• Vladimir B Mikheev, Stephanie S Buehler, Marielle C Brinkman, Courtney A Granville, Timothy E Lane, Alexander Ivanov, Kandice M Cross, and Pamela I Clark.
• Battelle Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Columbus, OH.
• Nicotine Tob. Res. 2020 Apr 21; 22 (5): 681-688.

IntroductionThe ability to reliably measure real-world vaping behavior is critical to understand exposures to potential toxins. Commercially available mobile topography devices were originally designed to measure cigarette puffing behavior. Information regarding how applicable these devices are to the measurement of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) vaping topography is needed.MethodsClinical Research Support System (CReSS; Pocket) and Smoking Puff Analyzer Mobile (SPA-M) topography devices were tested against the calibrated laboratory-based smoking puff analyzer duplicator (SPA-D) device combined with an analytical smoking machine that generates programmable puffs with high precision. Puff topography of e-cigarettes was measured over a range of puff volumes (10-130 mL) at 2 and 5 s puff durations (using bell- and square-shaped puffs). "Real-world" topography data collected from 10 participants during 1 week of at-home vaping were also analyzed. Recording anomalies and limitations of the devices, such as accuracy of detection of the puff end, flow rate dropouts, unreported puffs, and abandoned vaping sessions for the CReSS, and multi-peak puffs for the SPA-M were defined.ResultsThe accuracy of puff volumes and durations was determined for both devices. The error for SPA-M was generally within ±10%, whereas that for the CReSS varied more widely. The CReSS consistently underestimated puff duration at higher flow rates.ConclusionsCReSS and SPA-M topography devices can be used for real-world e-cigarette topography measurements, but researchers have to be aware of the limitations. Both devices can provide accurate measurements only under certain puff parameter ranges. The SPA-M provided more accurate measurements under a wider range of puffing parameters than the CReSS. Summary data reported by both devices require thorough analysis of the raw data to avoid misleading data interpretation.ImplicationsResults of this study provide researchers with valuable information about the capability of commercially available cigarette topography devices to measure real-world vaping behaviors. The differing measurement ranges of the two devices and puff recording limitations and anomalies should be taken into account during analysis and interpretation of real-world data.© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

19 keywords...

hide…