ENDS Toxicity / Carcinogenic: Difference between revisions
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) Marked this version for translation |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) →ENDS (without comparison to other products): add study on protonating acid and if this affects anything (apparently not) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<!--T:4--> | <!--T:4--> | ||
* | *In this study, blood lead levels, and urinary cadmium, barium, and antimony levels were similar between participants who ever-used e-cigarettes and participants who did not, and therefore, e-cigarette use was not a major source of heavy metals. | ||
*However, participants with a smoking history were more likely to have higher blood lead and urinary cadmium than participants who neither used e-cigarettes nor cigarettes. | *However, participants with a smoking history were more likely to have higher blood lead and urinary cadmium than participants who neither used e-cigarettes nor cigarettes. | ||
*[https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jtemb.2020.126602 PDF Version] | *[https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jtemb.2020.126602 PDF Version] | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
*Acknowledgement: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U54GM104942-4. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. | *Acknowledgement: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U54GM104942-4. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. | ||
*Keywords: e-Cigarettes; Metals; Lead; Cadmium; Barium; Antimony | *Keywords: e-Cigarettes; Metals; Lead; Cadmium; Barium; Antimony | ||
===2020 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420314060?via%3Dihub Comparison of the chemical composition of aerosols from heated tobacco products, electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes and their toxic impacts on the human bronchial epithelial BEAS-2B cells]=== <!--T:5--> | ===2020 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420314060?via%3Dihub Comparison of the chemical composition of aerosols from heated tobacco products, electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes and their toxic impacts on the human bronchial epithelial BEAS-2B cells]=== <!--T:5--> | ||
| Line 241: | Line 239: | ||
===2016 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940751/ Reductions in biomarkers of exposure, impacts on smoking urge and assessment of product use and tolerability in adult smokers following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes]=== | ===2016 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940751/ Reductions in biomarkers of exposure, impacts on smoking urge and assessment of product use and tolerability in adult smokers following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes]=== | ||
*Subjects switching to e-cigarettes had significantly lower levels (29 %–95 %) of urinary [[Special:MyLanguage/Abbreviations|BoE]]s after 5 days. Nicotine equivalents declined by 25 %–40 %. | *Subjects switching to e-cigarettes had significantly lower levels (29 %–95 %) of urinary [[Special:MyLanguage/Abbreviations|BoE]]s after 5 days. Nicotine equivalents declined by 25 %–40 %. | ||
*Dual users who substituted half of their self-reported daily cigarette consumption with e-cigarettes experienced 7 %–38 % reductions, but had increases (1 %–20 %) in nicotine equivalents. | *Dual users who substituted half of their self-reported daily cigarette consumption with e-cigarettes experienced 7 %–38 % reductions, but had increases (1 %–20 %) in nicotine equivalents. | ||
| Line 252: | Line 248: | ||
*[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940751/pdf/12889_2016_Article_3236.pdf PDF Version] | *[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940751/pdf/12889_2016_Article_3236.pdf PDF Version] | ||
*Citation: D'Ruiz CD, Graff DW, Robinson E. Reductions in biomarkers of exposure, impacts on smoking urge and assessment of product use and tolerability in adult smokers following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 11;16:543. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3236-1. PMID: 27401980; PMCID: PMC4940751. | *Citation: D'Ruiz CD, Graff DW, Robinson E. Reductions in biomarkers of exposure, impacts on smoking urge and assessment of product use and tolerability in adult smokers following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 11;16:543. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3236-1. PMID: 27401980; PMCID: PMC4940751. | ||
*Acknowledgement: This study was funded by Fontem Ventures B.V., a fully owned subsidiary of Imperial Brands plc, and the manufacturer of the e-cigarette products used in this study. | *Acknowledgement: This study was funded by Fontem Ventures B.V., a fully owned subsidiary of Imperial Brands plc, and the manufacturer of the e-cigarette products used in this study. | ||
===2016 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383571816301711?via%3Dihub The mutagenic assessment of an electronic-cigarette and reference cigarette smoke using the Ames assay in strains TA98 and TA100]=== <!--T:45--> | ===2016 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383571816301711?via%3Dihub The mutagenic assessment of an electronic-cigarette and reference cigarette smoke using the Ames assay in strains TA98 and TA100]=== <!--T:45--> | ||
| Line 347: | Line 341: | ||
=ENDS (without comparison to other products)= <!--T:61--> | =ENDS (without comparison to other products)= <!--T:61--> | ||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37386281/ Assessing the impact of protonating acid combinations in e-cigarette liquids: a randomised, crossover study on nicotine pharmacokinetics] === | |||
* Frosina J, McEwan M, Ebajemito J, Thissen J, Taluskie K, Baxter-Wright S, Hardie G. Sci Rep. 2023 Jun 29;13(1):10563. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37539-6. PMID: 37386281 | |||
* Study in Humans | |||
* Funding from industry | |||
* BAT asks: does the protonating acid matter? | |||
** ''little is known about the impact of different combinations of protonating acid on nicotine pharmacokinetics.'' | |||
* So this is an experiment with "different ratios of three common protonating acids-lactic, benzoic and levulinic". | |||
** For most comparisons, Cmax and AUC0-60 following both fixed and ad libitum puffing were significantly higher for e-liquids containing 5% nicotine compared with 3.5% nicotine. However, Cmax and AUC0-60 were not statistically different for 5% nicotine e-liquids containing varying ratios of lactic, levulinic and benzoic acid when compared to an e-liquid containing lactic acid only. Mean scores for product liking were similar for all e-liquid formulations assessed, regardless of nicotine concentration, acid content, and whether the product was used in a fixed or ad libitum puffing regimen. | |||
** While e-liquid nicotine concentration significantly affected users' nicotine uptake, the different combinations of benzoic, levulinic and lactic acid in the e-liquids assessed had limited impact on nicotine pharmacokinetics and product liking scores.<br /> | |||
===2018 [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08958378.2018.1523262?fbclid=IwAR0x50Ru0cjsq_ojjcc2Qgdd7LUCqdmBnMqklhOLZ4sVFtoRNN-uOLSYiPM&journalCode=iiht20 Metal emissions from e-cigarettes: a risk assessment analysis of a recently-published study]=== <!--T:62--> | ===2018 [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08958378.2018.1523262?fbclid=IwAR0x50Ru0cjsq_ojjcc2Qgdd7LUCqdmBnMqklhOLZ4sVFtoRNN-uOLSYiPM&journalCode=iiht20 Metal emissions from e-cigarettes: a risk assessment analysis of a recently-published study]=== <!--T:62--> | ||
| Line 525: | Line 528: | ||
=Suggested studies to add to this page= <!--T:93--> | =Suggested studies to add to this page= <!--T:93--> | ||
===2023: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378427423001091?via%3Dihub A contextualised e-cigarette testing strategy shows flavourings do not impact lung toxicity in vitro]=== | |||
===2022: REPLICA Project: [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.28.514205v1 In Vitro Toxicity Profile of myblu™ electronic cigarette Aerosol Compared to Cigarette Smoke: the REPLICA project]=== | |||