Joseph G Lisko1, Grace E Lee2, J Brett Kimbrell3, Michael E Rybak4, Liza Valentin-Blasini1, Clifford H Watson1. 1. Tobacco and Volatiles Branch, Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 2. Tobacco and Volatiles Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH. 3. Tobacco and Volatiles Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), Oak Ridge, TN. 4. Nutritional Biomarkers Branch, Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Most electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) contain a solution of propylene glycol/glycerin and nicotine, as well as flavors. E-cigarettes and their associated e-liquids are available in numerous flavor varieties. A subset of the flavor varieties include coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink, which, in beverage form, are commonly recognized sources of caffeine. Recently, some manufacturers have begun marketing e-liquid products as energy enhancers that contain caffeine as an additive. METHODS: A Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) method for the quantitation of caffeine in e-liquids was developed, optimized and validated. The method was then applied to assess caffeine concentrations in 44 flavored e-liquids from cartridges, disposables, and refill solutions. Products chosen were flavors traditionally associated with caffeine (ie, coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink), marketed as energy boosters, or labeled as caffeine-containing by the manufacturer. RESULTS: Caffeine was detected in 42% of coffee-flavored products, 66% of tea-flavored products, and 50% of chocolate-flavored e-liquids (limit of detection [LOD] - 0.04 µg/g). Detectable caffeine concentrations ranged from 3.3 µg/g to 703 µg/g. Energy drink-flavored products did not contain detectable concentrations of caffeine. Eleven of 12 products marketed as energy enhancers contained caffeine, though in widely varying concentrations (31.7 µg/g to 9290 µg/g). CONCLUSIONS: E-liquid flavors commonly associated with caffeine content like coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink often contained caffeine, but at concentrations significantly lower than their dietary counterparts. Estimated daily exposures from all e-cigarette products containing caffeine were much less than ingestion of traditional caffeinated beverages like coffee. IMPLICATIONS: This study presents an optimized and validated method for the measurement of caffeine in e-liquids. The method is applicable to all e-liquid matrices and could potentially be used to ensure regulatory compliance for those geographic regions that forbid caffeine in e-cigarette products. The application of the method shows that caffeine concentrations and estimated total caffeine exposure from e-cigarette products is significantly lower than oral intake from beverages. However, because very little is known about the effects of caffeine inhalation, e-cigarette users should proceed with caution when using caffeine containing e-cigarette products. Further research is necessary to determine associated effects from inhaling caffeine. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
INTRODUCTION: Most electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) contain a solution of propylene glycol/glycerin and nicotine, as well as flavors. E-cigarettes and their associated e-liquids are available in numerous flavor varieties. A subset of the flavor varieties include coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink, which, in beverage form, are commonly recognized sources of caffeine. Recently, some manufacturers have begun marketing e-liquid products as energy enhancers that contain caffeine as an additive. METHODS: A Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) method for the quantitation of caffeine in e-liquids was developed, optimized and validated. The method was then applied to assess caffeine concentrations in 44 flavored e-liquids from cartridges, disposables, and refill solutions. Products chosen were flavors traditionally associated with caffeine (ie, coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink), marketed as energy boosters, or labeled as caffeine-containing by the manufacturer. RESULTS: Caffeine was detected in 42% of coffee-flavored products, 66% of tea-flavored products, and 50% of chocolate-flavored e-liquids (limit of detection [LOD] - 0.04 µg/g). Detectable caffeine concentrations ranged from 3.3 µg/g to 703 µg/g. Energy drink-flavored products did not contain detectable concentrations of caffeine. Eleven of 12 products marketed as energy enhancers contained caffeine, though in widely varying concentrations (31.7 µg/g to 9290 µg/g). CONCLUSIONS: E-liquid flavors commonly associated with caffeine content like coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink often contained caffeine, but at concentrations significantly lower than their dietary counterparts. Estimated daily exposures from all e-cigarette products containing caffeine were much less than ingestion of traditional caffeinated beverages like coffee. IMPLICATIONS: This study presents an optimized and validated method for the measurement of caffeine in e-liquids. The method is applicable to all e-liquid matrices and could potentially be used to ensure regulatory compliance for those geographic regions that forbid caffeine in e-cigarette products. The application of the method shows that caffeine concentrations and estimated total caffeine exposure from e-cigarette products is significantly lower than oral intake from beverages. However, because very little is known about the effects of caffeine inhalation, e-cigarette users should proceed with caution when using caffeine containing e-cigarette products. Further research is necessary to determine associated effects from inhaling caffeine. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Joseph G Lisko; Hang Tran; Stephen B Stanfill; Benjamin C Blount; Clifford H Watson Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Sheela R Geraghty; Kelly McNamara; Jesse J Kwiek; Lynette Rogers; Mark A Klebanoff; Molly Augustine; Sarah A Keim Journal: Breastfeed Med Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 1.817
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: Konstantinos E Farsalinos; Giorgio Romagna; Dimitris Tsiapras; Stamatis Kyrzopoulos; Vassilis Voudris Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Christine D Czoli; Maciej L Goniewicz; Mary Palumbo; Noel Leigh; Christine M White; David Hammond Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2019-04-25