» Articles » PMID: 25187061

Effects of User Puff Topography, Device Voltage, and Liquid Nicotine Concentration on Electronic Cigarette Nicotine Yield: Measurements and Model Predictions

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2014 Sep 5
PMID 25187061
Citations 216
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Some electronic cigarette (ECIG) users attain tobacco cigarette-like plasma nicotine concentrations while others do not. Understanding the factors that influence ECIG aerosol nicotine delivery is relevant to regulation, including product labeling and abuse liability. These factors may include user puff topography, ECIG liquid composition, and ECIG design features. This study addresses how these factors can influence ECIG nicotine yield.

Methods: Aerosols were machine generated with 1 type of ECIG cartridge (V4L CoolCart) using 5 distinct puff profiles representing a tobacco cigarette smoker (2-s puff duration, 33-ml/s puff velocity), a slow average ECIG user (4 s, 17 ml/s), a fast average user (4 s, 33 ml/s), a slow extreme user (8 s, 17 ml/s), and a fast extreme user (8 s, 33 ml/s). Output voltage (3.3-5.2 V or 3.0-7.5 W) and e-liquid nicotine concentration (18-36 mg/ml labeled concentration) were varied. A theoretical model was also developed to simulate the ECIG aerosol production process and to provide insight into the empirical observations.

Results: Nicotine yields from 15 puffs varied by more than 50-fold across conditions. Experienced ECIG user profiles (longer puffs) resulted in higher nicotine yields relative to the tobacco smoker (shorter puffs). Puff velocity had no effect on nicotine yield. Higher nicotine concentration and higher voltages resulted in higher nicotine yields. These results were predicted well by the theoretical model (R (2) = 0.99).

Conclusions: Depending on puff conditions and product features, 15 puffs from an ECIG can provide far less or far more nicotine than a single tobacco cigarette. ECIG emissions can be predicted using physical principles, with knowledge of puff topography and a few ECIG device design parameters.

Citing Articles

The impacts of product characteristics and regulatory environment on smokers' preferences for tobacco and alcohol: Evidence from a volumetric choice experiment.

Ma S, Shang C, Do V, Huang J, Pechacek T, Weaver S PLoS One. 2025; 20(3):e0320023.

PMID: 40073034 PMC: 11902124. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320023.


Multi-Omics Assessment of Puff Volume-Mediated Salivary Biomarkers of Metal Exposure and Oxidative Injury Associated with Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.

He X, Meister M, Jeon J, Shinde A, Zhang Q, Chepaitis P Environ Health Perspect. 2025; 133(1):17005.

PMID: 39819025 PMC: 11737583. DOI: 10.1289/EHP14321.


Dose by design: How limits on nicotine flux and puff duration affect the abuse liability of electronic nicotine delivery systems.

Bono R, White A, Imran R, Maldonado G, Lipato T, Barnes A Drug Alcohol Depend. 2024; 266():112508.

PMID: 39657440 PMC: 11736901. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112508.


Quantification of Size-Binned Particulate Matter in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols Using Multi-Spectral Optical Sensing and Machine Learning.

Jiang H, Kolaczyk K Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(21).

PMID: 39517979 PMC: 11548654. DOI: 10.3390/s24217082.


Method Development and Validation of an Aerosol Sampling Technique for the Analysis of Nicotine in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols.

Dill M, Deconinck E, Barhdadi S Molecules. 2024; 29(15).

PMID: 39124892 PMC: 11314268. DOI: 10.3390/molecules29153487.


References
1.
Noel J, Rees V, Connolly G . Electronic cigarettes: a new 'tobacco' industry?. Tob Control. 2010; 20(1):81. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2010.038562. View

2.
Goniewicz M, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J . Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2013; 23(2):133-9. PMC: 4154473. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859. View

3.
Shihadeh A, Azar S . A closed-loop control "playback" smoking machine for generating mainstream smoke aerosols. J Aerosol Med. 2006; 19(2):137-47. DOI: 10.1089/jam.2006.19.137. View

4.
Vansickel A, Cobb C, Weaver M, Eissenberg T . A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic "cigarettes": nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19(8):1945-53. PMC: 2919621. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0288. View

5.
Farsalinos K, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Spyrou A, Voudris V . Impact of flavour variability on electronic cigarette use experience: an internet survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013; 10(12):7272-82. PMC: 3881166. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph10127272. View