Figure 1.
Diagram of the flowrate versus pressure-drop measurement apparatus.
Figure 2.
Three puffing regimens using a square wave (A), sine wave (B) and gap wave (C). All puff profiles were 55 mL in volume with the square and sine wave using that volume over 3 seconds while the gap profile was over 2.5 seconds.
Figure 3.
Mean (SD) pressure-drop measurement of the 30 JUUL2® devices. Standard deviation values for some data points are within the data point. The dark vertical rectangle is the estimated pressure-drop required for device activation.
Table 1.
Percent of device actuation occurrences as a function of flowrate and pressure-drop measurements.
| Flowrate setting (cm3/s) | Pressure-drop (Pascal) | Percent of missing device activations | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | N | ||
| 5 | 47 | 7.3 | 2 | 100 |
| 7.5 | 92 | 12.8 | 2 | 100 |
| 10 | 151 | 14.9 | 2 | 18.3 |
| 12.5 | 227 | 29.5 | 2 | 5.0 |
| 16.7 | 380 | 36.3 | 2 | 3.3 |
| 20.8 | 539 | 51.9 | 2 | 5.0 |
| 25.0 | 727 | 48.7 | 2 | 0 |
Table 2.
Summary of duration of device activation for three puffing regimens.
| Device number | Mean percent of puff durationa | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia Tobacco | Polar Menthol | |||||
| Square | Sine | Gap | Square | Sine | Gap | |
| 1 | 95.0 | 76.1 | 91.3 | 95.1 | 76.1 | 92.0 |
| 2 | 95.4 | 77.2 | 90.0 | 95.8 | 73.5 | 90.1 |
| 3 | 95.9 | 77.2 | 90.9 | 95.5 | 76.1 | 90.8 |
| 4 | 95.5 | 74.5 | 92.3 | 96.5 | 77.4 | 93.3 |
| 5 | 96.1 | 76.6 | 90.4 | 96.8 | 75.9 | 92.7 |
| 6 | 91.3 | 74.6 | 88.3 | 95.4 | 77.4 | 91.9 |
| 7 | 95.9 | 73.8 | 86.9 | 96.6 | 76.6 | 91.1 |
| 8 | 95.5 | 78.9 | 89.1 | 95.8 | 76.6 | 90.2 |
| 9 | 97.1 | 77.4 | 92.5 | 96.2 | 76.9 | 92.8 |
| 10 | 97.0 | 76.2 | 89.7 | 95.7 | 77.1 | 92.8 |
| 11 | 93.8 | 76.3 | 90.4 | 96.8 | 78.1 | 93.3 |
| 12 | 93.0 | 76.8 | 89.1 | 95.5 | 78.2 | 92.1 |
| 13 | 92.4 | 75.4 | 88.2 | 96.8 | 78.2 | 93.1 |
| 14 | 94.6 | 74.6 | 91.2 | 95.8 | 77.1 | 92.1 |
| 15 | 93.8 | 77.6 | 90.3 | 95.4 | 75.5 | 91.5 |
| Mean | 94.8 | 76.2 | 90.0 | 96.0 | 76.7 | 92.0 |
| SD | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.0 |
Table 3.
Summary of average measured device mass loss, aerosol collected mass, and estimated aerosol mass from the JUUL2® system.
| Puffing regimen | 50 Puff collection mean mass ± standard deviation (mg) (N = 15) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia Tobacco | Polar Menthol | |||||
| Device mass loss | Aerosol collected mass | Estimated aerosol mass | Device/pod mass loss | Aerosol collected mass | Estimated aerosol mass | |
| Square | 466.6 ± 22.7 | 474.2 ± 22.1 | 408.0 ± 20.7 | 526.8 ± 30.1 | 532.1 ± 30.3 | 402.1 ± 35.0 |
| Sine | 362.8 ± 15.4 | 371.3 ± 15.9 | 308.6 ± 13.2 | 441.3 ± 19.1 | 448.5 ± 19.4 | 349.4 ± 9.7 |
| Gap | 330.6 ± 25.1 | 335.8 ± 25.4 | 304.0 ± 9.6 | 399.2 ± 24.0 | 404.0 ± 24.4 | 338.3 ± 6.9 |
Figure 4.
Correlation of laboratory measured device mass loss versus estimated aerosol mass (A) and aerosol collected mass versus estimated aerosol mass (B) from the JUUL2® device for square wave (circles), sine wave (squares), and gap wave (triangles) puffing profile for Virginia Tobacco pods.
Figure 5.
Correlation of laboratory measured device mass loss versus estimated aerosol mass (A) and aerosol collected mass versus estimated aerosol mass (B) from the JUUL2® device for square wave (circles), sine wave (squares), and gap wave (triangles) puffing profile for Polar Menthol pods.