Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents Analysis of North American ENDS

Smith, Cameron; Jamison, Brian; Jongsma, Candice; Carter, Karen; Wang, Jiaming; Bates, Austin; Ullah, Sifat; Cook, David; Gene Gillman, I.

doi:10.2478/cttr-2024-0008

Abstract

The objective of this study was to create a North American e-cigarette, or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS), market map representative of the 2020 and 2021 commercial market for analysis of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) and other chemicals in aerosol. The study consisted of 14 brands (seven closed pod-based, four open (refillable) pod-based, two cigalike, one disposable) and analyzed multiple e-liquid formulations per brand with varying labelled nicotine concentrations and flavors, equating to 35 unique tested ENDS. Aerosol was generated using two puffing regimes (ISO 27068 and intense) and analyzed for primary constituents, metals, carbonyls, and glycidol in a head-to-head comparison in the same testing laboratory. Nicotine yields per puff ranged from 0.045 mg/puff for the lowest yielding ENDS under the ISO 27068 puffing regime to 1.11 mg/puff for the highest yielding ENDS under intense puffing conditions. For carbonyls, all ENDS generated quantifiable amounts of acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde in collected aerosol, irrespective of puffing regime, with an increase in yields observed under intense puffing compared to ISO 27068 puffing for the majority of tested ENDS. For metals, the ENDS aerosol yielded nickel (Ni) ranging from below limits of detection (BLOD) to >30 ng/puff, while quantifiable levels of chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), and lead (Pb) were only associated with select ENDS. All tested ENDS aerosol contained quantifiable glycidol ranging from 0.003 to >1.00 µg/puff for ISO 20768 and 0.005 to 1.10 µg/puff for intense puffing regimes. As a category, ENDS aerosol showed significantly reduced levels of HPHCs compared to 1R6F combustible cigarette (CC) smoke on a per nicotine basis. However, there was variability among ENDS and the aerosol of some ENDS products produced increased levels of specific HPHCs (e.g., formaldehyde and nickel) compared to 1R6F CC smoke. The observed HPHC variations appear to be primarily dependent on device design. In summary, this work is one of the most comprehensive analyses of HPHCs for North American ENDS using validated analytical methods in the same test facility for a head-to-head comparison.

References

Counts, M.E., F.S. Hsu, and F.J. Tewes: Development of a Commercial Cigarette “Market Map” Comparison Methodology for Evaluating New or Non-Conventional Cigarettes; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 46 (2006) 225–242. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.07.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jain, V., A. Alcheva, D. Huang, R. Caruso, A. Jain, M. Lay, R. O’Connor, and I. Stepanov: Comprehensive Chemical Characterization of Natural American Spirit Cigarettes; Tob. Regul. Sci. 5 (2019) 381–399. DOI: 10.18001/trs.5.4.8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roemer, E., R. Dempsey, and M.K. Schorp: Toxicological Assessment of Kretek Cigarettes: Part 1: Background, Assessment Approach, and Summary of Findings; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 Suppl 1 (2014) S2–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.11.015
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morton, M.J. and S.W. Laffoon: Cigarette Smoke Chemistry Market Maps under Massachusetts Department of Public Health Smoking Conditions; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 51 (2008) 1–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.03.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jablonski, J.J., J.H. Maines, A.G. Cheetham, and I.G. Gillman: Comparative Levels of Carbonyl Delivery Between Mass-Market Cigars and Cigarettes; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 108 (2019) DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104453
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chepiga, T.A., M.J. Morton, P.A. Murphy, J.T. Avalos, B.R. Bombick, D.J. Doolittle, M.F. Borgerding, and J.E. Swauger: A Comparison of the Mainstream Smoke Chemistry and Mutagenicity of a Representative Sample of the US Cigarette Market with Two Kentucky Reference Cigarettes (K1r4f and K1r5f); Food Chem. Toxicol. 38 (2000) 949–962. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-6915(00)00086-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Counts, M.E., F.S. Hsu, S.W. Laffoon, R.W. Dwyer, and R.H. Cox: Mainstream Smoke Constituent Yields and Predicting Relationships from a Worldwide Market Sample of Cigarette Brands: ISO Smoking Conditions; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 39 (2004) 111–134. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2003.12.005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eldridge, A., T.R. Betson, M.V. Gama, and K. McAdam: Variation in Tobacco and Mainstream Smoke Toxicant Yields from Selected Commercial Cigarette Products; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 71 (2015) 409–427. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.01.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Carmines, E. and G. Gillman: Comparison of the Yield of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes to the Top 100 United States Brand Styles; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 28 (2019) 253–266. DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2019-0005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Piadé, J.-J., S. Wajrock, G. Jaccard, and G. Janeke: Formation of Mainstream Cigarette Smoke Constituents Prioritized by the World Health Organization - Yield Patterns Observed in Market Surveys, Clustering and Inverse Correlations; Food Chem. Toxicol. 55 (2013) 329–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2013.01.016
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pazo, D.Y., F. Moliere, M.M. Sampson, C.M. Reese, K.A. Agnew-Heard, M.J. Walters, M.R. Holman, B.C. Blount, C.H. Watson, and D.M. Chambers: Mainstream Smoke Levels of Volatile Organic Compounds in 50 US Domestic Cigarette Brands Smoked with the ISO and Canadian Intense Protocols; Nicotine Tob. Res. 18 (2016) 1886–1894. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntw118
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Edwards, S.H., L.M. Rossiter, K.M. Taylor, M.R. Holman, L. Zhang, Y.S. Ding, and C.H. Watson: Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in the Tobacco and Mainstream Smoke of U.S. Commercial Cigarettes; Chem. Res. Toxicol. 30 (2017) 540–551. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00268
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vu, A.T., K.M. Taylor, M.R. Holman, Y.S. Ding, B. Hearn, and C.H. Watson: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Mainstream Smoke of Popular U.S. Cigarettes; Chem. Res. Toxicol. 28 (2015) 1616–1626. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5b00190
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oldham, M.J., D.J. DeSoi, L.T. Rimmer, K.A. Wagner, and M.J. Morton: Insights from Analysis for Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents (HPHCs) in Tobacco Products; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 (2014) 138–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.06.017
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tobacco Journal International: Reference Products Used in Tobacco and Smoke Analyses; Tob. J. Int. 2 (2013) 150–154. Available at: https://www.coresta.org/sites/default/files/pages/tji0213-p150-154-refproducts.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roemer, E., H. Schramke, H. Weiler, A. Buettner, S. Kausche, S. Weber, A. Berges, M. Stueber, M. Muench, E. Trelles-Sticken, J. Pype, K. Kohlgrueber, H. Voelkel, and S. Wittke: Mainstream Smoke Chemistry and in Vitro and in Vivo Toxicity of the Reference Cigarettes 3R4F and 2R4F; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 25 (2012) 316–335. DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2013-0912
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wagner, K.A., R. Higby, and K. Stutt: Puff-by-Puff Analysis of Selected Mainstream Smoke Constituents in The Kentucky Reference 2R4F Cigarette; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 21 (2005) 273–279. DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2013-0793
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Benowitz, N.L. and M.L. Goniewicz: The Regulatory Challenge of Electronic Cigarettes; JAMA 310 (2013) 685–686. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.109501.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reilly, S.M., T. Cheng, and J. DuMond: Method Validation Approaches for Analysis of Constituents in ENDS; Tob. Regul. Sci. 6 (2020) 242–265. DOI: 10.18001/trs.6.4.3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Williams, M. and P. Talbot: Design Features in Multiple Generations of Electronic Cigarette Atomizers; Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 (2019) 2904. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16162904
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cunningham, A., K. McAdam, J. Thissen, and H. Digard: The Evolving E-Cigarette: Comparative Chemical Analyses of E-Cigarette Vapor and Cigarette Smoke; Front. Toxicol. 2 (2020) DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2020.586674
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Belushkin, M., D.T. Djoko, M. Esposito, A. Korneliou, C. Jeannet, M. Lazzerini, and G. Jaccard: Selected Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents Levels in Commercial E-Cigarettes; Chem. Res. Toxicol. 33 (2020) 657–668. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00470
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Uchiyama, S., K. Ohta, Y. Inaba, and N. Kunugita: Determination of Carbonyl Compounds Generated from the E-Cigarette Using Coupled Silica Cartridges Impregnated with Hydroquinone and 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine, Followed by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography; Anal. Sci. 29 (2013) 1219–1222. DOI: 10.2116/analsci.29.1219
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goniewicz, M.L., J. Knysak, M. Gawron, L. Kosmider, A. Sobczak, J. Kurek, A. Prokopowicz, M. Jablonska-Czapla, C. Rosik-Dulewska, C. Havel, P. Jacob III, and N. Benowitz: Levels of Selected Carcinogens and Toxicants in Vapour from Electronic Cigarettes; Tob. Control 23 (2014) 133–139. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Laugesen, M.: Nicotine and Toxicant Yield Ratings of Electronic Cigarette Brands in New Zealand; N. Z. Med. J. 128 (2015) 77–82. PMID: 25820506
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Uchiyama, S., Y. Senoo, H. Hayashida, Y. Inaba, H. Nakagome, and N. Kunugita: Determination of Chemical Compounds Generated from Second-Generation E-Cigarettes Using a Sorbent Cartridge Followed by a Two-Step Elution Method; Anal. Sci. 32 (2016) 549–555. DOI: 10.2116/analsci.32.549
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
El-Hellani, A., R. Salman, R. El-Hage, S. Talih, N. Malek, R. Baalbaki, N. Karaoghlanian, R. Nakkash, A. Shihadeh, and N.A. Saliba: Nicotine and Carbonyl Emissions from Popular Electronic Cigarette Products: Correlation to Liquid Composition and Design Characteristics; Nicotine Tob. Res. 20 (2018) 215–223. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntw280
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Klager, S., J. Vallarino, P. MacNaughton, D.C. Christiani, Q. Lu, and J.G. Allen: Flavoring Chemicals and Aldehydes in E-Cigarette Emissions; Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (2017) 10806–10813. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02205
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Williams, M., K. Bozhilov, S. Ghai, and P. Talbot: Elements Including Metals in the Atomizer and Aerosol of Disposable Electronic Cigarettes and Electronic Hookahs; PLoS One 12 (2017) e0175430. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175430
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Olmedo, P., W. Goessler, S. Tanda, M. Grau-Perez, S. Jarmul, A. Aherrera, R. Chen, M. Hilpert, J.E. Cohen, A. Navas-Acien, and A.M. Rule: Metal Concentrations in E-Cigarette Liquid and Aerosol Samples: The Contribution of Metallic Coils; Environ. Health Perspect. 126 (2018) 027010. DOI: 10.1289/EHP2175
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhao, D., A. Navas-Acien, V. Ilievski, V. Slavkovich, P. Olmedo, B. Adria-Mora, A. Domingo-Relloso, A. Aherrera, N.J. Kleiman, A.M. Rule, and M. Hilpert: Metal Concentrations in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol: Effect of Open-System and Closed-System Devices and Power Settings; Environ. Res. 174 (2019) 125–134. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.04.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Halstead, M., N. Gray, N. Gonzalez-Jimenez, M. Fresquez, L. Valentin-Blasini, C. Watson, and R.S. Pappas: Analysis of Toxic Metals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols Using a Novel Trap Design; J. Anal. Toxicol. 44 (2020) 149–155. DOI: 10.1093/jat/bkz078
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gray, N., M. Halstead, L. Valentin-Blasini, C. Watson, and R.S. Pappas: Toxic Metals in Liquid and Aerosol from Pod-Type Electronic Cigarettes; J. Anal. Toxicol. 46 (2022) 69–75. DOI: 10.1093/jat/bkaa185
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aherrera, A., J.J. Lin, R. Chen, M. Tehrani, A. Schultze, A. Borole, S. Tanda, W. Goessler, and A.M. Rule: Metal Concentrations in E-Cigarette Aerosol Samples: A Comparison by Device Type and Flavor; Environ. Health Perspect. 131 (2023) 127004. DOI: 10.1289/ehp11921
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chen, X., P.C. Bailey, C. Yang, B. Hiraki, M.J. Oldham, and I.G. Gillman: Targeted Characterization of the Chemical Composition of JUUL Systems Aerosol and Comparison with 3R4F Reference Cigarettes and IQOS Heat Sticks; Separations 8 (2021) 168. DOI: 10.3390/separations8100168
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Margham, J., K. McAdam, A. Cunningham, A. Porter, S. Fiebelkorn, D. Mariner, H. Digard, and C. Proctor: The Chemical Complexity of E-Cigarette Aerosols Compared with the Smoke from a Tobacco Burning Cigarette; Front. Chem. 9 (2021). DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2021.743060
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tayyarah, R. and G.A. Long: Comparison of Select Analytes in Aerosol from E-Cigarettes with Smoke from Conventional Cigarettes and with Ambient Air; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 (2014) 704–710. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.10.010.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Margham, J., K. McAdam, M. Forster, C. Liu, C. Wright, D. Mariner, and C. Proctor: Chemical Composition of Aerosol from an E-Cigarette: A Quantitative Comparison with Cigarette Smoke; Chem. Res. Toxicol. 29 (2016) 1662–1678. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00188
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cook, D.K., G. Lalonde, M.J. Oldham, J. Wang, A. Bates, S. Ullah, C. Sulaiman, K. Carter, C. Jongsma, G. Dull, and G. Gillman: A Practical Framework for Novel Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Evaluation: Chemical and Toxicological Characterization of JUUL2 Aerosol and Comparison with Reference Cigarettes; Toxics 12 (2024) 41. DOI: 10.3390/toxics12010041
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Office of the President of Mexico, Modification to Law on General Taxes on Imports and Exports - Tariff section 3824.90.83, 8453.70.18, and 8453.90.03. 2020, Official Journal of the Federation. Available at: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5653845&fecha=31/05/2022#gsc.tab=0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): FDA Finalizes Enforcement Policy on Unauthorized Flavored Cartridge-Based E-Cigarettes that Appeal to Children, Including Fruit and Mint; FDA, Silver Springs, MD, USA, 2020.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Harvanko, A.M., C.M. Havel, P. Jacob III, and N.L. Benowitz: Characterization of Nicotine Salts in 23 Electronic Cigarette Refill Liquids; Nicotine Tob. Res. 22 (2020) 1239–1243. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntz232
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
University of Kentucky: Certificate of Analysis for 1R6F Certified Reference Cigarette; University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Food, and Environment, Center for Tobacco Reference Products, Lexington, KY, USA, 2018. Available at: https://ctrp.uky.edu/assets/pdf/webdocs/CoA18_1R6F.pdf (accessed August 2024)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sakai, Y., S. Mori, M. Yanagimachi, T. Takahashi, K. Shibuya, A. Kumagai, S. Ishikawa, S. Ito, and T. Fukushima: Inter-Laboratory Reproducibility and Interchangeability of 3R4F and 1r6f Reference Cigarettes in Mainstream Smoke Chemical Analysis and in Vitro Toxicity Assays; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 29 (2020) 119–135. DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2020-0011
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hashizume, T., S. Ishikawa, K. Matsumura, S. Ito, and T. Fukushima: Chemical and in vitro Toxicological Comparison of Emissions from a Heated Tobacco Product and the 1R6F Reference Cigarette; Toxicol. Rep. 10 (2023) 281–292. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2023.02.005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO/IEC 17025:2017. General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH): Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2(R1); ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline, 2005. Step 4.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jameson, J.B., J. Wang, P.C. Bailey, M.J. Oldham, C.R. Smith, L.N. Jeong, D.K. Cook, A.L. Bates, S. Ullah, A.S.C. Pennington, and I.G. Gillman: Determination of Chemical Constituent Yields in E-Cigarette Aerosol Using Partial and Whole Pod Collections, a Comparative Analysis; Front. Chem. 11 (2023) 1223967. DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2023.1223967
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 20768:2018 - Vapour Products — Routine Analytical Vaping Machine — Definitions and Standard Conditions; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Farsalinos, K.E. and G. Gillman: Carbonyl Emissions in E-Cigarette Aerosol: A Systematic Review and Methodological Considerations; Front. Physiol. 8 (2017) 1119. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.01119
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Soulet, S. and R.A. Sussman: A Critical Review of Recent Literature on Metal Contents in E-Cigarette Aerosol; Toxics 10 (2022) 510. DOI: 10.3390/toxics10090510
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Soulet, S. and R.A. Sussman: Critical Review of the Recent Literature on Organic Byproducts in E-Cigarette Aerosol Emissions; Toxics 10 (2022) 714. DOI: 10.3390/toxics10120714
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Travis, N., M. Knoll, S. Cook, H. Oh, C.J. Cadham, L.M. Sanchez-Romero, and D.T. Levy: Chemical Profiles and Toxicity of Electronic Cigarettes: An Umbrella Review and Methodological Considerations; Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20 (2023) 1908. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20031908
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eshraghian, E.A. and W.K. Al-Delaimy: A Review of Constituents Identified in E-Cigarette Liquids and Aerosols; Tob. Prev. Cessat. 7 (2021) 10. DOI: 10.18332/tpc/131111
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Geiss, O., I. Bianchi, and J. Barrero-Moreno: Correlation of Volatile Carbonyl Yields Emitted by E-Cigarettes with the Temperature of the Heating Coil and the Perceived Sensorial Quality of the Generated Vapours; Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 219 (2016) 268–277. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.01.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Talih, S., R. Salman, N. Karaoghlanian, A. El-Hellani, and A. Shihadeh: Carbonyl Emissions and Heating Temperatures across 75 Nominally Identical Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Products: Do Manufacturing Variations Drive Pulmonary Toxicant Exposure?; Chem. Res. Toxicol. 36 (2023) 342–346. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00391
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Li, Y., A.E. Burns, L.N. Tran, K.A. Abellar, M. Poindexter, X. Li, A.K. Madl, K.E. Pinkerton, and T.B. Nguyen: Impact of E-Liquid Composition, Coil Temperature, and Puff Topography on the Aerosol Chemistry of Electronic Cigarettes; Chem. Res. Toxicol. 34 (2021) 1640–1654. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.1c00070
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Berg, C.J., D. Boyd Barr, E. Stratton, C. Escoffery, and M. Kegler: Attitudes Toward E-Cigarettes, Reasons for Initiating E-Cigarette Use, and Changes in Smoking Behavior After Initiation: A Pilot Longitudinal Study of Regular Cigarette Smokers; Open J. Prev. Med. 4 (2014) 789–800. DOI: 10.4236/ojpm.2014.410089.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhao, D., V. Ilievski, V. Slavkovich, P. Olmedo, A. Domingo-Relloso, A.M. Rule, N.J. Kleiman, A. Navas-Acien, and M. Hilpert: Effects of E-Liquid Flavor, Nicotine Content, and Puff Duration on Metal Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes; Environ. Res. 204 (2022) 112270. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.112270
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sleiman, M., J.M. Logue, V.N. Montesinos, M.L. Russell, M.I. Litter, L.A. Gundel, and H. Destaillats: Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes: Key Parameters Affecting the Release of Harmful Chemicals; Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016) 9644–9651. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01741
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jensen, R.P., R.M. Strongin, and D.H. Peyton: Solvent Chemistry in the Electronic Cigarette Reaction Vessel; Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 42549. DOI: 10.1038/srep42549
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Uchiyama, S., M. Noguchi, A. Sato, M. Ishitsuka, Y. Inaba, and N. Kunugita: Determination of Thermal Decomposition Products Generated from E-Cigarettes; Chem. Res. Toxicol. 33 (2020) 576–583. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00410
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jaccard, G., D.T. Djoko, A. Korneliou, R. Stabbert, M. Belushkin, and M. Esposito: Mainstream Smoke Constituents and in Vitro Toxicity Comparative Analysis of 3R4F and 1R6F Reference Cigarettes; Toxicol. Rep. 6 (2019) 222–231. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2019.02.009
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pappas, R.S., N. Gray, M. Halstead, and C.H. Watson: Lactic Acid Salts of Nicotine Potentiate the Transfer of Toxic Metals into Electronic Cigarette Aerosols; Toxics 12 (2024) 65. DOI: 10.3390/toxics12010065
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Tobacco Products (CTP): Guidance for Industry. Reporting Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke under Section 904(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Draft Guidance; DHHS, Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2012, 10 pp.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Food and drug Administration (FDA): Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products; Established List; Proposed Additions; Request for Comments; FDA, Rockville, MD, USA, 2019, pp. 38032–38035. 84 FR 38032
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Farsalinos, K.E., V. Voudris, and K. Poulas: E-Cigarettes Generate High Levels of Aldehydes Only in ‘Dry Puff’ Conditions; Addiction 110 (2015) 1352–1356. DOI: 10.1111/add.12942
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Visser, W.F., E.J.Z. Krüsemann, W.N.M. Klerx, K. Boer, N. Weibolt, and R. Talhout: Improving the Analysis of E-Cigarette Emissions: Detecting Human ‘Dry Puff’ Conditions in a Laboratory as Validated by a Panel of Experienced Vapers; Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (2021) 11520. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111520
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ali, F.R.M., A.B. Seidenberg, E. Crane, E. Seaman, M.A. Tynan, and K. Marynak: E-Cigarette Unit Sales by Product and Flavor Type, and Top-Selling Brands, United States, 2020–2022; MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 72 (2023) 672–677. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7225a1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Health Canada: Regulating Tobacco and Vaping Products: Vaping Products Regulations; Health Canada, 2024, Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/smoking-tobacco/vaping/product-safety-regulation.html
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Premarket Tobacco Product Marketing Granted Orders; FDA, Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2024. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/premarket-tobacco-product-applications/premarket-tobacco-product-marketing-granted-orders
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents Analysis of North American ENDS

Abstract

Paradigm

My account