ArticlePloS one2016
Comparison of the Performance of Cartomizer Style Electronic Cigarettes from Major Tobacco and Independent Manufacturers.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Design Features in Multiple Generations of Electronic Cigarette Atomizers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- E-cigarettes: Impact of E-Liquid Components and Device Characteristics on Nicotine Exposure.Current neuropharmacology · 2018Review
- Potential health effects of electronic cigarettes: A systematic review of case reports.Preventive medicine reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the performance of 12 brands of cartomizer style electronic cigarettes (EC) using different puffing protocols and measured the concentrations of nicotine in each product.
methodsAir flow rate, pressure drop, and aerosol absorbance were measured using two different protocols, first 10 puffs and a modified smoke-out protocol.
resultsFirst 10 puff protocol: The air flow rate required to produce aerosol ranged between brands from 4-21 mL/s. Pressure drop was relatively stable within a brand but ranged between brands from 14-71 mmH2O and was much lower than the earlier classic 3-piece models. Absorbance, a measure of aerosol density, was relatively consistent between puffs, but varied between brands. With the modified smoke-out protocol, most brands were puffed until 300 puffs. The pressure drop was relatively stable for all brands except three. Absorbance of the aerosol decreased as the number of puffs increased. Although there was some uniformity in performance within some brands, there was large variation between brands. The labeled and measured nicotine concentrations were within 10% of each other in only 1 out of 10 brands.
conclusionsOver 10 puffs, the cartomizers all perform similarly within a brand but varied between brands. In smoke-out trials, most brands lasted at least 300 puffs, and performed similarly within brands with respect to pressure drop and absorbance. For five brands, products purchased at different times performed differently. These data show some improvement in performance during evolution of these products, but nevertheless indicate problems with quality control in manufacture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.