Barbara Davis1, Michael Dang2, Jisoo Kim2, Prue Talbot3. 1. Cell Molecular and Developmental Biology Graduate Program, University of California, Riverside, CA; Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, CA. 2. Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, CA. 3. Cell Molecular and Developmental Biology Graduate Program, University of California, Riverside, CA; Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, CA talbot@ucr.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the accuracy of nicotine concentration labeling on electronic cigarette refill products. METHODS: The nicotine concentration of 71 electronic cigarette refill fluid products and 1 related do-it-yourself (DIY) product was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. Quantified data were compared with manufacturers labeled concentrations. Duplicate refill fluid products purchased at different times were evaluated by visual comparison of fluid coloration and quantified nicotine concentration. RESULTS: Thirty-five of the 54 nicotine-containing fluids had quantified nicotine concentrations that deviated by more than ± 10% from the manufacturer labels, with 46 of 50 being in excess of labeled values. Refill fluids labeled as 0 nicotine had no detectable nicotine. Of the 5 products that were unlabeled for nicotine concentration, 3 contained no detectable nicotine, whereas the remaining 2 contained nicotine in excess of 100mg/ml and may have been intended for DIY use. Sixteen of the 18 duplicate bottles of refill fluid varied greatly in their nicotine concentrations. One of the 5 companies showed significant improvement in labeling accuracy among the most recently purchased products. Of the 23 total duplicate pairs, 15 of 23 varied in coloration from their mates. CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine concentration labeling on electronic cigarette refill products was often inaccurate but showed improvement recently in products from 1 company. To ensure the safety of refill fluids and DIY products, it is necessary to establish quality control guidelines for the manufacturing and labeling and to monitor products longitudinally.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the accuracy of nicotine concentration labeling on electronic cigarette refill products. METHODS: The nicotine concentration of 71 electronic cigarette refill fluid products and 1 related do-it-yourself (DIY) product was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. Quantified data were compared with manufacturers labeled concentrations. Duplicate refill fluid products purchased at different times were evaluated by visual comparison of fluid coloration and quantified nicotine concentration. RESULTS: Thirty-five of the 54 nicotine-containing fluids had quantified nicotine concentrations that deviated by more than ± 10% from the manufacturer labels, with 46 of 50 being in excess of labeled values. Refill fluids labeled as 0 nicotine had no detectable nicotine. Of the 5 products that were unlabeled for nicotine concentration, 3 contained no detectable nicotine, whereas the remaining 2 contained nicotine in excess of 100mg/ml and may have been intended for DIY use. Sixteen of the 18 duplicate bottles of refill fluid varied greatly in their nicotine concentrations. One of the 5 companies showed significant improvement in labeling accuracy among the most recently purchased products. Of the 23 total duplicate pairs, 15 of 23 varied in coloration from their mates. CONCLUSIONS:Nicotine concentration labeling on electronic cigarette refill products was often inaccurate but showed improvement recently in products from 1 company. To ensure the safety of refill fluids and DIY products, it is necessary to establish quality control guidelines for the manufacturing and labeling and to monitor products longitudinally.
Authors: Jennifer M Cameron; Donelle N Howell; John R White; David M Andrenyak; Matthew E Layton; John M Roll Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Jakub Knysak; Michal Gawron; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak; Jolanta Kurek; Adam Prokopowicz; Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla; Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska; Christopher Havel; Peyton Jacob; Neal Benowitz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Maciej L Goniewicz; Ribhav Gupta; Yong Hee Lee; Skyler Reinhardt; Sungroul Kim; Bokyeong Kim; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2015-02-07
Authors: Claire E Otero; Jacob A Noeker; Mary M Brown; Florence D M Wavreil; Wendy A Harvey; Kristen A Mitchell; Sara J Heggland Journal: J Appl Toxicol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 3.446
Authors: Scott R Weaver; Hyoshin Kim; Allison M Glasser; Erin L Sutfin; Jessica Barrington-Trimis; Thomas J Payne; Megan Saddleson; Alexandra Loukas Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Kevin Chatham-Stephens; Royal Law; Ethel Taylor; Stephanie Kieszak; Paul Melstrom; Rebecca Bunnell; Baoguang Wang; Hannah Day; Benjamin Apelberg; Lee Cantrell; Howell Foster; Joshua G Schier Journal: J Med Toxicol Date: 2016-06-28
Authors: Annie Montreuil; Marjorie MacDonald; Mark Asbridge; T Cameron Wild; David Hammond; Steve Manske; Erin Rutherford Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-06-14
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Brian V Fix; Ann McNeill; Maciej L Goniewicz; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings; Sara Hitchman; Ron Borland; David Hammond; David Levy; Shannon Gravely; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 6.526