Differential Toxicity of Electronic Cigarette Aerosols Generated from Different Generations of Devices In Vitro and In Vivo.
Differential Toxicity of Electronic Cigarette Aerosols Generated from Different Generations of Devices In Vitro and In Vivo.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1021/envhealth.3c00099
复制
发表时间：
2023-11-17
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Xia, Tian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ma, Tiancong;Chen, Haoxuan;Liao, Yu-Pei;Li, Jiulong;Wang, Xiang;Li, Liqiao;Li, Jing;Zhu, Yifang;Xia, Tian
电子烟（e-cigs）越来越受欢迎，特别是在年轻人中，引起了人们对其潜在健康风险的担忧。Juul和Tank设备是两种常见的电子烟类型，它们提供具有不同尼古丁水平和口味的气雾剂。然而，对不同器械产生的气溶胶的差异及其相应的细胞毒性和肺损伤效应仍知之甚少。这项研究通过表征JUUL和Tank电子烟装置的气溶胶并测试其对THP-1和BEAS-2B人类细胞系以及C57 BL/6 J小鼠模型的毒性作用来解决这些知识空白。在我们的研究中，低电压设备，3.7 V JUUL通过使用含有3%尼古丁盐的电子液体（即，尼古丁苯甲酸盐），其小于使用含有2.4%游离碱尼古丁的电子液体由7.5 V罐产生的11.06 mg/喷气溶胶。然而，细胞毒性结果表明，与每次抽吸的Tank气雾剂相比，JUUL气雾剂诱导更高的毒性和促炎细胞因子的产生增加。此外，我们观察到，在体内可替宁（尼古丁代谢物）正常化后，与Tank相比，JUUL诱导了更严重的肺部炎症和DNA损伤。我们的研究结果表明，设备设计在电子烟气溶胶引起的毒性中起着比电子液体或电压的组成更重要的作用。这些结果为与各种电子烟设备相关的健康风险提供了有价值的见解，并提供了评估它们的方法。
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) have become increasingly popular, especially among youth, raising concerns about their potential health risks. JUUL and Tank devices are two common types of e-cigs that deliver aerosols with varying nicotine levels and flavors. However, the differences in the aerosols generated from different devices and their corresponding cytotoxicity and pulmonary injury effects remain poorly understood. This study addresses these knowledge gaps by characterizing the aerosols of JUUL and Tank e-cig devices and testing their toxic effects on THP-1 and BEAS-2B human cell lines as well as the C57BL/6J mouse model. In our study, the lower-voltage device, the 3.7 V JUUL generates 2.72 mg/puff aerosols by using e-liquid containing 3% nicotine salt (i.e., nicotine benzoate), which is less than the 11.06 mg/puff aerosols generated by the 7.5 V Tank using e-liquid containing 2.4% freebase nicotine. Yet, the cytotoxicity results reveal that JUUL aerosols induced higher toxicity and increased production of pro-inflammation cytokines compared to Tank aerosols per puff. Additionally, we observed that JUUL induced more severe pulmonary inflammation and DNA damage compared to Tank after normalizing for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite, in vivo. Our findings suggest that the device design plays a more important role in e-cig aerosol-induced toxicity than the composition of the e-liquid or voltage. These results provide valuable insights into the health risks associated with various electronic-cig devices and offer an approach for evaluating them.