Background: The lungs are an attractive route for drug administration owing to its benefits over other drug delivery systems. The respiratory system has a large surface area, high vascularization, and thin blood - alveolar barrier. Several devices for pulmonary drug delivery are in use in the market such as Nebulizers, Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), and Dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Each of the devices has its merits and drawbacks which hindered the vast advancement of respiratory dosage forms. Recent studies reported that vaping devices have been extensively used for the delivery of nicotine and other illegal drugs and produced very effective outcome, making them a potential alternative for regular nebulizers, pMDIs, and DPIs. Therefore, the aim of this research project was to conduct an in-vitro evaluation of the performance of commonly used vapes to assess their effectiveness in delivering drugs to the respiratory system using fluticasone propionate (FP) as a model drug. Methods: HPLC methods for the analysis of nicotine and fluticasone propionate was employed and validated according to the ICH guidelines. Results: Aerodynamic deposition performance of the three vape devices was assessed using the NGI which showed the superiority of vape tank and vape coil over vape pod. The vape tank produced the highest amount of nicotine among the three marketed products, where the emitted dose, fine particle fraction of the nominated dose and the respirable dose were significantly higher than those of coil and pod (one way ANOVA, p<0.001). Despite similar nicotine content in each dose, the performance of the devices varied. Even with the presence of coil in the tank vape device, the amount vaporised and emitted dose from the device were larger in the case of tank with atomizer. The project then took a direction of developing FP e-liquid and assessing the in-vitro performance using the NGI. The performance of the developed E-liquid containing FP was assessed using the three previously tested devices and results were compared with the marketed FP pMDI. The aerodynamic performance of the formulation was tested on NGI and results of FPF ranged from 22.10% when the vape-pod was used to 50.38% in the case of vape tank. The marketed FP pMDi showed comparable results to that of vape-coil in terms of respirable dose. However, the FPF of the nominated dose and RD usually, gave better presentation to the amount that reached the lower respiratory system with the vape tank achieving the highest of (50.38% and 50.38 µg, respectively). Statistical analysis showed a statistically significant difference among devices in delivering respirable dose (p=0.0001). Short stability study demonstrated the ability of the formulation to retain the content of FP. Conclusions: Such results are promising starting point for the possibility of utilizing the vape devices particularly vape tank using low temperature and wattage to deliver effective and user friendly dosage for respiratory drug delivery.