Differential Toxicity of Electronic Cigarette Aerosols Generated from Different Generations of Devices In Vitro and In Vivo

0Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) have become increasingly popular, especially among youth, raising concerns about their potential health risks. JUUL and Tank devices are two common types of e-cigs that deliver aerosols with varying nicotine levels and flavors. However, the differences in the aerosols generated from different devices and their corresponding cytotoxicity and pulmonary injury effects remain poorly understood. This study addresses these knowledge gaps by characterizing the aerosols of JUUL and Tank e-cig devices and testing their toxic effects on THP-1 and BEAS-2B human cell lines as well as the C57BL/6J mouse model. In our study, the lower-voltage device, the 3.7 V JUUL generates 2.72 mg/puff aerosols by using e-liquid containing 3% nicotine salt (i.e., nicotine benzoate), which is less than the 11.06 mg/puff aerosols generated by the 7.5 V Tank using e-liquid containing 2.4% freebase nicotine. Yet, the cytotoxicity results reveal that JUUL aerosols induced higher toxicity and increased production of pro-inflammation cytokines compared to Tank aerosols per puff. Additionally, we observed that JUUL induced more severe pulmonary inflammation and DNA damage compared to Tank after normalizing for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite, in vivo. Our findings suggest that the device design plays a more important role in e-cig aerosol-induced toxicity than the composition of the e-liquid or voltage. These results provide valuable insights into the health risks associated with various electronic-cig devices and offer an approach for evaluating them.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ma, T., Chen, H., Liao, Y. P., Li, J., Wang, X., Li, L., … Xia, T. (2023). Differential Toxicity of Electronic Cigarette Aerosols Generated from Different Generations of Devices In Vitro and In Vivo. Environment and Health, 1(5), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1021/envhealth.3c00099

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free