Selected Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents Levels in Commercial e-Cigarettes

Abstract

A broad range of commercially available electronic cigarette (ecigarette) systems were tested for levels of emissions of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHC), with a particular focus on the carbonyls: acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. The tobacco-specific nitrosamines N′-nitrosonornicotine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-bipyridyl)-1-butanone; the elements arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel; benzene; 1,3butadiene; and benzo(a)pyrene were also quantified. The results show that except for the levels of carbonyls, all types of e-cigarettes performed in a similar manner, and emission levels for HPHCs were generally not quantifiable. However, levels of carbonyls, especially formaldehyde, were highly variable. Overall, the lowest levels of formaldehyde were observed in cartridge systems, which generally achieved substantial reductions in yields in comparison with cigarette smoke. Formaldehyde levels in open tank systems were variable; however, the median formaldehyde levels across different brands were substantially lower than the formaldehyde levels in cigarette smoke. The results for variable-power devices operated at the highest voltage confirmed existing literature data regardless of orientation and differences in puffing regimes. Furthermore, our results show that many products deliver consistent HPHC yields over a broad range of testing conditions (with minimal variability from one device to another, under a range of puffing conditions). However, some products exhibit high variability in emissions of HPHCs. The use of air blanks is further highlighted to assess nonproduct-related contributions to HPHC levels to avoid misrepresentation of the data. Overall, our results highlight that some but not all electronic cigarettes deliver low levels of carbonyls consistently across the full e-liquid depletion cycle under different test conditions. The need for further research and standardization work on assessment of variable-voltage electronic cigarettes is emphasized.

Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes aerosols with cigarette smoke

“…Compared to those of cigarettes, the MOE T were 43.55 or 59.56 times higher and even 107.79 or 1222.12 times higher when nicotine MOE was not considered. However, as previously mentioned, much higher yields were observed for selected aldehydes (acrolein, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde) in a number of EC product aerosols (Belushkin et al 2019), especially for open-system ECs. Applying the MOE methodology (excluding nicotine) resulted in a lower estimated MOE T (up to one order of magnitude) for these products compared to the ones calculated for the considered closed-system ECs, when only formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde yields were considered in their aerosols (data not shown).…”

“…It should be noted that much higher yields were observed for selected aldehydes (acrolein, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde) in a number of EC product aerosols (Belushkin et al 2019), especially for open-system ECs. The determination, based on acetaldehyde and formaldehyde emissions only, resulted for open-system ECs in a higher estimated mean lifetime cancer risk (up to one order of magnitude) compared to the ones calculated for the considered closed-system ECs, for which a more complete emission yield dataset is available (data not shown).…”

Electronic nicotine delivery system design and aerosol toxicants: A systematic review

“…Belushkin et al [114] completed a comprehensive toxicant panel of 34 ENDS and 57 e-liquids. Benzene was identified in some high power mod systems, but was not as prevalent in non-refillable closed systems.…”

“…Group A HPLC 41 [14, 22-26, 28, 30-33, 36-38, 40, 41, 45-48, 60-65, 67, 69, 70, 74-76, 79, 80, 82-84, 97, 106, 110, 111, 114] 3 [47,50,69] GC-FID 3 [39,68,92] 2 [39,71] TD-GC-MS 2 [94,95] 4 [50,64,94,95] GC-MS 11 [29, 33, 34, 39, 41-43, 69, 81, 93, 105] 13 [39,48,49,51,59,69,76,79,83,85,93,105,114] 7 [49,59,69,76,83,85,114] EPR 8 [14,56,58,73,84,[88][89][90] ICP-MS 11 [49, 52-54, 60, 69, 78, 79, 83, 86, 114] ICP-OES 4 [51,87,112,113] SF-ICP...…”

“…Manufacturer-recommended operating ranges reach into the triple digits but produce less carbonyl than supraohm coils at the same power setting [26]. Researchers have suggested for manufacturers to limit power flow to coils to reduce exposure to formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein [114]. More research needs to be conducted to understand the impact of newer-generation coils (e.g., mesh, Clapton, alien, staple) on toxicant production.…”