Effects of Model, Method of Collection, and Topography on Chemical Elements and Metals in the Aerosol of Tank-Style Electronic Cigarettes

Monique Williams,Jun Li,Prue Talbot

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-50441-4

Monique Williams, Jun Li + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50441-4

Copy DOI

Journal: Scientific Reports	Publication Date: Sep 27, 2019
Citations: 31	License type: open-access

Affiliation: University of California, Riverside

Abstract

Our purpose was to examine the effect of model, puffing topography (voltage, air-flow, puff interval), and method of collection on 19 elements/metals in aerosols from six tank-style electronic cigarettes (EC). Aerosols were collected from six brands using a cold trap or impinger and various puffing topographies. 19 elements were quantified using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy. 16 elements/metals were present and quantified in the aerosols. The total concentrations of elements/metals ranged from 43 to 3,138 µg/L with the impinger method of collection and 226 to 6,767 µg/L with the cold trap method. The concentrations of individual elements were often similar across brands and across topographies. Some elements (e.g., zinc) were present in most aerosols, while others (e.g., cadmium, titanium, vanadium) were rarely found. Concentrations of some elements (e.g., lead) increased in aerosols as voltage/power increased. The model with fewest metal parts in the atomizer had the fewest metals in its aerosols. Most elements/metals in the aerosols have been found previously in the atomizers of EC. All tank-style aerosols had elements/metals that appeared to originate in the atomizers, and concentrations increased with increasing power. Concentrations of some elements were high enough to be a health concern.

Highlights

In 2003, electronic cigarettes (EC) manufacturers introduced ECs with more powerful batteries and larger capacity reservoirs to store more refill fluid[4,5,10]
Because these elements were presumed to be leaching from the round bottom flasks, all subsequent elemental analyses were done using flasks that had presoaked in acid for 24 hours, and the amount of aluminum, chromium, lead and tin present on day 2 (Fig. 1A) was subtracted from values measured in EC aerosols collected using the cold/trap/round bottom flask method
For total concentrations of individual elements averaged for all brands, occasional differences were observed with different topographies, but in general concentrations were similar across topographies, as well as with the two methods of collection

Summary

Introduction

In 2003, EC manufacturers introduced ECs with more powerful batteries and larger capacity reservoirs to store more refill fluid[4,5,10]. The new atomizers had different designs: clearomizers (second generation), various shaped atomizers, and sub-ohm and replaceable dripping atomizers (RDA) (all mods or third generation), and all reservoirs stored larger amounts of refill fluid than their cig-a-like predecesors[4,12]. These advanced styles provided more customizability and functionality for consumers. In addition to solvents and flavor chemicals, some refill fluids contain elements/metals, such as tin, lead, copper, chromium, nickel, iron, and zinc, that appear in EC aerosols[26]. The specific purposes of this study were to: (1) determine how the method of collection affects elements/metals in EC aerosols, a point not addressed in prior studies, (2) identify and quantify the elements that transfer to the aerosols produced by tank-style ECs, and (3) evaluate the effect of puffing topography (voltage, air-flow, puff interval) and battery power on elements/metals in EC aerosols

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion