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 "Creme 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.

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.

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.

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.

Background/ObjectiveThe heating of the fluids used in electronic cigarettes (“e-cigarettes”) used to create “vaping” aerosols is capable of causing a wide range of degradation reaction products. We investigated formation of benzene (an important human carcinogen) from e-cigarette fluids containing propylene glycol (PG), glycerol (GL), benzoic acid, the flavor chemical benzaldehyde, and nicotine.Methods/Main resultsThree e-cigarette devices were used: the JUULTM “pod” system (provides no user accessible settings other than flavor cartridge choice), and two refill tank systems that allowed a range of user accessible power settings. Benzene in the e-cigarette aerosols was determined by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Benzene formation was ND (not detected) in the JUUL system. In the two tank systems benzene was found to form from propylene glycol (PG) and glycerol (GL), and from the additives benzoic acid and benzaldehyde, especially at high power settings. With 50:50 PG+GL, for tank device 1 at 6W and 13W, the formed benzene concentrations were 1.9 and 750 μg/m3. For tank device 2, at 6W and 25W, the formed concentrations were ND and 1.8 μg/m3. With benzoic acid and benzaldehyde at ~10 mg/mL, for tank device 1, values at 13W were as high as 5000 μg/m3. For tank device 2 at 25W, all values were ≤~100 μg/m3. These values may be compared with what can be expected in a conventional (tobacco) cigarette, namely 200,000 μg/m3. Thus, the risks from benzene will be lower from e-cigarettes than from conventional cigarettes. However, ambient benzene air concentrations in the U.S. have typically been 1 μg/m3, so that benzene has been named the largest single known cancer-risk air toxic in the U.S. For non-smokers, chronically repeated exposure to benzene from e-cigarettes at levels such as 100 or higher μg/m3 will not be of negligible risk.

Consumption of cannabis by nontraditional methods has surged since the advent of legalization in North America and worldwide. Inhaling cannabis extracts using vaporizers and via dabbing has risen in popularity, while concerns over product safety have not hindered their proliferation. The work herein is the first step toward assessing the safety of vaporizing and dabbing concentrated cannabis extracts as a function of gas-phase reaction products. The gas-phase thermal degradants of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) have not been previously investigated. It was found that users may be exposed to concerning degradants such as methacrolein, benzene, and methyl vinyl ketone when using cartridge vaporizers and dabbing. It was shown that THC alone and mixed with terpenes generated similar degradation products and, most notably, elevated levels of isoprene. Importantly, it was shown that added terpenes led to higher levels of gas-phase products compared to THC alone. To estimate cancer and noncancer risks associated with exposure to these and other degradants, quantitative risk assessment was applied to experimentally determined values for dabbing and vaping and literature-sourced levels of hazardous components in cannabis smoke. Overall, gas-phase aerosol products had significantly lower values in dabbing and vaporizing compared to cannabis smoking, although these results should be interpreted in light of potential variations in degradant levels due to disparate usage patterns and the dangers of the higher aerosol concentration of THC.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsIdentification 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).ResultsMenthol 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.ConclusionsSwitching 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.

Flavor chemicals in electronic cigarette fluids (ECs), 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. One hundred twenty-six 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 non-targeted flavor chemicals. Twenty-eight 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 non-trivial 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 non-cancer toxicological effects.