The use of Genomic Allergen Rapid Detection (GARD) assays to predict the respiratory and skin sensitising potential of e-liquids

Formaldehyde in Electronic Cigarette Liquid (Aerosolized Liquid)

BACKGROUND

Aerosolized liquid (e-liquid) of electronic cigarettes can be toxic. Beyond the solvent (propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin) and nicotine, little is known about the liquid composition. Formaldehyde, a carcinogen and source of contact dermatitis, has been reported in the vaporized e-liquid, but no studies have assessed the actual e-liquid.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate e-liquid products for the presence of formaldehyde.

METHODS

Sixteen e-liquid products were purchased and analyzed for the release of formaldehyde using the chromotropic acid method of detection.

RESULTS

Of the 16 e-liquids purchased, 4 (25%) were positive for the presence of formaldehyde; 2 were flavored and 2 were nonflavored. All positive e-liquids were in pods or disposable electronic cigarette devices, and 2 were purchased from local vape shops. The average nicotine content in the positive e-liquids was 3.85% versus 4.03% in the negative e-liquids.

CONCLUSIONS

The e-liquid products contain toxic chemicals not declared on product labels, as shown in this study with 25.0% of e-liquids containing formaldehyde. All positive e-liquids were within pods or disposable devices. Continued analysis of e-liquids and increased product regulation are needed.

In silico Prediction of Skin Sensitization: Quo vadis?

Skin direct contact with chemical or physical substances is predisposed to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), producing various allergic reactions, namely rash, blister, or itchy, in the contacted skin area. ACD can be triggered by various extremely complicated adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) remains to be causal for biosafety warrant. As such, commercial products such as ointments or cosmetics can fulfill the topically safe requirements in animal and non-animal models including allergy. Europe, nevertheless, has banned animal tests for the safety evaluations of cosmetic ingredients since 2013, followed by other countries. A variety of non-animal in vitro tests addressing different key events of the AOP, the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), KeratinoSens™, LuSens and human cell line activation test h-CLAT and U-SENS™ have been developed and were adopted in OECD test guideline to identify the skin sensitizers. Other methods, such as the SENS-IS are not yet fully validated and regulatorily accepted. A broad spectrum of in silico models, alternatively, to predict skin sensitization have emerged based on various animal and non-animal data using assorted modeling schemes. In this article, we extensively summarize a number of skin sensitization predictive models that can be used in the biopharmaceutics and cosmeceuticals industries as well as their future perspectives, and the underlined challenges are also discussed.

Toxicology of flavoring- and cannabis-containing e-liquids used in electronic delivery systems

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were introduced in the United States in 2007 and by 2014 they were the most popular tobacco product amongst youth and had overtaken use of regular tobacco cigarettes. E-cigarettes are used to aerosolize a liquid (e-liquid) that the user inhales. Flavorings in e-liquids is a primary reason for youth to initiate use of e-cigarettes. Evidence is growing in the scientific literature that inhalation of some flavorings is not without risk of harm. In this review, 67 original articles (primarily cellular in vitro) on the toxicity of flavored e-liquids were identified in the PubMed and Scopus databases and evaluated critically. At least 65 individual flavoring ingredients in e-liquids or aerosols from e-cigarettes induced toxicity in the respiratory tract, cardiovascular and circulatory systems, skeletal system, and skin. Cinnamaldehyde was most frequently reported to be cytotoxic, followed by vanillin, menthol, ethyl maltol, ethyl vanillin, benzaldehyde and linalool. Additionally, modern e-cigarettes can be modified to aerosolize cannabis as dried plant material or a concentrated extract. The U.S. experienced an outbreak of lung injuries, termed e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) that began in 2019; among 2,022 hospitalized patients who had data on substance use (as of January 14, 2020), 82% reported using a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (main psychoactive component in cannabis) containing e-cigarette, or vaping, product. Our literature search identified 33 articles related to EVALI. Vitamin E acetate, a diluent and thickening agent in cannabis-based products, was strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak in epidemiologic and laboratory studies; however, e-liquid chemistry is highly complex, and more than one mechanism of lung injury, ingredient, or thermal breakdown product may be responsible for toxicity. More research is needed, particularly with regard to e-cigarettes (generation, power settings, etc.), e-liquids (composition, bulk or vaped form), modeled systems (cell type, culture type, and dosimetry metrics), biological monitoring, secondhand exposures and contact with residues that contain nicotine and flavorings, and causative agents and mechanisms of EVALI toxicity.

An integrated transcriptomic- and proteomic-based approach to evaluate the human skin sensitization potential of glyphosate and its commercial agrochemical formulations

We investigated the skin sensitization hazard of glyphosate, the surfactant polyethylated tallow amine (POEA) and two commercial glyphosate-containing formulations using different omics-technologies based on a human dendritic cell (DC)-like cell line. First, the GARD™skin assay, investigating changes in the expression of 200 transcripts upon cell exposure to xenobiotics, was used for skin sensitization prediction. POEA and the formulations were classified as skin sensitizers while glyphosate alone was classified as a non-sensitizer. Interestingly, the mixture of POEA together with glyphosate displayed a similar sensitizing prediction as POEA alone, indicating that glyphosate likely does not increase the sensitizing capacity when associated with POEA. Moreover, mass spectrometry analysis identified differentially regulated protein groups and predicted molecular pathways based on a proteomic approach in response to cell exposures with glyphosate, POEA and the glyphosate-containing formulations. Based on the protein expression data, predicted pathways were linked to immunologically relevant events and regulated proteins further to cholesterol biosynthesis and homeostasis as well as to autophagy, identifying novel aspects of DC responses after exposure to xenobiotics. In summary, we here present an integrative analysis involving advanced technologies to elucidate the molecular mechanisms behind DC activation in the skin sensitization process triggered by the investigated agrochemical materials. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of glyphosate has increased worldwide, and much effort has been made to improve risk assessments and to further elucidate the mechanisms behind any potential human health hazard of this chemical and its agrochemical formulations. In this context, omics-based techniques can provide a multiparametric approach, including several biomarkers, to expand the mechanistic knowledge of xenobiotics-induced toxicity. Based on this, we performed the integration of GARD™skin and proteomic data to elucidate the skin sensitization hazard of POEA, glyphosate and its two commercial mixtures, and to investigate cellular responses more in detail on protein level. The proteomic data indicate the regulation of immune response-related pathways and proteins associated with cholesterol biosynthesis and homeostasis as well as to autophagy, identifying novel aspects of DC responses after exposure to xenobiotics. Therefore, our data show the applicability of a multiparametric integrated approach for the mechanism-based hazard evaluation of xenobiotics, eventually complementing decision making in the holistic risk assessment of chemicals regarding their allergenic potential in humans.

State-of-the-art methods and devices for generation, exposure, and collection of aerosols from e-vapor products

E-vapor products (EVP) have become popular alternatives for cigarette smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke. EVP research is challenging and complex, mostly because of the numerous and rapidly evolving technologies and designs as well as the multiplicity of e-liquid flavors and solvents available on the market. There is an urgent need to standardize all stages of EVP assessment, from the production of a reference product to e-vapor generation methods and from physicochemical characterization methods to nonclinical and clinical exposure studies. The objective of this review is to provide a detailed description of selected experimental setups and methods for EVP aerosol generation and collection and exposure systems for their in vitro and in vivo assessment. The focus is on the specificities of the product that constitute challenges and require development of ad hoc assessment frameworks, equipment, and methods. In so doing, this review aims to support further studies, objective evaluation, comparison, and verification of existing evidence, and, ultimately, formulation of standardized methods for testing EVPs.

Application of a multi-layer systems toxicology framework for in vitro assessment of the biological effects of Classic Tobacco e-liquid and its corresponding aerosol using an e-cigarette device with MESH™ technology

We previously proposed a systems toxicology framework for in vitro assessment of e-liquids. The framework starts with the first layer aimed at screening the potential toxicity of e-liquids, followed by the second layer aimed at investigating the toxicity-related mechanism of e-liquids, and finally, the third layer aimed at evaluating the toxicity-related mechanism of the corresponding aerosols. In this work, we applied this framework to assess the impact of the e-liquid MESH Classic Tobacco and its aerosol compared with that of cigarette smoke (CS) from the 3R4F reference cigarette. In the first layer, we evaluated the cytotoxicity profile of the MESH Classic Tobacco e-liquid (containing humectants, nicotine, and flavors) and its Base e-liquid (containing humectant and nicotine only) in comparison with total particulate matter (TPM) of 3R4F CS using primary bronchial epithelial cell cultures. In the second layer, the same culture model was used to explore changes in specific markers using high-content screening assays to identify potential toxicity-related mechanisms induced by the MESH Classic Tobacco and Base e-liquids beyond cell viability in comparison with the 3R4F CS TPM-induced effects. Finally, in the third layer, we compared the impact of exposure to the MESH Classic Tobacco or Base aerosols with 3R4F CS using human organotypic air-liquid interface buccal and small airway epithelial cultures. The results showed that the cytotoxicity of the MESH Classic Tobacco liquid was similar to the Base liquid but lower than 3R4F CS TPM at comparable nicotine concentrations. Relative to 3R4F CS exposure, MESH Classic Tobacco aerosol exposure did not cause tissue damage and elicited lower changes in the mRNA, microRNA, and protein markers. In the context of tobacco harm reduction strategy, the framework is suitable to assess the potential-reduced impact of electronic cigarette aerosol relative to CS.