Concentration of Nicotine and Glycols in 27 Electronic Cigarette Formulations

Abstract

Personal battery-powered vaporizers or electronic cigarettes were developed to deliver a nicotine vapor such that smokers could simulate smoking tobacco without the inherent pathology of inhaled tobacco smoke. Electronic cigarettes and their e-cigarette liquid formulations are virtually unregulated. These formulations are typically composed of propylene glycol and/or glycerin, flavoring components and an active drug, such as nicotine. Twenty-seven e-cigarette liquid formulations that contain nicotine between 6 and 22 mg/L were acquired within the USA and analyzed by various methods to determine their contents. They were screened by Direct Analysis in Real Time™ Mass Spectrometry (DART-MS). Nicotine was confirmed and quantitated by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and the glycol composition was confirmed and quantitated by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The DART-MS screening method was able to consistently identify the exact mass peaks resulting from the protonated molecular ion of nicotine, glycol and a number of flavor additives within 5 mmu. Nicotine concentrations were determined to range from 45 to 131% of the stated label concentration, with 18 of the 27 have >10% variance. Glycol composition was generally accurate to the product description, with only one exception where the propylene glycol to glycerin percentage ratio was stated as 50:50 and the determined concentration of propylene glycol to glycerin was 81:19 (% v/v). No unlabeled glycols were detected in these formulations.

Smoking behaviors and intentions among current e-cigarette users, cigarette smokers, and dual users: A national survey of U.S. high school seniors

“…Although the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes remain unknown (Collaco et al, 2015), e-cigarettes may induce inhalation and nicotine exposure during adolescence and may have long-term adverse consequences for brain development and could lead to nicotine dependence and initiation or sustained use of more harmful tobacco products (CDC, 2014; Leigh et al, 2016; Leventhal et al, 2015; Primack et al, 2015; USDHHS, 1988). Studies have found evidence of nicotine variability as high as 45–131% relative to the label disclosure when tested by standard methods (Peace et al, 2016). Such lack of regulation and low perceived risk associated with regular e-cigarette use may give adolescents the illusion of safety for experimentation and regular use (Miech et al, 2016).…”

Identification of MDMB-FUBINACA in commercially available e-liquid formulations sold for use in electronic cigarettes

“…Chemical composition of the e-liquids was screened for using DART-MS, which has been shown to be an effect technique for the identification active ingredients, flavoring agents and other possible constituents [13, 18]. The component of the e-liquids including the concentration of propylene glycol and glycerin were confirmed by using GC-MS methods.…”

“…Previously published DART-MS methods were adopted for this application [13, 14]. Each e-liquid was analyzed by three different sampling methods.…”

“…A significant reason to do so was to address the quality assurance of e-cigarette products, including the devices and the nicotine-based e-liquids they contain. The e-liquid formulations have been found to vary significantly from the advertised content [9–13]. …”

E-cigarette Regulatory Attitudes in Groups with Low Policy Support

“…Although some companies already include health warnings on their packaging voluntarily, there is no enforcement of the accuracy of these warnings, and previous studies have shown that the ingredients of e-liquids often differ from those listed on the packaging. 21,22 For example, liquids labeled as 0% nicotine have been found to contain nicotine, 23 and some liquids labeled as containing caffeine or other "energy" ingredients actually did not contain those ingredients. 24 This this study was purely observational and did not educate the participants about the possibility of incorrect or misleading warning labels.…”