4.7 Article

The Effect of Electronic Cigarette User Modifications and E-liquid Adulteration on the Particle Size Profile of an Aerosolized Product

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46387-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice [NIJ-2016-4305]
  2. National Institutes of Health Award [P30DA033934]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are an alternate nicotine delivery system that generate a condensation aerosol to be inhaled by the user. The size of the droplets formed in the aerosol can vary and contributes to drug deposition and ultimate bioavailability in the lung. The growing popularity of e-cigarette products has caused an increase in internet sources promoting the use of drugs other than nicotine (DOTNs) in e-cigarettes. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of various e-cigarette and e-liquid modifications, such as coil resistance, battery voltage, and glycol and drug formulation, on the aerosol particle size. E-liquids containing 12 mg/ mL nicotine prepared in glycol compositions of 100% propylene glycol (PG), 100% vegetable glycerin (VG), or 50: 50 PG: VG were aerosolized at three voltages and three coil resistances. Methamphetamine and methadone e-liquids were prepared at 60 mg/ mL in 50: 50 PG: VG and all e-liquids were aerosolized onto a 10 stage MicroOrifice Uniform Deposit Impactor. Glycol deposition correlated with drug deposition, and the majority of particles centered between 0.172-0.5 mu m in diameter, representing pulmonary deposition. The 100% PG e-liquid produced the largest aerosol particles and the 100% VG and 50: 50 PG: VG e-liquids produced ultra-fine particles < 0.3 mu m. The presence of ultrafine particles indicates that drugs can be aerosolized and reach the pulmonary alveolar regions, highlighting a potential for abuse and risk of overdose with DOTNs aerosolized in an e-cigarette system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据