Might limiting liquid nicotine concentration result in more toxic electronic cigarette aerosols?
carcinogens
electronic nicotine delivery devices
nicotine
Journal
Tobacco control
ISSN: 1468-3318
Titre abrégé: Tob Control
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9209612
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
21
11
2019
revised:
25
03
2020
accepted:
06
04
2020
pubmed:
12
6
2020
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
12
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Some jurisdictions have instituted limits on electronic cigarette (ECIG) liquid nicotine concentration, in an effort to control ECIG nicotine yield, and others are considering following suit. Because ECIG nicotine yield is proportional to the product of liquid nicotine concentration (milligram per millilitre) and device power (watts) regulations that limit liquid nicotine concentration may drive users to adopt higher wattage devices to obtain a desired nicotine yield. In this study we investigated, under various hypothetical regulatory limits on ECIG liquid nicotine concentration, a scenario in which a user of a common ECIG device (SMOK TF-N2) seeks to obtain in 15 puffs the nicotine emissions equivalent to one combustible cigarette (ie, 1.8 mg). We measured total aerosol and carbonyl compound (CC) yields in 15 puffs as a function of power (15-80 W) while all else was held constant. The estimated nicotine concentration needed to achieve combustible cigarette-like nicotine yield at each power level was then computed based on the measured liquid consumption. We found that for a constant nicotine yield of 1.8 mg, reducing the liquid nicotine concentration resulted in greater amount of liquid aerosolised (p<0.01) and greater CC emissions (p<0.05). Thus, if users seek a given nicotine yield, regulatory limits on nicotine concentration may have the unintended consequence of increasing exposure to aerosol and respiratory toxicants. This outcome demonstrates that attempting to control ECIG nicotine yield by regulating one factor at a time may have unintended health effects and highlights the need to consider multiple factors and outcomes simultaneously when designing regulations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32522818
pii: tobaccocontrol-2019-055523
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055523
pmc: PMC9281877
mid: NIHMS1820762
doi:
Substances chimiques
Aerosols
0
Hazardous Substances
0
Nicotine
6M3C89ZY6R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
348-350Subventions
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : U54 DA036105
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: AS and TE are paid consultants in litigation against the tobacco industry and are named on a patent application for a device that measures the puffing behaviour of ECIG users. TE is also a paid consultant in litigation against the ECIG industry.
Références
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May;18(5):720-3
pubmed: 26377515
J Am Coll Health. 2020 Jul;68(5):455-459
pubmed: 30913003
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2020 Oct;28(5):527-539
pubmed: 31855003
Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Aug 19;21(9):1285-1288
pubmed: 30476301
Tob Control. 2019 Nov;28(6):678-680
pubmed: 30745326
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2016 Aug;233(15-16):2933-41
pubmed: 27235016
Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Nov;46(11):3546-9
pubmed: 18834915
Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 Jul 9;20(8):998-1003
pubmed: 29065196
Chem Res Toxicol. 2017 Oct 16;30(10):1791-1793
pubmed: 28937746
Tob Control. 2017 Mar;26(e1):e23-e28
pubmed: 27729564
Aerosol Sci Technol. 2017;51(1):1-11
pubmed: 28706340
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Feb 28;16(5):
pubmed: 30823395
Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 Feb;17(2):158-62
pubmed: 25180079