Jean-François Etter1, Aurélie Bugey2. 1. Institute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: Jean-Francois.Etter@unige.ch. 2. Service of Consumer and Veterinary Affairs, Canton of Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess whether bottles of refill liquids for e-cigarettes were filled true to label, whether their content was constant across two production batches, and whether they contained impurities. METHODS: In 2013, we purchased on the Internet 18 models from 11 brands of e-liquids. We purchased a second sample of the same models 4months later. We analyzed their content in nicotine, anabasine, propylene glycol, glycerol, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol, and tested their pH. RESULTS: The median difference between the nicotine value on the labels and the nicotine content in the bottles was 0.3mg/mL (range -5.4 to +3.5mg/mL, i.e. -8% to +30%). For 82% of the samples, the actual nicotine content was within 10% of the value on the labels. All models contained glycerol (median 407mg/mL), and all but three models contained propylene glycol (median 650mg/mL). For all samples, levels of anabasine, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol were below our limits of detection. The pH of all the e-liquids was alkaline (median pH=9.1; range 8.1 to 9.9). The measured content of two batches of the same model varied by a median of 0% across batches for propylene glycol, 1% for glycerol, 0% for pH, and 0.5% for nicotine (range -15% to +21%; 5th and 95th percentiles: -15% and +10%). CONCLUSIONS: The nicotine content of these e-liquids matched the labels on the bottles, and was relatively constant across production batches. The content of propylene glycol and glycerol was also stable across batches, as was the pH.
AIMS: To assess whether bottles of refill liquids for e-cigarettes were filled true to label, whether their content was constant across two production batches, and whether they contained impurities. METHODS: In 2013, we purchased on the Internet 18 models from 11 brands of e-liquids. We purchased a second sample of the same models 4months later. We analyzed their content in nicotine, anabasine, propylene glycol, glycerol, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol, and tested their pH. RESULTS: The median difference between the nicotine value on the labels and the nicotine content in the bottles was 0.3mg/mL (range -5.4 to +3.5mg/mL, i.e. -8% to +30%). For 82% of the samples, the actual nicotine content was within 10% of the value on the labels. All models contained glycerol (median 407mg/mL), and all but three models contained propylene glycol (median 650mg/mL). For all samples, levels of anabasine, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol were below our limits of detection. The pH of all the e-liquids was alkaline (median pH=9.1; range 8.1 to 9.9). The measured content of two batches of the same model varied by a median of 0% across batches for propylene glycol, 1% for glycerol, 0% for pH, and 0.5% for nicotine (range -15% to +21%; 5th and 95th percentiles: -15% and +10%). CONCLUSIONS: The nicotine content of these e-liquids matched the labels on the bottles, and was relatively constant across production batches. The content of propylene glycol and glycerol was also stable across batches, as was the pH.