Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050572›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022

Computational modeling method to estimate secondhand exposure potential from exhalations during e-vapor product use under various real-world scenarios.

Jeffery S Edmiston, Ali A Rostami, Qiwei Liang, Sandra Miller, Mohamadi A Sarkar

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 53% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Influence of puff topographies on e-liquid heating temperature, emission characteristics and modeled lung deposition of Puff BarAerosol science and technology : the journal of the American Association for Aerosol Research · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeffery S EdmistonCenter for Research and Technology, Altria Client Services LLC, 601 East Jackson Street, Richmond, VA, 23219, USA.
Ali A RostamiCenter for Research and Technology, Altria Client Services LLC, 601 East Jackson Street, Richmond, VA, 23219, USA.
Qiwei LiangCenter for Research and Technology, Altria Client Services LLC, 601 East Jackson Street, Richmond, VA, 23219, USA.
Sandra MillerCenter for Research and Technology, Altria Client Services LLC, 601 East Jackson Street, Richmond, VA, 23219, USA.
Mohamadi A SarkarCenter for Research and Technology, Altria Client Services LLC, 601 East Jackson Street, Richmond, VA, 23219, USA. Mohamadi.A.Sarkar@altria.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1167-6140
Altria (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Potential secondhand exposure of exhaled constituents from e-vapor product (EVP) use is a public health concern. We present a computational modeling method to predict air levels of exhaled constituents from EVP use. We measured select constituent levels in exhaled breath from adult e-vapor product users, then used a validated computational model to predict constituent levels under three scenarios (car, office, and restaurant) to estimate likely secondhand exposure to non-users. The model was based on physical/thermodynamic interactions between air, vapor, and particulate phase of the aerosol. Input variables included space setting, ventilation rate, total aerosol amount exhaled, and aerosol composition. Exhaled breath samples were analyzed after the use of four different e-liquids in a cartridge-based EVP. Nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, menthol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein levels were measured and reported based on a linear mixed model for analysis of covariance. The ranges of nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and formaldehyde in exhaled breath were 89.44-195.70 µg, 1199.7-3354.5 µg, 5366.8-6484.7 µg, and 0.25-0.34 µg, respectively. Acetaldehyde and acrolein were below detectable limits; thus, no estimated exposure to non-EVP users is reported. The model predicted that nicotine and formaldehyde exposure to non-users was substantially lower during EVPs use compared to cigarettes. The model also predicted that exposure to propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine and formaldehyde among non-users was below permissible exposure limits.

Indexed as

Air Pollution, IndoorElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsAcetaldehydeAcroleinAdultAerosolsComputer SimulationExhalationFormaldehydeGlycerolHumansMentholNicotinePropylene GlycolAcetaldehydeAcroleinAerosolsFormaldehydeGlycerolMentholNicotinePropylene GlycolBystandersComputational model predictionsE-cigarettesENDSE-vaporFormaldehydeNicotineNonusersReal-world scenariosSecondhand exposure

Identifiers

PMID36050572
PMCPMC9522680
OpenAlexW4294068960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.