Laboratory determination of gravimetric correction factors for real-time area measurements of electronic cigarette aerosols

Figures & data

Table 1. Settings for different E-CIG devices.

	Flow (L/min)	Puffs (ON/OFF) [seconds]	Experiment Runtime [minutes]	Liquid Ratio of ECIG (P.G./V.G.)	Power (W)	Heater Resistance (Ω)	Voltage (V)
VooPoo Drag 2	8.5	4/30	15	35/65	70^a	0.23	7.5^a
JUUL	1.5	5/30	60	27/73^2	0.62–4.08^b	1.83^b	1.13–2.72^b
NJOY Ace	1.0	4/30	30	NA^3	NA^c	NA^c	NA^c
NJOY Daily	1.0	4/30	30	NA^3	NA^c	NA^c	NA^c
Hyde	1.0-1.5	4/30	30	19/81^4	8.28^d	1.75^d	3.81^d

^aDisplayed on the device (not measured).

^bTalih et al. (2020).

^cNA: Not Available in the literature or the manufacturer’s website.

^dTalih et al. (2021).

Figure 1. Experimental setup used to measure E-CIG exposure of Different Vaping Devices.

Table 2. Correction factors for instruments of each particle size and ECIG device. The average and standard deviation were computed based on three experiments.

PM Sensor-Size	Average	Standard Deviation
(A) VooPoo Drag 2
MiniWRAS PM1	3.99	2.05
MiniWRAS PM2.5	6.01	0.27
MiniWRAS PM10	5.48	0.32
pDR PM2.5	0.80	0.08
pDR PM10	0.69	0.04
SidePak PM2.5	0.18	0.01
(b) JUUL
MiniWRAS PM1	1.72	0.11
MiniWRAS PM2.5	1.90	0.46
MiniWRAS PM10	2.05	0.60
pDR PM2.5	0.59	0.10
pDR PM10	0.59	0.14
SidePak PM2.5	0.13	0.02
(C) NJOY Ace
MiniWRAS CF PM1	2.15	0.53
MiniWRAS CF PM2.5	2.66	0.36
MiniWRAS CF PM10	2.56	0.26
pDR CF PM2.5	0.67	0.08
pDR CF PM10	0.62	0.10
SidePak CF PM2.5	0.19	0.02
(d) NJOY Daily
MiniWRAS PM1	1.42	0.46
MiniWRAS PM2.5	2.52	0.78
MiniWRAS PM10	2.28	0.63
pDR PM2.5	0.68	0.07
pDR PM10	0.58	0.07
SidePak PM2.5	0.18	0.01
(e) Hyde
MiniWRAS PM1	0.64	0.11
MiniWRAS PM2.5	1.38	0.24
MiniWRAS PM10	1.30	0.14
pDR PM2.5	0.45	0.09
pDR PM10	0.41	0.03
SidePak PM2.5	0.20	0.06

Figure 2. Size-selective Box-Whisker plots for (a) MiniWRAS, (b) pDR, and (c) SidePak. The MiniWRAS measures PM1, PM2.5, and PM10, whereas two pDRs were used, one for PM2.5 and the other for PM10 measurements, and the SidePak only measured PM2.5. The measurements represent non-filter-corrected raw data.

Figure 3. Aerosol size distribution by mass for the (a) SMPS + OPS fitted data and (b) MiniWRAS for the different ECIG devices. The x-axis represents the volumetric particle diameter. Each curve's average and standard deviation were computed based on three measurements. The y-axis represents the standard deviation of the three measurements.

Table 3. The MMD and GSD for each E-CIG device based on the SMPS, OPS, and SMPS + OPS fitted data. The average and standard deviation (between brackets) were computed based on three measurements.

	SMPS		OPS		SMPS + OPS (Fitted Data)		MiniWRAS
Device	MMD (µm)	GSD	MMD (µm)	GSD	MMD (µm)	GSD	MMD (µm)	GSD
VooPoo Drag 2	0.22(0.01)	2.5	0.40(0.01)	1.5	0.43(0.01)	1.2	0.40(0.02)	1.4
JUUL	0.25(0.01)	2.0	0.37(0.01)	1.5	0.41(0.01)	1.2	0.37(0.01)	2.2
NJOY Ace	0.22(0.02)	2.1	–	–	–	–	0.47(0.01)	1.5
NJOY Daily	0.23(0.01)	2.2	0.42(0.01)	1.5	0.46(0.01)	1.4	0.39(0.01)	1.8
Hyde	0.28(0.01)	2.0	0.50(0.01)	1.5	0.62(0.01)	1.6	0.50(0.02)	1.9

Talih, S., R. Salman, R. El-Hage, E. Karam, S. Salam, N. Karaoghlanian, A. El-Hellani, N. Saliba, and A. Shihadeh. 2020. A comparison of the electrical characteristics, liquid composition, and toxicant emissions of juul USA and juul uk e-cigarettes. Sci. Rep. 10 (1):7322 doi:10.1038/s41598-020-64414-5.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Talih, S., R. Salman, E. Soule, R. El-Hage, E. Karam, N. Karaoghlanian, A. El-Hellani, N. Saliba, and A. Shihadeh. 2021. Electrical features, liquid composition and toxicant emissions from 'pod-mod'-like disposable electronic cigarettes. Tob. Control doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056362.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The datasets generated from the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.