Pebbles Fagan1,2, Pallav Pokhrel3, Thaddeus A Herzog3, Eric T Moolchan4, Kevin D Cassel3, Adrian A Franke3, Xingnan Li3, Ian Pagano3, Dennis R Trinidad5, Kari-Lyn K Sakuma6, Kymberle Sterling7, Dorothy Jorgensen3, Tania Lynch3, Crissy Kawamoto3, Mignonne C Guy8,2, Ian Lagua3, Sarah Hanes3, Linda A Alexander9, Mark S Clanton10, Camonia Graham-Tutt3, Thomas Eissenberg11,2. 1. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR. 2. Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, College of Humanities and Sciences, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 3. University of Hawaii Cancer Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI. 4. 325 Elm Street Cambridge, MA 02139. 5. Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA. 6. College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Department of Health Promotion and Behavior, Oregon State University, Waldo Corvallis, OR. 7. School of Public Health, Department of Health Promotion and Behavior, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. 8. Department of African American Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 9. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. 10. Accenture, Austin, Texas. 11. Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Abstract
Introduction: Sugars are major constituents and additives in traditional tobacco products, but little is known about their content or related toxins (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein) in electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) liquids. This study quantified levels of sugars and aldehydes in e-cigarette liquids across brands, flavors, and nicotine concentrations (n = 66). Methods: Unheated e-cigarette liquids were analyzed using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry and enzymatic test kits. Generalized linear models, Fisher's exact test, and Pearson's correlation coefficient assessed sugar, aldehyde, and nicotine concentration associations. Results: Glucose, fructose and sucrose levels exceeded the limits of quantification in 22%, 53% and 53% of the samples. Sucrose levels were significantly higher than glucose [χ2(1) = 85.9, p < .0001] and fructose [χ2(1) = 10.6, p = .001] levels. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein levels exceeded the limits of quantification in 72%, 84%, and 75% of the samples. Acetaldehyde levels were significantly higher than formaldehyde [χ2(1) = 11.7, p = .0006] and acrolein [χ2(1) = 119.5, p < .0001] levels. Differences between nicotine-based and zero-nicotine labeled e-cigarette liquids were not statistically significant for sugars or aldehydes. We found significant correlations between formaldehyde and fructose (-0.22, p = .004) and sucrose (-0.25, p = .002) and acrolein and fructose (-0.26, p = .0006) and sucrose (-0.21, p = .0006). There were no significant correlations between acetaldehyde and any of the sugars or any of the aldehydes and glucose. Conclusions: Sugars and related aldehydes were identified in unheated e-cigarette liquids and their composition may influence experimentation in naïve users and their potential toxicity. Implications: The data can inform the regulation of specific flavor constituents in tobacco products as a strategy to protect young people from using e-cigarettes, while balancing FDA's interest in how these emerging products could potentially benefit adult smokers who are seeking to safely quit cigarette smoking. The data can also be used to educate consumers about ingredients in products that may contain nicotine and inform future FDA regulatory policies related to product standards and accurate and comprehensible labeling of e-cigarette liquids.
Introduction: Sugars are major constituents and additives in traditional tobacco products, but little is known about their content or related toxins (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein) in electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) liquids. This study quantified levels of sugars and aldehydes in e-cigarette liquids across brands, flavors, and nicotine concentrations (n = 66). Methods: Unheated e-cigarette liquids were analyzed using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry and enzymatic test kits. Generalized linear models, Fisher's exact test, and Pearson's correlation coefficient assessed sugar, aldehyde, and nicotine concentration associations. Results:Glucose, fructose and sucrose levels exceeded the limits of quantification in 22%, 53% and 53% of the samples. Sucrose levels were significantly higher than glucose [χ2(1) = 85.9, p < .0001] and fructose [χ2(1) = 10.6, p = .001] levels. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein levels exceeded the limits of quantification in 72%, 84%, and 75% of the samples. Acetaldehyde levels were significantly higher than formaldehyde [χ2(1) = 11.7, p = .0006] and acrolein [χ2(1) = 119.5, p < .0001] levels. Differences between nicotine-based and zero-nicotine labeled e-cigarette liquids were not statistically significant for sugars or aldehydes. We found significant correlations between formaldehyde and fructose (-0.22, p = .004) and sucrose (-0.25, p = .002) and acrolein and fructose (-0.26, p = .0006) and sucrose (-0.21, p = .0006). There were no significant correlations between acetaldehyde and any of the sugars or any of the aldehydes and glucose. Conclusions: Sugars and related aldehydes were identified in unheated e-cigarette liquids and their composition may influence experimentation in naïve users and their potential toxicity. Implications: The data can inform the regulation of specific flavor constituents in tobacco products as a strategy to protect young people from using e-cigarettes, while balancing FDA's interest in how these emerging products could potentially benefit adult smokers who are seeking to safely quit cigarette smoking. The data can also be used to educate consumers about ingredients in products that may contain nicotine and inform future FDA regulatory policies related to product standards and accurate and comprehensible labeling of e-cigarette liquids.
Authors: Peyton A Tierney; Clarissa D Karpinski; Jessica E Brown; Wentai Luo; James F Pankow Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Janice Gerloff; Isaac K Sundar; Robert Freter; Emily R Sekera; Alan E Friedman; Risa Robinson; Todd Pagano; Irfan Rahman Journal: Appl In Vitro Toxicol Date: 2017-03-01
Authors: Alison Breland; Robert L Balster; Caroline Cobb; Pebbles Fagan; Jonathan Foulds; J Randy Koch; Thokozeni Lipato; Najat Saliba; Alan Shihadeh; Shumei Sun; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Am Psychol Date: 2019-04
Authors: Nkiruka C Atuegwu; Mario F Perez; Cheryl Oncken; Erin L Mead; Narinder Maheshwari; Eric M Mortensen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Dina M Jones; Mignonne C Guy; Eric Soule; Kari-Lyn K Sakuma; Pallav Pokhrel; Mohammed Orloff; Dennis Trinidad; Denelle Smith; Sharaka Browley; A Paige Walker; Sandilyn Bullock; Thomas Eissenberg; Pebbles Fagan Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Dorothy A Rhoades; Ashley L Comiford; Justin D Dvorak; Kai Ding; Michelle Hopkins; Paul Spicer; Theodore L Wagener; Mark P Doescher Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jessica L Fetterman; Rachel J Keith; Joseph N Palmisano; Kathleen L McGlasson; Robert M Weisbrod; Sana Majid; Reena Bastin; Mary Margaret Stathos; Andrew C Stokes; Rose Marie Robertson; Aruni Bhatnagar; Naomi M Hamburg Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Anne Landmesser; Max Scherer; Gerhard Scherer; Mohamadi Sarkar; Jeffery S Edmiston; Reinhard Niessner; Nikola Pluym Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 5.153