Evaluation of Carbonyl Collection Methods in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol
Loading...
Authors
Martinez, Bianca Lee
Issue Date
2023
Type
Thesis
Language
Keywords
carbonyls , collection media , DNPH Cartridge , DNPH Filter , electronic cigarettes , impingers
Alternative Title
Abstract
Popularity of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has been growing rapidly. Harmful compounds have been reported in e-cigarettes aerosols including carbonyls, such as the human carcinogens formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Current standard method testing e-cigarette carbonyl emissions were adopted from conventional cigarette testing method. However, while carbonyls in conventional cigarette smoke found mostly in gas phase, it was reported that a large fraction of carbonyl compounds in e-cigarette aerosols could be in the particle phase. Since standard carbonyl testing methods (i.e., impinger method) are not designed to quantitatively capture particulates, there are discrepancies in e-cigarette carbonyl emissions reported by studies using different sampling methods. This study assesses carbonyl collection methods for the emissions from different e-cigarette devices to provide a standardized testing method.To address the gas and particle-bound carbonyl discrepancy, the three most frequently used methods were tested: 2,4- Dinitrophenyl hydrazine (DNPH) silica impregnated cartridge (C), DNPH- coated glass fiber filter (DF), and impinger (I). Glass fiber filter (GF) was also used to estimate the particle-bound carbonyl fraction. The sampling media were combined as follows: I-I, GF-I-I, C, DF-C, and GF-C. For sample collection, two e-cigarettes ‘pod’ (i.e., JUUL) and ‘mod’ type at different flows were used. Collected samples were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography with photodiode array detection (HPLC-PDA Arc 2690 with a 2998 photodiode array detector, Waters, MA, USA). Carbonyl emissions varied between methods at different flows. For both devices, the highest emissions were measured with C and DF-C. I-I measured similar emissions for JUUL, but significantly lower for mod. For example, mod formaldehyde emissions measured with C were 0.11 ± 0.08 and 0.12 ± 0.08 µg/puff for 1 liter per minute (LPM) and 1.5 LPM, respectively. The I-I method, however, indicated 0.02 ± 0.01 and 0.03 ± 0.01 µg/puff, 33% and 40% lower than C at the same respective conditions. This discrepancy between the C and I-I methods generally followed the amount of liquid aerosol produced by the device. While C and DF-C were similar for formaldehyde, C indicated JUUL acetaldehyde emissions that were 46% lower than those measured with DF-C, while for mod they were close to each other. This could be due to the larger particle-bound fraction of acetaldehyde and the smaller particles produced by JUUL that are apparently less effectively caught by the cartridge relative to the larger mod particles. For total aerosol �"hence gas and particle �", the C and DF-C provides the best approach. In conclusion, it has been shown that the standard method (i.e., I-I) underestimates the carbonyl emissions because of its design to capture gas phase in the e-cigarette aerosol. However, as different studies have shown and as the e-cigarette market increases and new �"bigger and powerful �" products are developed, the necessity for refinement and advancement arises. Because of these reasons, it is recommended that the standard method is not used for e-cigarette aerosol sampling.