The concentrations of elements/metals, nicotine, flavor chemicals and acids were compared in the e-liquids of unused and used first-generation electronic cigarettes (ECs) that were stored for 5-10 years. Metal analysis was performed using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy; nicotine and flavor chemical analyses were performed using gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy. Of the 22 elements analyzed, 10 (aluminum, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium, silicon, tin, zinc) were often found in the e-liquids. Five elements had the highest average concentrations: copper (1161.6 mg/L), zinc (295.8 mg/L), tin (287.6 mg/L), nickel (71.1 mg/L), and lead (50.3 mg/L). Nicotine concentrations were always lower than label concentrations indicated. Of the 181 flavor chemicals analyzed, 11 were detected in at least one sample, with hydroxyacetone being present in all samples. In used products, some flavor chemicals appeared to be by-products of heating. E-liquids with the highest concentrations of acids and the lowest pH levels also had the highest concentrations of elements/metals. Metal concentrations in e-liquids increased after use in some products, and some metal concentrations, such as nickel, were high enough to be a health concern. Leachates from discarded ECs could contribute toxic metals/chemicals to the environment, supporting the need for better regulation of atomizer design, composition, and disposal.

Our purpose was to test the hypothesis that ultrasonic cigarettes (u-cigarettes), which operate at relatively low temperatures, produce aerosols that are less harmful than heated-coil pod-style electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). The major chemicals in SURGE u-cigarette fluids and aerosols were quantified, their cytotoxicity and cellular effects were assessed, and a Margin of Exposure risk assessment was performed on chemicals in SURGE fluids. Four SURGE u-cigarette flavor variants (Blueberry Ice, Watermelon Ice, Green Mint, and Polar Mint) were evaluated. Flavor chemicals were quantified in fluids and aerosols using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Cytotoxicity and cell dynamics were assessed using the MTT assay, live-cell imaging, and fluorescence microscopy. WS-23 (a coolant) and total flavor chemical concentrations in SURGE were similar to e-cigarettes, while SURGE nicotine concentrations (13-19 mg/mL) were lower than many fourth generation e-cigarettes. Transfer efficiencies of dominant chemicals to aerosols in SURGE ranged from 44-100%. SURGE fluids and aerosols had four dominant flavor chemicals (>1 mg/mL). Toxic aldehydes were usually higher in SURGE aerosols than in SURGE fluids. SURGE fluids and aerosols had aldehyde concentrations significantly higher than pod-style e-cigarettes. Chemical constituents, solvent ratios, and aldehydes varied among SURGE flavor variants. SURGE fluids and aerosols inhibited cell growth and mitochondrial reductases, produced attenuated and round cells, and depolymerized actin filaments, effects that depended on pod flavor, chemical constituents, and concentration. The MOEs for nicotine, WS-23, and propylene glycol were <100 based on consumption of 1-2 SURGE u-cigarettes/day. Replacing the heating coil with a sonicator did not eliminate chemicals, including aldehydes, in aerosols or diminish toxicity in comparisons between SURGE and other e-cigarette pod products. The high concentrations of nicotine, WS-23, flavor chemicals, and aldehydes and the cytotoxicity of SURGE aerosols do not support the hypothesis that aerosols from u-cigarettes are less harmful than those from e-cigarettes.

Thousands of electronic cigarette refill fluids are commercially available. The concentrations of nicotine and the solvents, but not the flavor chemicals, are often disclosed on product labels. The purpose of this study was to identify and quantify flavor chemicals in 39 commercial refill fluids that were previously evaluated for toxicity. Twelve flavor chemicals were identified with concentrations ≥1 mg/ml: cinnamaldehyde, menthol, benzyl alcohol, vanillin, eugenol, p-anisaldehyde, ethyl cinnamate, maltol, ethyl maltol, triacetin, benzaldehyde, and menthone. Transfer of these flavor chemicals into aerosols made at 3V and 5V was efficient (mean transfer = 98%). We produced lab-made refill fluids containing authentic standards of each flavor chemical and analyzed the toxicity of their aerosols produced at 3V and 5V using a tank Box Mod device. Over 50% of the refill fluids in our sample contained high concentrations of flavor chemicals that transferred efficiently to aerosols at concentrations that produce cytotoxicity. When tested with two types of human lung cells, the aerosols made at 5V were generally more toxic than those made at 3V. These data will be valuable for consumers, physicians, public health officials, and regulatory agencies when discussing potential health concerns relating to flavor chemicals in electronic cigarette products.

Background

The increased popularity of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has been linked to the abundance of flavoured products that are attractive to adolescents and young adults. In the last decade, e-cigarette designs have evolved through four generations that include modifications in battery power, e-cigarette liquid (e-liquid) reservoirs and atomiser units. E-liquids have likewise evolved in terms of solvent use/ratios, concentration and number of flavour chemicals, use of nicotine salts and acids, the recent increased use of synthetic cooling agents and the introduction of synthetic nicotine. Our current objective was to evaluate and compare the evolving composition of tobacco-flavoured e-liquids over the last 10 years.

Methods

Our extensive database of flavour chemicals in e-liquids was used to identify trends and changes in flavour chemical composition and concentrations.

Results

Tobacco-flavoured products purchased in 2010 and 2011 generally had very few flavour chemicals, and their concentrations were generally very low. In tobacco-flavoured refill fluids purchased in 2019 and Puff Bar Tobacco e-cigarettes, the total number and concentration of flavour chemicals were higher than expected. Products with total flavour chemicals >10 mg/mL contained one to five dominant flavour chemicals (>1 mg/mL). The most frequently used flavour chemicals in tobacco e-liquids were fruity and caramellic.

Conclusions

There is a need for continuous surveillance of e-liquids, which are evolving in often subtle and harmful ways. Chemical constituents of tobacco flavours should be monitored as they clearly can be doctored by manufacturers to have a taste that would appeal to young users.

Background

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently banned flavours from pod-style electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), except for menthol and tobacco. JUUL customers have quickly discovered that flavoured disposable e-cigarettes from other manufacturers, such as Puff, are readily available. Our goal was to compare flavour chemicals, synthetic coolants and pulegone in mint-flavoured/menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes from JUUL and Puff, evaluate the cytotoxicity of the coolants and perform a cancer risk assessment for pulegone, which is present in both JUUL pods and disposable Puff products.

Methods

Identification and quantification of chemicals were performed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Cytotoxicity of the coolants was evaluated with BEAS-2B cells using the MTT 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. The cancer risk of pulegone was calculated using the margin of exposure (MOE).

Results

Menthol was the dominant flavour chemical (>1 mg/mL) in all products from both manufacturers. Minor flavour chemicals (<1 mg/mL) differed in the JUUL and Puff fluids and may produce flavour accents. The concentrations of WS-3 and WS-23 were higher in Puff than in JUUL. WS-23 was cytotoxic in the MTT assay at concentrations 90 times lower than concentrations in Puff fluids. The risk of cancer (MOE<10 000) was greater for mint than for menthol products and greater for Puff than for JUUL.

Conclusions

Switching from flavoured JUUL to Puff e-cigarettes may expose users to increased harm due to the higher levels of WS-23 and pulegone in Puff products. Cancer risk may be reduced in e-cigarettes by using pure menthol rather than mint oils to produce minty-flavoured e-cigarette products.

Background

Given the high concentrations of nicotine and flavor chemicals in EC (electronic cigarette) fluids, it is important to determine how efficiently they transfer to aerosols, how well they are retained by users (exposure), and if they are exhaled into the environment where they settle of surfaces forming ECEAR (EC exhaled aerosol residue).

Objectives

To quantify the flavor chemicals and nicotine in refill fluids, inhaled aerosols, and exhaled aerosols. Then deduce their retention and contribution to ECEAR.

Methods

Flavor chemicals and nicotine were identified and quantified by GC-MS in two refill fluids, smoking machine-generated aerosols, and aerosols exhaled by 10 human participants (average age 21; 7 males). Machine generated aerosols were made with varying puff durations and two wattages (40 and 80). Participants generated exhale ad libitum; their exhale was quantified, and chemical retention and contribution to ECEAR was modeled.

Results

"Dewberry Cream" had five dominant (≥1 mg/mL) flavor chemicals (maltol, ethyl maltol, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, furaneol), while "Cinnamon Roll" had one (cinnamaldehyde). Nicotine transferred well to aerosols irrespective of topography; however, transfer efficiencies of flavor chemicals depended on the chemical, puff volume, puff duration, pump head, and EC power. Participants could be classified as "mouth inhalers" or "lung inhalers" based on their exhale of flavor chemicals and nicotine and retention. Lung inhalers had high retention and exhaled low concentrations of EC chemicals. Only mouth inhalers exhaled sufficient concentrations of flavor chemicals/nicotine to contribute to chemical deposition on environmental surfaces (ECEAR).

Conclusion

These data help distinguish two types of EC users, add to our knowledge of chemical exposure during vaping, and provide information useful in regulating EC use.

Little is known about the chemical exposures that electronic cigarette (EC) users receive and emit during JUUL vaping and if exposures produce symptoms dose dependently. This study examined chemical exposure (dose), retention, symptoms during vaping, and the environmental accumulation of exhaled propylene glycol (PG), glycerol (G), nicotine, and menthol in a cohort of human participants who vaped JUUL “Menthol” ECs. We refer to this environmental accumulation as “EC exhaled aerosol residue” (ECEAR). Chemicals were quantified using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry in JUUL pods before and after use, lab-generated aerosols, human exhaled aerosols, and in ECEAR. Unvaped JUUL “Menthol” pods contained ∼621.3 mg/mL of G, ∼264.9 mg/mL of PG, ∼59.3 mg/mL of nicotine, ∼13.3 mg/mL of menthol, and ∼0.1 mg/mL of the coolant WS-23. Eleven experienced male EC users (aged 21–26) provided exhaled aerosol and residue samples before and after vaping JUUL pods. Participants vaped ad libitum for 20 min, while their average puff count (22 ± 6.4) and puff duration (4.4 ± 2.0) were recorded. The transfer efficiency of nicotine, menthol, and WS-23 from the pod fluid into the aerosol varied with each chemical and was generally similar across flow rates (9–47 mL/s). At 21 mL/s, the average mass of each chemical retained by the participants who vaped 20 min was 53.2 ± 40.3 mg for G, 18.9 ± 14.3 mg for PG, 3.3 ± 2.7 mg for nicotine, and 0.5 ± 0.4 mg for menthol, with retention deduced to be ∼90–100% for each chemical. There was a significant positive relationship between the number of symptoms during vaping and total chemical mass retained. ECEAR accumulated on enclosed surfaces where it could contribute to passive exposure. These data will be valuable to researchers studying human exposure to EC aerosols and agencies that regulate EC products.

We characterized the flavor chemicals in a broad sample of commercially available electronic cigarette (EC) refill fluids that were purchased in four different countries. Flavor chemicals in 277 refill fluids were identified and quantified by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and two commonly used flavor chemicals were tested for cytotoxicity with the MTT assay using human lung fibroblasts and epithelial cells. About 85% of the refill fluids had total flavor concentrations >1 mg/ml, and 37% were >10 mg/ml (1% by weight). Of the 155 flavor chemicals identified in the 277 refill fluids, 50 were present at ≥1 mg/ml in at least one sample and 11 were ≥10 mg/ml in 54 of the refill fluids. Sixty-one% (170 out of 277) of the samples contained nicotine, and of these, 56% had a total flavor chemical/nicotine ratio >2. Four chemicals were present in 50% (menthol, triacetin, and cinnamaldehyde) to 80% (ethyl maltol) of the samples. Some products had concentrations of menthol ("Menthol Arctic") and ethyl maltol ("No. 64") that were 30 times (menthol) and 100 times (ethyl maltol) their cytotoxic concentration. One refill fluid contained cinnamaldehyde at ~34% (343 mg/ml), more than 100,000 times its cytotoxic level. High concentrations of some flavor chemicals in EC refill fluids are potentially harmful to users, and continued absence of any regulations regarding flavor chemicals in EC fluids will likely be detrimental to human health.

Our goal was to evaluate the effects of EC refill fluids and EC exhaled aerosol residue (ECEAR) on cultured human keratinocytes and MatTek EpiDerm™, a 3D air liquid interface human skin model. Quantification of flavor chemicals and nicotine in Dewberry Cream and Churrios refill fluids was done using GC-MS. The dominant flavor chemicals were maltol, ethyl maltol, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, benzyl alcohol, and furaneol. Cytotoxicity was determined with the MTT and LDH assays, and inflammatory markers were quantified with ELISAs. Churrios was cytotoxic to keratinocytes in the MTT assay, and both fluids induced ROS production in the medium (ROS-Glo™) and in cells (CellROX). Exposure of EpiDerm™ to relevant concentrations of Dewberry Cream and Churrios for 4 or 24 h caused secretion of inflammatory markers (IL-1α, IL-6, and MMP-9), without altering EpiDerm™ histology. Lab made fluids with propylene glycol (PG) or PG plus a flavor chemical did not produce cytotoxic effects, but increased secretion of IL-1α and MMP-9, which was attributed to PG. ECEAR derived from Dewberry Cream and Churrios did not produce cytotoxicity with Epiderm™, but Churrios ECEAR induced IL-1α secretion. These data support the conclusion that EC chemicals can cause oxidative damage and inflammation to human skin.

Flavor chemicals in electronic cigarette (EC) fluids, which may negatively impact human health, have been studied in a limited number of countries/locations. To gain an understanding of how the composition and concentrations of flavor chemicals in ECs are influenced by product sale location, we evaluated refill fluids manufactured by one company (Ritchy LTD) and purchased worldwide. Flavor chemicals were identified and quantified using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). We then screened the fluids for their effects on cytotoxicity (MTT assay) and proliferation (live-cell imaging) and tested authentic standards of specific flavor chemicals to identify those that were cytotoxic at concentrations found in refill fluids. A total of 126 flavor chemicals were detected in 103 bottles of refill fluid, and their number per/bottle ranged from 1-50 based on our target list. Two products had none of the flavor chemicals on our target list, nor did they have any nontargeted flavor chemicals. A total of 28 flavor chemicals were present at concentrations ≥1 mg/mL in at least one product, and 6 of these were present at concentrations ≥10 mg/mL. The total flavor chemical concentration was ≥1 mg/mL in 70% of the refill fluids and ≥10 mg/mL in 26%. For sub-brand duplicate bottles purchased in different countries, flavor chemical concentrations were similar and induced similar responses in the in vitro assays (cytotoxicity and cell growth inhibition). The levels of furaneol, benzyl alcohol, ethyl maltol, ethyl vanillin, corylone, and vanillin were significantly correlated with cytotoxicity. The margin of exposure calculations showed that pulegone and estragole levels were high enough in some products to present a nontrivial calculated risk for cancer. Flavor chemical concentrations in refill fluids often exceeded concentrations permitted in other consumer products. These data support the regulation of flavor chemicals in EC products to reduce their potential for producing both cancer and noncancer toxicological effects.