Introduction

The purpose of this study was to characterize the performance of disposable button-activated and disposable airflow-activated electronic cigarettes (EC) and electronic hookahs (EH).

Methods

The airflow rate required to produce aerosol, pressure drop, and the aerosol absorbance at 420 nm were measured during smoke-outs of 9 disposable products. Three units of each product were tested in these experiments.

Results

The airflow rates required to produce aerosol and the aerosol absorbances were lower for button-activated models (3 mL/s; 0.41-0.55 absorbance) than for airflow-activated models (7-17 mL/s; 0.48-0.84 absorbance). Pressure drop was also lower across button-activated products (range = 6-12 mm H2O) than airflow-activated products (range = 15-67 mm H20). For 25 of 27 units tested, airflow did not have to be increased during smoke-out to maintain aerosol production, unlike earlier generation models. Two brands had uniform performance characteristics for all parameters, while 3 had at least 1 product that did not function normally. While button-activated models lasted 200 puffs or less and EH airflow-activated models often lasted 400 puffs, none of the models produced as many puffs as advertised. Puff number was limited by battery life, which was shorter in button-activated models.

Conclusion

The performance of disposable products was differentiated mainly by the way the aerosol was produced (button vs airflow-activated) rather than by product type (EC vs EH). Users needed to take harder drags on airflow-activated models. Performance varied within models, and battery life limited the number of puffs. Data suggest quality control in manufacturing varies among brands.

Objective

Our purpose was to quantify 36 inorganic chemical elements in aerosols from disposable electronic cigarettes (ECs) and electronic hookahs (EHs), examine the effect of puffing topography on elements in aerosols, and identify the source of the elements.

Methods

Thirty-six inorganic chemical elements and their concentrations in EC/EH aerosols were determined using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy, and their source was identified by analyzing disassembled atomizers using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy.

Results

Of 36 elements screened, 35 were detected in EC/EH aerosols, while only 15 were detected in conventional tobacco smoke. Some elements/metals were present in significantly higher concentrations in EC/EH aerosol than in cigarette smoke. Concentrations of particular elements/metals within EC/EH brands were sometimes variable. Aerosols generated at low and high air-flow rates produced the same pattern of elements, although the total element concentration decreased at the higher air flow rate. The relative amount of elements in the first and last 60 puffs was generally different. Silicon was the dominant element in aerosols from all EC/EH brands and in cigarette smoke. The elements appeared to come from the filament (nickel, chromium), thick wire (copper coated with silver), brass clamp (copper, zinc), solder joints (tin, lead), and wick and sheath (silicon, oxygen, calcium, magnesium, aluminum). Lead was identified in the solder and aerosol of two brands of EHs (up to 0.165 μg/10 puffs).

Conclusion

These data show that EC/EH aerosols contain a mixture of elements, including heavy metals, with concentrations often significantly higher than in conventional cigarette smoke. While the health effects of inhaling mixtures of heated metals is currently not known, these data will be valuable in future risk assessments involving EC/EH elements/metals.