Literature DB >> 31859484

Selected Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents Levels in Commercial e-Cigarettes.

Maxim Belushkin1, Donatien Tafin Djoko1, Marco Esposito1, Alexandra Korneliou1, Cyril Jeannet1, Massimo Lazzerini1, Guy Jaccard1.   

Abstract

A broad range of commercially available electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) systems were tested for levels of emissions of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHC), with a particular focus on the carbonyls: acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. The tobacco-specific nitrosamines N'-nitrosonornicotine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-bipyridyl)-1-butanone; the elements arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel; benzene; 1,3-butadiene; and benzo(a)pyrene were also quantified. The results show that except for the levels of carbonyls, all types of e-cigarettes performed in a similar manner, and emission levels for HPHCs were generally not quantifiable. However, levels of carbonyls, especially formaldehyde, were highly variable. Overall, the lowest levels of formaldehyde were observed in cartridge systems, which generally achieved substantial reductions in yields in comparison with cigarette smoke. Formaldehyde levels in open tank systems were variable; however, the median formaldehyde levels across different brands were substantially lower than the formaldehyde levels in cigarette smoke. The results for variable-power devices operated at the highest voltage confirmed existing literature data regardless of orientation and differences in puffing regimes. Furthermore, our results show that many products deliver consistent HPHC yields over a broad range of testing conditions (with minimal variability from one device to another, under a range of puffing conditions). However, some products exhibit high variability in emissions of HPHCs. The use of air blanks is further highlighted to assess nonproduct-related contributions to HPHC levels to avoid misrepresentation of the data. Overall, our results highlight that some but not all electronic cigarettes deliver low levels of carbonyls consistently across the full e-liquid depletion cycle under different test conditions. The need for further research and standardization work on assessment of variable-voltage electronic cigarettes is emphasized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31859484     DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol        ISSN: 0893-228X            Impact factor:   3.739


  9 in total

1.  Cigarette Smoke Extract, but Not Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Extract, Inhibits Monoamine Oxidase in vitro and Produces Greater Acute Aversive/Anhedonic Effects Than Nicotine Alone on Intracranial Self-Stimulation in Rats.

Authors:  Andrew C Harris; Peter Muelken; Aleksandra Alcheva; Irina Stepanov; Mark G LeSage
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 5.152

2.  Increased acrolein-DNA adducts in buccal brushings of e-cigarette users.

Authors:  Guang Cheng; Jiehong Guo; Steven G Carmella; Bruce Lindgren; Joshua Ikuemonisan; Brittany Niesen; Joni Jensen; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Silvia Balbo; Stephen S Hecht
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 4.741

3.  Characterisation of vaping liquids used in vaping devices across four countries: results from an analysis of selected vaping liquids reported by users in the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

Authors:  Brian Vincent Fix; Richard J OConnor; Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Noel L Leigh; Michael Cummings; Sara C Hitchman; Geoffrey T Fong; Georges El Nahas; David Hammond; Ann McNeill; Ron Borland; Bill King; Mary N Palumbo
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 6.953

4.  Thermography of cannabis extract vaporization cartridge heating coils in temperature- and voltage-controlled systems during a simulated human puff.

Authors:  Michael A Oar; Cynthia H Savage; Echoleah S Rufer; Richard P Rucker; Jesse A Guzman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The Evolving E-cigarette: Comparative Chemical Analyses of E-cigarette Vapor and Cigarette Smoke.

Authors:  Anthony Cunningham; Kevin McAdam; Jesse Thissen; Helena Digard
Journal:  Front Toxicol       Date:  2020-12-15

6.  Chemical characterisation of the vapour emitted by an e-cigarette using a ceramic wick-based technology.

Authors:  M Isabel Pinto; J Thissen; N Hermes; A Cunningham; H Digard; J Murphy
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  The use of human induced pluripotent stem cells to screen for developmental toxicity potential indicates reduced potential for non-combusted products, when compared to cigarettes.

Authors:  Liam Simms; Kathryn Rudd; Jessica Palmer; Lukasz Czekala; Fan Yu; Fiona Chapman; Edgar Trelles Sticken; Roman Wieczorek; Lisa Maria Bode; Matthew Stevenson; Tanvir Walele
Journal:  Curr Res Toxicol       Date:  2020-11-15

8.  Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes aerosols with cigarette smoke.

Authors:  Gregory Rodrigo; Guy Jaccard; Donatien Tafin Djoko; Alexandra Korneliou; Marco Esposito; Maxim Belushkin
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 5.153

9.  Twenty-Four-Hour Cardiovascular Effects of Electronic Cigarettes Compared With Cigarette Smoking in Dual Users.

Authors:  Neal L Benowitz; Gideon St Helen; Natalie Nardone; Newton Addo; Junfeng Jim Zhang; Arit M Harvanko; Carolyn S Calfee; Peyton Jacob
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 5.501

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.