Thousands of electronic cigarette refill fluids are commercially available. The concentrations of nicotine and the solvents, but not the flavor chemicals, are often disclosed on product labels. The purpose of this study was to identify and quantify flavor chemicals in 39 commercial refill fluids that were previously evaluated for toxicity. Twelve flavor chemicals were identified with concentrations ≥1 mg/ml: cinnamaldehyde, menthol, benzyl alcohol, vanillin, eugenol, p-anisaldehyde, ethyl cinnamate, maltol, ethyl maltol, triacetin, benzaldehyde, and menthone. Transfer of these flavor chemicals into aerosols made at 3V and 5V was efficient (mean transfer = 98%). We produced lab-made refill fluids containing authentic standards of each flavor chemical and analyzed the toxicity of their aerosols produced at 3V and 5V using a tank Box Mod device. Over 50% of the refill fluids in our sample contained high concentrations of flavor chemicals that transferred efficiently to aerosols at concentrations that produce cytotoxicity. When tested with two types of human lung cells, the aerosols made at 5V were generally more toxic than those made at 3V. These data will be valuable for consumers, physicians, public health officials, and regulatory agencies when discussing potential health concerns relating to flavor chemicals in electronic cigarette products.

Background

The increased popularity of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has been linked to the abundance of flavoured products that are attractive to adolescents and young adults. In the last decade, e-cigarette designs have evolved through four generations that include modifications in battery power, e-cigarette liquid (e-liquid) reservoirs and atomiser units. E-liquids have likewise evolved in terms of solvent use/ratios, concentration and number of flavour chemicals, use of nicotine salts and acids, the recent increased use of synthetic cooling agents and the introduction of synthetic nicotine. Our current objective was to evaluate and compare the evolving composition of tobacco-flavoured e-liquids over the last 10 years.

Methods

Our extensive database of flavour chemicals in e-liquids was used to identify trends and changes in flavour chemical composition and concentrations.

Results

Tobacco-flavoured products purchased in 2010 and 2011 generally had very few flavour chemicals, and their concentrations were generally very low. In tobacco-flavoured refill fluids purchased in 2019 and Puff Bar Tobacco e-cigarettes, the total number and concentration of flavour chemicals were higher than expected. Products with total flavour chemicals >10 mg/mL contained one to five dominant flavour chemicals (>1 mg/mL). The most frequently used flavour chemicals in tobacco e-liquids were fruity and caramellic.

Conclusions

There is a need for continuous surveillance of e-liquids, which are evolving in often subtle and harmful ways. Chemical constituents of tobacco flavours should be monitored as they clearly can be doctored by manufacturers to have a taste that would appeal to young users.

Background

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently banned flavours from pod-style electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), except for menthol and tobacco. JUUL customers have quickly discovered that flavoured disposable e-cigarettes from other manufacturers, such as Puff, are readily available. Our goal was to compare flavour chemicals, synthetic coolants and pulegone in mint-flavoured/menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes from JUUL and Puff, evaluate the cytotoxicity of the coolants and perform a cancer risk assessment for pulegone, which is present in both JUUL pods and disposable Puff products.

Methods

Identification and quantification of chemicals were performed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Cytotoxicity of the coolants was evaluated with BEAS-2B cells using the MTT 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. The cancer risk of pulegone was calculated using the margin of exposure (MOE).

Results

Menthol was the dominant flavour chemical (>1 mg/mL) in all products from both manufacturers. Minor flavour chemicals (<1 mg/mL) differed in the JUUL and Puff fluids and may produce flavour accents. The concentrations of WS-3 and WS-23 were higher in Puff than in JUUL. WS-23 was cytotoxic in the MTT assay at concentrations 90 times lower than concentrations in Puff fluids. The risk of cancer (MOE<10 000) was greater for mint than for menthol products and greater for Puff than for JUUL.

Conclusions

Switching from flavoured JUUL to Puff e-cigarettes may expose users to increased harm due to the higher levels of WS-23 and pulegone in Puff products. Cancer risk may be reduced in e-cigarettes by using pure menthol rather than mint oils to produce minty-flavoured e-cigarette products.

Background

Given the high concentrations of nicotine and flavor chemicals in EC (electronic cigarette) fluids, it is important to determine how efficiently they transfer to aerosols, how well they are retained by users (exposure), and if they are exhaled into the environment where they settle of surfaces forming ECEAR (EC exhaled aerosol residue).

Objectives

To quantify the flavor chemicals and nicotine in refill fluids, inhaled aerosols, and exhaled aerosols. Then deduce their retention and contribution to ECEAR.

Methods

Flavor chemicals and nicotine were identified and quantified by GC-MS in two refill fluids, smoking machine-generated aerosols, and aerosols exhaled by 10 human participants (average age 21; 7 males). Machine generated aerosols were made with varying puff durations and two wattages (40 and 80). Participants generated exhale ad libitum; their exhale was quantified, and chemical retention and contribution to ECEAR was modeled.

Results

"Dewberry Cream" had five dominant (≥1 mg/mL) flavor chemicals (maltol, ethyl maltol, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, furaneol), while "Cinnamon Roll" had one (cinnamaldehyde). Nicotine transferred well to aerosols irrespective of topography; however, transfer efficiencies of flavor chemicals depended on the chemical, puff volume, puff duration, pump head, and EC power. Participants could be classified as "mouth inhalers" or "lung inhalers" based on their exhale of flavor chemicals and nicotine and retention. Lung inhalers had high retention and exhaled low concentrations of EC chemicals. Only mouth inhalers exhaled sufficient concentrations of flavor chemicals/nicotine to contribute to chemical deposition on environmental surfaces (ECEAR).

Conclusion

These data help distinguish two types of EC users, add to our knowledge of chemical exposure during vaping, and provide information useful in regulating EC use.

Our goal was to evaluate the effects of EC refill fluids and EC exhaled aerosol residue (ECEAR) on cultured human keratinocytes and MatTek EpiDerm™, a 3D air liquid interface human skin model. Quantification of flavor chemicals and nicotine in Dewberry Cream and Churrios refill fluids was done using GC-MS. The dominant flavor chemicals were maltol, ethyl maltol, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, benzyl alcohol, and furaneol. Cytotoxicity was determined with the MTT and LDH assays, and inflammatory markers were quantified with ELISAs. Churrios was cytotoxic to keratinocytes in the MTT assay, and both fluids induced ROS production in the medium (ROS-Glo™) and in cells (CellROX). Exposure of EpiDerm™ to relevant concentrations of Dewberry Cream and Churrios for 4 or 24 h caused secretion of inflammatory markers (IL-1α, IL-6, and MMP-9), without altering EpiDerm™ histology. Lab made fluids with propylene glycol (PG) or PG plus a flavor chemical did not produce cytotoxic effects, but increased secretion of IL-1α and MMP-9, which was attributed to PG. ECEAR derived from Dewberry Cream and Churrios did not produce cytotoxicity with Epiderm™, but Churrios ECEAR induced IL-1α secretion. These data support the conclusion that EC chemicals can cause oxidative damage and inflammation to human skin.

Flavor chemicals in electronic cigarette (EC) fluids, which may negatively impact human health, have been studied in a limited number of countries/locations. To gain an understanding of how the composition and concentrations of flavor chemicals in ECs are influenced by product sale location, we evaluated refill fluids manufactured by one company (Ritchy LTD) and purchased worldwide. Flavor chemicals were identified and quantified using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). We then screened the fluids for their effects on cytotoxicity (MTT assay) and proliferation (live-cell imaging) and tested authentic standards of specific flavor chemicals to identify those that were cytotoxic at concentrations found in refill fluids. A total of 126 flavor chemicals were detected in 103 bottles of refill fluid, and their number per/bottle ranged from 1-50 based on our target list. Two products had none of the flavor chemicals on our target list, nor did they have any nontargeted flavor chemicals. A total of 28 flavor chemicals were present at concentrations ≥1 mg/mL in at least one product, and 6 of these were present at concentrations ≥10 mg/mL. The total flavor chemical concentration was ≥1 mg/mL in 70% of the refill fluids and ≥10 mg/mL in 26%. For sub-brand duplicate bottles purchased in different countries, flavor chemical concentrations were similar and induced similar responses in the in vitro assays (cytotoxicity and cell growth inhibition). The levels of furaneol, benzyl alcohol, ethyl maltol, ethyl vanillin, corylone, and vanillin were significantly correlated with cytotoxicity. The margin of exposure calculations showed that pulegone and estragole levels were high enough in some products to present a nontrivial calculated risk for cancer. Flavor chemical concentrations in refill fluids often exceeded concentrations permitted in other consumer products. These data support the regulation of flavor chemicals in EC products to reduce their potential for producing both cancer and noncancer toxicological effects.

We identified the most popular electronic cigarette (EC) refill fluids using an Internet survey and local and online sales information, quantified their flavor chemicals, and evaluated cytotoxicities of the fluids and flavor chemicals. "Berries/Fruits/Citrus" was the most popular EC refill fluid flavor category. Twenty popular EC refill fluids were purchased from local shops, and the ingredient flavor chemicals were identified and quantified by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Total flavor chemical concentrations ranged from 0.6 to 27.9 mg/ml, and in 95% of the fluids, total flavor concentration was greater than nicotine concentration. The 20 most popular refill fluids contained 99 quantifiable flavor chemicals; each refill fluid contained 22 to 47 flavor chemicals, most being esters. Some chemicals were found frequently, and several were present in most products. At a 1% concentration, 80% of the refill fluids were cytotoxic in the MTT assay. Six pure standards of the flavor chemicals found at the highest concentrations in the two most cytotoxic refill fluids were effective in the MTT assay, and ethyl maltol, which was in over 50% of the products, was the most cytotoxic. These data show that the cytotoxicity of some popular refill fluids can be attributed to their high concentrations of flavor chemicals.

The popularity of disposable fourth-generation electronic cigarettes (ECs) among young adults and adolescents has been increasing since the ban on flavored cartridge EC products such as JUUL. Although the constituents and toxicity of some cartridge-based fourth-generation ECs, such as JUUL, have been studied, limited data exist for other disposable ECs such as Puff. The purpose of this study was to determine flavor chemicals, synthetic coolants, and nicotine concentrations in 16 disposable Puff devices, evaluate the cytotoxicity of the different flavors from the Puff brand using in vitro assays, and investigate the health risks of synthetic coolants in EC products. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry was used to identify and quantify chemicals in Puff EC fluids. One hundred and twenty-six flavor chemicals were identified in Puff fluids, and 16 were >1 mg/mL. WS-23 (2-isopropyl-N,2,3-trimethylbutyramide) was present in all products, and concentrations ranged from 0.8 to 45.1 mg/mL. WS-3 (N-ethyl-p-menthane-3-carboxamide) concentrations ranged from 1.5 to 16.4 mg/mL in 6/16 products. Nicotine concentrations ranged from 40.6 to 52.4 (average 44.8 mg/mL). All unvaped fluids were cytotoxic at dilutions between 0.1 and 10% in the MTT and neutral red uptake assays when tested with BEAS-2B lung epithelial cells. The cytotoxicity of Puff fluids was highly correlated with total chemical concentrations, nicotine, WS-23, both synthetic coolants, and synthetic coolants plus ethyl maltol. Lower concentrations of WS-23 than those in the fluids adversely affected cell growth and morphology. Concentrations of synthetic coolants exceeded levels used in consumer products. The margin of exposure data showed that WS-3 and WS-23 concentrations were high enough in Puff products to present a health hazard. Our study demonstrates that disposable Puff ECs have high levels of cytotoxic chemicals. The data support the regulation of flavor chemicals and synthetic coolants in ECs to limit potentially harmful health effects.

Whereas JUUL electronic cigarettes (ECs) have captured the majority of the EC market, with a large fraction of their sales going to adolescents, little is known about their cytotoxicity and potential effects on health. The purpose of this study was to determine flavor chemical and nicotine concentrations in the eight currently marketed prefilled JUUL EC cartridges ("pods") and to evaluate the cytotoxicity of the different variants (e.g., "Cool Mint" and "Crème Brulee") using in vitro assays. Nicotine and flavor chemicals were analyzed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in pod fluid before and after vaping and in the corresponding aerosols. 59 flavor chemicals were identified in JUUL pod fluids, and 3 were >1 mg/mL. Duplicate pods were similar in flavor chemical composition and concentration. Nicotine concentrations (average 60.9 mg/mL) were significantly higher than those of any EC products we have previously analyzed. The transfer efficiency of individual flavor chemicals that were >1 mg/mL and nicotine from the pod fluid into aerosols was generally 35-80%. All pod fluids were cytotoxic at a 1:10 dilution (10%) in the MTT and neutral red uptake assays when tested with BEAS-2B lung epithelial cells. Most aerosols were cytotoxic in these assays at concentrations between 0.2 and 1.8%. The cytotoxicity of collected aerosol materials was highly correlated with nicotine and ethyl maltol concentrations and moderately to weakly correlated with total flavor chemical concentration and menthol concentration. Our study demonstrates that (1) some JUUL flavor pods have sufficiently high concentrations of flavor chemicals that may make them attractive to youth and (2) the concentrations of nicotine and some flavor chemicals (e.g., ethyl maltol) are high enough to be cytotoxic in acute in vitro assays, emphasizing the need to determine if JUUL products will lead to adverse health effects with chronic use.

Tobacco smoke residues lingering in the indoor environment, also termed thirdhand smoke (THS), can be a source of long-term exposure to harmful pollutants. THS composition is affected by chemical transformations and by air-surface partitioning over time scales of minutes to months. This study identified and quantified airborne THS pollutants available for respiratory exposure, identified potential environmental tracers, and estimated health impacts to nonsmokers. In a ventilated 18 m(3) laboratory chamber, six cigarettes were machine-smoked, and levels of particulate matter (PM2.5) and 58 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were monitored during an aging period of 18 h. Results were compared with field measurements taken in a smoker's home 8 h after the last cigarette had been smoked. Initial chamber levels of individual VOCs in freshly emitted secondhand smoke (SHS) were in the range of 1-300 μg m(-3). The commonly used SHS tracers 3-ethenylpyridine (3-EP) and nicotine were no longer present in the gas phase after 2 h, likely due mostly to sorption to surfaces. By contrast, other VOCs persisted in the gas phase for at least 18 h, particularly furans, carbonyls, and nitriles. The concentration ratio of acetonitrile to 3-EP increased substantially with aging. This ratio may provide a useful metric for differentiating freshly emitted (SHS) from aged smoke (THS). Among the 29 VOCs detected in the smoker's home at moderate to high concentrations, 18 compounds were also detected in simultaneously sampled outdoor air, but acetonitrile, 2-methyl furan, and 2,5-dimethyl furan appeared to be specific to cigarette smoke. The levels of acrolein, methacrolein, and acrylonitrile exceeded concentrations considered harmful by the State of California. An initial exposure and impact assessment was conducted for a subset of pollutants by computing disability-adjusted life years lost, using available toxicological and epidemiological information. Exposure to PM2.5 contributed to more than 90% of the predicted harm. Acrolein, furan, acrylonitrile, and 1,3-butadiene were considered to be the most harmful VOCs. Depending on which criteria are used to establish the separation between SHS and THS, 5-60% of the predicted health damage could be attributed to THS exposure. Benefits and limitations of this approach are discussed.