E. Bishop, F. Miazzi, S. Bozhilova, N. East, R. Evans, D. Smart, M. Gaca, D. Breheny, D. Thorne
{"title":"两种电子香烟的体外毒理学评估:从电子烟液到气雾剂","authors":"E. Bishop, F. Miazzi, S. Bozhilova, N. East, R. Evans, D. Smart, M. Gaca, D. Breheny, D. Thorne","doi":"10.1016/j.crtox.2024.100150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Interest in the toxicological assessment of iterations of e-cigarette devices, e-liquid formulations and flavour use is increasing. Here, we describe a multiple test matrix and <em>in<!--> <!-->vitro</em> approach to assess the biological impact of differing e-cigarette activation mechanism (button vs. puff-activated) and heating technology (cotton vs. ceramic wick). The e-liquids selected for each device contained the same nicotine concentration and flavourings. We tested both e-liquid and aqueous extract of e-liquid aerosol using a high throughput cytotoxicity and genotoxicity screen. We also conducted whole aerosol assessment both in a reconstituted human airway lung tissue (MucilAir) with associated endpoint assessment (cytotoxicity, TEER, cilia beat frequency and active area) and an Ames whole aerosol assay with up to 900 consecutive undiluted puffs. Following this testing it is shown that the biological impact of these devices is similar, taking into consideration the limitations and capturing efficiencies of the different testing matrices. We have contextualised these responses against previous published reference cigarette data to establish the comparative reduction in response consistent with reduced risk potential of the e-cigarette products tested in this study as compared to conventional cigarettes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11236,"journal":{"name":"Current Research in Toxicology","volume":"6 ","pages":"Article 100150"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X24000033/pdfft?md5=4e092ed55a75181fa32f780895b7e5fe&pid=1-s2.0-S2666027X24000033-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An in vitro toxicological assessment of two electronic cigarettes: E-liquid to aerosolisation\",\"authors\":\"E. Bishop, F. Miazzi, S. Bozhilova, N. East, R. Evans, D. Smart, M. Gaca, D. Breheny, D. Thorne\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.crtox.2024.100150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Interest in the toxicological assessment of iterations of e-cigarette devices, e-liquid formulations and flavour use is increasing. Here, we describe a multiple test matrix and <em>in<!--> <!-->vitro</em> approach to assess the biological impact of differing e-cigarette activation mechanism (button vs. puff-activated) and heating technology (cotton vs. ceramic wick). The e-liquids selected for each device contained the same nicotine concentration and flavourings. We tested both e-liquid and aqueous extract of e-liquid aerosol using a high throughput cytotoxicity and genotoxicity screen. We also conducted whole aerosol assessment both in a reconstituted human airway lung tissue (MucilAir) with associated endpoint assessment (cytotoxicity, TEER, cilia beat frequency and active area) and an Ames whole aerosol assay with up to 900 consecutive undiluted puffs. Following this testing it is shown that the biological impact of these devices is similar, taking into consideration the limitations and capturing efficiencies of the different testing matrices. We have contextualised these responses against previous published reference cigarette data to establish the comparative reduction in response consistent with reduced risk potential of the e-cigarette products tested in this study as compared to conventional cigarettes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Research in Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X24000033/pdfft?md5=4e092ed55a75181fa32f780895b7e5fe&pid=1-s2.0-S2666027X24000033-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Research in Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X24000033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Research in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X24000033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
An in vitro toxicological assessment of two electronic cigarettes: E-liquid to aerosolisation
Interest in the toxicological assessment of iterations of e-cigarette devices, e-liquid formulations and flavour use is increasing. Here, we describe a multiple test matrix and in vitro approach to assess the biological impact of differing e-cigarette activation mechanism (button vs. puff-activated) and heating technology (cotton vs. ceramic wick). The e-liquids selected for each device contained the same nicotine concentration and flavourings. We tested both e-liquid and aqueous extract of e-liquid aerosol using a high throughput cytotoxicity and genotoxicity screen. We also conducted whole aerosol assessment both in a reconstituted human airway lung tissue (MucilAir) with associated endpoint assessment (cytotoxicity, TEER, cilia beat frequency and active area) and an Ames whole aerosol assay with up to 900 consecutive undiluted puffs. Following this testing it is shown that the biological impact of these devices is similar, taking into consideration the limitations and capturing efficiencies of the different testing matrices. We have contextualised these responses against previous published reference cigarette data to establish the comparative reduction in response consistent with reduced risk potential of the e-cigarette products tested in this study as compared to conventional cigarettes.