4.5 Article

Comprehensive Air Quality Assessment of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 under Simulated Indoor Environments

期刊

ATMOSPHERE
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/atmos12080989

关键词

indoor air quality; nicotine; carbonyls; volatile organic compounds; particulate matter; ultrafine particles; Tobacco Heating System; IQOS; electrically heated tobacco product

资金

  1. Philip Morris International

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research indicates that indoor use of THS 2.2 results in increased levels of nicotine, acetaldehyde, glycerin, etc., but compared to combustion products, it has a lower impact on indoor air quality.
Despite the growing popularity of heated tobacco products, there are few comprehensive studies on their environmental aerosols. Therefore, the impact of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS 2.2) on indoor air quality was evaluated on the basis of a comprehensive list of 31 airborne constituents along with targeted screening of the gas-vapor and particulate phases of the environmental aerosol. The assessments were conducted at three ventilation rates. Indoor use of THS 2.2 increased the levels of nicotine, acetaldehyde, glycerin, and (if mentholated products were used) menthol relative to background levels, with a corresponding increase in total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) values. Moreover, a temporary increase in ultrafine particles was observed when two or more tobacco sticks were used simultaneously or with a short time lapse between usages, but the concentrations returned to close to background levels almost immediately. This is because THS 2.2 generates an aerosol of liquid droplets, which evaporate quickly. Nicotine, acetaldehyde, glycerin, and TVOC levels were measured in the low mu g/m(3) range and were below the existing guideline limits. A comparison of airborne constituent levels during indoor THS 2.2 use with emissions from combustion products and common everyday activities revealed a substantially lower impact of THS 2.2 on the indoor environment.

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

4.5
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