Toxicological and analytical assessment of e-cigarette refill components on airway epithelia

GC/HRMS Analysis of E-Liquids Complements In Vivo Modeling Methods and can Help to Predict Toxicity

Tobacco smoking is a major risk factor for disease development, with the user inhaling various chemicals known to be toxic. However, many of these chemicals are absent before tobacco is "burned". Similar, detailed data have only more recently being reported for the e-cigarette with regards to chemicals present before and after the e-liquid is "vaped." Here, zebrafish were dosed with vaped e-liquids, while C57-BL/6J mice were vaped using nose-cone only administration. Preliminary assessments were made using e-liquids and GC/HRMS to identify chemical signatures that differ between unvaped/vaped and flavored/unflavored samples. Oxidative stress and inflammatory immune cell response assays were then performed using our in vivo models. Chemical signatures differed, e.g., between unvaped/vaped samples and also between unflavored/flavored e-liquids, with known chemical irritants upregulated in vaped and unvaped flavored e-liquids compared with unflavored e-liquids. However, when possible respiratory irritants were evaluated, these agents were predominantly present in only the vaped e-liquid. Both oxidative stress and inflammatory responses were induced by a menthol-flavored but not a tobacco-flavored e-liquid. Thus, chemical signatures differ between unvaped versus vaped e-liquid samples and also between unflavored versus flavored e-liquids. These flavors also likely play a significant role in the variability of e-liquid characteristics, e.g., pro-inflammatory and/or cytotoxic responses.

Particulate matter in aerosols produced by two last generation electronic cigarettes: a comparison in a real-world environment

The design of e-cigarettes (e-cigs) is constantly evolving and the latest models can aerosolize using high-power sub-ohm resistance and hence may produce specific particle concentrations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the aerosol characteristics generated by two different types of electronic cigarette in real-world conditions, such as a sitting room or a small office, in number of particles (particles/cm3). We compared the real time and time-integrated measurements of the aerosol generated by the e-cigarette types Just Fog and JUUL. Real time (10s average) number of particles (particles/cm3) in 8 different aerodynamic sizes was measured using an optical particle counter (OPC) model Profiler 212-2. Tests were conducted with and without a Heating, Ventilating Air Conditioning System (HVACS) in operation, in order to evaluate the efficiency of air filtration. During the vaping sessions the OPC recorded quite significant increases in number of particles/cm3. The JUUL e-cig produced significantly lower emissions than Just Fog with and without the HVACS in operation. The study demonstrates the rapid volatility or change from liquid or semi-liquid to gaseous status of the e-cig aerosols, with half-life in the order of a few seconds (min. 4.6, max 23.9), even without the HVACS in operation. The e-cig aerosol generated by the JUUL proved significantly lower than that generated by the Just Fog, but this reduction may not be sufficient to eliminate or consistently reduce the health risk for vulnerable non e-cig users exposed to it.

Increased oxidative stress responses in murine macrophages exposed at the air-liquid interface to third- and fourth-generation electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) aerosols

Background

New fourth generation electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) devices contain high levels of nicotine salt (up to 60 mg/mL), whose cellular and molecular effects on immune cells are currently unknown. Here, we used a physiologically-relevant in vitro air-liquid interface (ALI) exposure model to assess the toxicity of distinct ENDS, a 3rd-generation electronic-cigarette (e-cig) and two 4th-generation ENDS devices (JUUL and Posh Plus).

Methods

Murine macrophages (RAW 264.7) were exposed at the ALI to either air, Menthol or Crème Brûlée-flavored ENDS aerosols generated from those devices for 1-hour per day for 1 or 3 consecutive days. Cellular and molecular toxicity was evaluated 24 h post-exposure.

Results

1-day of Menthol-flavored JUUL aerosol exposure significantly decreased cell viability and significantly increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels compared to air controls. Further, JUUL Menthol elicited significantly increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) and nitric oxide (NO) production compared to air controls. Posh Crème Brûlée-flavored aerosols displayed significant cytotoxicity - decreased cell viability and increased LDH levels -after 1- and 3-day exposures, while the Crème Brûlée-flavored aerosol produced by the 3rd-generation e-cig device only displayed significant cytotoxicity after 3 days compared to air controls. Further, both Posh and third-generation e-cig Crème Brûlée flavored-aerosols elicited significantly increased ROS plus high levels of 8-isoprostane after 1 and 3 days compared to air controls, indicating increased oxidative stress. Posh and third-generation e-cig Crème Brûlée flavored-aerosols elicited reduction in NO levels after one day, but elicited increase in NO after 3 days. Genes in common dysregulated by both devices after 1 day included α7nAChR, Cyp1a1, Ahr, Mmp12, and iNos.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that ENDS Menthol and Crème Brûlée-flavored aerosol exposures from both 3rd- and 4th-generation ENDS devices are cytotoxic to macrophages and cause oxidative stress. This can translate into macrophage dysfunction. Although 4th-generation disposable ENDS devices have no adjustable operational settings and are considered low-powered ENDS devices, their aerosols can induce cellular toxicity compared to air-exposed control cells. This study provides scientific evidence for regulation of nicotine salt-based disposable ENDS products.

Evidence for the coupling of refill liquids content and new particle formation in electronic cigarette vapors

The size and chemical content of particles in electronic cigarette vapors (e-vapors) dictate their fate in the human body. Understanding how particles in e-vapors are formed and their size is critical to identifying and mitigating the adverse consequences of vaping. Thermal decomposition and reactions of the refill liquid (e-liquid) components play a key role in new particles formation. Here we report the evolution of particle number concentration in e-vapors over time for variable mixtures of refill e-liquids and operating conditions. Particle with aerodynamic diameter < 300 nm accounted for up to 17% (or 780 μg/m³) of e-vapors particles. Two events of increasing particle number concentration were observed, 2-3 s after puff completion and a second 4-5 s later. The intensity of each event varied by the abundance of propylene glycol, glycerol, and flavorings in e-liquids. Propylene glycol and glycerol were associated with the first event. Flavorings containing aromatic and aliphatic unsaturated functional groups were strongly associated with the second event and to a lesser extent with the first one. The results indicate that particles in e-vapors may be formed through the heteromolecular condensation of propylene glycol, glycerol, and flavorings, including both parent chemicals and/or their thermal decomposition products.

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.

The Evolving Landscape of e-Cigarettes: A Systematic Review of Recent Evidence

Smoking continues to be a burden to economies and health-care systems across the world. One proposed solution to the problem has been e-cigarettes; however, because they are a relatively new product in the market, little is known about their potential health impacts. Furthermore, e-cigarettes continue to evolve at a rapid rate, making it necessary to regularly review and summarize available studies. Although e-cigarettes are marketed as a smoking cessation tool by some manufacturers, the reality is that many nonsmokers, including youth, are using them. This review focuses on two major demographic groups (smokers and nonsmokers) and evaluates the most recent data (early 2017 to mid 2019) regarding the potential health effects of e-cigarettes. We assessed peer-reviewed studies on the health impacts of e-cigarettes, with a particular focus on common questions asked by policy makers, clinicians, and scientists: (1) What are the effects of e-cigarettes compared with air/not smoking?; (2) Is there any direct evidence of harm or benefit to humans?; (3) Is there a risk from secondhand exposure?; (4) What are the risks and/or benefits of e-cigarettes compared with tobacco cigarette use?; (5) Are there risks or benefits to specific populations (eg, people with COPD or asthma, pregnant women [and their offspring])?; (6) What are the effects of flavoring chemicals?; (7) What are the effects of including nicotine in e-liquids?; (8) How often is nicotine concentration labeling incorrect?; and (9) What are the risks when e-cigarettes explode?

The Use of HPLC-PDA in Determining Nicotine and Nicotine-Related Alkaloids from E-Liquids: A Comparison of Five E-Liquid Brands Purchased Locally

E-liquid manufacturers are under scrutiny concerning the purity and concentration accuracy of nicotine and the minor nicotine-related alkaloids (NRAs) packaged in their products. In this communication we report concentrations of nicotine and five NRAs (nornicotine, cotinine, anabasine, anatabine, myosmine) from locally purchased E-liquids.

METHODS

Five brands of E-liquids (three bottles each) were purchased locally. Additionally, three bottles of reference E-liquid were prepared. Concentrations of nicotine and NRAs from each bottle were measured by HPLC. Concentrations of these alkaloids were also determined from electronic cigarette-generated aerosol and traditional cigarette smoke.

RESULTS

Nicotine concentrations in E-liquid brands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and in the reference E-liquid were 17.8 ± 4.1, 23.2 ± 0.7, 24.0 ± 0.9, 24.9 ± 0.2, 19.7 ± 0.3 and 20.4 ± 0.1 mg/mL, respectively. Concentrations normalized to 100% of product label were 74%, 97%, 100%, 104%, 109% and 102%, respectively. E-liquid brand 1 showed significance (p < 0.001) between bottles, while the reference showed the least variability. Similar results were obtained for the NRAs. Results also indicated the NRAs in aerosol of the reference E-liquid are lower than in cigarette smoke.

CONCLUSIONS

The amounts of NRAs present in E-liquids and E-liquid aerosol are less compared to cigarettes, however, inconsistencies and variation in nicotine concentrations supports the need for regulatory oversight.

High concentrations of flavor chemicals are present in electronic cigarette refill fluids

We characterized the flavor chemicals in a broad sample of commercially available electronic cigarette (EC) refill fluids that were purchased in four different countries. Flavor chemicals in 277 refill fluids were identified and quantified by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and two commonly used flavor chemicals were tested for cytotoxicity with the MTT assay using human lung fibroblasts and epithelial cells. About 85% of the refill fluids had total flavor concentrations >1 mg/ml, and 37% were >10 mg/ml (1% by weight). Of the 155 flavor chemicals identified in the 277 refill fluids, 50 were present at ≥1 mg/ml in at least one sample and 11 were ≥10 mg/ml in 54 of the refill fluids. Sixty-one% (170 out of 277) of the samples contained nicotine, and of these, 56% had a total flavor chemical/nicotine ratio >2. Four chemicals were present in 50% (menthol, triacetin, and cinnamaldehyde) to 80% (ethyl maltol) of the samples. Some products had concentrations of menthol ("Menthol Arctic") and ethyl maltol ("No. 64") that were 30 times (menthol) and 100 times (ethyl maltol) their cytotoxic concentration. One refill fluid contained cinnamaldehyde at ~34% (343 mg/ml), more than 100,000 times its cytotoxic level. High concentrations of some flavor chemicals in EC refill fluids are potentially harmful to users, and continued absence of any regulations regarding flavor chemicals in EC fluids will likely be detrimental to human health.

High concentrations of flavor chemicals are present in electronic cigarette refill fluids

We characterized the flavor chemicals in a broad sample of commercially available electronic cigarette (EC) refill fluids that were purchased in four different countries. Flavor chemicals in 277 refill fluids were identified and quantified by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and two commonly used flavor chemicals were tested for cytotoxicity with the MTT assay using human lung fibroblasts and epithelial cells. About 85% of the refill fluids had total flavor concentrations >1 mg/ml, and 37% were >10 mg/ml (1% by weight). Of the 155 flavor chemicals identified in the 277 refill fluids, 50 were present at ≥1 mg/ml in at least one sample and 11 were ≥10 mg/ml in 54 of the refill fluids. Sixty-one% (170 out of 277) of the samples contained nicotine, and of these, 56% had a total flavor chemical/nicotine ratio >2. Four chemicals were present in 50% (menthol, triacetin, and cinnamaldehyde) to 80% (ethyl maltol) of the samples. Some products had concentrations of menthol ("Menthol Arctic") and ethyl maltol ("No. 64") that were 30 times (menthol) and 100 times (ethyl maltol) their cytotoxic concentration. One refill fluid contained cinnamaldehyde at ~34% (343 mg/ml), more than 100,000 times its cytotoxic level. High concentrations of some flavor chemicals in EC refill fluids are potentially harmful to users, and continued absence of any regulations regarding flavor chemicals in EC fluids will likely be detrimental to human health.

Environmental Electronic Vape Exposure from Four Different Generations of Electronic Cigarettes: Airborne Particulate Matter Levels

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) were introduced into the market in 2006 and their technological features have evolved substantially over time. Currently, there are four different generations of e-cigs that are broadly considered less harmful than the use of combusted tobacco products although passive exposure to aerosols often occurs in public spaces and indoor environments. The study aim was to evaluate the levels of airborne particulate matter (PM) emitted during the use of all the four generations of e-cigs, testing different use modalities. PM₁₀, PM₄, PM_2.5 and PM₁ were measured through a Dusttrak ™ II Aerosol Monitor, for a total of 20 independent experiments. All tested e-cigs devices produced PM during their use, and PM₁₀ was almost made of PM₁ size fraction. In addition, we observed a progressive increase in PM emission from the first to the fourth generation, and an upward trend of PM₁ emitted by the fourth generation e-cig with an increase in the operating power. The results showed that, whatever the model adopted, passive vaping does occur. This finding supports the need for legislative interventions to regulate the e-cigs use in public places and other enclosed environments, in order to protect the health of any subject who is potentially exposed.

Inflammatory and Oxidative Responses Induced by Exposure to Commonly Used e-Cigarette Flavoring Chemicals and Flavored e-Liquids without Nicotine

Background: The respiratory health effects of inhalation exposure to e-cigarette flavoring chemicals are not well understood. We focused our study on the immuno-toxicological and the oxidative stress effects by these e-cigarette flavoring chemicals on two types of human monocytic cell lines, Mono Mac 6 (MM6) and U937. The potential to cause oxidative stress by these flavoring chemicals was assessed by measuring the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). We hypothesized that the flavoring chemicals used in e-juices/e-liquids induce an inflammatory response, cellular toxicity, and ROS production.

Methods: Two monocytic cell types, MM6 and U937 were exposed to commonly used e-cigarette flavoring chemicals; diacetyl, cinnamaldehyde, acetoin, pentanedione, o-vanillin, maltol and coumarin at different doses between 10 and 1,000 μM. Cell viability and the concentrations of the secreted inflammatory cytokine interleukin 8 (IL-8) were measured in the conditioned media. Cell-free ROS produced by these commonly used flavoring chemicals were also measured using a 2′,7′dichlorofluorescein diacetate probe. These DCF fluorescence data were expressed as hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) equivalents. Cytotoxicity due to the exposure to selected e-liquids was assessed by cell viability and the IL-8 inflammatory cytokine response in the conditioned media.

Results: Treatment of the cells with flavoring chemicals and flavored e-liquid without nicotine caused cytotoxicity dose-dependently. The exposed monocytic cells secreted interleukin 8 (IL-8) chemokine in a dose-dependent manner compared to the unexposed cell groups depicting a biologically significant inflammatory response. The measurement of cell-free ROS by the flavoring chemicals and e-liquids showed significantly increased levels of H₂O₂ equivalents in a dose-dependent manner compared to the control reagents. Mixing a variety of flavors resulted in greater cytotoxicity and cell-free ROS levels compared to the treatments with individual flavors, suggesting that mixing of multiple flavors of e-liquids are more harmful to the users.

Conclusions: Our data suggest that the flavorings used in e-juices can trigger an inflammatory response in monocytes, mediated by ROS production, providing insights into potential pulmonary toxicity and tissue damage in e-cigarette users.