ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
Impact of Vaping Regimens on Electronic Cigarette Efficiency.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical and chemical characterizations of a reference e-cigarette used in animal testing.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Simulation Modeling of Air and Droplet Temperatures in the Human Respiratory Tract for Inhaled Tobacco Products.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Critical Review of the Recent Literature on Organic Byproducts in E-Cigarette Aerosol Emissions.Toxics · 2022Review
- Review
- Cytokine signature clusters as a tool to compare changes associated with tobacco product use in upper and lower airway samples.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2022Article
- Improving the Analysis of E-Cigarette Emissions: Detecting Human "Dry Puff" Conditions in a Laboratory as Validated by a Panel of Experienced Vapers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Method for Quantifying Variation in the Resistance of Electronic Cigarette Coils.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Puffing topography: a tool to evaluate vaping behavior and exposure risks.Inhalation toxicologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most recent studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) have been carried out using vaping regimens consistent with mouth-to-lung inhalation (MTL) and not with direct-to-lung (DTL) inhalation. This paper aimed to characterizing the influence of inhalation properties (puff duration, puff volume, airflow rate) on the mass of vaporized e-liquid (MVE). Because the literature on DTL is non-existent, an intense vaping regimen consistent with DTL inhalation (i.e., puff volume = 500 mL) was defined. The use of a low or standard (ISO/DIS 20768) regimen and the proposed intense vaping regimen were first compared using the Cubis 1 Ω atomizer on a large power range, and then by using two atomizers below 1 Ω and two others above 1 Ω on their respective power ranges. An analysis of the e-cig efficiency on the e-liquid vaporization was proposed and calculated for each MVE. The intense vaping regimen allowed a broader power range in optimal heating conditions. MVE linearly increased with the supplied power, up to over-heating conditions at higher powers. Moreover, the e-cigs' efficiencies were higher when low-resistance atomizers were tested at high powers. All these results highlighted that the generated vapor might be better evacuated when an intense vaping regimen is used, and illustrate the obvious need to define a suitable standardized vaping regimen consistent with DTL inhalation.
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.