Comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices: context for smoke-free indoor air quality
Background Smoke-free indoor air policy has been widely adopted in some regions of the United States in order to protect bystanders from the deleterious effects of indoor tobacco smoke exposure; however, similar legislation has widely not been applied to ENDS devices. This study investigated differ...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
European Publishing
2018-03-01
|
| Series: | Tobacco Induced Diseases |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.journalssystem.com/tid/Comparing-particulate-emissions-between-electronic-nicotine-delivery-devices-context,84296,0,2.html |
| _version_ | 1828909153653882880 |
|---|---|
| author | Zachary R. Dunbar Lisa Vogl Eric T. Jensen Maciej L. Goniewicz Mark J. Travers |
| author_facet | Zachary R. Dunbar Lisa Vogl Eric T. Jensen Maciej L. Goniewicz Mark J. Travers |
| author_sort | Zachary R. Dunbar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background
Smoke-free indoor air policy has been widely adopted in
some regions of the United States in order to protect bystanders from the
deleterious effects of indoor tobacco smoke exposure; however, similar
legislation has widely not been applied to ENDS devices. This study
investigated differences in PM 2.5 matter emitted into the indoor
environment from a selection of ENDS products under controlled conditions.
Methods
Sixteen smokers were recruited to vape in seven
individual sessions (one visit per week). During each visit, participants vaped
using one of seven different ENDS products. All vaping occurred within a
dedicated exposure chamber. Volunteers drew twenty puffs on their assigned
devices over a ten-minute exposure period. ENDS products tested included:
disposable, e-cigar, vaporizer, rechargeable, e-pipe, and e-Go devices. TSI
SidePaks were used to record both ambient and ENDS-associated unadjusted PM 2.5
before, during, and after each exposure period. Statistical analysis was
performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 23.
Results
The rechargeable device emitted the highest
amount of PM 2.5 (µg/m 3 ) on average (µ=21.6, σ=7.82). The
disposable device emitted the lowest amount of PM 2.5 on average (µ=4.14,
σ=1.09). The difference in PM2.5 matter in the smoking chamber during each
session compared to ambient levels before each session was significant
(p< 0.05) by paired t-test for all devices except e-pipe, which was
borderline significant (p=0.053). The mean difference in PM 2.5
emissions between the rechargeable device was significantly from e-cigar
(p=0.048), e-Go (p=0.048), and disposable (p=0.021) products.
Conclusions
This study found that ENDS devices emit levels
of particulate matter into the indoor environment that are significantly higher
than ambient PM 2.5 levels. Further, significant emission differences
were also detected between ENDS products. These findings suggest that
incorporating ENDS products into existing smoke-free indoor air policy would
protect non-users from side-stream exposure to ENDS aerosol. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T18:22:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-721e08020cdd465a859f939be68c3e0c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1617-9625 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T18:22:59Z |
| publishDate | 2018-03-01 |
| publisher | European Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Tobacco Induced Diseases |
| spelling | doaj.art-721e08020cdd465a859f939be68c3e0c2022-12-21T23:35:40ZengEuropean PublishingTobacco Induced Diseases1617-96252018-03-0116110.18332/tid/8429684296Comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices: context for smoke-free indoor air qualityZachary R. Dunbar0Lisa Vogl1Eric T. Jensen2Maciej L. Goniewicz3Mark J. Travers4Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Health Behavior, United States of AmericaRoswell Park Cancer Institute, Health Behavior, United States of AmericaUniversity at Buffalo, United States of AmericaRoswell Park Cancer Institute, Health Behavior, United States of AmericaRoswell Park Cancer Institute, Health Behavior, United States of AmericaBackground Smoke-free indoor air policy has been widely adopted in some regions of the United States in order to protect bystanders from the deleterious effects of indoor tobacco smoke exposure; however, similar legislation has widely not been applied to ENDS devices. This study investigated differences in PM 2.5 matter emitted into the indoor environment from a selection of ENDS products under controlled conditions. Methods Sixteen smokers were recruited to vape in seven individual sessions (one visit per week). During each visit, participants vaped using one of seven different ENDS products. All vaping occurred within a dedicated exposure chamber. Volunteers drew twenty puffs on their assigned devices over a ten-minute exposure period. ENDS products tested included: disposable, e-cigar, vaporizer, rechargeable, e-pipe, and e-Go devices. TSI SidePaks were used to record both ambient and ENDS-associated unadjusted PM 2.5 before, during, and after each exposure period. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 23. Results The rechargeable device emitted the highest amount of PM 2.5 (µg/m 3 ) on average (µ=21.6, σ=7.82). The disposable device emitted the lowest amount of PM 2.5 on average (µ=4.14, σ=1.09). The difference in PM2.5 matter in the smoking chamber during each session compared to ambient levels before each session was significant (p< 0.05) by paired t-test for all devices except e-pipe, which was borderline significant (p=0.053). The mean difference in PM 2.5 emissions between the rechargeable device was significantly from e-cigar (p=0.048), e-Go (p=0.048), and disposable (p=0.021) products. Conclusions This study found that ENDS devices emit levels of particulate matter into the indoor environment that are significantly higher than ambient PM 2.5 levels. Further, significant emission differences were also detected between ENDS products. These findings suggest that incorporating ENDS products into existing smoke-free indoor air policy would protect non-users from side-stream exposure to ENDS aerosol.http://www.journalssystem.com/tid/Comparing-particulate-emissions-between-electronic-nicotine-delivery-devices-context,84296,0,2.htmlWCTOH |
| spellingShingle | Zachary R. Dunbar Lisa Vogl Eric T. Jensen Maciej L. Goniewicz Mark J. Travers Comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices: context for smoke-free indoor air quality Tobacco Induced Diseases WCTOH |
| title | Comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices: context for smoke-free indoor air quality |
| title_full | Comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices: context for smoke-free indoor air quality |
| title_fullStr | Comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices: context for smoke-free indoor air quality |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices: context for smoke-free indoor air quality |
| title_short | Comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices: context for smoke-free indoor air quality |
| title_sort | comparing particulate emissions between electronic nicotine delivery devices context for smoke free indoor air quality |
| topic | WCTOH |
| url | http://www.journalssystem.com/tid/Comparing-particulate-emissions-between-electronic-nicotine-delivery-devices-context,84296,0,2.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zacharyrdunbar comparingparticulateemissionsbetweenelectronicnicotinedeliverydevicescontextforsmokefreeindoorairquality AT lisavogl comparingparticulateemissionsbetweenelectronicnicotinedeliverydevicescontextforsmokefreeindoorairquality AT erictjensen comparingparticulateemissionsbetweenelectronicnicotinedeliverydevicescontextforsmokefreeindoorairquality AT maciejlgoniewicz comparingparticulateemissionsbetweenelectronicnicotinedeliverydevicescontextforsmokefreeindoorairquality AT markjtravers comparingparticulateemissionsbetweenelectronicnicotinedeliverydevicescontextforsmokefreeindoorairquality |