IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i4p2144-d748953.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proposed Standard Test Protocols and Outcome Measures for Quantitative Comparison of Emissions from Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Edward C. Hensel

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

  • Nathan C. Eddingsaas

    (School of Chemistry and Materials Science, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

  • Qutaiba M. Saleh

    (Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

  • Shehan Jayasekera

    (Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

  • Samantha Emma Sarles

    (Biomedical Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

  • A. Gary DiFrancesco

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

  • Risa J. Robinson

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA)

Abstract

This study introduces and demonstrates a comprehensive, accurate, unbiased approach to robust quantitative comparison of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) appropriate for establishing substantial equivalence (or lack thereof) between inhaled nicotine products. The approach is demonstrated across a family of thirteen pen- and pod-style ENDS products. Methods employed consist of formulating a robust emissions surface regression model, quantifying the empirical accuracy of the model as applied to each product, evaluating relationships between product design characteristics and maximum emissions characteristics, and presenting results in formats useful to researchers, regulators, and consumers. Results provide a response surface to characterize emissions (total particulate matter and constituents thereof) from each ENDS appropriate for use in a computer model and for conducting quantitative exposure comparisons between products. Results demonstrate that emissions vary as a function of puff duration, flow rate, e-liquid composition, and device operating power. Further, results indicate that regulating design characteristics of ENDS devices and consumables may not achieve desired public health outcomes; it is more effective to regulate maximum permissible emissions directly. Three emissions outcome measures (yield per puff, mass concentration, and constituent mass ratio) are recommended for adoption as standard quantities for reporting by manufacturers and research laboratories. The approach provides a means of: (a) quantifying and comparing maximal emissions from ENDS products spanning their entire operating envelope, (b) comparative evaluation of ENDS devices and consumable design characteristics, and (c) establishing comparative equivalence of maximal emissions from ENDS. A consumer-oriented product emissions dashboard is proposed for comparative evaluation of ENDS exposure potential. Maximum achievable power dissipated in the coil of ENDS is identified as a potentially effective regulatory parameter.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward C. Hensel & Nathan C. Eddingsaas & Qutaiba M. Saleh & Shehan Jayasekera & Samantha Emma Sarles & A. Gary DiFrancesco & Risa J. Robinson, 2022. "Proposed Standard Test Protocols and Outcome Measures for Quantitative Comparison of Emissions from Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2144-:d:748953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/2144/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/2144/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qutaiba M. Saleh & Edward C. Hensel & Risa J. Robinson, 2020. "Method for Quantifying Variation in the Resistance of Electronic Cigarette Coils," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Yeongkwon Son & Chiranjivi Bhattarai & Vera Samburova & Andrey Khlystov, 2020. "Carbonyls and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes Affected by Device Type and Use Patterns," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-15, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tareq Hussein, 2022. "Indoor Exposure and Regional Inhaled Deposited Dose Rate during Smoking and Incense Stick Burning—The Jordanian Case as an Example for Eastern Mediterranean Conditions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-20, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dominic L. Palazzolo & Jordan Caudill & James Baron & Kevin Cooper, 2021. "Fabrication and Validation of an Economical, Programmable, Dual-Channel, Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Generator," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-26, December.
    2. Alexandra Noël & Arpita Ghosh, 2022. "Carbonyl Profiles of Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Aerosols Reflect Both the Chemical Composition and the Numbers of E-Liquid Ingredients–Focus on the In Vitro Toxicity of Strawberry and ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Qutaiba M. Saleh & Edward C. Hensel & Nathan C. Eddingsaas & Risa J. Robinson, 2021. "Effects of Manufacturing Variation in Electronic Cigarette Coil Resistance and Initial Pod Mass on Coil Lifetime and Aerosol Generation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-11, April.
    4. Yeongkwon Son & Clifford Weisel & Olivia Wackowski & Stephan Schwander & Cristine Delnevo & Qingyu Meng, 2020. "The Impact of Device Settings, Use Patterns, and Flavorings on Carbonyl Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-14, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2144-:d:748953. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.