Aerial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus (and pathogens in general) through environmental e-cigarette aerosol

1. Introduction

The current COVID-19 pandemic has brought justified concern and attention to aerial disease contagion through bioaerosols. This contagion is conventionally classified in two modalities determined by the diameter of the aqueous droplets carrying the pathogens, with “direct” exposure associated with large droplets (denoted as “droplets”) that rapidly settle at short distances and “indirect” exposure to small droplets (denoted as “aerosols”) that evaporate before settling, thus remaining buoyant for long periods and spreading large distances, with 5 µm being the conventional cut–off diameter between these two modalities ‡. There is currently a broad consensus, endorsed by the WHO [1] and the CDC [2], that available data supports the occurrence of direct contagion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by close range exposure to infectious invididuals. While there is also a broad consensus on the factual occurrence of indirect exposure (for example [3]), its scope and relevance still remains controversial [4, 5, 6, 7].

The evolution of bioaerosols spreading disease contagion through respiratory droplets has been widely studied (see [8] and cited references therein). Hence, the current COVID-19 pandemic has motivated the study of direct and indirect aerial transmission of the SARS–COV–2 virus through various expiratory activities, such as breathing, whispering, speaking, singing, coughing and sneezing. The purpose of the present paper is to examine the plausibility, scope and risks of this transmission through a different expiratory route: exhaled e–cigarette aerosol (ECA). While there is currently no factual evidence that pathogens have been spread through this route, it is entirely plausible that this should occur. Since the current COVID-19 pandemic affects millions of vapers and smokers (and non-users surrounding them), we believe that it is an important task to study this transmission route objectively on the basis of available indirect evidence, and to evaluate its involved risks in comparison with other respiratory expirations §.

As opposed to previous studies of aerial pathogen transmission, vaping as a respiratory exhalation would involve a carrier fluid transporting the bioaerosol that is different from air diluted exhaled breath condensate. In this “‘vaporborne” or “ECA-borne” transmission the respiratory droplets would be accompanied by a far larger number of “particles” (droplets) making up the particulate phase of the ECA (bioaerosols particle numbers are far fewer than in non–biological aerosols [8]), with the carrier fluid made of the ECA gas phase diluted in expired air breath. In what follows we provide a quick summary of the section by section content of the paper.

In section 2 we simplify the classification of vaping styles (i.e. the “puffing topographies”) into low intensity ‘mouth to lung’ (MTL) and high intensity ‘direct to lung’ (DTL) styles, with demographic data supporting the overwhelmingly majority status of the former. The physical and chemical properties of ECA are then summarized in section 3 (see extensive reviews [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]).

Since the carried droplets (both the ECA and the respiratory ones) are overwhelmingly in the submicron range, we show in section 4 that ECA is effectively a “single–phase fluid flow” system in which the bulk of droplets become visible tracers of this flow, with the few larger droplets deviating from the flow to follow ballistic trajectories until settling into the ground or being deposited in walls and surfaces.

Given the lack of experimental evidence on respiratory droplets exhaled jointly with the ECA, we need to resort to appropriate respiratory proxies that resemble vaping and on which such evidence exists. To accomplish this task we undertake the following steps: We examine in section 5 the data on respiratory mechanics of cigarette smoking as a proxy to infer and estimate the respiratory parameters of vaping (specially the exhaled volume). This is justified, as most vapers are ex-smokers or current smokers, Since vaping involves mouth inhalation by suction through a mouthpiece, we review in section 6 the available literature on the effects of the inspiration/expiration routes and of mouthpieces and noseclips on respiratory mechanics. (3) Considering the discussion of sections 5 and 6 and looking at available data, we argue in section 7 that mouth breathing can be considered as an appropriate proxy to estimate droplet emission from vaping. The data suggests low emission rates overwhelmingly in the submicron range.

By modeling exhaled ECA flow as a turbulent starting jet with interrupted fluid injection and evolving into an unstable puff, we estimate in section 8 the distance spread for possible direct contagion to be within 1 − 1.5 meters (for MTL style) and 1.5 − 2.5 meters (for DTL style) in the direction of the momentum trusted jet. Once the jet injection (exhalation) terminates the puff is rapidly disrupted by turbulent mixing from entrained surrounding air, with respiratory submicron droplets carried by indoor air flows and remaining buoyant for long times.

To assess the risk of indirect SARS-CoV-2 contagion we consider in section 9 a simplified adaptation to vaping of the exponential dose-response reaction model developed by Buonanno, Morawska and Stabile [14, 15]. We find that the intermittent nature of vaping drastically reduces the added relative contagion risk with respect to the control case of exclusive rest breathing. For a home and restaurant indoor spaces exposure to low intensity vaping just adds about 1% extra risk with respect to the control case scenario. For high intensity vaping this added relative risk is of the order of 5 − 17%, while it rises to 40 − 90% and over 200% if for exposure to vocalizing and coughing (without vaping).

Bactericidal and virucidal properties of glycols contained in ECA, such as PG and VG, have been tested experimentally. However, an examination of the data (section 10) suggests that it is unlikely that environmental disinfection by these glycols could occur under the conditions of normal e–cigarette usage. There is no experimental evidence that disinfection by these glycols would work on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nevertheless, appropriate experiments should be set up to probe this possibility even outside the context of vaping.

Finally, in section 11 we provide a detailed summary of results, together with an account of the limitations of the study, its conclusions and policy recommendations. Vaping is an intermittent respiratory activity whose characteristic velocities, droplet diameters and emission rates are comparable to those of breathing and lesser than those of speaking, coughing or sneezing. This implies that in a shared indoor space vaping only adds a minuscule extra contagion risk to risks already existent from rest breathing and other respiratory activities. Setting aside harms from environmental tobacco smoke unrelated to COVID-19, this also applies to sharing an indoor space with a smoker.

2. Vaping styles and demographics

2.2. Demographics and markets

It is crucial to examine how representative among vapers are the different puff topographies and levels of intensity, something that has varied with time depending on the popularity and availability of different devices. Currently, low powered devices (mostly closed) are the most representative in the largest and most established markets. As shown in figure 1 (Credit to ECig Intelligence [21]) consumer surveys reveal that the overwhelming majority of vapers (80% in the USA) and 90% in the UK) utilize low powered devices (mostly kits for beginners and closed systems), with advanced open tank systems taking the rest.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Usage of different classes of e-cigarette devices in the US and UK markets. Notice that only 15% and 20% of consumers in the USA and the UK use advanced kits that allow for the DTL vaping style (Credit to ECig Intelligence [21]).

The USA and the UK are the biggest and more developed markets, a fact that explains why the closed system category is more prevalent. In a natural evolution of markets the vape category takes off with a more hobbyist segment of users who are more likely to vape with DTL topography in high powered devices that yield large clouds. In nascent markets the ‘easy to use’ open system devices are not of great quality, though recent innovations are likely to improve this. Smokers in large markets are also likely to have higher disposable incomes and a more developed attitude of willing to (and being able to afford to) switch to a less harmful alternative. Such markets also have extensive distribution networks (convenience stores, tobacconists, etc). These factors influence the dominance of the market share of closed system devices and thus to characterize low intensity MTL style as the most prevalent among the vast majority of vapers. Prevalence of mouth puffing (puffing without lung inhalation) is marginal, as an overwhelming majority of vapers inhale to the lung for being ex-smokers or current cigarette smokers.

3. Inhaled and exhaled E-cigarette aerosol (ECA)

The ECA is generated by various physicochemical processes: self–nucleated condensation in a super saturated medium initiates immediately once the e-liquid vapor leaves the coil, the nucleated centers generate small nm scale droplets that grow through coagulation and diffusion [22]. The particulate phase is made of liquid droplets whose chemical composition closely matches that of the e-liquid: propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin or glycerol (VG), nicotine, water [23], together with a negligible contribution of nanometer sized metal particles [24]. The gas phase is chemically similar. The aerosol contains nicotine and residues produced from the pyrolysis of the glycols and the flavorings (mainly carbonyls), which can be in either the gas or particulate phase depending on their vapor pressure and volatility [25], with most of the PG evaporating into the gas phase and VG tending to be remain in the droplets [23].

Count mean diameter (CMD) distributions of mainstream ECA droplets vary depending on the device, puffing style of users, flavors and nicotine content [22, 26]. Droplet number count is heavily dominated by submicron droplets with CMD distributions having either single modes below 100 nm or bimodal forms (one mode well below 100 nm and one in the range 100-300 nm) [22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. However, particle size grows with increasing coil power [26] and even in low powered devices the mass distribution is dominated by droplets larger than 600 nm [22]. In fact, [22] found a third mode around 1 µm that becomes more prominent at increasing power of the tested device while the nm sized modes decrease, likely because higher power involves larger vaporized mass that favors coagulation and scavenging of nm sized droplets by larger droplets.

The inhaled aerosol mass yield depends on the topography parameters given in Table 1. At inhalation of mainstream ECA instrument measured droplet density numbers are in the range n = 1 − 5 × 10⁹/cm³ [26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. Total average droplet numbers of N_p = 7.6 × 10¹⁰ were reported in [31] for a tank system using e–liquids with high nicotine content in a 2 second machine puff regime ‖ with V_b = 50 mL puff volume (N_p decreases 25% with nicotine-free e-liquids). Using the same experimental design [30] reported an increase of up to 30% for 4 second machine puff regime. The estimation N_p ∼ 10¹⁰ − 10¹¹ is reasonable given a particle number concentration of ∼ 10⁹/cm³ and V_b = 20 − 100 mL of low intensity vaping, with N_p ∼ 10¹² for high intensity vaping with V_b = 500 mL.

Data on the gas/particle phase partition of the aerosol mass yield m_b is roughly: 50% Total Particulate Matter (TPM), 40% PG/VG gas phase, 7% water vapor, < 3% nicotine [32], roughly a similar gas/particulate phase partition to that of tobacco smoke [33]. As shown in [23] and [25] the presence of compounds in gas or PM form depends on their vapor pressure, with PG tending to be gaseous, VG in PM, for nicotine it depends on its PH, while some aldehydes (like formaldehyde) are most likely in the gas phase.

Values of particle numbers and densities for the exhaled ECA can be estimated by considering its retention by the respiratory system. Retention of ∼ 90% of total inhaled aerosol mass was reported in [34] for a wide variety of devices and e–liquids, with the following average compound specific retention percentages: 86% VG, 92% PG, 94% nicotine, while [35] reported 97% total aldehyde retention. This high retention percentages are consistent with the mass distribution of inhaled ECA dominated by larger micron sized droplets which tend to be efficiently deposited in the upper respiratory tracts [22]. Assuming equal retention rate for the particulate and gas phases, we take as total mass of exhaled aerosol and total numbers of exhaled ECA droplet to be 10% of the values of m_b listed in Table 1 and 10% of the values of N_p = 6.7 × 10¹⁰ reported in [31] for a 2 second machine inhalation puff and 50 mL puff volume. Droplet number density of ECA as it is exhaled can be estimated from these values of N_p bearing in mind that the exhaled ECA is now diluted in tidal volumes V_T listed in Table 1 for the various vaping topographies. This yields number densities in the approximate range n_p = 10⁶ − 10⁷ cm⁻³ (lower to higher vaping intensities).

Exhaled ECA dilutes and disperses very fast. Its chemical composition is similar to that of inhaled ECA, both in the gas phase and the droplets [22], with PG and water in the latter evaporating rapidly. Since hyperfine nm sized droplets deposit efficiently by diffusion in the alveolar region and larger micron sized droplets (which tend to grow from hygroscopic coagulation [20, 22]) deposit by impaction in the upper respiratory tracts [20, 31, 26, 28], the CMD distribution of ECA as it is exhaled should be dominated by modes in intermediate ranges 0.1 − 0.5 µm. Since there are no ECA measurements at the exhalation point (the vaper’s mouth), we can estimate the representative droplet diameter by a rough order of magnitude calculation: assuming an aerosol mass yield of 5 mg of inhaled ECA for a low powered device, a 90% retention of aerosol mass with 50% made of PM, the total droplet mass of exhaled ECA should be around M_p = 0.25 mg. Since 90% of droplets are retained, the total number of exhaled droplets should be N_p = 7.6 × 10⁹ droplets [31], leading to a median droplet mass of , where ρ_p is the droplets density that we can assume to be close to VG density: ρ_p = 1.3 gm/cm³, leading to d_p = 0.38 µm. Similar order of magnitud values are obtained for the parameters of high intensity vaping.

The fact that CMD chamber measurements are in the range d_p = 0.1 − 0.2 µm can be explained by the fact that detectors are located 1-2 meters from the exhalation source, thus measured ECA droplets have already undergone significant degree of dilution and evaporation (as shown in [23] droplets’ mass can decrease by one third in just 1 second by evaporation of its PG content). This is consistent with droplet number densities dropping at least two orders of magnitud from ∼ 10⁶ − 10⁷ cm⁻³ as they are exhaled to n ∼ 10⁴ − 10⁵ cm⁻³ at one meter distance from the emission and further dropping to near background levels n ∼ 10³ cm⁻³ at two meters [36, 37, 38].

4. Exhaled ECA as a visualized tracer of respiratory fluid flow

As opposed to other respiratory expirations (breathing, vocalizing, coughing, sneezing), the actual respiratory flow of ECA expiration can be directly visualized. This is a consequence of the optical properties of its particulate phase [8, 39]. Moreover, when visualizing exhaled ECA the viewer is practically seeing nearly the same respiratory air flow that would result from the same respiratory mechanics without involving ECA (i.e. “mock vaping”). This is so because of its physical properties: exhaled ECA is a “single–phase fluid flow” (SFF) system [40, 41] in which the particulate phase (made of overwhelmingly submicron ECA droplets) have negligible influence on the fluid dynamics, acting essentially as visible tracers or (to a good approximation) as molecular contaminants carried by the fluid.

The fact that exhaled ECA can be used as an effective tracer of respiratory flows is not surprising nor unique, given the existence of numerous gas markers and aerosols in a SFF regime that are widely used as proxies for the study and visualization of expired air [42, 43]. This also applies to mainstream exhaled tobacco smoke, whose particulate matter is also made of submicron liquid and solid droplets. In fact, there are studies that have directly used cigarette smoke as a tracer to visualize respiratory airflows [44, 45, 46]. It is worth mentioning that respiratory droplets potentially carried by exhaled ECA would not change its possible role as a tracer of expiratory flows, since as we show further ahead (section 7) these droplets are also overwhelmingly in the submicron range and their numbers are much fewer than ECA droplets.

The particulate phase of the ECA at exhalation consists of submicron droplets made of PG, VG, water and nicotine, whose density should be close to VG density ρ_p ∼ 1.3 gm/cm³. Dilution and PG evaporation further reduce droplets diameters and number densities. These droplets are evolving along a carrier fluid made of a gas mixture: the gas phase of the ECA strongly diluted in exhaled air (in practice, we can think of the carrier fluid simply as exhaled air at mouth temperature ∼ 30 − 35° C). As in all SFF systems, In what follows we examine two criteria that determine the SFF character of the exhaled ECA: the particles’ relaxation time and volume fraction.

Submicron particles in a carrier fluid have little inertia, and thus essentially follow the fluid flow. They are well within the Stokes regime with Reynolds numbers Re_p ≪ 1 and negligibly small relaxation times t_rel, the response time of an aerosol particle to adjust to external forces. For d_p = 0.3 µm we get [39] where µ = 1.895 × 10⁻⁵gm/(sec cm) the dynamic viscosity of air at 35 C and C_c = 1 + (λ/d_p)[2.34 + 1.05 exp(−0.39d_p/λ)] ≈ 1.4 is the Cunningham slip factor with λ = 0.066 µm the mean molecular free path of air. The relaxation time provides the time scale for a particle released into a fluid with velocity U along a horizontal stream to settle into the fluid velocity (neglecting gravity). In this case (see Chapter 3 of [39]) the velocity of the particle becomes practically identical to U in about 10⁻⁵ seconds (instantaneously in practical terms), thus justifying the notion of particles simply following the fluid flow with (practically) no influence on its dynamics. This behavior occurs also for the larger ECA droplets of d_p ∼ 1 µm whose relaxation times are . Evidently, these relaxation times are much smaller than macroscopic characteristic times of the carrier fluid (for example a 2 second inhalation time or even the tenths of a second the ECA stays in the mouth cavity [20]). The Stokes number is defined as St = t_rel/t_f, where t_f is a characteristic fluid time, hence for the xhaled ECA we have St ≪ 1, which is another criterion to define SFF systems. Another criterion for an aerosol to be described as SFF systems is the ratio φ of total volume of the particles to the fluid volume satisfying [40, 41] where N_p is the total number of particles, is the particles’ volume (assuming they are spherical) and V_f is the fluid volume. Substituting the qualitative values we obtained for the exhaled ECA: N_p = 7.6 ×10⁹, d_p = 0.3 µm and an exhaled air volume of V_f = V_T = 300 − 1500 mL for a low intensity regime yields φ = 1 − 3 × 10⁻⁷, which fulfills (2). This condition holds even if we assume that a large part of the mass distribution is contained in micron sized (d_p ∼ 1 µm) droplets making (say) 10% of the total number. The value of φ is bound to decrease as the exhaled ECA dilutes and the volatile droplet compounds (PG and water) evaporate. As shown in [23] this process decreases the droplets mass (and thus volume) to one third while the fluid volume increases and thus φ necessarily decreases.

Evidently, larger droplets (diameters larger than a few µm) are present in ECA particle diameter distributions and such particles should contain a significant portion of the aerosol mass [22], but they are too few in numbers and deviate from the flow following ballistic trajectories, thus do not affect the dynamics of the carrier fluid to consider ECA as a biphasic fluid flow system.

5. Vaping as a respiratory process

Since most vapers are either cigarette smokers or ex–smokers of cigarettes, it makes sense to examine the respiratory parameters of smoking as reported in the literature (see reviews in [47, 48], see also Table 3). Tobacco smoke is a valid reference for ECA, as it is also an aerosol in a SFF regime characterized by a particulate phase made of predominantly submicron particles with similar particle numbers and diameter distributions [22, 49, 50] (though the particulate and the gas phases of each aerosol have very different chemical properties).

While there is a wide individual diversity in respiratory parameters among smokers, roughly three patterns of smoking topography can be identified [51] that are analogous to the vaping topographies examined in Section 2: MTL, DTL regimes and Mouth Puffing (with tobacco smoke instead of ECA). As with vaping, the most common cigarette smoking topography is MTL, an expected outcome since most vapers are either ex-smokers or current smokers of cigarettes. While a sizable minority of 10-20% of vapers (see Section 2.2) follow the DLT pattern, the vast majority of smokers avoid direct lung inhalation because it is too irritant (and is consistently associated with airways narrowing [51]). Among 10 smokers examined by Tobin et al [52] only one inhaled directly to the lungs as revealed by expansion of the abdomen at the same time as puffing. In fact, preference for the “normal” MTL pattern is very likely an organic response to minimize to a tolerable level the irritant quality of tobacco smoke [51, 52, 53]. Also, it is likely that the demographic preference for the MTL style among vapers follows from the fact that most are either recent ex-smokers or current cigarette smokers who simply vape following a familiar usage pattern.

Few cigarette smokers and vapers follow a Mouth Puffing topography, but the latter is the preferred pattern among most cigar and tobacco pipe smokers. The physiological differences between Mouth Puffing and MTL patterns was examined by Rodenstein and Stanescu in an observational study [54] involving 43 subjects: 6 primary and 6 secondary smokers of tobacco pipe, 20 cigarette smokers and 11 never smokers. They found that in all pipe smokers (save one) oral smoke inhalation and breathing only with the nose remained separate processes taking place with the oropharyngeal isthmus closed (see further discussion on this in Section 6) to prevent overt lung inhalation of smoke. However, the two processes subsequently interfered with each other once the soft palate and tongue separate to open the oropharyngeal isthmus to allow a deep lung inhalation of the retained smoke bolus in the oropharynx by joint mouth and nose breath inspiration. As a consequence of these differences, most pipe smokers keep a fairly regular breathing pattern similar to that of normal rest breathing with small fluctuations of tidal volume, while cigarette smoking is characterized by large and irregular tidal volume fluctuations markedly distinct from normal breathing.

Regarding its respiratory parameters, cigarette smoking involves 20-25% of the vital capacity [47], though low intensity inhalators might use on average only 14% [53]. Other parameters such as tidal volume, puff times and volumes obtained in observational studies are listed in Table 2, where we used outcomes from references cited in two comprehensive reviews [47, 48]. These outcomes are roughly:

• Puff Volume” (volume of the smoke bolus drawn from the cigarette) 20-70 mL,

• Puffing Times (time to draw the smoke bolus from the cigarette) ∼ 2 seconds

• Total smoking time lapses (inhalation, breath hold and exhalation) ∼ 4 seconds

• Tidal volumes (the volume of the total inhaled/exhaled smoke mixed with air, V_T in table 1) vary widely between 300 and 1500 mL (with some outliers reaching close to 2000 mL), but typically group averages are between 700 and 900 mL

It is worth remarking that puffing times are slightly shorter but roughly comparable to those of MTL vapers, while tidal volumes are 25-30% larger than rest tidal volumes (400-600 mL), though the measurement of these volumes is subject to at least a 10% error [55] and also, not all air drawn with the purpose of inhaling smoke is actually inhaled. Most studies report inhaled volumes, but exhalation volumes are roughly comparable (see Table 2), as smoke is highly diluted in air and its retention barely affects volume measurement.

As opposed to rest breathing, smoking and vaping involve suction: the inward force needed to draw smoke (or ECA) associated with the negative/positive pressure gradient ΔP generated by the diaphragm driven expansion/contraction of the lungs. Airflow resistance follows from the relation between the flow of air volume Q = dV/dt and this pressure gradient, a relation that can be modeled by the power law [60, 61] where a, b are determined empirically. This power law can be related to fluid dynamics (see discussion in [61]): the constants a and b correlate with fluid density, while the exponents b can be referred to the “classical” flow regimes: b = 1 corresponds to laminar flow with Reynolds numbers Re < 10 (Pouseuille law), b = 1.75 to turbulent flow Re ∼ 10000 (Blasius law) and b = 2 is the “orifice” flow characterized by turbulent flow in narrow pipes and containers.

The theoretical connection with fluid mechanics has motivated airflow resistance measurements in the upper respiratory system that yield values around b = 1.84 [60, 61] for resting oral and nasal breathing. An excellent fit of this power law relation to the classical orifice flow b = 2 was found for a conventional cigarette and a two second generation e–cigarettes [50], with the e–cigarettes flow resistance a between 3-4 times larger than the conventional cigarette. As a consequence, given the same suction effort (same ΔP) a conventional cigarette yields a puffing flow 𝒬 between 3-4 times larger than the tested e–cigarettes (second generation). However, vapers can compensate the higher flow resistance of ECA and draw relatively large aerosol mass with the same suction effort by puffing for longer times (as shown by topography studies). Also, the laboratory measurements in [50] were conducted under idealized conditions and are very likely to vary among the many e-cigarette devices in natural usage conditions.

A factor that distinguishes cigarette smoking from vaping is that the latter involves suction of ECA through a mouthpiece. However, in most of the studies listed in Table 2 the subjects smoked through cigarette holders that are part of the laboratory instrumentation. This makes the listed outcomes more useful to infer respiratory parameters for vapers, at least for those vaping in the MTL style, since these holders are of similar size and shape as the narrow e–cigarette mouthpieces. Though, usage of cigarette holders does not seem to introduce significant changes in tidal volume, as can be seen by comparing outcomes from studies that used holders with those who did not in Table 2 (we comment further on the effect of mouthpieces in Section 6).

Since MTL is the most common topography among smokers and vapers (most of whom are ex-smokers or current smokers), we can assume that MTL style vaping is characterized by qualitatively similar puffing and respiratory parameters to those listed in Table 2. While some smokers inhale without a mouth hold as in DTL style, this does not seem to involve in them a significantly higher tidal volume, most likely because it can be too irritant [51, 53]. The lesser irritant nature of ECA is a plausible explanation for a larger proportion of vapers that can tolerate DTL topography, which means suction of a much larger aerosol mass [19, 62] and thus significantly larger puffing and tidal volumes than in MTL style (made easier by usage of high powered devices). A puff volume of 500 mL can yield under idealized laboratory conditions an inhalation tidal volume close to 3 LT [63], which justifies the more plausible values listed in Table 1.

6. Effects of mouthpieces and noseclips

Mouthpieces (MP) and nose-clips (NC) (to block nasal inspiration) are standard instruments in observational studies, not only those aimed at studying droplet emission, but of respiratory patterns and flows in human subjects. Since the results of these studies can serve as appropriate proxy values to infer droplet emission in vaping, it is important to assess the effects of these instruments in respiratory mechanics. For the purpose of the present article, this issue is interesting because ECA is inhaled in e–cigarettes through mouthpieces (though without obstruction of nasal breathing).

Several studies conducted in the 1970’s and 1980’s [64, 65, 66, 67, 68] have shown that breathing through MP’s and NC’ affect all respiratory parameters with respect to unencumbered nose breathing: while tidal volume increases roughly 20% with respect to its normal rest value of 400-600 mL in all studies, inhalation and exhalation times and respiratory frequency are much less affected. In [68] a NC without a MP produces a similar increase of tidal volume but also significant increase of inhalation times (15%) and exhalation times (22%). Two of the studies [64, 65, 68] were conducted on subjects in supine position, but different body positions only produce minor variation of respiratory parameters [69].

Besides possible reasons like the psychological sensorial stimulation of receptors by colder air in mouth inspiration and the stress of breathing through instruments, another possible explanation for the observed change in respiratory parameters of MP’s is the change of airflow resistance, for example: a 70–90% reduction [68] brought by the large added mouthpiece dead space (up to 80 mL), while the larger airflow resistance from the standard 17 mm to a narrower 9 mm MP (closer in size to mouthpieces used in vaping) reduced the increase of tidal volume to 11% and inhalation/exhalation times to 9% [68]. Therefore, the MP’s of e-cigarettes should not produce significant modifications of respiratory parameters.

The relation between airflow resistance and MP diameter follows from comparing fluid flow in the MP with that along a Venturi-meter tube in which the Reynolds number is Re = 4ρ 𝒬/(π µ d), with ρ, µ the fluid density and dynamical viscosity and d the tube diameter. The pressure gradient vs flow 𝒬 is given by (3), which for the expected turbulent flow in a MP (negligible effect of µ) can be expressed in terms of ρ and d (the MP diameter) qualitatively as ΔP ∝ (ρ𝒬²)/d⁴ (see [61]). Hence, in a comparison of two e–cigarette MP’s the same suction effort (ΔP)₂ = (ΔP)₁ yields for the MP with larger diameter (d₂ > d₁) a larger flow 𝒬₂/𝒬₁ ∝ (d₂/d₁)⁴.

In the studies discussed above there was no separation between usage of instruments (MP & NC) and oral breathing. Rodenstein, Mercenier and Stanescu [70] conducted several experiments with 14 healthy subjects with the aim of looking separately at the effects of MP’s and a NC’s. Their results show that breathing through a MP without a NC (with and without instructing the subjects on how to breath) practically keeps all respiratory parameters identical to those of normal nasal breathing with closed mouth: resting tidal volume barely changed from 533 ± 253 to 559 ± 284 mL, breathing cycle (time for inspiration and expiration) practically remained the same at 4.8 ± 2.3 and 4.9 ± 1.8 seconds. They observed that 9 of 14 subjects breathed in a normal manner even if their mouth was connected to a MP. However, they observed qualitatively the same changes as [64, 65, 66, 67, 68] with subjects breathing through an MP plus NC: tidal volume increased to 699 ± 415 mL and inhalation/exhalation time to 5.5 seconds.

The main result of Rodenstein et al is that changes of respiratory parameters (rough 20% and 10% increase of tidal volume and inhalation/exhalation cycle) are entirely due to the forced oral breathing induced by the NC, in fact, nose occlusion is not even necessary to produce these changes: it is sufficient to simply instruct the subjects to breath through the mouth to observe an increase the tidal volume by a similar proportion as with the use of a NC: from 456 ± 142 to 571 ± 199 mL, though inhalation/exhalation times and other parameters remain almost the same (likely because of breathing without instrumentation).

The physiology behind the effects of the breathing route is similar to the one discussed in the study of pipe and cigarette smokers [54]: changes of respiratory parameters depend on the degree with which subjects are able to maintain air flowing through the nose. These parameters exhibit minor variation as long as this air flow is not occluded and the oropharyngeal isthmus remains closed. The parameters change significantly when nose occlusion separates the soft palate and the tongue and opens the oropharyngeal isthmus to allow air to flow entirely through the mouth. However, after the initial puffing, air flows through both nose and mouth in smoking and vaping (except the Mouth Puffing style), with the soft palate closing and rising enough to control the oral or nasal flow.

7. Diameter distribution and rate of emission of respiratory droplets potentially carried by exhaled ECA

The discussion in the previous sections has allowed us to infer the characteristics and parameters of the respiratory mechanics of vaping. We need now to identify among respiratory processes the ones that most closely fit these parameters in order to use their available experimental data to infer the capacity of vaping for respiratory droplets emission.

8. Airflow dynamics

In the previous sections we have inferred the submicron characteristics and rate of emission of respiratory droplets expected to be carried by exhaled ECA. We need to estimate now how far can these respiratory droplets be carried to evaluate the distance for direct exposure of bystanders to pathogens potentially carried by these droplets

Exhaled ECA is injected into surrounding air a given horizontal distance roughly in the direction of the exhaled flow. Since it involes a finite fluid mass of a SFF aerosol during a finite injection time (exhalation time), the appropriate dynamical model for it is a turbulent puff with a starting momentum dominated jet that lasts while the fluid injection is on [94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101]. A schematic description of this system is furnished by Figure 4. We will not be concerned with the few large particles (diameters d ∼ 3 − 5µm and over) that initially follow the fluid stream but (depending on their size) exit the main flow to follow ballistic trajectories until they either deposit on surfaces, settle on the ground or evaporate [77, 102].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Puff and initial Jet with axial symmetry. The stating jet is propelled by linear momentum parallel to the centerline velocity U_c, the arrows above and below represent the entrainment velocity mixing surrounding air with the carrier fluid. As the uid injection terminates (end of exhalation), the entrained air makes about 40% of the fluid mass making the the transition into a ellipsoidal puff through highly turbulent vortex structures. At this point the puff is likely to disperse rapidly as horizontal displacement velocities are comparable to velocity uctuations characterizing high turbulence and thermal buoyancy.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Jet/Puff horizontal displacement and centerline velocity. Panel (a) displays the displacement z_jc of the staring jet (blue) and z_pc of the puff (red) as functions of time from (equations (7) – (10)), for the three vaping topographies described in section 2: DTL (Direct to Lung), MTL (Mouth to Lung) and MP (Mouth Puffing). We assumed as injection (exhalation times) 3, 4 and 5 seconds. The initial velocities from top to bottom are U₀ = 50; 100; 150; 200; 250; 300; 400 cm/s. Panel (b) depicts centerline velocities U_c for the starting jet (equation (8)), as functions of the horizontal displacement z_jc during the injection times and initial velocities of panel (a) (green for MP, blue for MTL and red for DTL). Notice that once injection stops the jet has reached velocities comparable to those of indoor air currents.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Quanta emission rates.

The curves display ER_q (quanta/hour) as a function of viral load c_v (RNA copies/mL) for various expiratory activities: rest breathing (br), low and high intensity vaping (vp), speaking (bottom to top) 10; 20; 30; 40% of the hour (sp), coughing (cf) and speaking 100% of the time (sp100). Numerical values of ER_q for c_v = 10⁷ RNA copies/mL (vertical line) are listed and discussed in the text. The ratios between these activities and rest breathing (taken as the case control scenario) is displayed in figure 7.

Given the distance and time dispersion scales (< 3 meters and < 2-3 minutes) we can approximate the ECA as an airflow at constant atmospheric pressure, air density and dynamical viscosity ρ_a and µ. For a jet source (vaper’s mouth) approximated as an orifice of 1.5 − 3 cm² area [45] (diameter d₀ =1.25-1.75 cm) and initial velocities U₀ given by (5), exhalation Reynolds numbers Re = (ρ/µ)U₀d₀ = 600 − 4400 are in the transition between laminar and turbulent, values well below the high Reynolds numbers expected near a jet source [94, 95], but we are mostly concerned with the jet evolution and displacement (penetration) along horizontal distances z »d₀. Other parameters to consider are the injection time t_exh = 2 − 5 seconds and a temperature gradient from exhalation (initial) T = 30° − 35° C (mouth temperature) into an assumed T = 20° C for the surrounding air. For such values and scales the starting jet can be regarded as isothermal with thermal buoyancy becoming relevant only in the puff stage [98, 99].

It is well known that steady and unsteady jet/puff systems can be well approximated by analytic models that assume axial symmetry and a self similar profile for the average centerline and radial components of the velocity field in cylindrical coordinates [94, 95, 103, 104] (see figure 4) where f, g are empiric Gaussian or polynomial functions of the self similar variable η = r/z and the centerline velocity is U_c = U_z for r = 0 along the z axis, hence f (η), g(η) must satisfy U_z = U_c and U_r = 0 at r = 0 (see examples in [77, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101]). An axially symmetric self similar jet/puff system fulfills the conservation of linear specific momentum Q = V U_c (puff) and force where V is the penetration volume [94, 100, 101], hence for an initial time t = t₀. The stream wise centerline penetration distance and velocity for the jet and puff stages can be given by [100, 101]: where the constants C_jz, C_jr, C_pz, C_pr are empirically determined, and z_j0 is the z coordinate value of the ejection orifice and z_pd is the virtual origins of the puff (see Figure 2), which is an appropriate parameter to separate the starting jet and puff stages though it lies within the starting jet region (see detailed explanation in [100]). For the axial geometry of the jet/puff system under consideration we have and Following [100, 101], we will choose the following numerical values for the constants in (7)–(10): C_jz = 2.8, C_jr = 0.15, z_j0 = d₀/(2C_jr) and C_pz = 2.6, C_jr = 0.17, while the time and position of the puff virtual origin follows from z_pd = z_j(t_exh) − 8.5d₀, with t_pd determined numerically from (7) by the condition z_j(t_pd) = z_pd [100, 101]. Many vapers exhale at a downward angle typically γ ∼ 30 degrees, thus reducing the horizontal penetration of the starting jet given by (7) roughly as z_j cos γ.

We display in figures 3a and 3b the horizontal displacement or penetration distance and centerline velocity for various initial velocities U₀ that characterize several puffing intensities. Notice that the maximal penetration is basically afforded by the momentum trust of the starting jet, with the puff slowly evolving at small almost constant speed. Horizontal penetration varies from 0.5 meters for Mouth Puffing (U₀ = 0.5 m/s) through the range between 0.6 and 1.6 meters the MTL regime (U₀ = 1 − 2.5 m/s) and beyond 2 meters for the higher intensity DTL regime (U₀ = 3 − 4 m/s). Centerline velocity drops to about 0.2 m/s at different times and distances when fluid injection stops in all cases.

Given its short time duration and close distance scope of the momentum trusted staring jet, the analytic model (7)–(8) remains a reasonably good approximation to infer the necessary distance to minimize the risk of direct exposure of bystanders to respiratory droplets. As the jet evolves while fluid is injected there is increasing entrainment from the surrounding air at velocity U_e ∝ U_r, with entrained air reaching about 40% of the jet mass at the end of injection in the transition towards the puff (around its virtual origin) [98, 99]. Since there are airflow currents of ∼ 10 cm/s (and up to 25 cm/s) even in still air in home environments with natural ventilation [105, 106], at this stage the puff formation can be easily destabilized by vortex motion generated through turbulent mixing from the large velocity fluctuations produced by the entrainment [107, 108].

Turbulence and thermal buoyancy become important factors when there is human motion or walking [109], or in micro-environments with mechanical ventilation (mixed or displaced) [110, 111, 112], resulting in a faster disruption and dispersion of the slow moving puff, carrying the submicron ECA and respiratory droplets along the air flow. In general, submicron droplets exhaled at the velocities under consideration can remain buoyant for several hours, with mixing ventilation tending to uniformly spread them, whereas directed ventilation tends to stratify them along different temperature layers. In all cases there is a risk of indirect contagion by exposure to these droplets. The detailed description of droplet dispersion after the puff is disrupted is a complicated process that requires computational techniques that are beyond the scope of this paper (see comprehensive analysis in [108]).

9. A simplified risk model

We have evaluated the distance spread in which exhaled ECA can produce direct contagion by horizontally spreading overwhelmingly submicron respiratory droplets, which once reaching the turbulent puff regime remain buoyant for hours, possibly producing indirect contagion as they are carried by indoor air currents several meters (see comprehensive analysis in [108]). So far we have considered generic respiratory droplets without reference to a specific pathogen/disease and have not evaluated infection risks of exposed susceptible individuals. We undertake now this evaluation, referring specifically to the available information on the parameters of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, assuming as well that submicron respiratory droplets or droplet nuclei potentially carrying this virus have been dispersed uniformly throughout a given indoor micro-environment.

The most important feature that fully characterizes exposure risks from vaping expirations is the significant shortening of exposure time because of their intermittent and episodic nature: an infectious vaper (symptomatic or not) would emit respiratory droplets only while vaping (120-200 daily exhalations [16, 62]), whereas the same vaper will emit respiratory droplets continuously just by normal rest breathing (17,000–29,000 daily exhalations for 12-20 breaths per minute for healthy adults).

9.2. Exponential dose-response risk model

In order to evaluate a time dependent risk for expiratory activities that incorporates quanta emission rates and indoor environment variables, BSM consider the “dose response exponential model” given in terms of the the density of the quanta n(t) in units quanta/m³ under the assumption that n(0) = 0 (no exposure at initial time t = 0) where V is the volume (m³) of the indoor micro-environment, N is the number of exposed susceptible individuals, IR is the inhalation rate (m³/h) of these individuals and IVVR is the infectious virus removal rate, which which BMS take as the sum of three factors: IVVR = AER + κ + λ, where AER is the ventilation air exchange rate, κ is the particle deposition on surfaces and λ is the virus inactivation (all of these quantities given as h⁻¹).

In order to apply (14) we use the value IR = 0.96m³/h taken BMS’s previous paper and justified as a level of physical activity half way between standing and light activity. For the remaining parameters BSM assume the range AER = 0.2 − 0.5/h for natural ventilation and AER = 9.6/h for a restaurant scenario with mixed ventilation.

They compute the deposition rate by dividing typical gravitational settling velocity for supermicron particles (10⁻⁴ m/s) by the height of emission (1.5 m), leading to κ = 0.24/h, while for the viral inactivation they take the measured aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 virus mean life of 1.1 hours [116], leading to λ = 0.63/h. We consider the following home and restaurant indoor scenarios:

• Home scenario. We assume one infectious vaper and three exposed susceptible family members (N = 3). Total exposure time T = 12 h. Indoor volume 125 m³ (small 50 m² apartment with roof height of 2.5 m). For natural ventilation: AER = 0.2/h we have IVVR = 1.07/h.

• Restaurant, natural ventilation with open door. Thirty costumers (N = 30), total exposure time T = 3 h. Air exchange rate AER = 0.5/h, indoor volume 300 m³ (100 m² area with roof height of 3 m), results in IVVR = 1.37/h

• Same restaurant endowed with mechanical ventilation: AER = 9.6/h (taken from [14]), results in IVVR = 10.47/h

The infection risk R for home and restaurant scenarios is plotted in figures 5 and 6 as a function of time for breathing, low and high intensity vaping, various percentages of time spent speaking and coughing every 2 minutes, considering natural and mechanical ventilation. As expected from the quanta emission rates displayed in figure 4, the exposure time of different expirations is a crucial factor in computing R. Exposure to vaping expiration (vaper doing 10 puffs per hour) poses an infection risk to bystanders that is very close to that from the control case scenario: exclusive normal rest breathing (for low intensity vaping the infection risk is practically indistinguishable). The infection risk from a person vaping is well below that from the same person speaking and coughing: speaking only for 10% of the time (6 minutes per hour) already yields a higher infection risk than high intensity vaping, while speaking 30 − 40% yields up tp 4 times the infection risk, which is roughly the values plotted in figure 7.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5: Infection risk in a home environment.

The curves display R as a function of exposure time T from (14). The abbreviations br, vpL, vpH, sp10, sp20, sp30, sp40 and cf stand for rest breathing, vaping low intensity, vaping high intensity (upper end option), speaking for 10, 20, 30, 40,% of time and coughing. Notice the dramatic reduction of R achieved by mechanical ventilation (air exchange rate of 3=h). Also: the curves for the risks from vaping (all intensities) are practically indistinguishable from that of the case control scenario of rest breathing (red circles).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6: Infection risk in a restaurant.

The same abbreviations as in figure 5 plus sp100 (speaking 100% of the time, a possible outcome when spending 3 hours in a restaurant). As in figure 5, mechanical ventilation (air exchange rate 9:6=h) achieves a dramatic reduction of R and the curves for the risks from vaping are practically indistinguishable from the curve of the control case scenario of rest breating (red circles).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7: Added percentage risks of expiratory activities with respect to the control case scenario of rest breathing.

The percentage values with respect to the control case are: low intensity vaping 1.3% (vpL), high intensity vaping 5.2 − 17.7% (vpH), speaking 44% (sp10), 88% (sp20), 132% (sp30), 176% (sp40) for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of time, coughing 259% 30 times per hour (cf). These values were obtained from (ε − 1) × 100 for ε defined for these expiratory activities by (16) − (18).

A good inference of the risk from intermittent and episodic expiratory activities (vaping, speaking, coughing) relative to the control case scenario of exclusive rest breathing (a continuous expiration) is furnished by the ratio R_(A)/R_(br), where A = vp, sp, cf. Plotting this ratio from (14)–(15) for every expiratory activity yields near constant curves around the values of the quotients ER_q(A)/ER_q(br). This is not surprising since ER_q is the only variable in R that characterizes the infectious person (the other variables characterize the indoor micro-environment and the exposed susceptible persons). Hence, given the same indoor micro-environment and same number of susceptible individuals, we consider risks relative to the control case scenario of rest breathing in terms of the ratio of quanta emission. Using (13) we have where 𝒱_d(A) = V_{T (A)} 𝒱_d(A) is the total exhaled droplet volume (in mL) for each expiratory activity. Since N_(br) = N_(tot), then for a heavy breathing activity in intense aerobic exercise ε might grow only because of the much larger tidal volume. However, for a truly intermittent expiration like vaping we have N_(vp)/N_(br) ≪ 1 and thus ε ≈ 1 holds even if we have 𝒱_d(A)/𝒱_d(br) ≫ 1 (large exhaled amount of droplets as with the large tidal volumes in extremely intense vaping). For the values of tidal volume and droplet volume concentration we have used, we have the following relative risks which provides an intuitive indication of the added exposure risks relative to the control case from the different expiratory activities.

We display in figure 7 the numerical values of ε, as an added risk with respect to the control case for various expiratory activities with respect to the continuous presence of risk from rest breathing and under the assumptions of we have used. These numbers clearly reflect the effects of the intermittence or duration time of each activity. Under normal vaping conditions (10-15 puffs per hour) the added risk of low intensity vaping respect to the control scenario of exclusive rest breathing is of the order of ∼ 1% (since ε−1 ∼ 10⁻²). For high intensity vaping it is ∼ 5−17%, given the ambiguity in the range of V_d = V_T C_d, still it is of the order of ε − 1 ∼ 5 × 10⁻² − 10⁻¹, also a low added risk since the low value of N_(vp)/N_(br) compensates for the large exhaled tidal volume. Notice that the added risk respect to the control case grows to ∼ 40% just for talking for 10% of the time and easily reaches 90% if talking 40% of the time. Coughing is also intermittent, possibly even more intermittent than vaping, but its large amount of exhaled droplets (large factor of 28 in (18)) can offset this effect. For speaking ε can be large even if normal speech involves a tidal volume close to rest breathing, but it also involves a much larger amount of time (larger number of breaths in typical conversation).

10. Chemical interactions

As mentioned in the Introduction, respiratory droplets potentially carrying the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are exhaled by vapers are not really “airborne” but “ECA–borne”, i.e. they are carried by a completely different chemical environment relative to air diluted plain exhaled breath condensates. It is thus important to discuss the potential effect on the pathogens by known mechanisms of disinfection of glycols such as propylene glycol (PG) and Glycerol or Vegetable Glycerine (VG), which are the main co-solvents used in the process of generation of ECA (and are also the main ingredients in the nicotine containing e-liquids).

Both PG and VG are organic compounds of the family of polyfunctional alcohols, commonly used as drug solubilizers in topical, oral, inhaled, nasal, optical and intravenous medications, as well as water-miscible co-solvents that provide both antimicrobial properties and an increase of the overall stability of many liquid pharmaceutical forms [117, 118, 119, 120]. Since both PG and VG are known hygroscopic compounds, they have been used to induce or sustain desiccation in gases [121], and conversely in liquid formulations to preserve hydration in several applications as humectants [122, 123].

The numerous applications of PG include

• Antiseptic: provides antimicrobial activity similar to that of ethanol [118].

• As an active ingredient it has been used in air sanitization [119], product preservation [120]

• Hard surface disinfection against bacteria, fungi and viruses, while as a food ingredient PG has been used as co-solvent, humectant, rheological modifier [122].

• Preservative demonstrating complete bactericidal effects at aqueous concentrations of 25%.

Regarding VG (see [123]), it is also known for its antibacterial [124] and antiviral properties [125] and is used in several pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food applications due to its relative safety, sweet taste, unique humectant properties (more effective than PG because of its larger viscosity [123])

The fundamental mechanisms governing antimicrobial and viral inactivation of VG and PG are still not fully understood, based on the increased efficacy in the presence of water and the dependence of the relative humidity in gases, and water activity in solids and liquids, it is generally believed that these agents can induce microbial membrane damage by dehydration, osmotic effects, phospholipidic membrane and enveloped capsid disarrays caused by hydrophobic-hydrophilic surface alterations, coagulation and denaturation of membrane proteins [126, 127].

The aerial disinfection can be initially attributed to the reduction of water and desiccant activity that VG and PG and other glycols have in aqueous solutions and water-containing vapor systems [128], glycols after condensation can nucleate by adsorption around aqueous bio droplets driven by the electrostatic attraction that they have towards the water and proteins present in these particles, the intensity of the H-OH hydrogen bonding that both PG, VG and other glycols manifest with water in heterogeneous water polyphase systems also facilitate the reduction of water activity, which can subsequently reduce the viability of these microorganisms suspended as aerosols [129].

The bactericidal effect of glycols in vapours has been studied since 1928 [128, 127, 130, 131]. During the 1930’s and 1940’s Puck and Robertson studied the bactericidal and virucidal effects of glycols, particularly PG, acting on several vapor-water systems with

suspended microorganisms. As explained by Puck [127], once the glycols are embedded in the liquid phase of the bioaerosol droplet, a water/glycol equilibrium is reached, with glycol and water diffusion taking place through the biological membrane, thus inducing membrane alterations and swelling on the viable particles and terminating with inducing microbial osmolysis. Relative humidity and temperature affects the microbicidal effect of glycols, with the most favorable conditions for the biocidal action of PG in its vapor phase given by a temperature below 26° C and relative humidity between 45% and 70% (see comprehensive explanation also in [128, 130]).

Puck and coworkers also found that air diluted PG vapor in concentrations of 250 − 500 mg/m³ induced an immediate and complete sterilization in an environment in which Pneumococci, Streptococci, Staphylococci, H. Influenzae, and other microorganisms were suspended. Concentrations of 210 mg/m³ were sufficient to fully disinfect air in a chamber with suspended Staphylococcus Albus after 10 minutes [128]. Concentrations as low as 50 mg/m³ were effective against Pneumococci. (20). In another study the vaporization of PG was implemented in hospital rooms as preventative mechanism against Streptococcus Haemolyticus, under these more diverse environmental conditions regarding temperature and humidity, concentrations over 100 mg/m³ sustained its bactericidal effect [131].

It is difficult to relate these highly controlled and idealized experiments to the erratic and highly variable conditions in vaping. First, in these experiments pure PG (as aerosol or as vapor) was supplied continuously and spread evenly under carefully controlled conditions, whereas particulate and gas phase concentrations of ECA rapidly vary with time and position. The gas phase of ECA is a mixture of PG and other compounds (VG, nicotine, with residual concentrations of mostly aldehydes) and is supplied into the surrounding air (when inhaled or exhaled) intermittently during puffs and spreads unevenly. Second, bactericidal effects in these experiments were registered with PG concentrations of: 50 − 500 mg/m³ which are 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than maximal gaseous PG concentrations of exhaled ECA registered in experiments involving several users vaping in relatively small chambers during hours: 0.3−0.4 mg/m³ [132, 133]. Since about 92% of inhaled PG is retained [34], PG concentrations inside the respiratory tracts could approach the lower end of concentrations in the experiments. However, the disinfectant effect is unlikely to occur, as the transit and absorption time of ECA in the respiratory system is too short (around 5-6 seconds) and this effect is much less efficient in the prevailing relative humidity close to 100%.

As we have argued throughout this article, exhaled ECA (as an expiratory activity) should spread respiratory droplets in the environment. However, it is very unlikely that its chemical medium could inhibit COVID-19 contagion by disabling or destroying the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Conversely, it is equally unlikely that this chemical medium could (somehow) enhance the probability of contagion in comparison with “normal” airborne transmission. Nevertheless, the chemical interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and PG and/or other glycols and compounds of ECA needs to be probed and tested in well designed experiments, even outside the context of vaping.

11. Final summary, study limitations and conclusion

We have provided in this paper a comprehensive study of the plausibility, scope and risk for pathogen (including SARS-CoV-2 virus) contagion associated with respiratory droplets that would be carried by ECA (e-cigarette aerosol) exhaled by vapers.

Competing interests

RAS has no competing interests to declare.

EG is currently employed by Myriad Pharmaceuticals, an independent company that manufactures e-liquids and vaping devices in New Zealand. She also provides consultancy work on research and development, regulatory affairs support, and formulation to several independent vaping companies in the Pacific Region. In the past she has worked for several pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Genomma Lab. She is also a member of the standards committee of the VTANZ and UKVIA.

RP is full time employee of the University of Catania, Italy. In relation to his work in the area of tobacco control and respiratory diseases, RP has received lecture fees and research funding from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, CV Therapeutics, NeuroSearch A/S, Sandoz, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Duska Therapeutics, and Forest Laboratories. He has also served as a consultant for Pfizer, Global Health Alliance for treatment of tobacco dependence, CV Therapeutics, NeuroSearch A/S, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Duska Therapeutics, Alfa-Wassermann, Forest Laboratories, ECITA (Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association, in the UK), Arbi Group Srl., and Health Diplomats. RP is the Founder of the Center of Excellence for the acceleration of Harm Reduction at the University of Catania (CoEHAR), which has received a grant from Foundation for a Smoke Free World to develop and carry out 8 research projects. RP is also currently involved in the following pro bono activities: scientific advisor for LIAF, Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (Italian acronym for Italian Anti Smoking League) and Chair of the European Technical Committee for standardization on Requirements and test methods for emissions of electronic cigarettes (CEN/TC 437; WG4)