Cargando…

The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette

Background: As e-cigarette popularity has increased, there is growing evidence to suggest that while they are highly likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes, their use is not free of risk to the user. There is therefore an ongoing need to characterise the chemical composition of e-cig...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Margham, J., McAdam, K., Cunningham, A., Porter, A., Fiebelkorn, S., Mariner, D., Digard, H., Proctor, C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8514950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34660535
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.743060
_version_ 1784583509932769280
author Margham, J.
McAdam, K.
Cunningham, A.
Porter, A.
Fiebelkorn, S.
Mariner, D.
Digard, H.
Proctor, C.
author_facet Margham, J.
McAdam, K.
Cunningham, A.
Porter, A.
Fiebelkorn, S.
Mariner, D.
Digard, H.
Proctor, C.
author_sort Margham, J.
collection PubMed
description Background: As e-cigarette popularity has increased, there is growing evidence to suggest that while they are highly likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes, their use is not free of risk to the user. There is therefore an ongoing need to characterise the chemical composition of e-cigarette aerosols, as a starting point in characterising risks associated with their use. This study examined the chemical complexity of aerosols generated by an e-cigarette containing one unflavored and three flavored e-liquids. A combination of targeted and untargeted chemical analysis approaches was used to examine the number of compounds comprising the aerosol. Contributions of e-liquid flavors to aerosol complexity were investigated, and the sources of other aerosol constituents sought. Emissions of 98 aerosol toxicants were quantified and compared to those in smoke from a reference tobacco cigarette generated under two different smoking regimes. Results: Combined untargeted and targeted aerosol analyses identified between 94 and 139 compounds in the flavored aerosols, compared with an estimated 72–79 in the unflavored aerosol. This is significantly less complex (by 1-2 orders of magnitude) than the reported composition of cigarette smoke. Combining both types of analysis identified 5–12 compounds over and above those found by untargeted analysis alone. Gravimetrically, 89–99% of the e-cigarette aerosol composition was composed of glycerol, propylene glycol, water and nicotine, and around 3% comprised other, more minor, constituents. Comparable data for the Ky3R4F reference tobacco cigarette pointed to 58–76% of cigarette smoke “tar” being composed of minor constituents. Levels of the targeted toxicants in the e-cigarette aerosols were significantly lower than those in cigarette smoke, with 68.5–>99% reductions under ISO 3308 puffing conditions and 88.4–>99% reductions under ISO 20778 (intense) conditions; reductions against the WHO TobReg 9 priority list were around 99%. Conclusion: These analyses showed that the e-cigarette aerosols contain fewer compounds and at significantly lower concentrations than cigarette smoke. The chemical diversity of an e-cigarette aerosol is strongly impacted by the choice of e-liquid ingredients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8514950
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85149502021-10-15 The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette Margham, J. McAdam, K. Cunningham, A. Porter, A. Fiebelkorn, S. Mariner, D. Digard, H. Proctor, C. Front Chem Chemistry Background: As e-cigarette popularity has increased, there is growing evidence to suggest that while they are highly likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes, their use is not free of risk to the user. There is therefore an ongoing need to characterise the chemical composition of e-cigarette aerosols, as a starting point in characterising risks associated with their use. This study examined the chemical complexity of aerosols generated by an e-cigarette containing one unflavored and three flavored e-liquids. A combination of targeted and untargeted chemical analysis approaches was used to examine the number of compounds comprising the aerosol. Contributions of e-liquid flavors to aerosol complexity were investigated, and the sources of other aerosol constituents sought. Emissions of 98 aerosol toxicants were quantified and compared to those in smoke from a reference tobacco cigarette generated under two different smoking regimes. Results: Combined untargeted and targeted aerosol analyses identified between 94 and 139 compounds in the flavored aerosols, compared with an estimated 72–79 in the unflavored aerosol. This is significantly less complex (by 1-2 orders of magnitude) than the reported composition of cigarette smoke. Combining both types of analysis identified 5–12 compounds over and above those found by untargeted analysis alone. Gravimetrically, 89–99% of the e-cigarette aerosol composition was composed of glycerol, propylene glycol, water and nicotine, and around 3% comprised other, more minor, constituents. Comparable data for the Ky3R4F reference tobacco cigarette pointed to 58–76% of cigarette smoke “tar” being composed of minor constituents. Levels of the targeted toxicants in the e-cigarette aerosols were significantly lower than those in cigarette smoke, with 68.5–>99% reductions under ISO 3308 puffing conditions and 88.4–>99% reductions under ISO 20778 (intense) conditions; reductions against the WHO TobReg 9 priority list were around 99%. Conclusion: These analyses showed that the e-cigarette aerosols contain fewer compounds and at significantly lower concentrations than cigarette smoke. The chemical diversity of an e-cigarette aerosol is strongly impacted by the choice of e-liquid ingredients. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8514950/ /pubmed/34660535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.743060 Text en Copyright © 2021 Margham, McAdam, Cunningham, Porter, Fiebelkorn, Mariner, Digard and Proctor. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Chemistry
Margham, J.
McAdam, K.
Cunningham, A.
Porter, A.
Fiebelkorn, S.
Mariner, D.
Digard, H.
Proctor, C.
The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette
title The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette
title_full The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette
title_fullStr The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette
title_full_unstemmed The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette
title_short The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette
title_sort chemical complexity of e-cigarette aerosols compared with the smoke from a tobacco burning cigarette
topic Chemistry
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8514950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34660535
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.743060
work_keys_str_mv AT marghamj thechemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT mcadamk thechemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT cunninghama thechemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT portera thechemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT fiebelkorns thechemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT marinerd thechemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT digardh thechemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT proctorc thechemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT marghamj chemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT mcadamk chemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT cunninghama chemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT portera chemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT fiebelkorns chemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT marinerd chemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT digardh chemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette
AT proctorc chemicalcomplexityofecigaretteaerosolscomparedwiththesmokefromatobaccoburningcigarette