Assessing toxicant emissions from e-liquids with DIY additives used in response to a potential flavour ban in e-cigarettes

Ahmad El-Hellani,Eric K Soule,Mohammad Daoud,Rola Salman,Rachel El Hage,Ola Ardati,Malak El-Kaassamani,Amira Yassine,Nareg Karaoghlanian,Soha Talih,Najat Saliba,Alan Shihadeh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2022-057505
Abstract:Significance: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) aerosolise liquids that contain nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerol and appealing flavours. In the USA, regulations have limited the availability of flavoured e-cigarettes in pod-based systems, and further tightening is expected. In response, some e-cigarette users may attempt to make their e-liquids (do-it-yourself, DIY). This study examined toxicant emissions from several aerosolised DIY e-liquids. Methods: DIY additives were identified by reviewing users' responses to a hypothetical flavour ban, e-cigarette internet forums and DIY mixing internet websites. They include essential oils, cannabidiol, sucralose and ethyl maltol. E-liquids with varying concentrations and combinations of additives and tobacco and menthol flavours were prepared and were used to assess reactive oxygen species (ROS), carbonyl and phenol emissions in machine-generated aerosols. Results: Data showed that adding DIY additives to unflavoured, menthol-flavoured or tobacco-flavoured e-liquids increases toxicant emissions to levels comparable with those from commercial flavoured e-liquids. Varying additive concentrations in e-liquids did not have a consistently significant effect on the tested emissions, yet increasing power yielded significantly higher ROS, carbonyl and phenol emissions for the same additive concentration. Adding nicotine to DIY e-liquids with sucralose yielded increase in some emissions and decrease in others, with freebase nicotine-containing e-liquid giving higher ROS emissions than that with nicotine salt. Conclusion: This study showed that DIY additives can impact aerosol toxicant emissions from e-cigarettes and should be considered by policymakers when restricting commercially available flavoured e-liquids.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?