The respiratory deposition of EVP aerosols on inhalation was estimated using the Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry model. From these results, the exhaled fraction of EVP aerosols was calculated as a surrogate of secondhand exposure potential. The MMAD of VEA (0.61 µm) was statistically different compared to MCT (0.38 µm) and coconut oil (0.47 µm) but not to Vitamin E oil (0.58 µm); p < 0.05. Wider aerosol size distribution was observed for VEA (GSD 2.35) and MCT (GSD 2.08) compared with coconut oil (GSD 1.53) and Vitamin E oil (GSD 1.55). Irrespective of the statistical differences between MMADs, dosimetry modeling resulted in the similar regional and lobular deposition of particles for all e-liquids in the respiratory tract. The highest (~0.08 or more) fractional deposition was predicted in the pulmonary region, which is consistent as the site of injury among EVALI cases. Secondhand exposure calculations indicated that a substantial amount of EVP aerosols could be exhaled, which has potential implications for bystanders. The number of EVALI cases has declined with the removal of VEA; however, further research is required to investigate the commonly available commercial ingredients used in e-liquid preparations.

Influence of E-Liquid Humectants, Nicotine, and Flavorings on Aerosol Particle Size Distribution and Implications for Modeling Respiratory Deposition.

Electronic cigarette, or vaping, products are used to heat an e-liquid to form an aerosol (liquid droplets suspended in gas) that the user inhales; a portion of this aerosol deposits in their respiratory tract and the remainder is exhaled, thereby potentially creating opportunity for secondhand exposure to bystanders (e.g., in homes, automobiles, and workplaces). Particle size, a critical factor in respiratory deposition (and therefore potential for secondhand exposure), could be influenced by e-liquid composition. Hence, the purposes of this study were to (1) test the influence of laboratory-prepared e-liquid composition [ratio of propylene glycol (PG) to vegetable glycerin (VG) humectants, nicotine, and flavorings] on particle size distribution and (2) model respiratory dosimetry. All e-liquids were aerosolized using a second-generation reference e-cigarette. We measured particle size distribution based on mass using a low-flow cascade impactor (LFCI) and size distribution based on number using real-time mobility sizers. Mass median aerodynamic diameters (MMADs) of aerosol from e-liquids that contained only humectants were significantly larger compared with e-liquids that contained flavorings or nicotine (p = 0.005). Humectant ratio significantly influenced MMADs; all aerosols from e-liquids prepared with 70:30 PG:VG were significantly larger compared with e-liquids prepared with 30:70 PG:VG (p = 0.017). In contrast to the LFCI approach, the high dilution and sampling flow rate of a fast mobility particle sizer strongly influenced particle size measurements (i.e., all calculated MMAD values were < 75 nm). Dosimetry modeling using LFCI data indicated that a portion of inhaled particles will deposit throughout the respiratory tract, though statistical differences in aerosol MMADs among e-liquid formulations did not translate into large differences in deposition estimates. A portion of inhaled aerosol will be exhaled and could be a source for secondhand exposure. Use of laboratory-prepared e-liquids and a reference e-cigarette to standardize aerosol generation and a LFCI to measure particle size distribution without dilution represents an improved method to characterize physical properties of volatile aerosol particles and permitted determination of MMAD values more representative of e-cigarette aerosol in situ, which in turn, can help to improve dose modeling for users and bystanders.