A double-edged sword: e-cigarettes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): reply

n/

Carbonyl Emissions in E-cigarette Aerosol: A Systematic Review and Methodological Considerations

Carbonyl emissions from tobacco cigarettes represent a substantial health risk contributing to smoking-related morbidity and mortality. As expected, this is an important research topic for tobacco harm reduction products, in an attempt to compare the relative risk of these products compared to tobacco cigarettes. In this study, a systematic review of the literature available on PubMed was performed analyzing the studies evaluating carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes. A total of 32 studies were identified and presented. We identified a large diversity of methodologies, with substantial discrepancies in puffing patterns, aerosol collection and analytical methods as well as reported units of measurements. Such discrepancies make comparisons difficult, and in some cases the accuracy of the findings cannot be determined. Importantly, control for the generation of dry puffs was not performed in the vast majority of studies, particularly in studies using variable power devices, which could result in testing conditions and reported carbonyl levels that have no clinical relevance or context. Some studies have been replicated, verifying the presence of dry puff conditions. Whenever realistic use conditions were ensured, carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes were substantially lower than tobacco cigarette smoke, while newer generation (bottom-coil, cotton wick) atomizers appeared to emit minimal levels of carbonyls with questionable clinical significance in terms of health risk. However, extremely high levels of carbonyl emissions were reported in some studies, and all these studies need to be replicated because of potentially important health implications

Electronic cigarettes: an aid in smoking cessation, or a new health hazard?

The issue of electronic cigarettes is one of the most controversial topics in public health. There is intense debate and dividing opinions about their use patterns, health effects and association with smoking. This is expected since they were only recently introduced to the market and they refer to a harm-reduction approach and strategy that is not universally accepted for smoking and tobacco use in the public health community. Three main factors determine the public health impact of electronic cigarettes: (1) their safety/risk profile, both relative to smoking and in absolute terms; (2) their effectiveness for smoking reduction and cessation; (3) the patterns of use by different population subgroups, especially never-smokers, and adoption of use by youth. This analysis presents a brief overview of currently available evidence and gaps in research covering these three factors

Comparison of the Cytotoxic Potential of Cigarette Smoke and Electronic Cigarette Vapour Extract on Cultured Myocardial Cells

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) have been marketed as an alternative-to-smoking habit. Besides chemical studies of the content of EC liquids or vapour, little research has been conducted on their in vitro effects. Smoking is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and cigarette smoke (CS) has well-established cytotoxic effects on myocardial cells. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic potential of the vapour of 20 EC liquid samples and a “base” liquid sample (50% glycerol and 50% propylene glycol, with no nicotine or flavourings) on cultured myocardial cells. Included were 4 samples produced by using cured tobacco leaves in order to extract the tobacco flavour. Methods: Cytotoxicity was tested according to the ISO 10993-5 standard. By activating an EC device at 3.7 volts (6.2 watts—all samples, including the “base” liquid) and at 4.5 volts (9.2 watts—four randomly selected samples), 200 mg of liquid evaporated and was extracted in 20 mL of culture medium. Cigarette smoke (CS) extract from three tobacco cigarettes was produced according to ISO 3308 method (2 s puffs of 35 mL volume, one puff every 60 s). The extracts, undiluted (100%) and in four dilutions (50%, 25%, 12.5%, and 6.25%), were applied to myocardial cells (H9c2); percent-viability was measured after 24 h incubation. According to ISO 10993-5, viability of <70% was considered cytotoxic. Results: CS extract was cytotoxic at extract concentrations >6.25% (viability: 76.9 ± 2.0% at 6.25%, 38.2 ± 0.5% at 12.5%, 3.1 ± 0.2% at 25%, 5.2 ± 0.8% at 50%, and 3.9 ± 0.2% at 100% extract concentration). Three EC extracts (produced by tobacco leaves) were cytotoxic at 100% and 50% extract concentrations (viability range: 2.2%–39.1% and 7.4%–66.9% respectively) and one (“Cinnamon-Cookies” flavour) was cytotoxic at 100% concentration only (viability: 64.8 ± 2.5%). Inhibitory concentration 50 was >3 times lower in CS extract compared to the worst-performing EC vapour extract. For EC extracts produced by high-voltage and energy, viability was reduced but no sample was cytotoxic according to ISO 10993-5 definition. Vapour produced by the “base” liquid was not cytotoxic at any extract concentration. Cell survival was not associated with nicotine concentration of EC liquids. Conclusions: This study indicates that some EC samples have cytotoxic properties on cultured cardiomyoblasts, associated with the production process and materials used in flavourings. However, all EC vapour extracts were significantly less cytotoxic compared to CS extract

Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in Electronic Cigarettes: Comparison between Liquid and Aerosol Levels

Introduction: Although electronic cigarette (EC) liquids contain low levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), studies evaluating the levels emitted to the aerosol are scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare the levels of TSNAs between liquids and generated aerosol. Methods: Three EC liquids were obtained from the market. An additional (spiked) sample was prepared by adding known amounts of standard TSNAs solutions to one of the obtained liquids. N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN), N-nitrosoanatabine (NAT), N-nitrosoanabasine (NAB) and 4-(methylnitrosamino)1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) were measured. Three 100-puff sets from each liquid were trapped in filter pads and were subsequently analyzed for the presence of TSNAs. The expected levels of TSNAs (calculated based on the liquid consumption) were compared with the measured levels in the aerosol. Results: Only NAB was found at trace levels in two commercial liquids (1.2 and 2.3 ng/g), while the third contained 1.5 ng/g NAB and 7.7 ng/g NNN. The 100-puff sets resulted in 336–515 mg liquid consumption, with no TSNAs being detected in the aerosol. The spiked sample contained 42.0–53.9 ng/g of each of the TSNAs. All TSNAs were detected in the aerosol with the measured levels being statistically similar to the expected amounts. A significant correlation between expected and measured levels of TSNAs in the aerosol was found (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The findings of this study show that exposure of EC users to TSNAs can be accurately assessed based on the levels present in the liquid, without the need to analyze the aerosol

E-cigarettes: an aid in smoking cessation, or a new health hazard?

The issue of electronic cigarettes is one of the most controversial topics in public health. There is intense debate and dividing opinions about their use patterns, health effects and association with smoking. This is expected since they were only recently introduced to the market and they refer to a harm-reduction approach and strategy that is not universally accepted for smoking and tobacco use in the public health community. Three main factors determine the public health impact of electronic cigarettes: (1) their safety/risk profile, both relative to smoking and in absolute terms; (2) their effectiveness for smoking reduction and cessation; (3) the patterns of use by different population subgroups, especially never-smokers, and adoption of use by youth. This analysis presents a brief overview of currently available evidence and gaps in research covering these three factors

Nicotine Levels and Presence of Selected Tobacco-Derived Toxins in Tobacco Flavoured Electronic Cigarette Refill Liquids

Background. Some electronic cigarette (EC) liquids of tobacco flavour contain extracts of cured tobacco leaves produced by a process of solvent extraction and steeping. These are commonly called Natural Extract of Tobacco (NET) liquids. The purpose of the study was to evaluate nicotine levels and the presence of tobacco-derived toxins in tobacco-flavoured conventional and NET liquids. Methods. Twenty-one samples (10 conventional and 11 NET liquids) were obtained from the US and Greek market. Nicotine levels were measured and compared with labelled values. The levels of tobacco-derived chemicals were compared with literature data on tobacco products. Results. Twelve samples had nicotine levels within 10% of the labelled value. Inconsistency ranged from −21% to 22.1%, with no difference observed between conventional and NET liquids. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) were present in all samples at ng/mL levels. Nitrates were present almost exclusively in NET liquids. Acetaldehyde was present predominantly in conventional liquids while formaldehyde was detected in almost all EC liquids at trace levels. Phenols were present in trace amounts, mostly in NET liquids. Total TSNAs and nitrate, which are derived from the tobacco plant, were present at levels 200–300 times lower in 1 mL of NET liquids compared to 1 gram of tobacco products. Conclusions. NET liquids contained higher levels of phenols and nitrates, but lower levels of acetaldehyde compared to conventional EC liquids. The lower levels of tobacco-derived toxins found in NET liquids compared to tobacco products indicate that the extraction process used to make these products did not transfer a significant amount of toxins to the NET. Overall, all EC liquids contained far lower (by 2–3 orders of magnitude) levels of the tobacco-derived toxins compared to tobacco products

Characteristics, Perceived Side Effects and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Worldwide Survey of More than 19,000 Consumers

Background: Electronic cigarette (EC) use has grown exponentially over the past few years. The purpose of this survey was to assess the characteristics and experiences of a large sample of EC users and examine the differences between those who partially and completely substituted smoking with EC use. Methods: A questionnaire was prepared, translated into 10 different languages and uploaded in an online survey tool. EC users were asked to participate irrespective of their current smoking status. Participants were divided according to their smoking status at the time of participation in two subgroups: former smokers and current smokers. Results: In total, 19,414 participants were included in the analysis, with 88 of them (0.5%) reported not being smokers at the time of EC use initiation. Complete substitution of smoking was reported by 81.0% of participants (former smokers) while current smokers had reduced smoking consumption from 20 to 4 cigarettes per day. They were using ECs for a median of 10 months. They initiated EC use with a median of 18 mg/mL nicotine-concentration liquids; 21.5% used higher than 20 mg/mL. Only 3.5% of participants were using 0-nicotine liquids at the time of the survey. Former smokers were highly dependent (Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence = 7) and were heavier smokers (21 cigarettes per day when smoking) compared to current smokers. The most important reasons for initiating EC use for both subgroups was to reduce the harm associated with smoking and to reduce exposure of family members to second-hand smoking. Most considered ECs as less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, while 11.0% considered them absolutely harmless. Side effects were reported by more than half of the participants (59.8%), with the most common being sore/dry mouth and throat; side effects were mild and in most cases were subsequently resolved (partially or completely). Participants experienced significant benefits in physical status and improvements in pre-existing disease conditions (including respiratory disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive lung disease). Being former smoker was independently associated with positive effects in health and improvements in disease conditions. Conclusions: The results of this worldwide survey of dedicated users indicate that ECs are mostly used to avoid the harm associated with smoking. They can be effective even in highly-dependent smokers and are used as long-term substitutes for smoking. High levels of nicotine are used at initiation; subsequently, users try to reduce nicotine consumption, with only a small minority using non-nicotine liquids. Side effects are minor and health benefits are substantial, especially for those who completely substitute smoking with EC use. Further population and interventional studies are warranted

Evaluation of Electronic Cigarette Use (Vaping) Topography and Estimation of Liquid Consumption: Implications for Research Protocol Standards Definition and for Public Health Authorities’ Regulation

Background: Although millions of people are using electronic cigarettes (ECs) and research on this topic has intensified in recent years, the pattern of EC use has not been systematically studied. Additionally, no comparative measure of exposure and nicotine delivery between EC and tobacco cigarette or nicotine replacement therapy (NRTs) has been established. This is important, especially in the context of the proposal for a new Tobacco Product Directive issued by the European Commission. Methods: A second generation EC device, consisting of a higher capacity battery and tank atomiser design compared to smaller cigarette-like batteries and cartomizers, and a 9 mg/mL nicotine-concentration liquid were used in this study. Eighty subjects were recruited; 45 experienced EC users and 35 smokers. EC users were video-recorded when using the device (ECIG group), while smokers were recorded when smoking (SM-S group) and when using the EC (SM-E group) in a randomized cross-over design. Puff, inhalation and exhalation duration were measured. Additionally, the amount of EC liquid consumed by experienced EC users was measured at 5 min (similar to the time needed to smoke one tobacco cigarette) and at 20 min (similar to the time needed for a nicotine inhaler to deliver 4 mg nicotine). Results: Puff duration was significantly higher in ECIG (4.2 ± 0.7 s) compared to SM-S (2.1 ± 0.4 s) and SM-E (2.3 ± 0.5 s), while inhalation time was lower (1.3 ± 0.4, 2.1 ± 0.4 and 2.1 ± 0.4 respectively). No difference was observed in exhalation duration. EC users took 13 puffs and consumed 62 ± 16 mg liquid in 5 min; they took 43 puffs and consumed 219 ± 56 mg liquid in 20 min. Nicotine delivery was estimated at 0.46 ± 0.12 mg after 5 min and 1.63 ± 0.41 mg after 20 min of use. Therefore, 20.8 mg/mL and 23.8 mg/mL nicotine-containing liquids would deliver 1 mg of nicotine in 5 min and 4 mg nicotine in 20 min, respectively. Since the ISO method significantly underestimates nicotine delivery by tobacco cigarettes, it seems that liquids with even higher than 24 mg/mL nicotine concentration would be comparable to one tobacco cigarette. Conclusions: EC use topography is significantly different compared to smoking. Four-second puffs with 20–30 s interpuff interval should be used when assessing EC effects in laboratory experiments, provided that the equipment used does not get overheated. Based on the characteristics of the device used in this study, a 20 mg/mL nicotine concentration liquid would be needed in order to deliver nicotine at amounts similar to the maximum allowable content of one tobacco cigarette (as measured by the ISO 3308 method). The results of this study do not support the statement of the European Commission Tobacco Product Directive that liquids with nicotine concentration of 4 mg/mL are comparable to NRTs in the amount of nicotine delivered to the user