Adaptation of ENDS Device Measurements into Puffing Topography Variables and Clinical Implications

Oldham, Michael J.; Cook, David K.; Liang, Qiwei; Fraley, Norman; Singletary, Buddy; Anderson, Samuel; Vinnakota, Abhiraj; Gillman, I. Gene

doi:10.2478/cttr-2025-0005

Figures & Tables

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.

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.

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.

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
Flowrate setting (cm³/s)	Mean	SD	N	Percent of missing device activations
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

Summary of duration of device activation for three puffing regimens_

Device number	Mean percent of puff duration^a
	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

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

Adaptation of ENDS Device Measurements into Puffing Topography Variables and Clinical Implications

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Percent of device actuation occurrences as a function of flowrate and pressure-drop measurements_

Summary of duration of device activation for three puffing regimens_

Summary of average measured device mass loss, aerosol collected mass, and estimated aerosol mass from the JUUL2® system_

Paradigm

My account