两种电子香烟的体外毒理学评估:从电子烟液到气雾剂

IF 2.9 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
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,&nbsp;F. Miazzi,&nbsp;S. Bozhilova,&nbsp;N. East,&nbsp;R. Evans,&nbsp;D. Smart,&nbsp;M. Gaca,&nbsp;D. Breheny,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;F. Miazzi,&nbsp;S. Bozhilova,&nbsp;N. East,&nbsp;R. Evans,&nbsp;D. Smart,&nbsp;M. Gaca,&nbsp;D. Breheny,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对电子烟设备、电子烟液配方和香料使用的毒理学评估越来越感兴趣。在此,我们介绍了一种多重测试矩阵和体外方法,用于评估不同电子烟激活机制(按键式与抽吸式)和加热技术(棉质与陶瓷芯)对生物的影响。为每种设备选择的电子烟液都含有相同的尼古丁浓度和香料。我们使用高通量细胞毒性和遗传毒性筛选法测试了电子烟液和电子烟液气溶胶的水提取物。我们还在重组的人体气道肺组织(MucilAir)中进行了全气溶胶评估,并进行了相关的终点评估(细胞毒性、TEER、纤毛跳动频率和活性面积),并在艾姆斯全气溶胶检测中进行了多达 900 次的连续未稀释抽吸。测试结果表明,考虑到不同测试基质的局限性和捕获效率,这些设备对生物的影响是相似的。我们将这些反应与之前公布的参考香烟数据进行了对比,以确定与传统香烟相比,本研究中测试的电子烟产品的潜在风险相对降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

An in vitro toxicological assessment of two electronic cigarettes: E-liquid to aerosolisation

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Research in Toxicology
Current Research in Toxicology Environmental Science-Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
82 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信