Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Filters applied. Clear all
. 2014 Oct 30;11(11):11325-47.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph111111325.

Comparative in Vitro Toxicity Profile of Electronic and Tobacco Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products: E-Liquids, Extracts and Collected Aerosols

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Comparative in Vitro Toxicity Profile of Electronic and Tobacco Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products: E-Liquids, Extracts and Collected Aerosols

Manoj Misra et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) continues to increase worldwide in parallel with accumulating information on their potential toxicity and safety. In this study, an in vitro battery of established assays was used to examine the cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity and inflammatory responses of certain commercial e-cigs and compared to tobacco burning cigarettes, smokeless tobacco (SLT) products and a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) product. The toxicity evaluation was performed on e-liquids and pad-collected aerosols of e-cigs, pad-collected smoke condensates of tobacco cigarettes and extracts of SLT and NRT products. In all assays, exposures with e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, at the doses tested, showed no significant activity when compared to tobacco burning cigarettes. Results for the e-cigs, with and without nicotine in two evaluated flavor variants, were very similar in all assays, indicating that the presence of nicotine and flavors, at the levels tested, did not induce any cytotoxic, genotoxic or inflammatory effects. The present findings indicate that neither the e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, nor the extracts of the SLT and NRT products produce any meaningful toxic effects in four widely-applied in vitro test systems, in which the conventional cigarette smoke preparations, at comparable exposures, are markedly cytotoxic and genotoxic.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
In vitro activity of e-cig liquids, smokeless tobacco and lozenge aqueous extracts in NRU (A), Ames (B), MN (C and D) and IL-8 (E). NRU, MN and IL-8 data reported as % vehicle control, PBS in the case of e-liquids, SLT and NRT aqueous extracts. Data points in each plot represent the mean values ± SD from a minimum of two (2) independent experiments. MN cell viability (D) shown to verify lack of MN induction is not due to cytotoxicity at higher doses. (formula image) blu CT-Ø; (formula image) blu CT-High; (formula image) blu MM-Ø; (formula image) blu MM-High; (formula image) Marlboro Snus; (formula image) Copenhagen Snuff; (formula image) Nicorette Lozenge; (formula image) Control e-cig.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effects of l-nicotine on cytotoxicity (A) NRU and inflammation (B) IL-8 in A549 cells. Data points in each plot represent the mean values ± SD from a minimum of two (2) independent experiments.
Figure 3
Figure 3
In vitro activity of pad-collected WTPM from tobacco cigarettes and pad-collected e-cig aerosols in NRU (A), Ames (B), MN (C and D), and IL-8 (E). NRU, MN and IL-8 data is reported as % vehicle control; PBS in the case of e-cigarette pad-collected aerosols, DMSO for tobacco-burning cigarette pad-collected WTPM. Control e-cig exposures in NRU and IL-8 were at the highest deliverable dose, resulting in no observable cytotoxicity or IL-8 release above background levels (data not shown). Data points in each plot represent the mean values ± SD from a minimum of two (2) independent experiments. MN cell viability (D) shown to verify lack of MN induction is not due to cytotoxicity at the higher doses. (formula image) 3R4F; (formula image) 1R5F; (formula image) Marlboro Gold; (formula image) blu CT-Ø; (formula image) blu CT-High; (formula image) blu MM-Ø; (formula image) blu MM-High; (formula image) Control e-cig.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 30 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ayers J.W., Ribisl K.M., Brownstein J.S. Tracking the rise in popularity of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) using search query surveillance. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011;40:448–453. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Etter J.-F., Bullen C., Flouris A.D., Laugesen M., Eissenberg T. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: A research agenda. Tob. Control. 2011;20:243–248. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.042168. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Levitz J.S., Bradley T.P., Golden A.L. Overview of smoking and all cancers. Med. Clin. North Am. 2004;88:1655–1675. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2004.07.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Polosa R., Rodu B., Caponnetto P., Maglia M., Raciti C. A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: The case for the electronic cigarette. Harm Reduct. J. 2013;10 doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-10-19. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown B., Beard E., Kotz D., Michie S., West R. Real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation: A cross-sectional population study. 2014;109:1531–1540. - PMC - PubMed
Feedback